National Park Serv

Navajo National Monument U.S. Department oArizona

Final General Management Plan • Environmental Impa
Final General Management Plan - Environmental Impact State

Navajo National Monument 

Navajo County, Arizona

This Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes a proposed action and two alternatives for managing and using Navajo National Monument. The plan is intended to provide a foundation to help park managers guide programs and set priorities for resource stewardship, visitor understanding, partnerships, facilities, and operations. The plan will guide management of the monument for the next 15–20 years. The central questions of the plan are how resources will be protected for future generations, how visitor understanding will be improved, how associated American Indian tribes will be more fully recognized and involved with the monument, and what facilities, staff, and funding will be needed to fulfill the plan. Alternative A: (No Action) The National Park Service would 

continue existing management practices, resulting in current resource conditions and visitor experiences and the logical progression of known trends over time. It is required as a baseline against which the other alternatives can be compared. Alternative B: Focus on NPS Land The National Park Service would focus management on the existing land base to achieve the purposes of the monument. Primary resource protection and visitor understanding would be accomplished on the three federal units at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House. Improvements to resource protection would be made with additional NPS ranger patrol staff and ranger stations. Visitor understanding would be improved with a larger visitor center, more trails and overlooks, and more outdoor exhibits and interpretive rangers on the mesa top at Betatakin. 

Alternative C–Emphasize Partnerships 

National Park Service would carefully mabase and in addition would share commoIndian tribes and others to protect resourunderstanding of the entire region. The Nthe boundary for accomplishing joint purcooperation and partnerships. Opportuninnovative and diverse programs, educatitraining, and broader resource managem

enhanced by a collaborative regional effoThis document also discusses the potentiaalternative’s actions on cultural and naturexperience and understanding, remoteneand monument operations. Alternative A adequate protection of natural and culturremoteness and contribute to the local eccontinue to see adverse effects on visitor umonument operations. Alternative B wouareas, with greatest benefits to visitor undmonument operations. Alternative C wouAlternative B, but with stronger protectioremoteness, owing to proactive partnershresource protection comprehensively. Altthe greatest opportunity for broadening vthrough partnerships with associated AmFor questions, concerns, or comments abcontact Superintendent, Navajo National 3, Tonalea, AZ 86044- 9704, phone (520) at http://planning.nps.gov/plans.cfm.
S

PURPOSE OF THE PLANThis Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes a proposed action and two alternatives for managing and using Navajo National Monument. The plan is intended to provide a foundation to help park managers guide programs and set priorities for resource stewardship, visitor understanding, partnerships, facilities and operations. The alternative that is chosen as the plan will guide management of the monument for the next 15–20 years. CENTRAL QUESTIONS OF THE PLAN The central questions of the plan are: • Resource Stewardship. How will resources be protected for 

future generations? Unauthorized access and vandalism threaten destruction of the cliff dwellings. Pressure for more access may threaten resources. Artifacts in museum storage need better protection, and there are American Indian concerns about repatriation. Activities on adjacent land affect resources and remoteness. 

• Visitor Understanding. How will visitor understanding be 

improved? What messages should visitors leave the monument with? Opportunities to more broadly interpret cultures are being missed. How much access should be provided to the cliff dwellings? What opportunities are there for visitors who do not go to the cliff dwellings? Opportunities for youth and for people with disabilities are very limited at the present time. 

• Partnerships. How will associated American Indian tribes be 

more fully recognized and involved with the monument? Can 

local interest in economic development finthe monument? How can communication improved? 

• Facilities and Operations. What facilities

be needed to fulfill the plan? Local staff is needs to be recruited and retained. Recruiis needed. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EMPHASIZE PARTNERSHIPS The National Park Service would carefulexisting land base and in addition would with American Indian tribes and others tand promote visitor understanding of thNPS would look beyond the boundary fojoint purposes through cooperation and Opportunities for more innovative and deducation and outreach, cross training, amanagement would be greatly enhanced regional effort. Resource Stewardship CULTURAL RESOURCES • Protect for future generations • Consult with tribes • Repatriate appropriate artifacts through N• Increase NPS ranger patrol prevent vanda

interpretation, and monitor resource cond
SUMMARY 

ii• Seek agreements and partnerships to prevent vandalism • Improve on- site care and storage of artifacts, provide holding 

space for some tribal artifacts, and consolidate most of collection 

at a regional curatorial facility 

NATURAL RESOURCES • Enable natural systems, promote native species, protect 

threatened and endangered species, encourage appropriate scientific research 

• Increase NPS natural resource staff and partnerships to 

accomplish goals 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES • Continue access for traditional cultural use by associated tribes 

within law and policy 

Visitor Experience and Understanding FRONT COUNTRY • Access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the 

issuance of special use permits where necessary 

• Remodel visitor center, new exhibits and AV, expand rim trails, 

improve opportunities for people with disabilities, expand opportunities for youth 

• Involve tribes in interpretive programs, skills demonstrations, 

special events 

• Maintain camping and picnicking, improve accessibility 

BACKCOUNTRY • The NPS and the Navajo Nation Parks and 

Department will work together on a joint that would go into detail about managing and access to Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Ins

• Betatakin 

–Offer more guided tours per day (NPS or part

–Extend season –Continue access via Tsegi Point for foreseeab

Forest Trail may be considered in the future, study of safety and environmental analysis of 

• Keet Seel 

–Extend season for permits –Continue primitive campground outside of m–Continue limited access within alcove, subjec

backcountry management plan 

• Inscription House 

–Seek agreements to allow limited tours by NP

Partnerships • Consult regularly with individual associate

government 

• Establish an American Indian consultation • Seek agreements with tribes and others, su

and universities, for a wide variety of activprotection, guided tours, educational outrdemonstrations, etc. 
Facilities and Operations FACILITIES • Remodel VC (5,000 SF), add new exhibits, and AV programs 

• Increase front country trails (to 4 miles) • Maintain campground, picnic area 

• Build a ranger station at Inscription House • Keet Seel campground remains outside boundary • Build new administration building (3,200 SF) • Build curatorial storage (2,000 SF) • Expand maintenance with fire cache, four shop bays, covered 

parking 

• Expand NPS housing with a duplex and 4- plex, plus trailer pads 

for volunteers, researchers 

• Rehabilitate utilities BOUNDARY MODIFICATION • Seek transfer of headquarters unit (240 AC) from Navajo Nation 

to NPS 

• Seek agreements or conservation easements for protection of 

adjacent cultural resources, ensure access for visitors and administration, and provide a buffer 

STAFF • Continue to recruit and hire local employees and provide training 

and incentives for them to remain 

• When filling new additional positions, seek to supplement staff 

with qualified Hopi, Zuni, and San Juan Paiute tribal members and recruit diverse student interns, partners, volunteers 

• Sixteen total permanent (including new la

management assistant to develop partnerspreservation specialist, curator) 

• Fifteen to seventeen seasonals ESTIMATED COSTS • Annual Operating Cost—$1,190,000 • Total Capital Cost—Net Construction—$6

• Land Protection Cost—purchase or excha

unit, conservation easements 

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONAlternative A: (No Action) This alternative would continue existing practices, resulting in current resource cexperiences and the logical progression otime. It is required as a baseline against walternatives can be compared. Alternative B: Focus on NPS LThe National Park Service would focus mexisting land base to achieve the purposePrimary resource protection and visitor ube accomplished on the three federal uniSeel, and Inscription House. Improvemeprotection would be made with additionstaff and ranger stations. Visitor understimproved with an expanded visitor centeinterpretive trails and overlooks, and moand interpretive rangers on the mesa top NPS would continue to work cooperativ
SUMMARY 

ivNation for maintaining trail access from the NPS headquarters area to Betatakin and Keet Seel. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This document also discusses the potential consequences of each alternative’s actions on cultural resources, natural resources, visitor experience and understanding, remoteness, socio- economic environment, and park operations. Impacts of Alternative A: (No Action) In general, the overall protection of cultural resources would be adequate from maintenance stabilization, careful management of visitors, and ranger patrol. Moderate, longterm impacts to cultural resources from natural rockfall, arroyo erosion, raptors, rodents, traffic vibrations, visitors off of trails, and grazing would continue. Most of the museum collection would continue to be adequately protected at offsite facilities, but moderate long- term adverse effects would result from lack of storage and staff to protect artifacts on site. Ongoing construction projects would have adverse effects on archeological resources, but they would be mitigated. Ethnographic resources would have beneficial effects from ongoing relationships between tribes and monument staff. Visitors could occasionally have moderate adverse effects on ethnographic resources. Grazing and trampling on adjacent land would continue to have moderate adverse effects on water quality, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, soils, and species of concern. Ongoing arroyo erosion and drop in the water table would also adversely affect these resources. Hikers have minor, shortterm adverse effects on vegetation, wildlife, and species of concern, and can cause soil erosion when they are off of 

designated trails. Ongoing construction plocalized moderate adverse effects on na

Noise from visitors, vehicles, and ongoinwould continue to have minor short- term the Headquarters area, and to a lesser deCanyon. Adjacent land uses would have madverse effects on lightscapes and scenic development could intensify these effectadverse. Visitor experience and understanding wohave moderate, long- term adverse effect

exhibits, lack of interpretation of other caccess, and inadequate facilities for peopThe monument does provide beneficial, effects from jobs and money multiplied tfrom visitors, monument operations, and construction operations. Monument operations would continue tadverse effects as a result of inadequate eoffice space, utilities, communications syprotection, and limited police protection

Impacts of Alternative B: FocuOverall protection of cultural resources wwhat would be expected under Alternativconstruction and visitor activity on the rimoderate adverse effects on archeologicresources, but this would be offset by the more well- defined trails that would encoon the trails. Adverse effects on archeolowould be mitigated. The cliff dwellings oSeel would have moderate beneficial imp
result of increased season of use and increased ranger patrol. Inscription House cliff dwellings would have major beneficial effects from greater ranger presence. Protection of artifacts in the museum collection at the monument would have moderate beneficial impacts, resulting from the addition of an improved storage area, lab facilities, and additional staff. Greater visitor understanding would benefit protection of cliff dwellings, archeological sites, and ethnographic resources. A longer season of visitor use to Betatakin and Keet Seel and tours to Inscription House would have moderate, short- term adverse effects on ethnographic resources, vegetation, wildlife, and species of concern. These could be mitigated by consultation and scheduling. Greater communication with the Navajo Nation regarding grazing and other activities on adjacent land through the consultation committee would have moderate beneficial impacts to natural and cultural resources. Additional staff trained in natural resource management would provide moderate beneficial impacts. Visitors on new rim trails and more visitors into Betatakin would cause minor, short- term adverse levels of noise on the rim in Betatakin Canyon, but this would be offset by more opportunities for visitors to experience remoteness. Additional facilities on the rim would cause minor adverse effects on scenic vistas, but would be mitigated through design. Visitor experience and understanding would be greatly improved—moderate long- term benefits would be the result of an expanded and improved visitor center, trails, increased backcountry opportunities, and opportunities for people with disabilities. Monument operations would similarly have 

moderate long- term benefits from havinfacilities as well as a secure land base at h

Beneficial, moderate long- term effects frmultiplied through the economy from vioperations, and ongoing construction wothose expected under Alternative A, althAlternative B, effects would be slightly invisitors would be staying longer—owing and spending more, there would be more monument, and there would be more conThere would be a moderate short- term athe transfer of the headquarters parcel frNation to the NPS. 

Impacts of Alternative C—EmpPartnerships (Preferred) Impacts would be very similar in all areas under Alternative B, with differences largthe emphasis on partnerships. There wouto have greater beneficial impacts on cultand natural resources through partnershand collaborative management with tribeeasements, and expanded research and afrom universities and elsewhere. Visitor would be greatly enhanced by involving Atribes in the development of different intperspectives and through their direct invinterpretive programs. Encouragement owould cause moderate adverse impacts tcultural resources from horses and/or vewould be mitigated through consultation Opportunities to work toward mutual gomoderate benefits to protecting natural q
SUMMARY 

viand scenic vistas on adjacent land. Monument operations would realize a moderate benefit from improved police protection resulting from cooperative agreements with neighboring law enforcement jurisdictions as well as realizing moderate benefits from extending the work of park staff through the increase in numbers of volunteers. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED—ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C offers the strongest protection of resources and remoteness because it would proactively work with partners to address resource protection comprehensively. Alternative C also offers the greatest opportunity for broadening visitor 

understanding through partnerships witAmerican Indian tribes. 

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIEMPHASIZE PARTNERSHIPSPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • Proactive, holistic, sustainable approach t• Understanding through connections • Environmentally preferred • Best protection and scientific value for mu• Local jobs • Support by associated American Indian tri
Table of C

SUMMARY ......................................................................i

Purpose of the Plan ........................................................... iCentral Questions of the Plan............................................ iPreferred Alternative C–Emphasize Partnerships ............. iOther Alternatives Considered ....................................... iiiEnvironmental Consequences ........................................ ivEnvironmentally Preferred—Alternative C ..................... viSelection of Alternative C—Emphasize Partnerships— as the Preferred Alternative............................................. vi

INTRODUCTION ............................................................1

Purpose and Need for a General Management Plan.......... 1Vision............................................................................... 2Brief Description and Location.........................................3The Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni, and Their Relationship to Navajo National Monument ................... 4How The Monument Was Established..............................5Purpose .............................................................................7Significance.......................................................................7Primary Interpretive Themes ............................................7Resources......................................................................... 8Significant Resource Areas............................................... 9Mission Goals ................................................................. 16

Main Issues of the GMP.....................

PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES INCLUDPREFERRED .....................................

Introduction ......................................Philosophy Of The Alternatives.........Management Prescriptions................

THE PLAN.........................................

Resources Stewardship—Natural and Resources, Ethnographic Resources—Resource Stewardship—Museum ColAlternatives .......................................Visitor Understanding—InterpretatioAll Alternatives ..................................Visitor Understanding—Front CountAll Alternatives ..................................Visitor Understanding—Backcountry All Alternatives ..................................Promote Visitor Understanding—OpPeople with Disabilities—All AlternatPromote Visitor Understanding OppoYouth—All Alternatives.....................Partnerships—All Alternatives ..........Facilities and Operations—Facilities— All Alternatives ..................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

viii

Facilities and Operations—Boundary Modifications— All Alternatives................................................................57Facilities and Operations—Staff— All Alternatives................................................................58Alternatives Considered and Dismissed ..........................62

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 65

Introduction ...................................................................65Impact Topics Considered In This Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................65Impact Topics Considered But Not Analyzed In Detail ......................................................................... 66Affected Environment.................................................... 69

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................ 87

Introduction ...................................................................87Methodology...................................................................87Impacts Of Alternative A (No Action): Continue Existing Management ...................................................................95Impacts Of Alternative B—Focus On Nps Land .............110Impacts Of Alternative C (Preferred): Emphasize Partnerships.................................................................. 124Summary of Impacts ......................................................137

Consultation and Coordination ................................... 147

Public Involvement And Consultation .......................... 147Agencies And Organizations To .................................... 149

Public Review Of The Draft Documen

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION ...........APPENDIX B: MEMORANDUM OF AOF MAY 8, 1962.................................APPENDIX C: TSEGI CANYON NAVATRIBAL PARK...................................APPENDIX D: SELECTION OF THE PALTERNATIVE .................................

Process ..............................................Results ...............................................

APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING CONCERN ........................................APPENDIX F: PROPOSED BOUNDARADJUSTMENT ..................................BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................LIST OF PREPARERS........................

Preparers of Document—National PaContributors and Consultants ...........

Glossary ............................................

Abbreviations ....................................Definition of Key Terms ....................
INTRO

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN The purpose of the General Management Plan (GMP) is to map out a clear direction for the management of Navajo National Monument for the next 15 to 20 years. The GMP will provide comprehensive and integrated guidance for the preservation of resources, provision of visitor enjoyment, and the organizational mechanism to accomplish the plan. The plan will not provide specific and detailed answers to every issue or question facing Navajo National Monument, but the approved plan will provide a comprehensive framework for proactive decision making. General management plans are required for every unit of the National Park Service and must address resource protection measures, general development locations, timing, costs, carrying capacity analyses, and boundary modifications. One of the most important aspects of planning is public involvement. Creation of the GMP is a process that involves interaction with other government agencies, American Indian tribes, neighbors, visitors, and the general public. Navajo National Monument has never had a general management plan. Visitation remained below 1,000 per year until 1950. A master plan, developed in 1951, guided development of the visitor center, parking, picnic area, campground, trails, and overlooks that were constructed in the early 1960s. Completion of these facilities, coupled with the paving of the Kayenta–Tuba City road, led to visitation climbing from around 1,000 per year to approximately 80,000 per year. Charged with protecting resources and 

enhancing visitor understanding in the 2National Park Service needs a comprehethat guides management decisions and lhow and why the monument is managed A Draft General Management Plan / Env

Statement (GMP/EIS) was developed th

scoping, newsletters, consultation with Atribes and government agencies, and puFinal GMP / EIS reflects changes that weto the comments on the draft documentdays after this final environmental impapublished, the National Park Service wilthe final plan, and publish a record of deRegister. The plan will then be impleme

One of the most important aspects 

is public involvement. The GMP is a that involves interaction with othegovernment agencies, American Inneighbors, visitors, and the general 
INTRODUCTION 

2VISION The images are undeniably compelling: red sandstone canyons; amazingly large cliff dwellings; astonishingly preserved building details and remnants that tell about this ancient 13th- century Puebloan society; the lush forest of 

Betatakin Canyon; waterfalls tumbling over sandstone near Keet Seel; remoteness, wide blue skies, quiet; the land of the ancestral home of the Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni. In contrast to the busy sameness of modern urban life, the ancient villages of Navajo National Monument are tied to and surrounded by native cultures, including those that 

descended from the village builders. Navajo National Monument has been a remote place since its establishment in 1909. The few early hardy visitors braved the vast distances on horseback from the railheads at Flagstaff, Arizona, or Dolores, Colorado. Only recently did paved roads make the area more accessible, although access is still difficult. Betatakin is a five- hour hike, Keet Seel is an arduous overnight backcountry trip, and Inscription House is so fragile and isolated it remains closed. The challenge and commitment required to go to Betatakin and Keet Seel rewards visitors with an unparalleled experience. Remoteness has protected what is special about the monument—intact cliff dwellings linked to natural settings, a lack of modern intrusions that fosters a deep understanding of the past, a landscape connecting past and present cultures, and a region central to the spiritual beliefs of Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni Tribes. The Navajo National Monument of the future should look a lot like the Navajo National Monument of today. In the spectrum of units of the national park system, this monument should guard its unique remoteness and the special understanding that comes from the wholeness of the 

landscape. The ancient village sites and should be protected to evoke a strong serespect of cultural beliefs. The monumequiet, insightful experience. Improvemefacilities should be made to provide greaand appreciation for those who cannot oto the remote sites, but such improvemeinterfere with the mission of the monum

urbanization and tourism increase, NavMonument should stand out as a windoand present cultures. The nation will incplaces in the future. 
BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Navajo National Monument was established to preserve three specific outstanding 13th- century cliff dwellings in 

Northern Arizona. Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House are some of the largest, most intact pre- contact structures in the Southwestern United States. These three sites represent one part of a long human habitation of the area and hold distinct meanings to different people, particularly the Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni. The National Park Service manages these sites to protect their natural and cultural heritage for present and future generations. The cliff dwellings lie on three very small tracts (360 acres total) of federal land, separated by considerable distance and surrounded by Navajo Nation land in northeastern Arizona. The town of Kayenta is about 30 miles east of the monument on U.S. Highway 160, a main route between the Four Corners areas and the Grand Canyon. The Betatakin unit, 160 acres, is adjacent to the headquarters area, which resides on about 240 acres of land under agreement 

with the Navajo Nation. About 9 miles north of U.S. Highway 160, this is the primary visitor area with a visitor center, trails, overlooks, a campground, a picnic area, and administrative facilities. Betatakin is visible from the overlook on the rim, and visitors can gain access from a 5- mile roundtrip guided hike into the canyon. Keet Seel unit, 160 acres, is 8 miles 

northeast of headquarters, and visitors mbackpack overnight to visit it. Inscriptiomore than 30 miles by road from headquclosed to visitors since 1968. Access requNavajo Nation land. Current visitation to Navajo National M66,000 per year, and more than 95 perce

the rim at the headquarters area. Remotprotecting the resources of these small sNavajo Nation. 
INTRODUCTION 

4THE HOPI, NAVAJO, SAN JUAN PAIUTE, AND ZUNI, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO NAVAJO NATIONAL MONUMENT Four American Indian tribes have been identified through consultation as having cultural associations with the area of Navajo National Monument. Each has a distinct set of beliefs and a relationship with the sites, geography, and landscapes of the monument. Hopi Ancestors of the Hopi have lived in the Southwest for millennia. Hopi origin stories tell of their ancestors, the Hisatsinom, coming into the present world through the Sipapu, the center of the cosmos, from which their ancestors emerged from the underworld and spread throughout the Southwest. From the 10th to 13th centuries, as trade brought seeds of corn and other agricultural crops into the region from present- day Mexico, Hisatsinom lifeways changed from 

nomadic hunting and gathering to farming the red- rock mesas and canyon bottomlands. Settling into farming, the Hisatsinom replaced their temporary brush shelters with enduring multistoried, stone and masonry houses clustered in villages. The Hisatsinom, people of long ago, inhabited the lands of present- day Navajo National Monument from about A.D.

950 to A.D. 1300. They migrated from Kawestima (North 

Village) to Tuuwanasavi, the Center of the Universe, in the fulfillment of a covenant with Maasaw, the Earth Guardian. These ancestral lands remain very important to the Hopi. Keet Seel (also Kawestima) is a Fire Clan village. Betatakin (Talastima) is a Flute and Deer Clan village. Inscription 

House (Tsu’ovi) is a Rattlesnake, Sand, avillage. The Hopi value the archeological sites, spetroglyphs, and pictographs of Navajo Monument, because they are a vital spirlink between the past, the present, and ta rich interpretive scheme for assigning appearing on rock, the Hopi have identiliving clans on a site in Betatakin Canyoother sites are still considered sacred ansense. 

Navajo The boundaries of the traditional Navajsymbolized by four sacred mountains: BNaajinii) near Alamosa, Colorado; Mounear Grants, New Mexico; the San Fran(Dook’o’oosliid) near Flagstaff, ArizonaMountains (Dibe Ntasaa) near Durangoorigin stories tell of their ancestors, the emerging from a subterranean world intwithin the embrace of the four sacred mArcheological and linguistic evidence suAthabaskan- speaking Diné migrated sonorthwestern part of the continent. Arcconsensus as to when the Diné arrived in Southwest, but estimate sometime betwcenturies. The Diné eventually diverged gathering lifeways and adopted an agricLater, the Spanish introduced domesticDiné, and sheepherding became central In 1868 Navajo tribal leaders signed a treStates, granting the tribe the reservation
more than 16 million acres and covering parts of three states—northeastern Arizona, northwestern New Mexico, and southeastern Utah. The reservation encompasses Navajo National Monument, which was created by presidential proclamation in 1909. In 1960, the Navajo Tribal Council Advisory Committee created Tsegi Canyon Tribal Park to protect all lands within the Tsegi Canyon system (see Appendix C). The Navajo Parks and Recreation Department has the delegated authority and responsibility to manage and operate tribal parks but due to limited funds and staff, the department is not actively managing Tsegi Canyon Tribal Park. As related through their oral history, the Navajo have a long tradition of using the monument and adjacent lands for both sacred and personal purposes, such as the harvesting of nuts 

and berries. 

San Juan Paiute Today, the San Juan Paiute live in small towns in and around the vast Navajo Nation. Several centuries ago the San Juan Paiute actually inhabited areas that are now managed by Navajo National Monument. In the mid- 1850s Captain Walker and his troop traveled through much of what we now call the Navajo Nation. During his travels he came across a people, the San Juan Paiute, who settled in sparse camps along drainages in the Tsegi Canyon system. One group that he encountered lived in what is now called Nitsin Canyon. Most likely these people had settled some time after the inhabitants of Inscription House had moved to other villages. This small band of San Juan Paiute eventually gave way to the ever- growing numbers and expansion of the Navajo, moving closer to Navajo Mountain and other areas where they continued their strategy of hunting and gathering and limited agriculture to gain food and materials for 

survival. The San Juan Paiute still feel a sNitsin Canyon and other areas in the reg

Zuni The Zuni have also lived in the Southwecenturies. Today, their home is near Gahowever, at one time their settlements cFour Corners region of Colorado, New Arizona. The Zuni consider the area in wNational Monument is located, Tsegi Caessential part of their traditions. The Tsknown in their traditions as the “northewhich several of their clans originated amigrated to their present location at ZunMexico. The Zuni also see this region as was through Tsegi Canyon that they travreach what is now known as the Grand Ctraveled through this region to visit areapreviously inhabited and to obtain salt fnear the Grand Canyon. Today, Zuni elNavajo National Monument to visit Betasite figures prominently in their past. NaMonument still plays an important role traditions, and lives. HOW THE MONUMENT WAESTABLISHED The canyons branching deep into the Nthe Colorado Plateau have been inhabityears. Among the evidence of past peopcliff dwellings, ceramics, tools, and othe19th century, these highly visible remnancultural heritage were in danger of being 
INTRODUCTION 

6destroyed. In response to increasing public awareness of conservation and concern to preserve prehistory, the “Antiquities Act” became law in 1906. It established penalties for looting archeological sites on federal lands, established a permit system for gathering objects on federal lands, and gave presidential authority to designate national monuments. In 1909, President William H. Taft set aside Navajo National Monument (Proclamation No. 873, 36 Stat. 2491) as an area situated on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona encompassing about 160 square miles: 

“Whereas, a number of prehistoric cliff dwelling and pueblo ruins, situated within the Navajo Indian Reservation, Arizona, and which are new to science and wholly unexplored, and because of their isolation and size are of the very greatest ethnological, scientific, and educational interest, and it appears the public interest would be promoted by reserving these extraordinary ruins of an unknown people, with as much land as may be necessary for the proper protection thereof...” 

Just a few years later, President Taft reduced the size of Navajo National Monument (Proclamation No. 1186, 37 Stat. 1733, 1912) from 160 square miles to three separate units surrounded by Navajo Nation lands: • Betatakin—160 acres • Keet Seel—160 acres • Inscription House—40 acres 

As part of the system of National Parks, Navajo National Monument is managed to conserve scenery, natural and 

historic objects, and wildlife unimpaired 

of present and future generations. 

Note: The plateau and canyons have b

continue to be the home of many peopl“unknown” as worded in the 1909 proc

Mission Statem

The resourcefulness and ingenu

century cliff dwelling builders is 

the astonishingly preserved bu

objects of what is now Navajo 

Monument. Remoteness has pr

wholeness of the landscape, the 

of diverse cultures, and material 

links between the environment 

societies. The monument of t

should protect remoteness and 

window into past and present 
PURPOSE • To protect outstanding cliff dwellings at Betatakin/Talastima, 

Keet Seel/Kawestima, and Inscription House/Tsu’ ovi and their surrounding environments for future generations. 

• To allow, without compromising protection, opportunities to 

contribute to scientific and ethnographic knowledge. 

• To promote visitor understanding of the monument’s diverse 

resources, including the cliff dwellings, their surrounding environments, and their connections to cultures past and present 

in the region. 

The purpose tells why the monument was set 

aside as a unit of the national park system. It is based on the presidential proclamation and the NPS Organic Act. The significance of the monument tells what makes the area unique—why it is important enough to our cultural and/or natural heritage to warrant national park designation, and how it differs from other parts of the country. 

SIGNIFICANCE • The three cliff dwellings and associated cultural resources 

provide a comprehensive window into 13th- century life because of their large size and intact condition. 

• Exemplary material integrity of Navajo National Monument’s 

structures, architectural details, and artifacts provide specific information about social structure of these 13th- century inhabitants and their interaction with other cultures of the time. 

• Navajo National Monument’s remoteness 

intrusions provide visitors an unparalleleconnect with life in this 13th- century com

• The cultural and natural resources of Nav

Monument are central to the distinct spirNavajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni Tribes

• Betatakin/Talastima Canyon shelters an u

aspen/fir forest, providing a confluence oresources that provide further opportunipast. 

• American Indian descendents of those wh

the dwellings are alive and still connected traditionally to the total environment.

Interpretive themes are the key stor

concepts that every visitor to NavajMonument should understand. 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE T• The cliff dwellings at Navajo National Mo

adaptation of a people to their constantly the molding and shaping of a culture by npeople can both positively and negatively surroundings’ ability to support them. 

• The well- preserved cliff dwellings and as

setting largely free of modern intrusions, information about the habits, social interdynamics of the 13th- century inhabitantssophisticated civic life that bears close rePueblo lifeways; and offer opportunities tcultural continuity and change. 
INTRODUCTION 

8• Natural systems and processes operate in Navajo National 

Monument to create an environment of great scenic beauty and diverse flora and fauna, an environment that has also supported 

many centuries of human occupation by diverse cultures extending to the present day, providing opportunities to explore both the material and spiritual links between the environment and human societies. 

• Navajo National Monument’s cliff dwellings, associated artifacts, 

and surrounding natural resources all connect to the deeply held and distinct beliefs of the Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni peoples, demonstrating how each society’s natural and cultural resources serve as physical manifestations of ancient stories and ceremonies about origins and heritage. 

RESOURCES The mission of the National Park Service is to manage national parks, monuments, and other units of the system: 

• to conform to the fundamental purpose o

monuments, or other units; 

• to conserve the scenery and the natural a

the wildlife therein; and 

• to provide for the enjoyment of the same 

and by such means as will leave them unimenjoyment of future generations. 

Protecting resources is the primary missPark Service. The enjoyment of future gbe guaranteed if the superb quality of paresources and values are left unimpairedto ensure that park resources and values particularly those that are directly linkesignificance of the park. At Navajo Natiopurpose and significance were identified to this plan, and are used to identify “SigAreas.” 

Keet Seel/Kawestima 
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE AREAS A significant resource area is a unit of land containing a composition of resources that are interrelated and make up a component of the purpose and significance of Navajo National Monument. It is a tool to help organize the values of the components of the monument into geographic areas, so that management prescriptions can be developed to protect significant resources and meet monument goals. Values include cultural resources, geology, vegetation, wildlife, ethnographic resources, water resources (hydrology, wetlands, and floodplains), visitor experience and understanding, visitor safety, scenic quality, and the natural soundscape. More detail about monument resources can be found in the “Affected Environment” section of the Environmental Impact Statement included with this plan. The Environmental Impact Statement is used to evaluate impacts of the plan.

Inscription House/Tsu’Ovi Betatakin/Talastima 
INTRODUCTION 

10

Betatakin/Talastima: Significant Resource Areas 

Plateau Canyon Walls Ca

General Description 

Undulating land on top of the mesas, piñon-juniper, elevation 7,300 feet 

Sandstone walls, mostly vertical, firs and other plant life growing on canyon wall overhangs 

The relic aspBetatakin Cacanyon can btrails 

Cultural Resources Archeological sites, historic sites Cliff dwellings, petroglyph, hand-hold trails, need to complete archeological surveys Archeologica

Natural Resources 

Sandstone, crypto-biotic soils, piñonjuniper, yucca, roundleaf buffalo berry, cliff rose, Gambel oak, mountain mahogany, deer, coyote, bear, birds, mountain lion, Threatened and endangered species (T&E) habitat (bats, raptors, lizards, owls); precipitation collects in low points, which are biologically diverse 

Navajo sandstone walls, alcoves, associated with seeps-riparian hanging gardens; T&E; seeps and springs are associated with riparian vegetation, hanging garden 

Relatively staof sandstone less, moving aspen-fir foreinvasive tameapproaching T&E (raptorsblack-capped high integrity intermittent striparian vege

Ethnographic Resources Many trees, plants, and herbs Seep/spring areas, petroglyph, cliff dwellings; shrines Plants, spring

many people

Scenic Resources Expansive vistas, sandstone formations, piñon-juniper Vertical grandeur, vibrant colors, alcoves Enclosed can

landscape, sh

Natural Soundscape 

Intrusions from vehicle and aircraft noise, people; wind carries sound; sandstone transmits vibrations of vehicles (road and cattle guard); future road development; and Peabody explosions might transmit through sandstone as well 

Alcoves reflect every small noise (natural and human-caused); cliff dwellings sensitive to vibration 

Alcoves refleand human-csensitive to v

Lightscapes 

Intrusions from monument headquarters, employee residence, local residents; community growth from road development 

Intrusions from monument headquarters, employee residence, local residents; community growth from road development 

Intrusions froemployee rescommunity gr

Opportunities for Visitor 

Experience and 

Understanding 

Expansive, distant views of canyon country provide context of region and environment; direct view of Betatakin/Talastima links people to cliff dwellings; plants, wildlife, and cultural resources provide direct learning opportunities; visitor center provides off-resource learning 

Sensitive resources, vertical walls, rockfall hazard keeps visitors from direct experience; proximate views of cliff dwellings, petroglyph connects people directly to past 

Remote, enclvegetation cowith cliff dweldwellings, peunderstandin

Visitor Safety 

Falling hazard at rim of canyon Significant rockfall hazard on some northfacing walls and within alcoves; heat 

exhaustion when hiking out of canyon 

Potential forefrom above c

INTRODUCTION 

12

Keet Seel/Kawestima: Significant Resource Areas 

 Plateau Canyon Walls/Talus Slopes Canyo

General Description 

Undulating land on top of the mesas, piñon-juniper, elevation 6,600–7,500 feet, heavily grazed 

Sandstone walls, stepped mesas and vertical, piñon-juniper-oak, other plant life growing on canyon wall overhangs and alcoves 

Heavily grazearroyo cuts, s

Cultural Resources Archeological sites, historic sites 

Cliff dwellings, petroglyph, hand-hold trails, alcoves contain prehistoric ruins mostly and a petroglyph 

Archeologicasites 

Natural Resources 

Sandstone, crypto-biotic soils, piñonjuniper, yucca, roundleaf buffalo berry, cliff rose, Gambel oak, mountain mahogany, deer, coyote, bear, birds, mountain lion, Threatened and endangered species (T&E) habitat (bats, raptors, lizards); precipitation collects in low points, which are biologically diverse 

Navajo sandstone walls, alcoves; possible T&E; yucca, piñon-juniper, Gambel oak; invasive tamarisk and plum; springs 

Very unstable lowering wate(arroyo cuttinT&E (raptorsSeel creek, m

Ethnographic Resources Piñon-juniper area not as heavily grazed as Inscription House area Petroglyph, cliff dwellings, springs Historic and a

to many peop

Scenic Resources Expansive vistas, sandstone formations, piñon-juniper, sand dunes, Skeleton Mesa Vertical grandeur, vibrant colors, alcoves Many side ca

Creek, waterf

Natural Soundscape 

Quiet most of the time, noise from small allterrain vehicles and air traffic, potential for road development on Skeleton Mesa 

Small quiet alcoves, canyon walls create echoes, potential for intrusions from road development on Skeleton Mesa 

Birds, rustling Creek, waterffrom road dev

Lightscapes Intrusions from local residents; Skeleton Mesa Intrusions from local residents; Skeleton Mesa Intrusions fro

Mesa 

Opportunities for Visitor 

Experience and 

Understanding 

Remote mesa environment; plants and wildlife; Navajo culture 

Sensitive resources, vertical walls, rockfall hazard keeps visitors from direct experience; proximate views of cliff dwellings, petroglyph connect people directly to past 

Remote canywildlife, Navadwellings, pe

Visitor Safety Falling hazard at rim of canyon not as significant as it is at Betatakin Some rockfall hazard along trail and in alcoves; heat exhaustion when hiking out of canyon Potential rock

serious flash moderate to d

INTRODUCTION 

14

Inscription House/Tsu’ Ovi: Significant Resource Areas 

 Plateau Canyon Walls/Talus Slopes Canyo

General Description 

Undulating land on top of the mesas, piñon-juniper, elevation 4,500-6,000 feet, heavily grazed 

Sandstone walls, mostly vertical, piñonjuniper-oak; other plant life growing on canyon wall overhangs and alcoves 

Heavily grazearroyo cuts, s

Cultural Resources Archeological sites, historic sites 

Cliff dwellings, petroglyph, hand-hold trails, every alcove has a historic and/or prehistoric component 

Archeologicasites 

Natural Resources 

Sandstone, crypto-biotic soils, piñonjuniper, yucca, roundleaf buffalo berry, cliff rose, Gambel oak, mountain mahogany, deer, coyote, bear, birds, mountain lion, Threatened and endangered species (T&E) habitat (bats, raptors, lizards); precipitation collects in low points, which are biologically diverse 

Cliff dwellings, petroglyph, hand-hold trails, every alcove has a historic and/or prehistoric component 

Very unstable lowering wate(arroyo cuttinrattlesnakes obats, willow flmesa top wat

Ethnographic Resources Piñon-juniper, very little grass, overgrazing Petroglyph, cliff dwellings Historic and a

to many peop

Scenic Resources Expansive vistas, sandstone formations, piñon-juniper, sand dunes Vertical grandeur, vibrant colors, alcoves, arches Many side ca

Natural Soundscape Quiet most of the time, noise from small vehicles and air traffic Small quiet alcoves, canyon walls create echoes Birds, rustling 

Lightscapes Minimal intrusion from local residents, Inscription House Trading Post Minimal intrusion from local residents, Inscription House Trading Post Minimal intrus

Inscription Ho

Opportunities for Visitor 

Experience and 

Understanding 

Remote mesa environment; plants and wildlife; Navajo culture 

Sensitive resources, vertical walls, rockfall hazard keeps visitors from direct experience; proximate views of cliff dwellings, petroglyph connects people directly to past 

Remote canywildlife; Navadwellings, pe

Visitor Safety Falling hazard at rim of canyon not as significant as at Betatakin Some rockfall hazard along trail and in alcoves; heat exhaustion when hiking out of canyon; Snake House significant rockfall Potential rock

flash flooding

INTRODUCTION 

16MISSION GOALSWhat are the ideal conditions that the National Park Service should try to attain? Resource Stewardship 

A. Stewardship for cliff dwellings and all other 

cultural resources balances National Park Service laws and policies with American Indian concerns. 

B. Natural resources (processes, systems, and 

values) are allowed to continue in balance with stewardship of archeological resources and the greater ethnographic landscape. 

C. Water quality and quantity, good air quality, 

species that are threatened, endangered, or of concern, scenic vistas, and natural soundscapes and lightscapes are protected. 

D. Museum collection of artifacts and archives 

are properly inventoried, catalogued, stored, and secured, and through consultation with affiliated American Indian tribes, appropriate items are repatriated.

Visitor Understanding 

E. Visitors understand and appreciate native and 

other cultures of this region through time. 

F. A range of experiences are provided that 

promote visitor understanding of the resourcefulness of the 13th- century cliff dwelling builders, the wholeness of the environment, connections to other cultures, and spiritual values. 

G. The remoteness that has kept the 

dwellings in such pristine conditfosters within visitors an elemenand desire to explore is protectedunderstanding of the wholeness landscape and peoples. 

H. Opportunities for people with di

expanded and improved. 

I. Opportunities for youth to gain u

about the monument as well as pits management are expanded an

Partnerships 

J. Good relationships with all assoc

American Indian groups are devemaintained. 

K. American Indian tribes are invol

interpretation and management 

Facilities And Operations 

L. Safe, quality, sustainable facilitie

desired visitor experience and sumaintenance and administration

M. An adequate land base and agree

visitor access and administration

N. Local American Indian employee

recruited and retained to provide perspectives on management and visitor understanding. 
MAIN ISSUES OF THE GMP These issues were uncovered during public scoping and tribal consultations regarding the general management plan. Resource Stewardship • Unauthorized access and vandalism threaten destruction of cliff 

dwellings. 

• Pressure for more visitor access (visitors and economic 

development for Navajo Nation) threatens sensitive resources, including species that are threatened, endangered, or of concern. 

• Artifacts—The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (NAGPRA) needs to be addressed; need proper storage and cataloging. 

• NPS policies and American Indian concerns may conflict. 

• Adjacent land—uses have effects on air, water, natural quiet, views, 

dark night sky. 

• Scenic aircraft overflights impair natural quiet and visitor 

understanding. 

• Visitor use may disrupt ethnographic use. 

• Navajo Nation and Natural Heritage Program are interested in 

collaborative management of natural resources. 

Visitor Understanding • What is the main message to visitors from Navajo National 

Monument? 

• Opportunities to more broadly interpret cultures are missed. 

• Most visitors will not visit ancient dwellings. How do they 

understand the story and significance? 

• The monument does not offer much for children; little outreach. 

• Some visitors want more access to cliff dwellings. 

• The alcove over Betatakin cliff dwelling is n

enter during certain times of the year. 

• Opportunities for people with disabilities a

• A third of visitors are from foreign countrie

barriers to providing information and unde

• The name “Navajo National Monument” is 

“Monument Valley” and does not fully reprAmerican Indian tribes. 

Partnerships • The NPS is dependent on the Navajo Nat

such as public access to remote cliff dwelagreements may not be adequate for the f

• The Navajo Nation and its local subdivisi

local residents) are interested in economitourism, some of which may differ from t

• Other associated American Indian tribes wa

Navajo National Monument. 

• Better communication is needed with all as

Indian tribes. 

Facilities And Operations • Existing facilities and infrastructure are alm

inadequate. 

• Aspen Forest trail has some rock hazard be

• Local staff is extremely valuable, and needs 

recruited and retained. 

• Recruitment of members of other associate

• More staff may be needed to implement the 

employee housing is a significant obstacle t
INTRODUCTION 

18

Based on the purpose and significance of the monument, the mission of the National Park Service, and the comments received from the public and through tribal consultation, these are the central questions to be answered by the general management plan. 

Core Questions of the GMP 

1. RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP—How will resources be 

protected for future generations? 

2. VISITOR UNDERSTANDING—How will visitor 

understanding be improved? 

3. PARTNERSHIPS—How will associated American 

Indian tribes, scientists, and others be more fully involved with the monument? 

4. FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS—What facilities, staff, 

and funding will be needed to fulfill the plan? 
PLAN AND ALTE

INCLUDING THE P

INTRODUCTION Organization Of The Plan And Alternatives The plan consists of a variety of actions that will be taken in all alternatives to meet the mandates, policies, and practices of the National Park Service, and actions to which there are alternatives. To give a coherent picture of how the park will be managed for the core questions of the plan (resource stewardship, visitor understanding, partnerships, and facilities and operations), each will be addressed for common elements and alternatives. Alternative C has been identified as the preferred alternative by the National Park Service. The Alternatives section is organized in the following manner: • Philosophy of Alternatives—the general overview of the intent 

of the alternative. 

• Management Prescriptions—how the units of Navajo National 

Monument would be managed under the alternatives to achieve goals. 

• Resource Stewardship—How will resources be protected for 

future generations? 

 Mission Goals 

 Actions Common to All Alternatives 

 Alternatives 

• Visitor Understanding—How will visitor understanding be 

improved? 

 Mission Goals 

 Actions Common to All Alternat Alternatives 

• Partnerships—How will associated Ame

scientists, and others be more fully involv

 Mission Goals 

 Actions Common to All Alternat Alternatives 

• Facilities and Operations—What faciliti

will be needed to fulfill the plan? 

 Mission Goals 

 Actions Common to All Alternat Alternatives 

PHILOSOPHY OF THE ALTEAlternative A (No Action) This alternative would continue existing practices, resulting in current resource cvisitor experiences and the logical progrtrends over time. It is required as a basethe other alternatives can be compared. Alternative B Focus on NPS LThe National Park Service would focus existing land base to achieve the purposPrimary resource protection and visitor would be accomplished on the three fedBetatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription Ho
PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 

20to resource protection would be made with additional NPS ranger patrol staff and ranger stations. Visitor understanding would be improved with a remodeled or enlarged visitor center, more trails and overlooks, and more outdoor exhibits and interpretive rangers on the mesa top at Betatakin. The NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the Navajo Nation for maintaining trail access to Betatakin and Keet Seel. Alternative C Emphasize Partnerships (Preferred) The National Park Service would continue to manage the existing land base (similar to Alternative B), and in addition would share common goals with American Indian tribes and others to protect resources and promote visitor understanding of the entire region. The NPS would look beyond the boundary for accomplishing joint purposes through cooperation and partnerships. Opportunities for more innovative and diverse programs, education and outreach, science and research, cross training, and broader resource management would be greatly enhanced by a collaborative regional effort. MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS Management prescriptions are an important part of a general management plan. They are based on the broad analysis of primary resource values, developed in this plan as “significant resource areas,” as well as on the mission goals for the monument. Prescriptions are defined and applied to each particular area of the monument and have two components: • Description of the desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences to be achieved and maintained over time 

• Identification of the kind and levels of vis

activities, and development that are apprthe desired conditions 

For Navajo National Monument, managhave been developed for the following m• Conservation Backcountry • Low- Use Backcountry • Backcountry Service and Support • Front Country Trail • Developed Front Country The general characteristics of these manprescriptions are described below. They each unit, and tailored slightly to the unof the unit, and not all prescriptions are The configuration of how they are appliAlternatives B and C, to fit the philosophalternatives. The prescriptions are not aA, which is the “no action” alternative. Tthe following pages illustrate the managproposed for the units under the alterna

Conservation Backcountry • General: Land within this prescription co

resources and is off limits to visitors. 

• Resource Condition: Resources, systems

generally unimpaired by human influencecultural purposes will continue through tuse permits when necessary. While grazinNPS land, there are areas affected by livesthey are managed to mitigate those impac
PLAN 

• Remoteness: The setting is natural, without man- made 

intrusions in the landscape such as buildings or roads. The area is quiet, with only natural sounds. At night the sky is generally 

dark. 

• Visitor Understanding and Experience: Visitors view the area 

from a distance and learn from off site, because they are not allowed in this area. 

• Facilities: None. 

• NPS Management Activities: To manage the unit, the National 

Park Service will conduct research, patrols, mitigation, and maintenance. Horses or vehicles will not be used. 

Low- Use Backcountry • General: The area within this prescription also contains very 

sensitive resources, and visitor opportunities to experience these resources are guided. 

• Resource Condition: Resources, systems, and processes have a 

very high integrity. There may be a slight disturbance in the travel corridor, but the area is otherwise undisturbed by human influences. Access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary. While grazing is not allowed on NPS land, there are areas affected by livestock that trespass, and they are managed to mitigate those impacts. 

• Remoteness: Natural setting has few man- made intrusions. The 

natural soundscape would dominate, with occasional noise from 

other visitors or activities of neighbors. At night the sky is generally dark. 

• Visitor Understanding and Experience: Visitors can 

experience canyon views and remoteness and undertake moderate to strenuous guided hikes to cliff dwellings and other remarkable resources. The effort required and limited times and 

sizes of tours make this experience availapercentage of visitors. Horses, bicycles, oallowed. 

• Facilities: Facilities include unpaved trai

composting toilets, supply caches, and ra

• NPS Management Activities: To manage 

Park Service will conduct patrols, researcmaintenance. Horses or vehicles will not 

Backcountry Service and Supp• General: This prescription area, used on

is largely natural but slightly modified to management activities. 

• Resource Condition: Resources, systems

good integrity. There may be disturbancemanagement, and trespass grazing. Efforteliminate trespass grazing and trampling Access for traditional cultural purposes wthe issuance of special use permits when 

• Remoteness: The setting is largely natura

light intrusions from lanterns, campers, poccasional management use of a helicopt

• Visitor Understanding and Experience

experiences are available for visitors, inclcamping, picnicking, and ranger programor pack stock will not be allowed on NPS allowed outside of the boundary at a desisuch an area is agreed on through partne

• NPS Management Activities: To manage 

Park Service will conduct patrols, researcmaintenance, and may use occasional pacvehicles (ATV’s) to resupply the ranger st
PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 

22Front Country Trail • General: This prescription area, used only at the headquarters 

area on the rim, is largely natural but contains a network of easy to moderate trails and minor facilities for many visitors to experience resources of Navajo National Monument. 

• Resource Condition: The integrity of resources, systems, and 

processes is good, but modifications have been made for trails and associated minor facilities and there are some effects resulting from the large number of visitors in this prescription area. 

• Remoteness: The character is rural, but busy with people and 

nearby development that interrupts the natural soundscape with vehicle noise and talking and pierces the darkness with some light from employee housing. 

• Visitor Understanding and Experience: A variety and network 

of trails and overlooks offer a great number of visitors the opportunity to hike on their own and learn independently from wayside exhibits. There are also opportunities for ranger- led walks and a variety of opportunities for people with disabilities. Vehicles, horses, and bicycles are not allowed 

• Facilities: This prescription area includes paved and unpaved 

trails, viewpoints, wayside exhibits, signs, composting or vault toilets, benches, and shade structures. 

• NPS Management Activities: To manage the unit, the NPS will 

conduct research, patrols, mitigation, and maintenance, and may use occasional vehicles (ATV’s) or pack stock to support maintenance. 

Developed Front Country • General: This prescription area contains most of the visitor and 

administrative facilities of the monument and is only used at the headquarters unit. 

• Resource Condition: A natural appearan

disturbances will occur to allow facilities administration. Impacts of grazing and trland are minimized. Access for traditiona

continue through the issuance of special necessary. 

• Remoteness: Rural character, but definit

buildings, utilities, parking lots, and roadand lightscapes are affected by noise and visitors, and maintenance and staff activitfrom the sewage lagoon affect campers. 

• Visitor Understanding and Experience

activities, programs, and facilities provide to learn about and enjoy the monument. center, audio- visual programs, exhibits, a walks, ranger programs, camping, driving and opportunities for people with disabil

staying only a short time, this is the primaexperience Navajo National Monument. 

• Facilities: Structures include the visitor c

space, storage buildings, NPS maintenancemployee residences, and a well house. Ocampground, picnic area, amphitheater, poverlooks, and utilities. 

• NPS Management Activities: This presc

most of the NPS management activities, inon roads, patrols, maintenance, mitigationew facilities. 
PLAN 
PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 

24

Betatakin/Talastima Management Prescriptions 

Conservation 

Backcountry 

Low-Use 

Backcountry 

Front Country 

Trail 

Resource Condition 

Resources, systems, and processes are preserved unimpaired; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary; grazing and trampling impacts minimized on agreement land.

High integrity of resources, systems, and processes; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary; grazing and trampling impacts minimized on agreement land. 

Good integrity of resources, systems, and processes; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary; grazing and trampling impacts minimized on agreement land. 

Natumaioccufacilcultuthrouse grazmin

Remoteness Natural landscape, natural soundscapes and lightscapes. Natural setting with a few man- made intrusions, minimal sound intrusion, lightscapes. 

Rural setting affected by sight, sound, and light from development, visitors, staff, vehicles, lights, and by odors from sewer lagoon. 

Devdevactivodo

Visitor Understanding 

and Experience 

View and learn from off site; no visitors allowed in area. 

Canyon views, moderate to strenuous guided hiking tours, remote experience,; no bicycles, horses, or vehicles. 

Distant landscape vistas; easy to moderate self-guided hiking; independent learning from waysides, ranger-led walks; opportunities for people with disabilities; no bicycles, horses, or vehicles. 

Visitexhboocamroadwith 

Facilities None. 

Unpaved trails, signs, fences, composting toilets, supply caches, radio repeaters. 

Paved and unpaved trails, viewpoints, wayside exhibits, signs, composting or vault toilets, benches, shade structures. 

Strupowmaibuild

NPS Management 

Activities 

Research, patrols, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use or pack stock use.

Patrols, research, tours, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use or pack stock use.

Motor vehicle (ATV) use, pack stock, research, patrols, mitigation, maintenance.

Maxvehmaidev
PLAN 
PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 

26

Keet Seel / Kawestima Management Prescriptions 

Conservation 

Backcountry 

Low-Use 

Backcountry 

Ba

Servic

Resource Condition 

Resources, systems, and processes are preserved unimpaired; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary. 

High integrity of resources, systems, and processes; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary. 

Good integrity of rprocesses; access purposes will contspecial use permitand trampling imp

Remoteness Natural landscape, natural soundscapes and lightscapes. Natural setting with a few man-made intrusions, minimal sound intrusion, lightscapes. Natural setting, so

from ATV's, lanteretc. 

Visitor Understanding and 

Experience 

View and learn from off site, no visitors allowed on site. 

Canyon views, moderate to strenuous guided hiking tours, remote experience; no bicycles, horses, or vehicles. 

Canyon views, pichiking, ranger provehicles only outs

Facilities None. 

Unpaved trails, signs, fences, composting toilets, supply caches, radio repeaters. 

Trails, ATV parkincomposting toiletspicnic area, waysi

NPS Management Activities 

Research, patrols, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use or pack stock use.

Patrols, research, tours, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use or pack stock use.

Research, patrolsoccasional motor use, pack stock (eunder Alternative 
PLAN 
PLAN AND ALTERNATIVES 

28

Inscription House/Tsu’ Ovi Management Prescriptions 

Conservation 

Backcountry 

Low-Use 

Backcountry 

Resource Condition 

Resources, systems, and processes are preserved unimpaired; access for traditional cultural purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary; grazing and trampling impacts minimized. 

High integrity of resources, systems, processes; access for traditional cultpurposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits whenecessary; grazing and trampling im

Remoteness Natural landscape, natural soundscapes and lightscapes. Natural setting with a few man-made intrusions, minimal sound intrusion, lightscapes. 

Visitor Understanding and 

Experience 

View and learn from off site, no visitors allowed on site. 

Canyon and expansive views, guided tours, remote experience; no vehiclebicycles, or horses. 

Facilities None. Trails, fences, ranger station, supply cache, composting toilet, radio repea

NPS Management Activities Research, patrols, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use or pack stock use. Patrols, research, tours, mitigation, maintenance; no motor vehicle use o

stock use.
PLAN 

T

RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP—NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

A. Stewardship of cliff dwellings and all other cultural resources balances National Park Service laws and policies with American Indian concerns. 

Cultural Resources Navajo National Monument is listed in the National Register of Historic Places because the monument preserves and interprets nationally significant cultural resources. The monument is also designated a “Vanishing Treasures” park (an initiative designed to address the ongoing loss of architectural resources in the arid west). Cultural resources include the well known villages of Betatakin, Inscription House, and Keet Seel, which represent some of the best preserved examples of pre- contact communities, as well as the lesser known pre- contact structures of Turkey Cave, Snake House, Owl House, and Kiva Cave. The monument also has various examples of petroglyphs and pictographs; a multitude of small, open pre- contact sites that reflect seasonal occupation and use; and a variety of Navajo sites related to domestic, ceremonial, and livestock management activities. There are also historic structures from the Wetherill era, and potentially historic structures from the early development of the monument during the 1930s and 1940s. The long interaction between man and the land and the influence of 

human beliefs and actions over time upo

landscape have shaped it, forming a cultupotentially significant ethnographic or hhave yet to be evaluated for National ReStewardship is the responsible care of thentrusted by the people of the United StaPark Service. As with all units of the natimanagement of Navajo National Monumresources is guided by the Organic Act (National Park Service; as well as other feregulations and National Park Service pand standards. Any action that affects cuwould be undertaken only if it is consistmonument’s purposes, as well as applicaregulations, policies, guidelines, standar
THE PLAN 

32One of the important provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act is that for any action that affects cultural resources either listed on the National Register of Historic Places or eligible to be listed, there must be consultation with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), who is from the Historic Preservation Office of the Navajo Nation, associated tribes including Hopi, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni, and as necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the public. 

Actions For all actions that would affect cultural THPO and associated tribes would be co• Develop programmatic agreements betwe

 THPO (Historic Preservation Office of t

San Juan Paiute, and Zuni regarding the resources. 

 Affiliated tribes regarding the Native Am

Repatriation Act. Agreements will be souIndians linked by ties of kinship or cultuidentifiable sacred objects, objects of cu

unassociated funerary objects, or human funerary objects, when such objects or ror are encountered on monument lands and policy. 

• Complete surveys and studies: 

 Survey for archeological resources on th

 Conduct ethnographic resources invent Conduct cultural landscape inventory. 

• Evaluate and document the significance o

resources, structures, and landscapes (wiassociated tribes and determination by ththe National Register of Historic Places; uclassified structures as needed. 

• Provide stewardship of cultural resources

 Protect and preserve archeological reso

landscapes, unless it is determined throuenvironmental analysis and consultation(Historic Preservation Office of the NavJuan Paiute, and Zuni that either naturaappropriate or disturbance is unavoidab

Major Laws, Regulations, Policies, 

and Standards 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 

USC 470) 

• Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing 

regulations regarding the “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800) 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(1990) 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) 

• Chapter V of the National Park Service’s Management 

Policies (1988) 

• National Park Service’s Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline (Director’s Order 28, 1998) 

• National Park Service Management Policies (2001) 
 Record and document sites and structures if natural deterioration 

of resources is permitted, or if disturbance of the resources is unavoidable. 

 Prepare historic structure reports, as necessary, to guide future 

maintenance and/or rehabilitation of historic structures. 

 Undertake preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, as well as 

the daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance of cultural resources in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

 Avoid known archeological resources during construction and 

take appropriate mitigation steps if resources are discovered. 

 Develop a current resources management plan to prioritize and 

guide research, monitoring, and management. 

• American Indians linked by ties of kinship or culture to 

ethnically identifiable human remains would be consulted when remains may be disturbed or are encountered on monument lands. 

Mission Goals: 

B. Natural resources (processes, systems, and values) are allowed to continue in balance with stewardship of archeological resources and the greater ethnographic landscape. C. Water quality and quantity, good air quality, species that are threatened, endangered, or of concern, scenic vistas, and natural soundscapes and lightscapes are protected. 

Natural Resources The natural resources of Navajo National Monument include the geology, soils, plants, animals, springs, seeps, streams, and air. While all of these elements are important, the integrity of their interaction as a natural system is vital. The natural resources on the isolated federal tracts of land are surrounded and affected by the management of Navajo Nation land. There are several threatened or endangered 

species or species of concern in and arouOther key resources include scenic vistasoundscape and lightscape. Natural resoimportant to the cultural and spiritual liAmerican Indians (see discussion on “EtResources”). As with all units of the national park sysNavajo National Monument’s natural rethe Organic Act (1916) creating the Natio
THE PLAN 

34Actions The general direction of NPS natural resource management is to perpetuate natural systems. Many aspects of natural resource management must be done in consultation with others, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Arizona Fish and Game Department, the Navajo Nation Department of Natural Resources, and associated tribes. Recognizing American Indian people’s traditional and 

cultural relationship to natural environmNavajo National Monument will consulincorporate Indian values, ideals, and usnatural resources and environmental aw

• Continue inventory, monitoring, and research 

(including traditional knowledge), develop vi

changes. 

• Manage for native ecosystem processes 

 Minimize human impacts on native plants, a

the processes that sustain them. 

 Use only weed- free feed for pack stock.  Remove exotic species using integrated pest  Restore native vegetation to federal tracts im

stock grazing and trampling. 

 Minimize disturbances and introduction of e Work cooperatively with neighbors and othe

and minimize invasion.

• Identify and protect threatened and endanger

concern, and their habitats in consultation wWildlife Service, the Arizona Fish and Game DNation Department of Natural Resources, an

• Study the role of fire in the natural and cultur

a fire management plan in consultation with atribes, and agencies. 

• Monitor water quality, groundwater quality a

natural soundscape, scenic beauty, and lightsthrough consultation and agreements. 

• Continue to study and monitor rockfall hazar

safety, cliff dwellings, and other cultural resodevelop strategies to mitigate the impacts of tsuch as closures for visitor safety or documenarcheological sites. 

• Develop a current resources management pla

needs for inventory, monitoring, research, anconsultation with the public, associated tribe

Major Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

• NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1) • National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (42 USC 4321) • Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531-

1543) 

• Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act, as amended (16 USC 

668- 668d) 

• Executive Order 11987: Exotic Organisms • Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), as 

amended (33 USC 1251) 

• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 201) • Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act • Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

• EO 11990: Protection of Wetlands • Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 7401) • National Park Service Management Policies (2001) 

• EO 13112: Invasive Species • 36 CFR 2.1 Preservation of Natural, Cultural, and 

Archeological Resources 
• Continue and expand cooperative relationships with the NPS 

Water Resources Division, Glen Canyon National Recreation 

Area resource management staff, and others in addressing water resource issues. 

Ethnographic Resources Navajo National Monument is within the Navajo Indian Reservation. The associated Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni cultures are inextricably bound to the monument 

lands, which were occupied by their ancestors. Associated tribes view the park landscape as spiritually active, containing places vital to the continuity of their cultural identity. Navajo National Monument will continue to recognize the past and present existence of peoples in the region and the traces of their use as an important part of the cultural environment to be preserved and interpreted. Navajo National Monument will continue to provide access to ethnographic resources for traditional cultural purposes through the issuance of special use permits when necessary. Decisions to grant special use permits for access to ethnographic resources will be based on appropriate anthropological studies and consultation. 

Actions • Continue to recognize the past and present existence of peoples in the 

region and the traces of their use as an important part of the cultural 

environment to be preserved and interpreted. 

• Consult with associated American Indian tribes to develop and 

accomplish the programs of Navajo National Monument in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the American Indian tribes who have ancestral ties to the monument lands. 

• Maintain government- to- government relations with associated 

American Indian tribes, to ensure a collaborative working relationship 

prior to taking actions that would affect natuthat are of interest and concern to them. 

• Accommodate access to Indian sacred sites by 

practitioners in a manner that is consistent wand does not interfere with Indian use of tradresources. Avoid adversely affecting the phys

and resources. 

• Conduct appropriate cultural anthropologica

with (or conducted by) monument- associated 

Major Laws, Regulations, 

• Indian Self- Determination and Educatio

1975 (25 USC 450- 451n, 455- 458e) 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

• Native American Graves Protection and 

1990 (25 USC 3001- 3013) 

• Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1

Government Relations with Native AmerGovernments 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 196

470) 

• Archeological Resources Protection Act 

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservatio

regulations regarding the “Protection of (36 CFR 800) 

• Executive Order 13007, May 24, 1996, Ind

• National Park Service’s Cultural Resourc

Guideline (Director’s Order 28, 1998) 

• NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1) 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 19

• National Park Service Management Polic
THE PLAN 

36

Resource Stewardship—Natural And Cultural Resources—Alternativ

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

Protect Cliff Dwellings and Environment from Vandalism. • Conduct intermittent year-round NPS 

patrols at Betatakin, Keet Seel, Inscription House, and all known archeological sites; observation of Betatakin from rim, ranger stationed at Keet Seel in summer. 

• Maintain cooperative relationships with 

neighboring grazing permit holders to assist in preventing unauthorized people from entering park units. 

Protect Cliff Dwellings and Environment from Vandalism. Continue as in Alternative 

A, plus increase NPS vigilance: • Establish a ranger station at Inscription 

House, remote surveillance equipment installed at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House 

• Hire an additional NPS ranger to extend 

patrol all three sites to year-round protection. 

Protect Cliff Dwellinfrom Vandalism. Sam

• Seek cooperative a

people to patrol site

• In cooperation with 

has jurisdiction ovea guide association visitor use, develop understanding to comanage access. 

• Seek cooperation f

and protect the sen

Inventory, Monitoring, Implementation Plans, and Management. • Continue to inventory, monitor, develop 

implementation plans, and manage natural and cultural resources in consultation with associated American Indian tribes and as funds and staff are available. 

Inventory, Monitoring, Implementation Plans, and Management. 

• Hire additional NPS staff to ensure 

inventory, monitoring, developing implementation plans and management of natural and cultural resources in consultation with associated American Indian tribes. 

Inventory, MonitorinImplementation PlanManagement. Same a

plus: • Seek cooperative a

associated tribes, sdevelop programs finternships for stewresources, structurelandscapes. 

• Explore agreement

collaborative manaresources. 

Prevent Exotic Weeds from Contaminating Pack Stock. • Use only weed-free feed for NPS pack 

stock supplying backcountry. 

Prevent Exotic Weeds from Contaminating Pack Stock. Same 

as Alternative A, plus:

• Improve barriers to livestock on federal 

units. 

Prevent Exotic WeedContaminating Pack 

as Alternative B, plus:• Exclude pack stock 

backcountry tracts 

• Encourage partners

guide services to usstock. 
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP—MUSEUM COLLECTION—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

D. Museum collection of artifacts and archives are properly inventoried, cataloged, stored, and secured, and through consultation with affiliated American Indian tribes, appropriate items are repatriated. 

Artifacts and Archives in Museum CollectionThousands of objects, artifacts, and natural history specimens, as well as archival and manuscript material, make up the Navajo National Monument museum collection and are among the monument resources to be preserved and protected. Much of the collection was amassed from the early era of the monument when excavations occurred. Current policies direct that archeological artifacts be protected in place, unless disturbance can be clearly justified. New artifacts may come into the collection from erosion, construction disturbance, natural history specimens, or archives. Nearly 50 percent of the collection has yet to be cataloged, and significant portions of the collection are housed in various facilities, including Navajo National Monument, the National Park Service’s Western Archeological Conservation Center, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and 15 other known institutions. Many of the artifacts collected were treated with toxic chemicals to preserve them and are hazardous to NPS employees as well as to tribal members who are interested in repatriation. Actions • Inventory and catalog all museum collections in accordance with 

standards in the National Park Service’s Museum Handbook.

• Consult with affiliated Indians, regarding e

involves American Indian human remains, aunassociated funerary objects, sacred objecpatrimony, and facilitate appropriate repat

• Prepare and implement a collection manag

according to National Park Service standarconservation, and use of museum objects. 

• Accession and catalog all objects. Survey, a

arrange, and describe archival and manuscr

finding aids. 

• Ensure that objects housed in repositories/

monument are preserved, protected, and dNational Park Service standards and proced

Major Laws, Regulations, 

• NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 USC 1) • Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431- 433) • Museum Properties Act of 1955 • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, • Archeological Resources Protection Act of • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’

regulations regarding the “Protection of HiCFR 800) 

• National Park Service’s Cultural Resources M

(DO- 28, 1996) 

• National Park Service’s Museum Handbook• Native American Graves Protection and Re• Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 199

to- Government Relations with Native AmeGovernments” 

• National Park Service Management Policie
THE PLAN 

38

Resource Stewardship—Museum Collection—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE Emphasize Partn

Location of Collection. Continue to leave majority of collection at Western Archeological Conservation Center (WACC in Tucson) and several other known institutions.

Location of Collection. Same as Alternative A. 

Location of CollecPursue the consolidatWestern Archeologica(WACC in Tucson) aninstitutions to either WNPS curatorial facility Factors to determine secure protection of itconcerns, accessibilitstaff, and cost.

Storage/Workspace at Monument.

Continue limited, scattered storage that does not meet NPS standards. 

Storage/Workspace at Monument. Develop a curatorial workspace and small, secure climate-controlled storage facility in the monument to catalog, treat, and store a select number of objects, artifacts, natural history specimens, and archives. The purpose of this small repository would be to store items for rotation into displays in the visitor center and storage of natural history specimens. Most items would eventually be sent to currently used institutions for permanent storage. 

Storage/WorkspacSame as Alternative Beventually be sent on the consolidated locaIn addition, some extrwould be constructed transition to repatriatio

Visitor Center Exhibits. Continue to display limited number of objects and artifacts in the existing visitor center facility, which does not meet NPS standards for protection.

Visitor Center Exhibits. Develop secure and climate-controlled display area for selected artifacts in the expanded visitor center space. 

Visitor Center ExhSame as Alternative B

Curatorial Staff. 

Continue as an extra duty assigned to a seasonal employee.

Curatorial Staff. Add a professional curator to NPS staff.

Curatorial Staff. Same as Alternative B
VISITOR UNDERSTANDING—INTERPRETATION—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

E. Visitors understand and appreciate native and other cultures of this region through time. 

Broaden Interpretive Stories Strong interest in ancient cliff dwellings draws people to the monument, providing an opportunity to introduce visitors to an expansive perspective. People will have opportunities to learn about the entire rich tapestry of cultures that have been woven into the canyon environments for more than a thousand years. Whether people are visiting for a short time on the mesa and rim or spending more time to camp and hike to Betatakin or Keet Seel, interpretation will be broadened to offer more diverse viewpoints. Themes would include the adaptation of people to their environment, the complex culture reflected by the details of the cliff dwellings, natural systems and processes and the interaction of humans, and the connections of the cliff dwellings to other cultures and other times. One- third of all visitors to Navajo National Monument are from foreign countries. Additionally, many local people speak primarily native languages, which are not commonly written. There is a need for multiple translations in order to have meaningful interpretation as well as to communicate important messages concerning resource protection and safety.Actions • Consult with Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni tribal 

members to strengthen the content of programs, wayside signs, 

brochures, video, and exhibits. In some coverlapping interpretations will be providwithout attempts to combine or judge the

• Strive to involve American Indian tribes a

interpretation program to promote the acpresented regarding American Indian culenhance public appreciation of those valu

• Seek to participate as partners with assoc

planning for and conducting projects and the quality of the experiences of visitors tenhance the levels of public appreciation 

resources and values. 

• Expand the availability of translations of 

and programs into other languages. 

· The mission of interpretation is to 

visitor understanding and apprecsignificance of park resources. 

· Interpretive services provide oppo

people to forge their own intellectuemotional connections to the meaninherent in the resources of the pa

MAJOR LAWS, REGUL

AND POLICIES 

• NPS Director’s Order 6 (DO- 6), Interp

• National Park Service Management Po
THE PLAN 

40VISITOR UNDERSTANDING—FRONT COUNTRY EXPERIENCE—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal 

F. A range of experiences are provided to promote visitor understanding of the resourcefulness of the 13th- century cliff dwelling builders, the wholeness of the environment, connections to other cultures, and spiritual values. 

Visitor Understanding on the Mesa How will most visitors, who only stay a short time on top of the mesa, understand what is important about Navajo National Monument? Most visitors are on their way to another destination and stay less than three hours. They go to the visitor center and hike the short Sandal Trail to view Betatakin across the canyon. At the visitor center, they can view exhibits, watch an audio- visual program, talk with staff and volunteers, pick up interpretive brochures, and purchase books. Western National Parks Association continues to be an integral partner in providing interpretive publications and volunteers serving visitors in the monument. Distance and time deter most visitors from Betatakin and Keet Seel tours. Even if many more were convinced to commit to the hike, fragile resources are unable to withstand too much visitation. The mesa top and canyon rim will continue to provide the main opportunity for visitor understanding. The alternatives vary in how those opportunities are provided. 
Visitor Understanding—Front Country Experience—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

Visitor Center. Continue to maintain existing visitor center; update exhibits and audio-visual programs as funds allow. 

Visitor Center. Expand existing visitor center to provide improved audio-visual programs and exhibits that would emphasize cultures and broader themes outlined in the introduction. Real-time videos of tours at cliff dwellings would bring the resource closer. 

Visitor Center Remodel existing visitor Alternative B, but with ainteraction between visitpartners. In addition: • Increase the direct 

Navajo, San Juan Pdeveloping interpretwaysides, and progproviding programs 

• Re-establish Americ

demonstrations, skievents on the patiobe sought to suppocompete with the esshop. 

• Develop a compreh

Trails, Overlooks, and Outdoor Exhibits. Continue to maintain existing trails; make minor improvements as funds allow. 

Trails, Overlooks, and Outdoor Exhibits. 

Expand and improve outdoor exhibits to more completely illustrate Navajo life past and present. Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni Tribes would be consulted during the development of these improvements. Develop extensive additional trails, wayside exhibits, and overlooks. Vistas and high points would be used to interpret broader themes identified in the introduction. 

Trails, Overlooks, an

Develop additional trailsoverlooks as in Alternatiextensive. 

Interpretive Staff. Provide additional NPS permanent interpreter to inform visitors at the visitor center and provide roving programs on the expanded trails. Provide comprehensive training for interpretive staff.

Interpretive Staff. 

Emphasize recruitment Indian tribal members fojobs and support with neProvide comprehensive expanded interpretive sttribes) 
THE PLAN 

42VISITOR UNDERSTANDING—BACKCOUNTRY EXPERIENCE—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

G. Protect the remoteness that has kept the ancient dwellings in such pristine condition and that fosters within visitors an element of mystique and desire to explore and understand the wholeness of the landscape and peoples. 

Access to Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House One of the special qualities of Navajo National Monument identified by visitors and public response to this plan is the remoteness that has protected the outstanding condition of the cliff dwellings, offers a quiet setting evoking the past, and is unlike many drive- up tourist attractions. The guided tour by an NPS ranger, often a young local Navajo, offers unparalleled opportunities to discuss the ancient villages, cultures, migrations, flowers, wildlife, and Navajo life today. This unforgettable experience fosters deep understanding. While remoteness has been identified as an inherent value to protect at Navajo National Monument, the area does not meet criteria for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System because the units are significantly smaller than the 5,000 acres considered to be of sufficient size, and adjacent land is non- federal. The ancient village sites are very fragile and cannot withstand much foot traffic. Inscription House was closed to the general public in 1968 because it was determined to be 

too delicate to host visitors. Individuals may apply to the 

Superinuse perland (bor strucactivitiinjuriouAnyone Navajo requirefrom thcross Nthe fedcurrent 

ManagNavajo is herebthis do

It sets a maximum capacity of 1,500 visitSeel and limits Betatakin to a maximum on one guided hike. The hike to Betatakin is 21⁄2 miles each wand into the canyon. Currently, there is day for up to 25 people during the summtakes about five hours. Keet Seel is 81⁄2 m

people usually backpack and stay overnpermits per day are issued in the summeranger stationed at the sites gives guided to these sites are situated upon Navajo Ncross private areas of land held under inpermits. The Aspen Forest trail to Betatkin has bbecause of significant rockfalls in 1982 aplanning process, the re- opening of the 
was raised but not considered safe or practical because of several studies (Lachel Hansen and Associates, 1985, Wieczorek and Harp, 2000, and NPS 2000b). If new information and risk analysis in the future indicates that there are routes or times of the year visitors could safely go down the head of the canyon, it would be considered for reopening in an environmental assessment which would include opportunities for public involvement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation, and tribal consultation. Actions • Continue to guide all visitors who go to the ancient villages to 

provide firsthand understanding and to protect fragile resources. 

• Continue access to Betatakin via the Tsegi Point route with 

guided tours. 

• The National Park Service has an obligation to protect the 

sensitive resources on the proclamation lands*, and will manage within the existing maximum capacities set in the existing Backcountry Management Plan until further detailed study and planning is completed. 

• The National Park Service does not allow mountain bikes, pack 

stock, motorized vehicles, or other wheeled conveyances on the backcountry areas of the proclamation lands because of the fragility of natural and cultural resources. 

• The National Park Service will collect additional data to identify 

the types and levels of use that will protect cultural and natural resources and visitor experience, and to identify indicators to monitor impacts. 

• The NPS and the Navajo Nation Parks an

Department will work together on a joint GMP that will discuss managing the visito

access to Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscripaddress protection of natural and culturaunique visitor opportunities, public accesmethods of access, tourism interests of thconcerns of adjacent residents, and other opportunities. The NPS and Navajo NatioDepartment will work with the various legovernment and local residents in the devand provide opportunities for public com

• Commercial services to provide access, su

would be subject to permits and regulatiointerests involved, including the NPS, BIA

*Proclamation lands are the three non- contig

the Presidential Proclamation of 1912 as Nava

MAJOR LAWS, REGULAT

POLICIES 

• National Parks and Recreation Act, N

USC 1 

• Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regul• National Park Service Management P
THE PLAN 

44

Visitor Understanding—Backcountry Experience—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Visitor season. May 31 through September 1. 

Visitor Season. Extend season to March 1 through October 31, pending available staff and demand. 

Visitor Season. Same as Alternative B.

Carrying Capacity. Keep levels of use to within existing Backcountry Management Plan, pending new carrying capacity studies and a new backcountry management plan.

Carrying Capacity. Same as Alternative A.

Carrying Capacity. Same as Alternative A.

Betatakin. One tour per day, up to 25 people, first-come, first-served, ranger-led hike. 

Betatakin Change to a permit system, allow hikers (within carrying capacity) to go independently into canyon over Tsegi Point, monitored by an NPS ranger patrol. Guided tour by NPS ranger from boundary to Betatakin. 

Betatakin. 

Continue guided tour in g25, but increase number ofour, pending available sta

Keet Seel. Up to 20 people per day by reservation and permit, primarily overnight backpack, ranger-led tour. Visitors allowed in limited area of village with guide.

Keet Seel. 

Same as Alternative A, plus move campsite within NPS boundary. Visitors not allowed within alcove. 

Keet Seel. Same as Alternative A, expotential impacts of guidelimited area of village and necessary. The backcounpreferably remain at its cumay be moved within the current agreements on tri

Inscription House. Remains closed to the general public. Other activities require a special use permit and permit from Navajo Nation.

Inscription House. Establish limited guided tours to base of (but not inside) Inscription House, pending access agreements with adjacent grazing permit holders. Other uses as in Alternative A.

Inscription House. Same as Alternative B. 

Off-Site Interpretation. For visitors who do not go to the backcountry, there is limited interpretation of the remote sites at the visitor center.

Off-Site Interpretation. Improve interpretation at enlarged visitor center for Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House, such as real-time cameras.

Off-Site InterpretationImprove interpretation at rcenter for Betatakin, Keet House, such as real-time 
Tour Guides. Multiple perspectives provided by seasonal NPS employees, many of whom are local Navajo young people.

Tour Guides. Same as Alternative A.

Tour Guides. Recruit Hopi, Navajo, San Zuni tour guides, to furtheperspectives. 

Alternative Access. As proposals are made by the Navajo Nation for motorized or pack stock tours over tribal lands to the remote NPS sites, work with the tribe to minimize impacts. 

Alternative Access. Same as Alternative A.

Alternative Access. Work proactively with neigNation to determine approalternative visitor access oBetatakin, Keet Seel, and which will protect resourcunderstanding. 

Visitor Understanding—Name Of The Monument—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

Keep the name “Navajo National Monument.” Work with formal consultation committee of 

associated American Indian Tribes to determine and agree on a name that: • Reflects the cultural affiliation of the builders 

and inhabitants of the cliff dwellings 

• Reflects the broader themes of native 

cultures through time 

If associated tribes agree on a new name, support them in seeking legislation to change. 

Same as Alternative B. 

The name “Navajo National Monument” is considered by some to obscure the significance of the resources anmisunderstanding. While the monument is located within the Navajo Nation and surrounded by Navajo people, associated with the Hopi, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni (discussed in the introduction). Further, there is often visitor 

the similarly named “Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park,” owned and managed by the Navajo Nation. The name “Navajo National Monument” was assigned under the presidential proclamation of 1909 that designamonument, administered by the National Park Service. It would require an act of Congress or another Presidentto change the name. Such an act usually begins as a bill sponsored by the local U.S. representatives and/or U.S. seto a proposal widely supported by constituents. 
THE PLAN 

46PROMOTE VISITOR UNDERSTANDING—OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

H. Opportunities for people with disabilities are expanded and improved. 

Accessibility for Disabled Persons Every reasonable effort will be made to make facilities, programs, and services of the National Park Service accessible to and usable by all people (visitors and employees), including those who have disabilities. Major visitor facilities such as the visitor center, terrace, picnic sites, and two campsites are handicapped accessible. The video program in the visitor center is captioned. The maintenance area and housing are not accessible. Actions • Continue to improve interpretive programs with opportunities for a 

full spectrum of disabilities, including mobility, hearing, sight, and mental impairments. 

• All rehabilitation of existing and construction of new facilities will 

provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. 

Major Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

• Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101) • Architectural Barriers Act (42 USC 4151 et seq.) • Rehabilitation Act (29 USC 701 et seq.) 
Promote Visitor Understanding—Opportunities For People With Disabilities—

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Visitor Center. Accessible facilities include the visitor center and rest rooms, the outdoor patio and adjacent exhibits. The movie is closecaptioned for the hearing impaired.

Visitor Center. 

A remodeled and expanded visitor center and outdoor exhibits would meet requirements for access for people with disabilities. Programs, exhibits, audio-visual program, and wayside signs would be developed to address the needs of people with mobility, hearing, vision, and mental impairments. Real-time camera would bring cliff dwelling tours to the mesa top.

Visitor Center. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Campground and Picnic Area. One picnic site and one campsite are accessible; the campground rest room is not.

Campground and Picnic Area. 

More picnic sites, campsites, and the campground rest room would be made accessible.

Campground and Pic

Same as Alternative B.

Front Country Trails. The Aspen Forest Overlook and Sandal Trail have many grades in excess of 12%, not much below the 5% considered accessible to most people with mobility impairments.

Front Country Trails. 

Many of the new front country overlooks and trails would meet or exceed requirements for access for people with disabilities. 

Front Country Trails. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Operations and Administration. 

Offices at headquarters, employee housing, and the maintenance area are not accessible.

Operations and Administration. 

Remodeled and new administrative space, new employee housing, and new maintenance facilities would be accessible. 

Operations and Admi

Same as Alternative B. 

Other. As funding allows, improvements would continue to be made, such as the campground rest room or more picnic sites. 

Other. 

Improvements would continue to be made as facilities are rehabilitated. 

Other. 

Partnerships may be able for the disabled into the bguides, horseback, or com
THE PLAN 

48PROMOTE VISITOR UNDERSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

I. Opportunities for youth to gain understanding about the monument as well as participate in its management are expanded and improved.

Promote Visitor Understanding—Opportunities for Youth—Alternativ

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Visitor Center. There are no special accommodations for youth. About 13 percent of visitors are youth. 

Visitor Center. 

Design new exhibits, indoors and out, with youth and classrooms in mind. 

Visitor Center. 

Same as Alternative B.

Programs. There is no school outreach program at the present time. Programs may be developed if there is interest or if funds allow. 

Programs. 

Develop programs and materials to travel to schools. Consult with Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni and others, regarding appropriate content and type of programs and materials. Strive to develop format that will help schools fulfill standards.

Programs. 

Develop partnerships with others to design programfor use at the monument, locations. Use the expandto host school programs atravel to schools. Establish a youth intern psystem (facilities and stafSan Juan Paiute, and Zuninterpretation, resource mand park management. Seek grants and partners
PARTNERSHIPS—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goals: 

J. Good relationships with all associated American Indian groups are developed and maintained. K. American Indian tribes are involved in the interpretation and management of resources. 

Partnerships - Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

Government-to-Government Relations. Continue to consult with individual associated American Indian tribes when the need arises.

Government-to-Government Relations. 

Continue to consult with individual associated American Indian tribes on a regular basis.

Government-to-Gov

Same as Alternative B.

Consultation Committee 

Establish a formal inter-tribal American Indian consultation group for the monument that is consistent with "Government-to-Government" federal policy. The inter-tribal group would be representative of four local tribes who have a historical and direct interest in the three units of the monument, including the Hopi, Navajo, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni. The Navajo representation would include Navajo Nation departments, local chapters listed elsewhere in the GMP, tribal townships, and tribal enterprises. The consultation committee would meet at regular intervals, at least annually, to strengthen communication and partnerships between tribes and the NPS. The group would discuss issues and concerns such as the following: 

Consultation Comm

Establish formal consultAlternative B. 

Major Laws, Regulations, 

• Indian Self- Determination and Educ

of 1975 (25 USC 450- 451n, 455- 458e) 

• American Indian Religious Freedom 

1996) 

• Native American Graves Protection a

of 1990 (25 USC 3001- 3013) 

• Presidential Memorandum of April 2

to- Government Relations with NativGovernments 
THE PLAN 

50

Partnerships - Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

• Organization and administration of the intertribal partnership • Implementation of the GMP • Protection and management cultural, natural, 

ethnographic resources in the monument 

• Law enforcement • NAGPRA • Interpretive programs for visitors • Visitor access • School outreach and programs for youth • Park management and operations • Employment and training opportunities • Information and technology • Identification of complementary resources 

and skills, such as the use of native methods for rehabilitation of archeological sites 

• Improvement of communication, such as 

establishing listening posts 

• Identification of common approaches and 

vocabulary 

• Identification of common stakeholders, 

customers 

Consideration of special projects, such as the Monument Centennial celebration in 2009, participation in regional recycling programs to protect the park, or community service.

Partnerships. 

The National Park Servagreements and partnegoals of Navajo Nationaassociated tribes, agencorganizations, and voluService recognizes that agreements or arrangem
Partnerships - Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partneother entities identified Navajo tribal lands musthe Navajo Nation. • Sustain and streng

the Western Nationnon-profit cooperatdevelops, publishesas contributing to e

• Involve local people 

prevent vandalism. 

• Establish a guide a• Develop internship 

Indian youth. 

• Tribal managemen

monument, such as management, or m

• Seek funding sourc

trust. 

• Develop and provid

on and off site. 

• Seek universities a

research opportuni

• Improve road signs • VIP campground ho• Collect fees and re

protection or visitor 

• Work with regional 

people to explore re

• Reinstate craft dem• Develop cross-juris

enforcement. 

• Seek alternatives to 

additional staff, inte

• Seek variety of fund

needed for visitors, needs identified in 
THE PLAN 

52

Partnerships - Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne• Seek partnership w

Department and Naoutstanding vistas omonument. 

• Continue and expa

relationships with thDivision, Glen CanyArea resource manin addressing wate

• The NPS and the N

Recreation Departma joint plan followininto detail about maand access in the asection entitled “VisBackcountry Experinformation) 

• The Navajo Nation 

ADOT within the rigfeaturing exhibits. participating in projcomplementary serand the NPS visitor 

This list is not all-inopportunities for pasought. 
FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS—FACILITIES—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

L. Safe, quality, sustainable facilities fulfill desired visitor experience and support maintenance and administration. 

Navajo National Monument would strive to incorporate the principles of sustainable design and development into all facilities. Sustainable practices minimize the short- and 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. 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 bio- diversity, and encourages responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates 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 visitors with natural and cultural settings. The National Park Service also reduces energy costs, eliminates waste, and conserves energy resources by using energy efficient and cost effective technology. Energy efficiency is incorporated into the decision- making process during the design or acquisition of structures. In response to public concern about the cost of government employee housing and the ongoing critical need to provide housing at remote locations such as Navajo National Monument, the Department of Interior has a service- wide 

process in place, The National Parks HoAssessment. This process provides serviin analyzing the number of housing unitthe local market for housing, remotenes

employee residents to provide resource service, condition of existing housing, apartnerships. 

Actions: • Navajo National Monument would work 

experts to make the monument’s facilities sustainable. Value analysis and value engicycle cost analysis, would be performed tenvironmental, and economic implicationdevelopment. In addition, facilities would monument resources, compatible with naaesthetically pleasing, functional, and as aall segments of the population. 

Major Laws, Regulations, 

• National Park Service Management Poli• Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design • Federal Employees and Facilities Act (5 • Office of Management and Budget Circ

A- 45 

• Department of Interior regulations • Government Furnished Housing Guide
THE PLAN 

54• Develop architectural character guidelines for remodeled and 

new structures. 

• Support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to 

follow sustainable practices. 

• Address sustainable park and out of park practices (such as 

recycling) in interpretive programs. 

• Continue to work through the National P

Assessment Process to ensure safe, qualithousing is provided when essential for acobjectives. 

• Identify specific needs to accomplish 

“Alternatives” section of this plan. 

Facilities And Operations—Facilities—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Visitor Center. Maintain existing visitor center (5,000 SF), improve exhibits and audio-visual programs as possible.

Visitor Center. Remodel or expand visitor center (5,000–6,000 SF), new exhibit and audio-visual program, expand outdoor exhibits.

Visitor Center. Remodel visitor center (5emphasis on fostering intvisitors, interpreters, and and audio-visual program

Front Country Trails. Maintain existing Sandal and Aspen Forest Overlook trails (1.5 miles).

Front Country Trails. Maintain existing trails, plus increase front country trails (to 5 or 6 miles), add overlooks, wayside exhibits, benches, shade structures, and rest rooms.

Front Country Trails. Maintain existing trails, plcountry trails (to 4 miles), wayside exhibits, bencheand rest rooms.

Campground and Picnic Area. Maintain existing facilities.

Campground and Picnic Area. Maintain and improve existing facilities for accessibility.

Campground and PicSame as Alternative B.

Backcountry Facilities. Maintain existing facilities: • Keet Seel ranger station, composting toilet, 

picnic area, campground (outside boundary) 

• Betatakin composting toilet 

Backcountry Facilities. 

Maintain existing facilities as in Alternative A, plus: • Keet Seel—move campground inside 

boundary 

• Betatakin—add ranger cache • Inscription House—add ranger station 

Backcountry FacilitieMaintain existing facilities plus: • Betatakin—add rang• Inscription House—a

Administrative Offices. 

Maintain existing inadequate space at visitor center and miscellaneous structures. 

Administrative Offices. Reduce office space at headquarters for enlarged visitor area, construct new administration building (3,000 SF). 

Administrative OfficeReduce office space at heenlarged visitor area; conadministration building (3
Facilities And Operations—Facilities—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Curatorial Workspace and Storage. Continue inadequate storage at visitor center closet. 

Curatorial Workspace and Storage. Construct curatorial storage and workspace (1,000 SF) in conjunction with new administration building. 

Curatorial Workspace Storage. Construct curatorial storaholding for some tribal repworkspace (1,500SF) in cadministration building. 

Maintenance and Utilities. Maintain existing facilities. 

Maintenance and Utilities. • Fire truck storage (2,500 SF). • Shop bays (four). • Vehicle storage shelter (eight). • Back-up well. • Rehabilitate sewage system. 

Maintenance FacilitieSame as Alternative B. 

NPS Employee Housing. Maintain existing housing (seven units); pursue additional housing through NPS Housing Initiative. 

NPS Employee Housing. Maintain existing housing, plus one new duplex and one new 4-plex structure. 

NPS Employee HousiSame as Alternative B, plvolunteer campground hoother partners. Also pursuShonto or Kayenta for shavolunteers, interns, and p

Estimated Design and Construction Costs. Ongoing repair/rehabilitation projects: $2,250,000 No new major construction. 

Estimated Design and Construction Costs. 

Remodel/expand visitor center $800,000 – 1,300,000 New visitor center exhibits/audio-visual $1,100,000 – 1,600,000 New trails, front country and backcountry $800,000 - $1,100,000 New wayside exhibits $140,000 - $190,000 New administration/curatorial building $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 Employee housing $700,000 

Estimated Design and Construction Costs. Remodel/expand visitor c$800,000 New visitor center exhibit$1,000,000 - $1,100,000 New trails, front country a$500,000 - $700,000 New wayside exhibits $110,000 - $140,000 New administration/curato$1,200,000 - $1,450,000 Employee housing $700,000 
THE PLAN 

56

Facilities And Operations—Facilities—Alternatives 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Additional maintenance facilities $900,000 Utility improvements $350,000 - $900,000

Additional maintenance fa$900,000 Utility improvements $350,000 - $900,000

TOTAL NET: $2,250,000 TOTAL NET (average) $6,900,000 TOTAL NET (average

How Development Costs Were Calculated For GMP

NET CONSTRUCTION FOR FACILITIES (buildings, roads, utilities, trails, etc.)

NET CONSTRUCTION FOR INTERPRETIVE Mwaysides, audio-visual programs and equipment

Unit cost based on the National Park Service Cost Estimating Guide with Class C cost Data for New Construction, 2001 

• Location factors used 

 Intermountain Region X 1.0  Navajo National Monument X 1.05 

• General Conditions 5% • Contingencies 15% 

Estimated by National Park Service Harpers Fer

Net costs of development are shown in this plan and are inclusive of the factors above. For implementation, there are addconstruction supervision, construction contingencies, and various design services shown below. 

Additional Costs for Implementing Construction in the National Par

Service (for facilities and interpretive media) 

GROSS CONSTRUCTION COST  Construction Supervision 8% (net)  Construction Contingencies 10% (net) TOTAL PROJECT COST  Pre-Design Services 5% (net)  Supplemental Services 2% (net)  Design Services 10% (net) 
FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS—BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

M. An adequate land base and agreements ensure visitor access and administration. 

Facilities and Operations—Boundary Modifications—Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE C: Emphasize Partners

Headquarters Unit. Review and revise Memorandum of Understanding with Navajo Nation regarding land at headquarters to reflect current interests and concerns.

Headquarters Unit. Seek transfer of headquarters unit from Navajo Nation to NPS by purchase or exchange only with agreement and endorsement by Navajo Nation.

Headquarters Unit. Same as Alternative B. 

Access over Tribal Land. Develop agreements with Navajo Nation and/or local governments to ensure visitor and administrative access to backcountry sites while minimizing intrusion to local grazing permit holders, other archeological sites, and allowing NPS maintenance. • Betatakin—routes for visitors and 

administration. 

• Keet Seel—routes for visitors and 

administration, primitive campground. 

• Inscription House—routes for 

administration. 

Access over Tribal Land. 

Develop agreements similar to Alternative A: • Betatakin—routes for visitors and 

administration. 

• Keet Seel—routes for visitors and 

administration. 

• Inscription House—routes for visitors and 

administration. 

Access over Tribal La

Develop agreements or c• Betatakin—routes fo

administration. 

• Keet Seel—routes fo

administration, primitvisitor staging area. 

• Inscription House—r

administration, exploPark and Recreation parking and access t

Resource Protection. 

Seek agreements or consprotection of cultural resolands and to provide a buresources.

Major Laws, Regulations, a

• National Parks and Recreation Act, Novem• Public Law 101- 628, Section 1216 (1990) 

• National Park Service Management Policies • 25 USC (Indians) • Special Legislation 

Proposed addition of headquarters unit. The proposed addition of the headquarters unit in Alternatives B and C is considered a 

adjustment, and subject to specific criteria are used by the National Park Service found in Appendix E: Proposed Boundary Adjustmtransferring this 240-acre unit to the NPS is recommended, it would only be sought if it was endorsed by the Navajo Nation. If agrewould be required for authorizing the addition. If it is not transferred, Alternatives B or C could still be implemented. 
THE PLAN 

58FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS—STAFF—ALL ALTERNATIVES Mission Goal: 

N. Recruit and retain local American Indian employees to provide broader perspectives on management and enrich visitor understanding.

Facilities And Operations—Staff—ALL ALTERNATIVES 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: Focus on NPS Land 

ALTERNATIVE CEmphasize Partne

Recruitment. Continue to recruit local employees and provide training and incentives to remain.

Recruitment. 

Same as Alternative A, plus when filling new additional positions, seek to supplement staff with Hopi, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni tribal members.

Recruitment.

Same as Alternative B, student interns, partners

Staff Size. • 11 permanent jobs • 11 seasonal jobs 

Staff Size. 

• 16 permanent jobs • 14–16 seasonal jobs 

Staff Size. 

• 16 permanent jobs • 15–17 seasonal job

Additional Staff Positions. 

• Law enforcement ranger • Administrative clerk • Seasonal interpretive rangers • Seasonal resource technicians • Seasonal maintenance worker 

Additional Staff Pos

• Law enforcement ra• Administrative clerk • Seasonal interpreti• Seasonal resource • Seasonal maintena

New Staff Positions. 

• Interpretive ranger • Park resource manager • Natural resource specialist • Preservation specialist • Curator (shared position) 

New Staff Positions

• Management assis

partnerships 

• Park resource man• Natural resource sp• Preservation specia• Curator (shared po

Estimated Annual Operating Cost. • $750,000 

Estimated Annual Operating Cost. 

• $1,140,000 

Estimated Annual O

• $1,190,000 
Summary of Alternatives 

Topic 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO ACTION 

Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: 

Focus on NPS LAND 

ALTE

PR

Emphas

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

• Protect for future generations • Consult with tribes • Repatriate artifacts through 

NAGPRA 

• Same as Alternative A, plus 

additional NPS ranger patrol to prevent vandalism 

• Improve on-site care of artifacts 

• Same as A

additional prevent va

• Seek agre

to prevent 

• Improve o

provide hoand consoat WACC 

NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

• Enable natural systems, promote 

native species, protect threatened and endangered species, encourage appropriate scientific research 

• Same as Alternative A, with 

additional NPS natural resource staff to accomplish goals 

• Same as A

additional staff and paccomplis

ETHNOGRAPHIC 

RESOURCES 

• Same as for cultural and natural 

resources above 

• Access for traditional cultural 

purposes will continue through the issuance of special use permits when necessary 

• Same as Alternative A • Same as A

FRONT COUNTRY 

VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE AND 

UNDERSTANDING 

• Broaden interpretive stories, consult 

tribes 

• Maintain visitor center and rim trails • Maintain camping and picnicking 

• Broaden interpretive stories, 

consult tribes 

• Remodel or expand visitor center, 

new exhibits and AV, greatly expand rim trails, improve opportunities for people with disabilities, expand opportunities for youth 

• Additional NPS interpretive staff • Maintain camping and picnicking, 

improve accessibility 

• Broaden in

tribes 

• Remodel v

exhibits animprove owith disabopportunit

• Involve trib

programs, special ev

• Maintain c

improve a
THE PLAN 

60

Topic 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO ACTION 

Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: 

Focus on NPS LAND 

ALTE

PR

Emphas

BACKCOUNTRY 

VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE AND 

UNDERSTANDING 

• Protect remoteness with 

Backcountry Management Plan 

• Continue limited guided NPS tours to 

Betatakin via Tsegi Point (crosscanyon trail remains closed because of rockfall hazard) 

• Continue limited Keet Seel permits • Inscription House remains closed 

• Protect remoteness with 

Backcountry Management Plan 

• More flexible Betatakin tours, 

more per day, extend season. Access via Tsegi Point (crosscanyon trail remains closed because of rockfall hazard) 

• Extend season for Keet Seel 

permits, close alcove to visitors to protect ancient village 

• Begin limited Inscription House 

tours by NPS 

• Protect rem

Backcounpursue joiand accesParks and and by dev

• More guid

day (NPS season. A(cross-canbecause o

• Extend se

permits, cotours withi

• Begin limit

tours by N

PARTNERSHIPS 

• Consult with associated tribes as 

needed, government to government 

• Consult regularly with individual 

associated tribes, government to government 

• Establish American Indian 

consultation committee 

• Consult re

associated governme

• Establish a 

consultatio

• Seek agre

of activitieinterns, retours, eduuniversitiedemonstra
Topic 

ALTERNATIVE A: 

NO ACTION 

Continue Existing Management 

ALTERNATIVE B: 

Focus on NPS LAND 

ALTE

PR

Emphas

FACILITIES 

• Maintain existing visitor center 

(5,000 SF) 

• Maintain front country trails (1.5 

miles) 

• Maintain campground, picnic area • Maintain limited administrative space 

and inadequate curatorial space in visitor center 

• Maintain maintenance area • Maintain seven housing structures 

(for seven employees) 

• Maintain utilities 

• Remodel or expand VC (5,000–

6,000 SF), new exhibits and AV programs 

• Increase front country trails (to 5 

or 6 miles) 

• Maintain campground, picnic area • Build a ranger station at Inscription 

House 

• Relocate Keet Seel campground 

into NPS boundary 

• Build new administration building 

3,500 SF 

• Build curatorial storage 1,000 SF • Expand maintenance with fire 

cache, four shop bays, covered parking 

• Expand NPS housing to nine 

structures (for thirteen employees) 

• Rehabilitate utilities 

• Remodel V

exhibits an

• Increase f

miles) 

• Maintain c• Build a ran

House 

• Keet Seel 

outside bo

• Build new 

3,000 SF 

• Build cura• Expand m

cache, fouparking 

• Expand N

structures plus trailer researche

• Rehabilita

BOUNDARY 

MODIFICATIONS 

• Review and revise headquarters 

land agreement with Navajo Nation 

• Seek agreements for access to 

remote sites 

• Seek transfer of headquarters unit 

from Navajo Nation to NPS 

• Seek agreements for access to 

remote sites 

• Seek trans

from Nava

• Seek agre

easementadjacent caccess for administra

STAFF 

• Eleven permanent • Eleven seasonal 

• Sixteen permanent (including new 

law enforcement ranger, interpretive ranger, preservation specialist, curator) 

• Fourteen to sixteen seasonal 

• Sixteen pe

law enforcmanagempartnershispecialist, 

• Fifteen to 
THE PLAN 

62

ANNUAL OPERATING 

COST 

• $750,000 • $1,140,000 • $1,190,00

TOTAL AVERAGE 

CONSTRUCTION 

COST (NET) 

• $2,250,000 • $7.0 million • $6.1 millio

LAND PROTECTION 

COST 

• None • HQ unit—purchase or exchange • HQ unit—

• Conservat
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED During scoping and consultation with the Navajo Nation, the idea of returning all lands to the Navajo Nation for protection and management by appropriate tribal agencies was brought up. In the 1900s when the Monument was set aside, the Navajo Tribe did not have the capability to do so; today, the Navajo Nation does. De- authorization would require an act of Congress, and the first steps include a 

detailed feasibility study and a tribal resplanning period and consultations, no dresolutions came forward from the tribethink this is likely to happen within the frame of the plan. The NPS will proceed monument with the guidance of this plathe Navajo Nation could pursue the feassteps to move in this direction if their inthis idea.

AFFECTED ENVIR

INTRODUCTION The “Affected Environment” describes the existing environment in and around Navajo National Monument. The focus of this section is the key park resources, uses, and socioeconomic conditions that have the potential to be affected by the alternatives should they be implemented. Some topics must be considered in environmental impact statements, such as threatened and endangered species. IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Cultural Resources The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and 36 CFR 800 require federal agencies to consider the effect of their undertakings on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Environmental Policy Act also requires evaluation of project effects on the human environment. Navajo National Monument is listed on the national register. Significant archeological resources may exist within the monument. Cultural resources are addressed as an impact topic in this document. Cultural resource topics analyzed include: • Historic Structures • Archeological Resources • Ethnographic Resources 

• Museum Collection 

NATURAL RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES, WETLANDS, AFLOODPLAINS. National Park Service policies require pquality consistent with the Clean Water amended in 1956, 1972, and 1977), a natioand maintain the chemical, physical, anof the nation’s waters and to prevent, cowater pollution. Section 404 of the Cleaauthorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Enginregulate, through a permitting process, dor fill material into U.S. waters. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetfederal agencies to avoid, where possibleProposed actions that have the potential wetlands must be addressed in a statemenJurisdictional wetlands occur in and nearNavajo National Monument. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Managfederal agencies to avoid construction wifloodplain unless no other practical alternconstruction within a 100- year floodplain preparation of a statement of findings. Flwithin and nearby all three units of NavaMonument. Because water resources, wetlands, and faffected by implementation of any of the water resources will be addressed as an im
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

66BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (VEGETATION, SOILS, AND WILDLIFE) The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) calls for an examination of the impacts on all components of affected ecosystems. National Park Service policy is to maintain all the components and processes of naturally evolving ecosystems, including the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of plants and animals (National Park Service Management Policies, 2001). Because biotic 

communities could be affected by implementation of any of the action alternatives, biotic communities will be addressed as an impact topic. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The Endangered Species Act (1973) requires an examination of impacts on all federally listed threatened or endangered species. National Park Service policy also requires examination of the impacts on federal candidate species, as well as state- listed threatened, endangered, candidate, rare, declining, and sensitive species. Because threatened, endangered, candidate, rare, declining, and sensitive species could be affected by any of the action alternatives, listed species and other species of concern will be addressed as an impact topic. 

Visitor Understanding And Experience Providing visitor experiences for understanding the resources is a key mission of the National Park Service. The alternatives could appreciably affect the experiences of the visitors and the interpretation of resources, and therefore the impacts will be analyzed. 

Remoteness Remoteness is an important value at NavMonument, identified in the mission staof the monument, and mission goals. Bealternatives vary in how they would affeimpacts will be analyzed. The componen• Natural Soundscapes • Lightscapes • Scenic Vistas Socioeconomic Environment The monument is an important part of tThere are direct and indirect effects of econstruction, and visitor spending. The their potential effects on the local econothese impacts will be analyzed. Monument Operations The alternatives have various effects on and staff of Navajo National Monumentwill be analyzed. IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERANALYZED IN DETAIL Natural Resources AIR QUALITY Section 118 of the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 

requires a National Park Service unit to state, and local air pollution standards. NMonument is designated as a Class II air 
AFFEC

the Clean Air Act, as amended. A Class II designation allows moderate deterioration of air quality within national ambient air quality standards. The Clean Air Act also 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 visitor health) from adverse pollution impacts. Air quality in Navajo National Monument is affected by a variety of internal and external air pollution sources. Internal air pollution primarily originates from such sources as vehicle emissions, furnaces, boilers, woodstoves, and campfires, and is influenced by a variety of factors such as humidity, precipitation, and temperature inversions. Because air pollution generated by such sources would exist into the future with anticipated emission levels remaining relatively similar to existing levels, implementation of any of the proposed alternatives is anticipated to have negligible, long- term, direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on the monument’s overall air quality. Local air quality would be temporarily affected by dust and construction vehicle emissions during construction. Hauling material and operating equipment during the construction period would result in increased vehicle exhaust and emissions. Emissions—CO, NOx, and SO2—would generally 

disperse fairly quickly from the project area(s) because air flow is good and air stagnation seldom occurs. To mitigate the impacts of increased vehicle emissions, idling of construction vehicles would be limited. Fugitive dust plumes from construction equipment would also intermittently increase airborne particulates near the project site. To partially mitigate these effects, dust suppressant materials, chemical stabilizing agents, or other reasonably available 

control measures would be applied. Overelated impacts upon air quality would bshort- term and negligible. External pollution sources are primarily contribute foremost to the haze at the mis particularly noticeable during the sumthe onset of the monsoon season in Augcarried into the monument from major icenters to the south and west, from powand west, as well as from metropolitan sand Arizona. The long distance transporwhich would be unaffected by any of the reasonably foreseeable future actions, wfuture with anticipated emission levels rsimilar to existing levels. The National Plittle direct control over air quality withencompassing the monument, but will cArizona Department of Environmental the Environmental Protection Agency, amonitor air quality and ensure that the mair quality and visibility conditions remaBecause (1) degradation of local air qualconstruction activities and emissions wolasting only as long as construction, and any long- term, adverse impacts that impof the alternatives would have on the air Navajo National Monument or the regioquality was dismissed as an impact topicGEOLOGY Navajo National Monument is on a portPlateau where uplift and erosion have cacanyons into layers of sandstone. The m
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

68within Tsegi Canyon and Shonto Plateau (or Navajo Mountain Drainage), and is located on the Organ Rock Monocline. This is an uplift that follows Highway 160, which is in a long valley between the Shonto Plateau and Black Mesa. The three units of the monument incorporate six geologic layers. The top layers are Navajo Sandstone and the Kayenta Formation; this is where the alcoves are formed. The other four layers include Wingate Sandstone, Churchrock Member, Owl Rock Member, and Petrified Forest Member. There are three layers of alluvial deposition in Tsegi Canyon; the oldest being Jeddito Formation, Tsegi Formation, and the youngest is the Naha Formation (1450–1880). The first detailed report on the geology of Tsegi Canyon drainage was written in 1945. This report incorporated a discussion of the episodes of alluvial deposition and erosion and their relationship to the pre- Columbian and historic occupations. Other studies over the years have looked at geomorphology of the region, in particular, the acceleration of arroyo cutting. There is controversy over the reason for the deposition and erosion cycles, but climate change and human activities are two known contributors. A small collection of geological (ten specimens) and two paleontological specimens are housed in the monument's museum collection. A dinosaur footprint was brought in from a quarry and placed on a trail near the visitor center for interpretive purposes. No other paleontological research has been done within the monument boundaries. Sandstone and shale compose most of the local geologic bedrock at the monument. The canyons, cliffs, and alcoves can be unpredictable with regards to rockfall. Sandstone can become very fragile, depending on precipitation, infiltration, and freeze/thaw cycles. Whether rockfall is related to other 

human causes is still not understood. Thbeen appreciably altered as a result of paactivities, and because none of the actioappreciably impact underlying geologicwould not involve direct impacts to uniqgeological resources, adverse effects woThus, the topic of geology will not be adtopic in this document. PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLAND In August 1980, the Council on Environm(CEQ) directed that federal agencies mu

of their actions on farmland soils classifDepartment of Agriculture's Natural ReService as prime or unique. Prime or undefined as soil that particularly produceas common foods, forage, fiber, and oil farmland produces specialty crops such and nuts. According to the Natural ResoService, the soils predominantly compoMonument are useful primarily for ranghabitat and are not classified as prime or Thus, the topic of prime and unique farmaddressed as an impact topic in this doc

Socioeconomic Environment ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE According to the Environmental Protecenvironmental justice is the fair treatmeinvolvement of all people, regardless of origin, or income, with respect to the deimplementation, and enforcement of enregulations, and policies. Fair treatment of people, including a racial, ethnic, or s
AFFEC

group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Presidential Executive Order 12898, "General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations," requires all federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low- income populations and communities. Because 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 Draft Environmental Justice Guidance (July 1996), and Navajo National Monument will continue to regularly consult with traditionally affiliated American Indians to ensure that this remains the case, environmental justice was dismissed as an impact topic. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Cultural Resources ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, STRUCTURES, AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES The three units of Navajo National Monument—Betatakin, Inscription House, and Keet Seel—were surveyed for archeological resources during 1988. A total of 53 sites and 88 isolated finds were recorded and are listed on Table 2.1: Archeological Resources. The range of recorded archeological resources includes the well- known villages of Betatakin, Inscription House, and 

Keet Seel, which represent some of the bexamples of pre- contact Pueblo commulesser known pre- contact structures of House, Owl House, and Kiva Cave; variopictographs, and inscriptions; a multitudpre- contact sites that reflect seasonal oc

and a variety of Navajo sites related to d

and livestock management activities. The Navajo Nation land, about 245 acreabove Betatakin, was set aside in 1962 foMonument’s administrative and residen

parcel, which contains the visitor centerthe maintenance facility, and the residenthan 30 pre- contact and historic sites. Tsites have been impacted by the construroads, parking areas, and the installation retain at least some archeological value. continues to be developed, there is a higdiscovery of additional sites. In pre- Colarea was likely the scene of seasonal subsuch as the gathering of wood, hunting sforaging of plants such as the piñon nut, that could have been stored for several ythe area was the scene of early NPS deveactivities. Several of the sites recorded during the on Navajo National Monument’s List of (LCS), as shown on Table 2.2: List of ClaThree other historic structures—a ramaand the maintenance headquarters, whiearly development of the monument du1940s—also appear on the List of Classifof the aforementioned structures have b
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

70individually for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, however, the pre- contact structures on the List of Classified Structures were identified as contributing elements in the National Register nomination prepared in 1988 for Navajo National Monument (Betatakin, Inscription House, and Keet Seel). Navajo National Monument’s visitor center and campground comfort station, which are not on the List of Classified Structures, were constructed during the National Park Service’s Mission 66 era (1956–1966), a design and construction program intended to revitalize the nation’s national parks through a ten- year program of capital investment. The Mission 66 Review Board for 

the National Park Service’s Intermoudetermined that the visitor center, cofour Mission 66 houses lack the signiintegrity to be listed in the National R

Table 2.1: Archeological Resources 

Unit Sites I

Headquarters 30 

Betatakin 10 

Inscription House 6 

Keet Seel 7 
AFFEC

Table 2.2: List of Classified Structures 

SITE NAME LCS # DESCRIPTION 

Inscription House 01162 

Multistory pueblo of more than 70 rooms, exhibiting stone masonry, adobe brick, and jacal construction. Site consists of living rooms, storage rooms, ceremonial rooms (kivas), and courtyards. 

Betatakin 01161 

Multistory pueblo of more than 130 rooms, exhibiting stone masonry, adobe brick, and jacal construction. Site consists of living rooms, storage rooms, ceremonial rooms (kivas), and courtyards. 

Keet Seel 01163 

Multistory pueblo of more than 150 rooms, exhibiting stone masonry, adobe brick, and jacal construction. Site consists of living rooms, storage rooms, ceremonial rooms (kivas), and courtyards. 

Turkey Cave 09511 Alcove containing remnants of two groups of structures and variety of pictographs, petroglyphs, and inscriptions. 

Kiva Cave 12116 Semi-subterranean kiva with small associated ceremonial annex. 

Owl House 09512 Dual alcoves containing remnants of two structures and associated pictographs, petroglyphs, and inscriptions. 

Snake House 09513 Single-story, linear pueblo composed of four structures, with as many as 19 rooms. Associated pictographs, petroglyphs, and inscriptions. 

Navajo Hogan 65599 Remnants of axe-cut leaners from conical, fork-sticked structure. 

Navajo 

Sweathouse 65595 Conical, fork-sticked structure with earthen veneer, two stacks of limestone slabs, and wood chop area. 

Ramada 65596 

Probably associated with the first visitor contact station and residence, which were the first permanent buildings in the Monument. Representative of Navajo pole-type ramada construction. 

Ranger Station 65597 

One of the first permanent historic buildings in the Monument. It represents New Deal era federal relief programs and was constructed by Navajo Civilian Conservation Corps members. 

Maintenance 

Headquarters 65598 Built at the same time as the first ranger station, and thus one of the first permanent buildings within the Monument. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

72These structures and others, including roads and trails, may be contributing elements of cultural landscapes. According to the National Park Service’s Cultural Resource Management Guideline (DO- 28), a cultural landscape is 

. . . a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural resources and is often expressed in the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values and traditions. 

Thus, cultural landscapes are the result of the long interaction between man and the land, the influence of human beliefs and actions over time upon the natural landscape. Shaped through time by historical land use and management practices, as well as by politics and property laws, levels of technology, and economic conditions, cultural landscapes provide a living record of an area’s past, a visual chronicle of its history. The dynamic nature of modern human life, however, contributes to the continual reshaping of cultural landscapes; making them a good source of information about specific times and places, but at the same time rendering their long- term preservation a challenge. None of the landscapes at Navajo National Monument have been formally evaluated for listing in the National Register. However, landscapes associated with Betatakin, Inscription House, and Keet Seel fit the definition of ethnographic 

landscapes—landscapes associated with contemporary groups that are typically used or valued in traditional ways. The monument may also contain historic vernacular landscapes, which illustrate peoples’ values and attitudes toward the land and reflect patterns of settlement, use, and 

development over time. In addition, the consisting of administrative and residencenter, and campground, may fit the cridesigned landscape. ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES National Park Service guidelines define resources as “

...variations of natural and 

resource types. They are subsistence and and sites, structures, objects, and rural aassigned cultural significance by traditiodecision to call resources ‘ethnographicwhether associated peoples perceive themeaningful to their identity and as a groof their lifeways. When natural resourceaccording to the different cultural constgroup, they become ethnographic and thresources as well” (Cultural Resource MDirector’s Order 28, 1998). National Park Service guidelines and po

agency’s commitment to the culturally inmanagement of ethnographic resourcesService policies require that planning efconsultation with the communities tradwith park lands and resources in an effoethnographic resources and the appropstrategies for them (see National Park SePolicies, 2001, 5.1.3.2, 5.3.5.2.6, 5.3.5.3, an

Management Guideline Director’s Order In addition to National Park Service polEnvironmental Policy Act requires analythose agency activities requiring an envistatement on all aspects of the human en
AFFEC

including its cultural aspects (Council on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations, Sections 1508.8 and 1508.14). When those cultural aspects of the human environment are “properties of religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe ... that may be determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register” the National Historic Preservation Act also requires tribal consultation to identify such properties (National Historic Preservation Act (1966) as amended, Section 101 (d) (6) (A). Executive Order No. 13175, 65 Fed. Reg. 67249 (2000) (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) requires each executive agency to “have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” While no specific efforts have yet been initiated to identify ethnographic resources at Navajo National Monument, an ethnographic study of the traditional history of the monument and one of the cultural affiliations between contemporary communities and the monument are under way. When completed, these studies will contribute to an understanding of the specific resources to which traditionally associated communities attach particular cultural significance. “Traditionally associated” communities are considered those to whom park lands and resources play an integral role in the ongoing cultural identity of the group, who have been associated with park lands and resources for at least two generations, and whose relationship to park lands and resources predate the establishment of the park unit (see National Park Service Management Policies, 2001, 5.3.5.3). In addition to ethnographic studies, the park has undertaken numerous consultations with many of these associated American 

Indian communities, including specificaof this General Management Plan.

Through these consultations, the generaplanning process has included considerethnographic resources and has designeto avoid negative effects to them. In addconsultations for the purposes of identifcultural properties in the process of NatPreservation Act (36 CFR Part 800) comindividual undertakings, even after finalgeneral management plan, will help to eeffects to ethnographic resources are avAlthough not all ethnographic resourceMonument have been identified, consulresults of ethnographic studies, and a grethnographic literature suggest certain cresources to which associated tribes attasignificance. It should be noted that ethnand consultations have focused primariland Zuni associations with the monumevarious Paiute tribes also have historical the area, the resources to which they attsignificance are less well known than fotribes. It should also be noted that althoconcerned with planning for and managwithin park boundaries, in general, NavMonument can be considered a part of a cultural landscape to which all associatehistorical and ceremonial significance. INational Monument lands and resourcesaid to have “ethnographic value” in relaregion of which they are a part (see Nor
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

74Ethnographic research and consultations undertaken to date have indicated that all archeological sites and pre- contact structures, especially the large cliff dwellings of Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House, as well as Turkey Cave, Owl House, and Snake House, and any sites containing human remains, are ethnographic resources and require special management considerations. Additional ethnographic resources identified through studies and consultations include various plant and animal species, springs, such as the one in Betatakin Canyon, and possibly other physiographic features. Additional historic cultural resources, such as the hogan, sweathouse and ramada, and trails, may also have ethnographic value to the residents of the Navajo community that has been part of the Navajo National Monument landscape since before the monument’s designation. Identification of specific ethnographic resources and the larger context of which they are a part will have to wait for the completion of ongoing ethnographic studies based on reviews of ethnographic literature and consultations with knowledgeable tribal representatives. In the meantime, however, continued formal consultations with park- associated tribes throughout the completion and 

implementation of this GMP and during future management activities will help eappropriate management of the monumresources. MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Museum collections (pre- contact and hnatural history specimens, artifacts, worarchival and manuscript material) are imtheir own right but also for the informatabout processes, events, and interactionthe environment. More than 100,000 obmake up the Navajo National Monumencollection, and about 50 percent of the c

cataloged. The collection is classified by shown on Table 2.3: Museum CollectionNavajo National Monument does not hamuseum collection storage facility. Signthe collection are housed in various facicloset of the monument’s administrative National Park Service’s Western ArcheoCenter, and several other known institu
AFFEC

Table 2.3: Museum Collections

CATEGORY # OF OBJECTS # CATALOGED GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Archeology 78,072 46,792 Primarily objects excavated from Keet Seel, Inscription House

1930s and 1960s. 

Ethnology 277 277 Navajo rugs, weaving implements, jewelry, and pottery. 

History 374 374 Historic artifacts; saddle, wagon, and metal pot. 

Archives 34,685 7,966 Historic photographs and negatives, correspondence, docume

photographs, and field notes. 

Biology 1,437 37 Herbarium (vascular plants, mosses, etc.), insects, and anima

Paleontology 0 0 Fossil specimens 

Geology 1 1 Rock and mineral specimens 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

76Natural Resources WATER RESOURCES, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS Water resources at Navajo National Monument are not well studied or documented. A water resources report briefly described the local hydrology and possible groundwater problems at the monument due to water withdrawal by coal mining operations on nearby Black Mesa. Despite this lack of information, the monument can be described as part of the Colorado Plateau Region, where water, despite its rarity, is the mainstay of life and the center of activity for humans, wildlife, and diverse plant species. At Navajo National Monument, water is found mostly as an ephemeral, intermittent, or year- round seep, spring, or stream, either in the sandstone walls and alcoves or in the riparian valleys and arroyos. It is believed that historically the water table was much higher all over the Southwest region. Some researchers believe that the drop in groundwater levels is somehow connected to the overall increase in erosion and arroyo cutting throughout the region. Many factors most likely affected water levels, including climatic changes, extensive grazing, farming, and increased human occupation. Presently, the ability to measure the hydrology of seeps and springs accurately over the long term is a complex, if not impossible task. Hydrologic models for measuring stream flows and groundwater levels are much more dependable, but have not been implemented at the monument. Only qualitative observations by maintenance personnel suggest that water depth in the monument's well continues to get lower, and at this point in time, the causes are unknown. Both the Keet Seel and Inscription House units are located alongside a year- round stream within an active floodplain.

Both stream channels are experiencing aand erosion, and stream bank instabilityhave any aboveground water flowing alofloodplain, but the water table is not too the surface. All three units, however, can events due to monsoonal rain events. Thusually minor and short lived, but could Although there are no floodplain maps amonument, it is assumed that some portarroyos near Keet Seel and Inscription Hvisitor would hike would be in the regulsubject to the NPS Floodplain ManagemBetatakin visitors never actually cross or stream bed and are not likely to be hikinregulatory floodplain. Other nearby faccomposting toilets at Keet Seel and BetaSeel ranger station, picinic area, and bacarea substantially higher that the arroyo within the regulatory floodplain. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (VEGETATWILDLIFE) Navajo National Monument is located in Plateau region, which lies in the zone of climates in North America. This type of 

characterized by periods of drought and precipitation, relatively warm to hot grolong winters with sustained periods of frtemperatures. Winters are dominated by storm patterns, while summers are domsouthern portions of the plateau by monfrom the Gulf of Mexico. Orographic efclimates on the central portions of the CEvapotranspiration rates are extremely 
AFFEC

region, resulting from hot summers and extremely low precipitation (100–250 mm/yr in most locations). Vegetation The vegetation is characterized by low, open woodlands of drought- adapted conifers at higher elevations and extensive areas of drought- tolerant shrubs and grasses at lower elevations. At the highest elevations, significant communities of Ponderosa Pine, mixed conifer, and subalpine forests occur. Due to freezing temperatures in the winter, large succulents that characterize subtropical and warmtemperate regions are lacking. The most widespread alliances are piñon- juniper woodlands; big sagebrush, blackbrush, four- wing saltbush, and sand- shrub shrublands; Fremont Cottonwood, tamarisk, and coyote willow riparian forests and shrublands; and galleta and blue grama grasslands. Scattered throughout, there are areas of local unusual or in some cases unique vegetation, including hanging gardens (lush natural plant communities clinging to alcoves and seeps), spring- supported deciduous woodlands, and mat shrub and forb- dominated vegetation on badlands of clay and gypsum. Checklists along with information on plant communities, microhabitat relationships, and population dynamics have been published for the overall region. Relatively little is known about indigenous annual plants, microbiotic crust communities, and exotic plants at the monument. Floristic and vegetation work has been conducted since the 1930s in Betatakin Canyon. The monument's herbarium, with plant 

specimens collected mainly in the 1930s and 1960s, contains more than 500 specimens. The natural resources of the Betatakin unit include deeply incised canyon walls of Navajo sandstone, enormous alcoves and rock shelters, the relict forest community with its micro- and macro- habitats, plants utilized for traditional American Indian cultural 

practices, slick rock soil islands, hanging middens, natural seeps and springs, and biological diversity within Navajo NatioThe unique "relic aspen forest" of Betatassociated natural springs constitute onnatural resources at Navajo National Mforest is composed of aspen, Douglas- fiosier dogwood, water birch, chokecherrhorsetail, and others. Betatakin Canyon twice as many plant species when compathe monument lands. Scholars believe thCanyon, the cliffs, cave, seeps and sprinriparian area, and the associated flora anessentially the same then (A.D. 1200) as n

minor changes wrought by the natural pbiotic modifications, and human activitiThe flora of Keet Seel and Inscription Hknown. The natural resources of the Kepiñon, juniper, and oak communities, spriparian habitats, severely eroded alluviincised canyon walls of Navajo sandstonislands, and alcoves. The natural resourHouse unit include piñon, juniper commcottonwoods, springs and seeps, ripariaeroded alluvial terraces, canyon walls of and alcoves. 

Soils Soil surveys have not been completed foMonument, but the surrounding Navajo classified as Sheppard- Rock outcrop asSheppard soils have textures ranging frosand and are found predominantly on 2 and at depths up to 60 inches. These soisevere wind erosion if vegetation is distu
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

78the Colorado Plateau, including the monument, there are extensive sections of fragile microbiotic crusts. These crusts are composed of an intricate network of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and bacteria. They play an important role in the Colorado Plateau ecosystems where they are extraordinarily well developed and may represent 70 to 80 percent of the living ground cover. All three units of the monument have soil crusts within their boundaries. Most of them are apparent only in areas where no disturbance has occurred. They are very susceptible to breakage and wind dispersal after even minor disturbances such as walking and hiking. Larger and less fragile crust and sandstone formations are sometimes referred to as "desert pavement" in the plateau region and are found in the monument mostly on the mesa tops. The National Science Foundation in cooperation with the National Park Service is investigating the microbiotic crust communities at the monument and in the surrounding Colorado Plateau. Researchers are surveying and identifying the microflora of these soil crusts to determine whether healthy functioning systems still exist where disturbance has occurred versus where it has not. It appears that the ability to predict resistance and resilience of soil crust to disturbance (such as recreation) may depend on the specific microflora present. The soil binding action of these crusts over time and over large expanses is considered one of the major factors in maintaining soil stability throughout the Southwest region. Wildlife Little current literature is available on birds of the Navajo National Monument; many of the existing papers were completed decades ago. Otherwise, most of the available documentation is from early work, which covered a larger area and provides primarily suggestions of species that may occur. Bird species found to be migrants of the monument 

during these surveys included northern ferruginous hawks, peregrine falcons, gobald eagles. Birds typically seen in the B

the American robin, plain titmouse, comthroated gray warbler, and the gray- heaRelatively little is known about mammalparticularly small mammals and bats. Soperiodically observed on the mesa inclucoyotes, mountain lions, bobcat, black bblack- tailed jackrabbits and desert cottospotted ground squirrels, and a variety osurveys documented sightings of five bamonument including the long- eared baYuma myotis bat, Townsend’s big- eared bat. Little specific survey work for amphibiainvertebrates has been conducted at NaMonument. A number of older, broad- sNavajo Reservation lands include some Navajo National Monument. Reptiles ocin the monument include the northern pnorthern sagebrush lizard, side- blotchehorned lizard, plateau whiptail, Great Bgarter snake, and Hopi rattlesnake. Ampthe monument include western spadefotoad, canyon tree frog, and the northern Invertebrates commonly found at the morthopterans (Jerusalem crickets, grasshsnails. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Arizona, and Navajo Nation’s Fish and Wthe following threatened, endangered, aand species of special concern are inhab
AFFEC

inhabitants of Navajo County (see table 2.4). Species updates are available from all of these agencies. An intensive survey of threatened, endangered, and other special status species was undertaken from 1995 to 1997, which documented species at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House units, plus the administrative area on Navajo Nation land. The general approach was to compile a preliminary list of target species to survey based on current lists of threatened and endangered species and species of concern and information on distribution and habitat of those species (table 2.4). There are no watercourses within the monument boundaries that can presently support the Apache (Arizona) trout, little Colorado spinedace, and loach minnow. Chiricahua leopard frog has not been sighted yet within the monument. The reintroduced populations of the black- footed ferret are not known to be nearby the monument. The peebles Navajo cactus has not been found at the monument. The bald eagle, California condor, peregrine falcon, ferruginous hawk, goshawk, the golden eagle, and black- crowned night heron range over large areas and are potential transients in the monument, but there are no known nesting sites at any of the three units. Habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher is present on the floor of Betatakin Canyon, but the species has not been observed in the monument. Field biologists and botanists documented the presence of the Mexican spotted owl; Townsend's big- eared, long- eared, long- legged, Yuma myotis, and spotted bats; northern sagebrush lizard, alcove bog orchid, and Betatakin nama. Although Navajo sedge was found near the NPS boundary, it has not yet been found within the monument. The northern leopard frog was recorded near Inscription House in 2001. The peregrine falcon, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, goshawk, and 

golden eagle are considered transient at Navajo National 

Monument. The Southwestern willow flycatcher was surveyed for and not found even though potential habitat exists in 

Betatakin Canyon. The alcove bog orchid Betatakin. Mexican spotted owls were fou

and Keet Seel units. The final survey repoMexican spotted owl and the alcove bog o

most significant management concerns durange and limited habitat, despite the fact presently well protected within monumenMexican spotted owls (MSO) were documNational Monument from 1989 to 1998. NaWildlife biologists delineated a protected for the MSO, which included Betatakin Cand Wildlife Service designated Mexican habitat on February 1, 2001, and monumenand Keet Seel) were included in this desigRecovery Plan (1995), authored by the U.SService, provides detailed mitigation measconsider prior to project implementation. 

avoiding disruptive activities during the season of the owl, which is March 1 to A

There is also a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Recosedge (from 1987). One of the two known pnear Inscription House unit. Members of Chapter of the Navajo Nation know this por "food for animals." They say that the spwidespread, even in lowlands, wherever wNow any other undiscovered populations inaccessible cliff walls with seeps. Since thonly on Navajo Nation lands, mitigation econcentrated on removing livestock grazipopulations. An Inventory and Monitoring program foService beginning in 2001 would continue sightings of listed species and species of cospecies occurrences. This long- term progthe monument in monitoring efforts on prconcern. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

80

Potential Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and Species of Specia

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 

California Condor Gymnops californianus EndangePeebles Navajo Cactus Pediocactus peeblesianus var peeblesianus EndangeBlack-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes ExperimeSouthwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus EndangeApache (Arizona) Trout Oncorhynchus Apache ThreateneLittle Colorado Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata ThreateneLoach Minnow Tiaroga cobitis ThreateneBald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ThreateneMexican Spotted Owl (designated MSO critical habitat) Strix occidentalis lucida ThreateneNavajo Sedge Carex specuicola ThreateneChiricahua Leopard Frog Rana chiricahuensis ThreateneNorthern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Species oAmerican Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Delisted/MBlack-Crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Species oLong-legged Myotis Bat Myotis volans Species oPale Townsend's Big-eared Bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens Species oYuma Myotis Bat Myotis yumanensis Species oSpotted Bat Euderma maculatum Species oLong-eared Myotis Bat Myotis evotis Species oNorthern Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus graciosus Species oAlcove Bog Orchid Platanthera zothecina (Habenaria zothecina) Species oNorthern Goshawk Accipiter gentiles Species oFerruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Species oBetatakin Nama Nama retrorsum Species oNavajo Jerusalem Cricket Stenopelmatus fuscus ssp. Species oGolden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Species o
AFFEC

Visitor Understanding And Experience VISITOR USE AND TRENDS Annual visitation to Navajo National Monument was at around 100,000 people in 1997, and visitation has seen a decline in recent years to about 66,000 in 2000. In the early years of this remote national monument visitation was very low and stayed below 2,500 people per year through 1960. After the paving of Indian Highway 1 (now US 160) in the early sixties, a new nine- mile paved access road (AZ 564) reached the monument, beginning a steady increase in visitation that culminated around 1970 at 40,000 visitors per year. Visitation stayed around this level until around 1984, when it began another climb, reaching 80,000 by 1988 and 

topping at around 100,000 by 1992. The general pattern of growth, leveling, and decline from 1979 to the present is very similar to the visitation pattern of Grand Canyon National Park, cited in a recent survey as the most common primary trip destination of visitors to Navajo National Monument. There is no verifiable cause for the drop in visitation in recent years, but some events may have had an effect. In 1998, the campground was closed for rehabilitation, which 

may have deterred some visitors and kepfollowing years. Visitation at Navajo National Monumenaffected by limited facilities and programgeneral trend of visitation at Grand Canwhich has also experienced a leveling of 

years.Plans are underway by the Bureau of Indcomplete a bypass to Shonto, which will local people passing through the headquenhance the visitor experience at the viscampground, and improve safety at the Future extension of this road may bring more directly to the monument.

VISITOR PROFILE A visitor survey was conducted at the mcalendar year during 1999–2000. The daof the average visitor to the monument. the visitors are from foreign (primarily EPeople from Arizona and California makwith the remainder representing most othan 59 percent of visitors were between 55, with another 30 percent age 55 or oldpercent under the age of 16. The average visitors generally either come in a small bus tour. Some 80 percent of visitors weNational Monument for the first time, aless than three hours (18 percent stay lesThe 1999–2000 survey collected informaactivities that visitors engaged in while aAccording to the survey, almost all visitocenter, and 80 percent hike the Sandal T
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

82Betatakin. More than half stop at the arts and crafts shop. Less than 20 percent stay to camp, picnic, or hike to the Aspen Forest overlook, and 10 percent take the Betatakin tour. A very small number visit Keet Seel. The 1999–2000 survey also revealed data about visitor expectations and background. Visitors come to Navajo National Monument because of a general or specific interest in ancient pre- contact structures and to learn about Navajo culture. They are also primarily interested in hiking and finding solitude, and many come to camp. Visitors find out about the monument primarily from books and maps, as well as from the recommendation of others and seeing the sign on the road. Anecdotally, NPS rangers find many visitors highly knowledgeable regarding studies and theories of precontact culture. In summary, foreign visitors make up a large percentage of visitors to Navajo National Monument. Most visitors are adults and are visiting for the first time, arriving in small groups of two or with a bus tour and usually staying fewer than three hours. Finally, very few visitors get to experience the guided tours to Betatakin and Keet Seel. VISITOR UNDERSTANDING AND EXPERIENCE Most visitors stay on top of the canyon rim. Year- round opportunities for visitors on the rim include the visitor center, the Sandal Trail (paved trail 1- mile round trip to a view of Betatakin structures), the Aspen Forest Overlook Trail (0.8- mile round trip trail to a view of the aspen forest in Betatakin Canyon), picnicking, and camping. The visitor center has an information counter staffed to answer questions and provide brochures and information about the Navajo people in both English and German translation. There is a small museum area with artifacts and a replica of a 

Betatakin room block, an auditorium wiprograms, and a book sales area. Outsidhomestead exhibit featuring a wagon, Nsweat lodge. The trails are self- guided ainterpreting local plants and American Iplants. Picnic tables are available near ththe campground features 31 sites and hawater. A small amphitheater is used for 

when staff is available. A small percentage of visitors head into closer experience with Keet Seel and BeMemorial Day to Labor Day, there are oBetatakin and Keet Seel. The hike to Betround trip and is available only as a guidper day is offered with space for 25 peophanded out on a first- come first- served Visitors on the tour spend five hours witlearn not only about Betatakin and pre- also about Navajo viewpoints and culturSeel, visitors must obtain a permit in advtrail orientation program. The hike is 81⁄2 with most people camping overnight neranger stationed at Keet Seel provides guancient town for up to 20 people per dayVisitors have little opportunity to learn House. This third ancient village has beepublic since 1968, when roads in the viciand increasing visitation led to damage ono mention of it in the park brochure, amentioned in publications or interpretasites from unauthorized entry, and becafrustrated to learn about a place they can
AFFEC

Visitors do have many opportunities to learn about American Indian culture. Because the federal land units of the monument are set within the Navajo Nation, visitors must pass through hundreds of miles of the Navajo Indian reservation. There are opportunities to learn about Navajo culture through firsthand experience, the nearby Monument Valley Tribal Park, Kayenta visitor center, and the staff of Navajo National Monument. Information is available through publications and staff about the ancestral ties and significance of these lands to associated tribes. For most visitors, the experiences of the visitor center and Sandal Trail during their brief visit provide the opportunity for a basic understanding of the ancient structures and theories of their origin and inhabitants. A small minority of visitors who are informed and plan ahead have the opportunity for the most in- depth experience and understanding by participation in Keet Seel and Betatakin Canyon tours. No fees are currently charged. ACCESS FOR DISABLED VISITORS The visitor center, outdoor patio and adjacent exhibits, and visitor center rest rooms are accessible for mobility impaired visitors. One picnic site and one campsite are also accessible, although the campground rest room is not. The Sandal Trail is 1⁄2 mile each way and paved but has few grades with lower than a 5- percent slope, with most of the trail being on a 10- to 15- percent slope. There are rest benches along the route. The Aspen Forest Overlook Trail is 0.8 mile, steep, has steps, and is not paved. There is no means of backcountry access for the mobility impaired, although regional air tour operators do provide overflights of the ruins. There are few opportunities for people with visual, auditory, or mental impairments. There are several “touch” exhibits in 

the visitor center, and the two video procaptioned. 

Remoteness Navajo National Monument has a speciaremoteness that makes it possible for visthe ancient environment of the cliff dweRemoteness is a value to protect here anplan as a lack of modern intrusions such buildings, parking lots, and bright lights night sky. Natural soundscapes, lightscacontribute to remoteness. NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES The natural background sounds of NavaMonument include periods of quiet, winflow, and waterfalls. The relative absenchuman- made sounds is a value to be probeen no measure of the natural ambient of the monument, but it can be assumed reading would be similar to that of other 30–40 decibels (dBA). As points of referfive feet is about 20 dBA, a normal convdBA, and heavy traffic or a noisy restaurThe relative quiet of the monument can traffic, vehicles, maintenance activities, overflights. The sandstone canyon walls amplify sounds. Visitors within in Betatahear the conversations of visitors standiSandal Trail overlook. LIGHTSCAPES Lack of and distance from development National Monument allows for opportu
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

84planets, and the moon with minimal interference from artificial light, much as the ancient cliff dwellers would have seen the night sky. There is some artificial light from NPS residences, the settlements of Shonto, Inscription House, and Cow Springs, local traffic through the monument on the Shonto road, and from the campground. On cloudy nights, some light is reflected from Kayenta. SCENIC VISTAS The high plateau of the entrance road and headquarters unit offers expansive vistas of a colorful landscape inhabited for centuries but little altered. Hikers to Betatakin experience rugged sandstone walls and a lush, cool canyon. Hikers to Keet Seel are treated to a winding maze of canyons, rock, streams, and waterfalls. They may experience local people grazing their animals, but the general lack of modern intrusions provides visitors a strong sense of the ancient times. National Park Service facilities at headquarters make up most human- made, modern structures in the area—visitor center, roads, campground, maintenance, and residences. In the backcountry, visitors may encounter an occasional structure or vehicle. Socioeconomic Environment POPULATION The population of Arizona in 1999 was 4,924,350, averaging about 40 people per square mile. The population of the Navajo Nation in 2000 was 171,631, spread over 25,351 square miles (about the size of West Virginia), resulting in 6.7 people per square mile. The population of the nearby community of Kayenta in 1999 was 5,268 people. Arizona has experienced a rate of population growth of 33 percent over the last ten years, while the Navajo Nation population is estimated to have grown by about 21 percent during the same 

time period. Kayenta had an unemploympercent in 1999 but has recently undergoboom of new housing. The population ois 96 percent American Indian. While po

the Navajo Nation has not been quite as rest of Arizona, its growth reflects a natiAmerican Indians returning to reservatiheritage and return to family, familiar sucultural ties. ECONOMY Within the Navajo Nation, some 44 percgovernment jobs and 48 percent are in tThe major industries providing employmservices (19 percent), retail trade (14 perprofessional and related services (11 percadministration (10 percent), constructiohealth services (7 percent). About 57 perbelow the poverty level in income. The Bprovides some local jobs. REGIONAL TOURISM Highway 160 is a major route between thand the Grand Canyon. A number of attregion draw tourists, including MonumPark, Canyon De Chelly National MonuNational Recreation Area (which includCanyon Dam, and Rainbow Bridge), and Monument. Kayenta has several major crestaurants catering to tourists. Scatteresupply tourists with food, gasoline, and Navajo Nation does not have gaming catribes do. 
AFFEC

REGIONAL LANDOWNERSHIP AND USE The three units of Navajo National Monument (Betatakin160 acres, Keet Seel- 160 acres, Inscription House- 40 acres) are surrounded by Navajo Nation lands. The headquarters unit adjacent to Betatakin, 240 acres, is Navajo Nation land used by the National Park Service through an agreement. The Navajo Nation tribal government headquarters are located in Window Rock, but many political decisions are delegated to the local chapters. The chapters surrounding Navajo National Monument include Shonto, Kayenta, Navajo Mountain, and Inscription House. Grazing of livestock by permit holders is the primary land use around the monument. While there are many changes going on in and around the Navajo Nation, the traditional rural lifestyle is still highly valued by many local people. Monument Operations Until the early 1960s, the monument operated its visitor services and administrative affairs from a small contact station. The small facility seemed adequate to meet the daily operations of the era. As the number of requests for tours and services gradually increased, the momentum forced the National Park Service (NPS) to seek an expansion of existing facilities. The signing of the Memorandum of Agreement in 1962 allowed the NPS to occupy an additional 240 acres providing the geographic space to develop amenities. The access to additional land and a series of capital improvements occurred at the same time as the paving of highway 564, connecting the monument via highway 160 to major destinations such as Grand Canyon, Albuquerque, Kayenta, and Flagstaff. 

When completed in 1964, the visitor censquare feet for displays, offices, curatoriresearch library. Completed in the same maintenance yard was constructed to hovehicles, a sign shop, metal shop, storagtool rooms within 2,530 square feet of spwere also funded by Mission 66, providiwith four, three- bedroom, 1,700- squarthe park added two small hogans and a mthree rooms, for a total of seven residen

spent their time in the front country, plathe interpretative programs and facilitieCurrently the monument infrastructure severe shortage of office and workspacewhere the public interacts with staff and information on the resources and surrouthe floor space with displays, audiovisuafront desk, and the gift shop, all in abouThe remainder is used for employees’ ofof artifacts and records, and a research lHousing faces the same lack of available park housing is occupied except a small style cabin. Two trailers were condemneto rodent infestations, worsening the hoaddition, management also needs to proto eight seasonal rangers who become an summer workforce, as the local commuopportunities. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE

INTRODUCTION The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that environmental impact statements disclose the impacts of a proposed federal action. In this case, the proposed federal action is the implementation of the general management plan for Navajo National Monument. This section of the document analyzes the potential effects of the three alternatives on the impact topics identified in the previous “Affected Environment” section: • Cultural Resources • Natural Resources • Visitor Understanding and Experience 

• Remoteness • Socioeconomic Environment • Monument Operations The alternatives in this document provide broad management directions. Because of the general conceptual nature of their potential consequences, the alternatives can only be analyzed in general terms. Prior to undertaking specific developments or other actions as a result of the general management plan, park managers would need to decide whether or not they would need to prepare more detailed environmental documents. This section begins with a discussion of the methodology used to identify impacts and includes definitions of terms. The impact analysis is organized by alternative, with the impacts for each topic discussed within those alternatives. 

Each impact topic includes an analysis oadverse effects of the alternative, cumuland a conclusion statement. The concluincludes an assessment of impairment. Apark resource or value may constitute an impact would be more likely to constituthe extent is affects a resource or value wis: • Necessary to fulfill specific purposes iden

establishing legislation or proclamation o

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park; 

• Identified as a goal in the park’s general m

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Any mitigation discussed with the alternundertaken. At the end of the discussion for each altebrief discussion of unavoidable adverse short- term and long- term productivityirretrievable commitments of resources

METHODOLOGY Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Prerequires that federal agencies consider tundertakings on resources either listed ilisting in the National Register of Histor
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

88the Navajo Nation’s tribal historic preservation officer, associated tribes, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunities to comment. The National Park Service would continue to work with the aforementioned entities to meet the requirements of Section 106. The Navajo Nation’s tribal historic preservation office, as well as other associated tribes and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, were invited to participate in the planning process and each also had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft document. The methodology for assessing impacts to cultural resources followed a five- step process: (1) identifying the areas that could be impacted; (2) comparing that location with those of resources listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; (3) identifying the extent and type of effect; (4) assessing those effects according to procedures established in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects); and (5) considering ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse effects. Determination of potential impacts are based on the best professional judgment and have been developed through discussions with staff from the National Park Service, the Navajo Nation’s tribal historic preservation office, representatives of associated American Indian tribes, and representatives of other state and local agencies and organizations. CEQ regulations require that impacts of alternatives and their component actions be disclosed. Impacts are described in terms of type (are the effects beneficial or adverse?), duration (are the effects short or long term?), and intensity (are the effects negligible, minor, moderate, or major?). Duration of impacts to cultural resources is defined as follows: 

Short- term: An impact that within a (generally one or two years but no mwould no longer be detectable as the its pre- disturbance condition. Long- term: A change in a resource does not return to pre- disturbance cpractical purposes is considered per

The intensity of impacts in the cultural rdefined as: • Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels 

perceptible and not measurable. 

• Minor: The impact does not alter a chara

a National Register eligible structure, arclandscape, or district. Impact affects an alow data potential. 

• Moderate: Impact is readily apparent an

change in a character- defining feature(s) eligible structure, archeological site, landnot to the extent that the property is no lolisted in the National Register of Historic an archeological site(s) with modest to hiAdverse impacts to archeological sites cothrough stabilization and/or data collecti

• Major: Impact results in substantial and 

change in the character- defining features eligible structure, archeological site landsextent that the property is no longer eligiNational Register of Historic Places. Imparcheological site(s) with exceptional dat

Ethnographic resources are considered in the National Register as Traditional Cwhen they are rooted in a community’s h
ENVIRONMENT

important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community and meet criteria for significance and integrity. Intensity of impacts to ethnographic resources may relate to access and use of, as well as changes to, traditionally important places. Because impacts to ethnographic resources impact cultural identity and ways of life, adverse impacts to such resources would be considered moderate to major. CEQ, moreover, calls for a discussion of the “appropriateness” of mitigation and DO- 12, “Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and DecisionMaking,” requires an analysis of the “effect” of mitigation. The “resultant” reduction in intensity as a result of mitigation is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA. It does not suggest that the level of effect as comprehended by Section 106 would be similarly reduced. Although adverse effects under Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse. The cultural resources sections of the environmental consequences include an analysis, conclusion, and summary. The analysis section provides a detailed analysis of impacts that would result from implementation of the actions composing each alternative. The conclusion section summarizes the key points or results of the analysis. CEQ regulations also require an assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision- making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are considered faction and proposed action alternatiCumulative impacts were determined by impacts of the proposed alternatives witpresent, and reasonably foreseeable futuTherefore it was necessary to identify otreasonably foreseeable future actions wNational Monument and, if applicable, tregion. Natural Resources All available information on the natural National Monument was compiled, specresources, biotic communities, and threendangered species, to analyze and deteimpacts. In addition, biological research nearby ecosystems was included in the afor each of the proposed alternatives. Potential impacts were based on the best judgment and have been developed throustaff from the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of AFish and Wildlife, representatives of assoIndian tribes, and representatives of otheagencies and organizations. Impacts were described in terms of type beneficial or adverse?), context (are the local, or even regional?), duration (shorand intensity (negligible, minor, moderathresholds of change for the intensity of defined as follows: 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

90Negligible: The impact is at the lowest levels of detection 

measurable. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable. Moderate: The impact is readily apparent. Major: The impact is a severe or adverse impact or of  exceptional benefit. CEQ regulations also require an assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision- making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such other actions" 

(40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for both the no- action and proposed action alternatives. Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the impacts of the proposed alternatives with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore it was necessary to identify other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within Navajo National Monument and, if applicable, the surrounding region. WATER RESOURCES Negligible: An action that could result in a change to water quality, quantity, wetland, floodplain, or watershed function or structure, but the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence. Minor: An action that could result in a change to water quality, quantity, wetland, floodplain or watershed function or structure. The change would be measurable and of consequence to the water resources, but more localized. 

Moderate: An action that would result iwater quality, quantity, wetland, floodpfunction or structure. The change would of consequence to the water resources, bMajor: An action that would have a noti

water quality, quantity, wetland, floodpfunction or structure. The change would result in a severely adverse or major ben

possible permanent consequence upon BIOTIC COMMUNITIES Negligible: An action that could result ipopulation or individuals of a species or change would be so small that it would nmeasurable or perceptible consequenceMinor: An action that could result in a c

population or individuals of a species or change would be measurable and of conspecies or resource, but more localized. Moderate: An action that would result i

population or individuals of a species or change would be measurable and of conspecies or resource, but more localized. Major: An action that would have a noti

population or individuals of a species or change would be measurable and result 

or major beneficial impact, and possible consequence, upon the species or resouTHREATENED AND ENDANGERED In accordance with 50 CFR § 402(a), fedrequired to review all actions to determimay affect listed species or critical habit
ENVIRONMENT

determination is made, formal consultation is required, unless the federal agency determines, with the written concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any listed species or critical habitat. The NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and seek concurrence from the Navajo Nation Natural Resources Division on any action that have minor, moderate, or major effects on species. Negligible: An action that could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical habitat, but the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence. Minor: An action that could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical habitat. The change would be measurable, but small and localized and of little consequence. Moderate: An action that would result in some change to a population or individuals of a species or designated critical habitat. The change would be measurable and of consequence. Major: An action that would result in a noticeable change to a population or individuals of a species or resource or designated critical habitat. The change would be measurable and either result in a major beneficial impact upon a population, individuals of a species, or designated critical habitat. Visitor Understanding And ExperienceVisitor surveys, including the yearly visitor survey card, and observation of visitation patterns combined with assessment of what is available to visitors under current management were used to estimate the effects of the actions in the various 

alternatives. The impact on the ability oexperience a full range of monument resby examining resources mentioned in thsignificance statement. Impacts are described in terms of type (a

beneficial or adverse?), context (are the local, or even regional?), duration (are tlong- term?), and intensity (are the effecmoderate, or major?). The thresholds of intensity of an impact are defined as follNegligible: The impact is barely detectaaffect few visitors. Minor: The impact is slight but detectabaffect some visitors. Moderate: The impact is readily appareaffect many visitors. Major: The impact is severely adverse obeneficial and/or would affect the majorCUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Council on Environmental Quality which implement the National Environmrequire assessment of cumulative impacmaking process for federal projects. Cumdefined as "the impact on the environmfrom the incremental impact of the actioother past, present, and reasonably foreactions regardless of what agency (federperson undertakes such other actions" (Cumulative impacts are considered for aCumulative impacts were determined by impacts of the alternatives with other pa
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

92reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the monument and, if applicable, the surrounding region. Remoteness: Natural Soundscapes, Dark Lightscapes, and Scenic Vistas Proposed actions and management prescriptions were evaluated in terms of the context, intensity, and duration of the impacts, as defined below, and whether the impacts were considered beneficial or adverse to remoteness. Remoteness is a value to be protected at Navajo National Monument. This section analyzes three components of remoteness: natural soundscapes, lightscapes, and scenic vistas. IMPACT ASSESSMENT The natural soundscapes component analyzes the expected effects of actions in the alternatives on the relative absence of intrusive human- made sounds. Benchmark levels of sounds are identified in decibels (dBA), and the analysis is qualitative relative to the benchmarks. The lightscapes component analyzes the expected effects of actions in alternatives on the relative absence of artificial light. Assessment is based on the descriptive observations of park staff who reside within the monument. The scenic vistas component analyzes the expected effects of actions in the alternatives on the relative absence of human- made structures on the landscape and is qualitative. Professional judgment was applied to reach reasonable conclusions as to the context, intensity, and duration of potential impacts to remoteness. 

CONTEXT The context of the impact area was locaadjacent trails over tribal lands, and landadjacent to these areas. INTENSITY The intensity of the impact considers whwould be negligible, minor, moderate, oimpacts were effects considered not detwould have no discernable effect on remimpacts were effects on remoteness that detectable but not expected to have an oModerate impacts would be clearly detecould have an appreciable effect. Major a highly noticeable impact on remotenepermanently alter the special character Monument. DURATION The duration of the impacts considered would be short term or long term. A showould be temporary. A long- term impapermanent effect. TYPES OF IMPACT Impacts were evaluated in terms of whet

beneficial or adverse to remoteness. Benwould enhance or improve the remotenwould make the monument less remote.

Socioeconomic Environment The impact analysis evaluated the effect economy. Some of the analysis of effects determine the effects of visitor spending 
ENVIRONMENT

government spending on monument operations and construction. Some of the analysis of the effects was qualitative. IMPACT ASSESSMENT The quantitative analysis used the Money Generation Model 2, May 2000, developed by Michigan State University, to estimate National Park visitor spending and economic impacts. This analysis looks at the direct effects of spending, secondary or multiplier effects that result from the recirculation of the money, indirect effects, induced effects, and total effects. The information put into the model came from the 1999 Visitor Use Survey of Navajo National Monument and professional judgment, such as assumptions about visitors staying longer under certain alternatives. The principal measures of economic activity generated by the model were sales, jobs, personal income, and value- added factors. Another part of the model calculated the economic activity generated by monument operations and by the construction proposed in the alternatives. Qualitative analysis applied professional judgment to evaluate the effects of the economic activity on the socioeconomic environment (based on data from data from the Navajo Nation, US Census Bureau, and Arizona Department of Commerce) and to reach reasonable conclusions as to the context, intensity, and duration of potential impacts. CONTEXT The context of the impacts was local economic effects, defined by the Money Generation Model 2 as an area from 30–120 miles around the monument. 

INTENSITY The intensity of the impact considers whwould be negligible, minor, moderate, oimpacts were effects considered not detwould have no discernable effect on the environment. Minor impacts were effecsocioeconomic environment that would detectable, but that were not expected teffect. Moderate impacts would be clear

people and could have an appreciable efwould have a highly noticeable impact oenvironment and could permanently altsocioeconomic environment. DURATION The duration of the impacts considered would be short term or long term. A showould be temporary. A long- term impapermanent effect. TYPES OF IMPACT Impacts were evaluated in terms of whetbeneficial or adverse to the socioeconomBeneficial impacts would improve the soconditions in the affected area. Adverse worsen the socioeconomic conditions. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS To determine potential cumulative impasocioeconomic environment, actions wisurrounding Navajo National MonumenThe region, or assessment area, was with100 miles around the monument. Potentidentified as “cumulative actions,” inclu
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

94development activity that was currently being implemented or would be implemented in the near future. Monument Operations The impacts on monument operations consider the effects of no action and of the alternatives on the ability of park infrastructure and staff to operate safely and efficiently. The existing infrastructure, residences, visitor center, and so on, have been in place since the mid- 1960s. Growth in infrastructure has come to the monument slowly and incrementally. Several small “hogan” style houses have been added to the residential housing area, accommodating two additional employees. Often, employees are sought who can bring their own housing in the form of trailers and RVs. The space in the visitor center, maintenance shop, and staff offices has remained largely unchanged. Additional employees have been moved into fixed office and shop space and a constant number of houses. Annual visitation has increased, along with demand for more and varied educational programs. Staff numbers have risen substantially since the 1960s, increasing the demand on the limited housing situation for nonlocal monument employees. An analysis of monument operations presents the fact that public visitation and public user days have increased, but the ability to accommodate public demands, safety, and interests has remained constant at the 1960s level. Actions proposed in the alternatives would have additional impacts on monument operations. Analysis was based on the professional judgment of park staff. 

CONTEXT The context of the impact area is local to INTENSITY Determination of the intensity of the imwhether it would be negligible, minor, mNegligible impacts would be effects condetectable and would have no discernab

monument operations. Minor impacts wpark operations that would be slightly dwould not be expected to have an overa

impacts would be clearly detectable to vhave an appreciable effect on monumenimpacts would have a highly noticeable operations and could permanently chanat Navajo National Monument. DURATION The duration of the impacts considered would be short term or long term. A showould be temporary. A long- term impapermanent effect. TYPES OF IMPACT Impacts were evaluated in terms of whet

beneficial or adverse to monument operimpacts would improve monument operimpacts would worsen monument opera
ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION): CONTINUE EXISTING MANAGEMENT Cultural Resources ARCHEOLOGY, STRUCTURES, AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Archeological resources on the mesa top could be at risk from continued maintenance of facilities, including roads, trails, and structures. Known archeological resources would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. If such resources could not be avoided, impacts would be mitigated through data recovery. Impacts would be adverse and range in intensity from minor to major, depending upon the number, significance, and integrity of the archeological resource(s). The necessity of monitoring construction activities to ensure the protection of archeological resources would be determined on a case- by- case basis by Navajo National Monument's archeologist. If during construction, previously unknown archeological resources were discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery would be halted until the resources could be identified and documented and an appropriate mitigation strategy developed in consultation with the Navajo Nation's tribal historic preservation officer. In the event that human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered, provisions outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 would be followed. Stabilization, preservation maintenance, and rehabilitation of the dwellings at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription 

House, as well as the other pre- contact structures listed on the monument's list structures, would continue as needed to extent possible wear and deterioration owithout significantly altering either theicharacter. To ensure that any adverse imsuch work are only of minor to moderatpreservation and rehabilitation efforts, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, wouaccordance with the National Park Serv

Policies, 2001 and DO- 28, Cultural Resou

Guideline, and the Secretary of the Interi

Treatment of Historic Properties, with GPreserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, anHistoric Buildings. Stabilization has occurred at all of the clmonument and would continue as needmeans of maintaining the integrity of thdwellings at the monument have for the maintained to preserve the intactness of through the use of local building materion using inappropriate construction maThrough consultation with American Inbeen noted that some archeological sitestabilized, thus, work already completed resulted in a minor to moderate adverse 

statements. At Keet Seel visitation would be limited within the alcove to view the exterior of Continued visitation in the Keet Seel alcminor to moderate adverse impacts to thFurthermore, impacts may occur as a refrom visitor traffic in the alcove. This w
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

96moderate impact to the dwelling. Continued use of the campsite outside the boundary would have minor to moderate adverse impacts on potential archeological sites. Overall vibration from vehicle traffic near the visitor center could result in impacts of moderate intensity to Betatakin. Inscription House is currently closed to the public. The result of the closure has been a beneficial impact with major intensity because there is no public visitation in the alcove to disturb the structure. Researchers would continue to be permitted in archeological sites at the monument to conduct studies that would contribute to a further understanding of the human activity in the region. Researchers working in archeological sites would result in both beneficial and adverse impacts. Moderate beneficial effects would result from the researchers’ contributions to a better understanding of the regional history. Minor to moderate adverse impacts would result from direct and indirect impacts to the pre- contact dwellings and open archeological sites during the research. A survey within the boundaries of monument headquarters area has been conducted to identify and evaluate cultural resources. More than 30 pre- contact and historic sites have been identified within the area. This has resulted in a longterm moderate benefit by providing monument staff better understanding of the wide range of past human activities in the area as well as information to better evaluate effects of management and planning activities on cultural resources. Vandalism could potentially occur at any of the archeological sites in the monument. Keet Seel and Betatakin are more regularly patrolled and visited by staff than other sites. From Memorial Day to Labor Day, interpretive staff visit these two sites daily through interpretive programs. 

This results in better protection and mosites and a beneficial impact with moderInscription House, however, is visited lemore prone to vandalism, which could rimpacts of moderate to major intensity. Natural occurrences would also continudwellings and open archeological sites aThe most common forms of natural impanimal activity. Rockfall is a serious threSeel, Inscription House, and other cliff dalcoves in the monument vary in terms oand Snake House's alcoves are the most potential for rockfall damage to have a madverse impact to structures within the Seel and Inscription House's alcoves are 

more likely to suffer less damage. Moisture that moves through the alcovebottoms in the form of runoff or seeps amonument’s archeological sites. In Betapotential to cause moderate adverse impthe alcove as well as to buried archeologbelow Betatakin. At Keet Seel and Inscrihas the potential to cause moderate advstructures roofs, walls, and buried archelocated in the canyon bottoms. There ararcheological middens related to cliff dwarcheological sites that are being impactin the canyon bottoms. This is most notiand Inscription House, where archeologbeing destabilized by arroyo cutting, and adverse impacts is major. Animal activity, such as nesting and burimpacts to the cliff dwellings and open a
ENVIRONMENT

Currently, raptors are constructing large nests in Betatakin, adversely impacting roofs and walls with moderate intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House rodents burrowing and constructing nests in structures have undermined walls and floors resulting in adverse impacts with moderate intensity. Limited controls have been put in place to remove rodents from archeological sites to other locations, resulting in a beneficial effect with minor intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House it is difficult to construct or maintain a fence to ensure that no livestock grazing or trampling would occur within park boundaries. Livestock grazing and trampling near Keet Seel and Inscription House have contributed to the growth of arroyos that have adversely impacted open archeological sites on the canyon bottoms, with intensities of impact ranging from moderate to major. Measures such as round- ups and fencing have been taken to mitigate livestock grazing and trampling and further destruction of cultural resources. Pollutants and acid rain contribute to the deterioration of pictographs, petroglyphs, and historic inscriptions in each of the monument's units, resulting in minor adverse impacts. With further study the monument might be able to mitigate some of the impact to the pictographs, petroglyphs, and historic inscriptions through treatment (including documentation) and working with businesses in nearby communities. This would provide at least an overall benefit of minor intensity. Fuel reduction is a part of recurring maintenance at the monument. After completion of an environmental assessment, staff reduced fuels recently at Betatakin to further protect the resource from potential damage caused by fire. Staff would continue to reduce fuels near alcoves with dwellings, resulting in a beneficial effect of moderate 

intensity. Appropriate site- specific comundertaken prior to any fuel reduction. Historic structures located in the adminbe adaptively rehabilitated for use in intAll work would be done in accordance wInterior’s Standards and Guidelines, whilong- term, adverse impacts of moderate ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES Consultation with associated tribes indicontact cliff dwellings, structures, and ppetroglyphs are sacred. The surroundinlandscape, of which the monument’s resintegral part, also has significant culturaassociated tribes. Under the No- Action conditions would remain as they are at tthe exception of the actions common to the continuation of present conditions, to ethnographic resources that currently continue to be moderate to major in inteduration, and regional in scope. These efrom the routine stabilization and maintsites (adverse to some Hopi), present visaccess to the dwellings, intrusion on traculturally important places or resourcesvisitor access or vandalism to archeologcontinue. The inability of tribal membertraditional cultural practices due to schevisitor presence would also constitute an require development of mitigation measwith affected tribes. Any backcountry closures in effect undeAlternative could have a major to moder
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

98on ethnographic resources by protecting them from the effects of uncontrolled visitation, provided that requests for access to these resources for traditional cultural purposes are considered through the special use permit process. Tribal

access to ethnographic resources would also have a beneficial, minor to moderate long- term impact on relationships between tribes and the park, and a better mutual understanding of resources and their management. Improved visitor understanding of the tribal values ascribed to ethnographic resources as a result of the planning for this GMP would have a moderate beneficial impact if it leads to tribal involvement in planning and design of new interpretive messages under this alternative. Without new interpretive messages, the No- Action Alternative would have a moderate adverse effect on the ways in which information about tribal connections to park resources are presented to the public, especially American Indian youth learning about their own histories. MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Currently, at Navajo National Monument there is a small collection of artifacts and archived materials. These items are stored at the monument in a small collection area. Staff is currently improving the condition of storage and collection space. Most collection items have been transferred to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center. This has resulted in a beneficial moderate effect, since those transferred items are being stored in a safe and maintained area, managed by a professional curatorial staff. With the continued practice of caring for collections at the monument with limited staff, space, and resources, there would be a moderate adverse effect on museum collections. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts have affected culturwithin and outside of monument boundincluded seasonal traffic through and armonument, contributing to pollution thpictographs, petroglyphs, and historic inhiking to Keet Seel and Betatakin, impacsites outside of the boundary; traditionaby local people; collecting in and around reduction in the water table that has resweakening of the alcoves' geologic strucof arroyos; and the development and cythe monument. The cumulative impacts 

adverse effects, ranging from minor to mWith the establishment of Navajo Natiothe implementation of land use regulatiouses and treatment of resources have be

years. Increased visitor use has interfereactivities at certain places within monumStabilization of archeological sites and opublic visitation has violated cultural vatreatment of ancestral remains. Interprestories of the past that differ from tribal own histories. The cumulative impacts of monument oethnographic resources and the tribes ain the past have been major and long teralternative, some impacts to ethnographcontinue into the future, such as the effeand visitor use, but some impacts would mitigated by the development of long- terelationships and agreements between ttribes. Adverse cumulative impacts wou
ENVIRONMENT

the understanding of tribal cultural values and traditional histories about Navajo National Monument brought about by this planning process, especially if it leads to updated interpretive stories that incorporate tribal versions of their own histories and connections to monument lands and resources. CONCLUSION Under Alternative A (no action), there would not be any important changes to current management of cultural resources in the monument. Present staff would continue to implement measures to limit impacts to cultural resources, and long- term management plans would be instituted to better protect and monitor cultural resources. Staff would also work with local residents and businesses to ensure continued protection of cultural resources and to lessen any impacts caused by outside agents like pollution and livestock grazing and trampling. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources and values. SECTION 106 SUMMARY In meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, monument staff would continue to consult with the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and associated tribes. There would be no important changes under Alternative A in consulting with American Indian Tribes and the THPO. Currently, monument staff consult with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Paiute Tribe, and Zuni Tribe on all 

projects that occur at the monument. There is a good relationship with cultural resource specialists of each tribe, and the NPS would strive to maintain these relationships, in order to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources. 

Prior to implementing any of the actionNo- Action Alternative, Navajo Nationacultural resource staff would identify Naeligible or listed cultural resources that caffected by the proposed action and appCouncil on Historic Preservation’s crite(36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adver

consultation with Hopi Tribe, Navajo NPaiute Tribe, and Zuni Tribe, to determthe proposed action would adversely imresources. If it is determined that the pr

adversely impact National Register eligiresources, monument staff would prepaassessment to analyze the impacts of the monument’s cultural and natural resournegotiate and execute a memorandum oNavajo Nation’s tribal historic preservataccordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6[c], REffects—Memorandum of Agreement, to adverse effects would be minimized or m

on the cultural resources affected, other could also be signatories to the memoraIf it is determined that the proposed actadverse effect on National Register eligib

resources, monument staff would documdetermination on an assessment of effecthe form to the Navajo Nation’s tribal hioffice and associated tribes for review anas inform the Arizona State Historic Pre
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

100Natural Resources WATER RESOURCES, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS The status of water quality within and around Navajo National Monument is not well studied or documented. Livestock grazing, mostly outside the monument's boundaries, does occur within the watershed environment of both Keet Seel and Inscription House. At the local and regional level, grazing and trampling has long- term, moderate to major adverse effects on water quality by increasing erosion within stream corridors, which then increases sedimentation. Increased sedimentation with accumulations of urine and fecal matter changes water chemistry. Changes in water chemistry with stream trampling (livestock, hikers, and motorized vehicles) over a long period of time can destroy the micro- and macrobiotic communities that help define a healthy riparian system. Keet Seel appears to be the most affected by all of these outside impacts (especially grazing and trampling) based on qualitative observations of algae blooms throughout the stream system and continued instability of stream banks. Local and regional adverse effects on water resources are moderate and long term. Remediation of water quality might be possible were all of the outside impacts removed. It is questionable, however, if stream bank stability could be returned to its previous state. In addition, the regional groundwater levels appear to be dropping. If the water table were to drop below ground level, this would have moderate, long- term adverse effects. Inscription House experiences less visitation and somewhat less grazing and trampling, but the site may be adversely affected by a continued drop in the water table. The impact 

of the regional water table drop, especiacompletely underground, would have a 

long- term adverse effect on wildlife and 

vegetation. Reduced wildlife habitat wowildlife populations, and exotic vegetati

to invade while the native vegetation thamoisture would die off. Since the arroyo Inscription House, this continued excespossibly destabilize the entire cliff. This causing a moderate to major long- term The reasons for this water table decline may be more a result of a regional climathan of introduced factors. Despite the dthree units, water table declines appear term, moderate, adverse effects on all thobservations of long- term arroyo cuttinvegetation changes. There is potential fomoderate long- term adverse effects to twater resources if the coalmine continuwater withdrawals, if local communities visitation and numbers of monument peBetatakin may be adversely affected by revents where pollutants from the parkindown into the groundwater table. Mesa result in minor, short- term adverse effe

resources. Betatakin's relict forest, particottonwoods and aspen, could be impacgroundwater drop. This adverse effect wmoderate to major, and long- term becacanyon bottom plant species are dependsurvival, and the wildlife is dependent ofor forage and nesting. In addition, exot
ENVIRONMENT

invade and dominate the site once the native species declined. Seeps and springs, usually associated with alcoves and sandstone walls, are found in all three units and appear to be in good condition. Normal moisture fluctuations within seeps, and less so with springs, occur based on rainfall infiltration and temperatures. Betatakin has one spring that crosses over a guided trail that did sustain minor trampling during the past summer seasons, resulting in minor, shortterm adverse affects locally. That portion of the trail is now closed to the public because of dangerous rockfall conditions, and the spring and associated vegetation has recovered. Closure of the trail resulted in a moderate, longterm beneficial impact on the spring locally and its associated wetland vegetation. Floodplain degradation is occurring with the abovedescribed conditions involving grazing, trampling, water quality, and increased erosion and sedimentation. This results in local and regionally moderate, long- term adverse effects to the entire watershed system.The buildings, campground, picnic, housing, maintenance, and parking areas at the headquarters area are not subject to major arroyo flooding. Flooding on the mesa tops, while a nuisance, is not hazardous and is accommodated by site designs, storm drains, etc. The effects would be local, minor, adverse, and short- term. Flood hazard to hikers to Keet Seel would be moderately adverse and short- term, and would be mitigated by warnings issued to visitors regarding flash floods, quicksand, and unsanitary water conditions when they get a permit to go there. The relocated campground is near the ranger station and substantially above the arroyo, and not likely within the regulatory floodplain. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the past decades, water resources a

have been adversely affected almost soleentities, whether it be Navajo Nation or such as the Black Mesa Coal Company, processes therein such as increased erosuses (hiking, camping, grazing, tramplinvehicles) by outside entities for both KeInscription House have resulted in longmajor losses of native riparian vegetatiorates, and decreased water quality. Owing to the small landownership in thwith minimal access to water, Navajo Nahas short- term, minimal adverse impacresources as a result of hiking, camping, activities, and the use of motorized vehivisitation and associated use of the existBetatakin has resulted in the potential fopetroleum- based products. These adverminor and short term. Erosion associatemaintenance, and construction projects would increase sediment runoff, but adv

be minor and short term. The potential exists for the establishmenpopulations of exotic plant species as a rto all riparian and wetland areas within monument. This threat would range fromoderate over the long term, depending disturbance and whether exotic species already nearby. Two exotic species closeriparian areas, tamarisk and Russian olivwithin or nearby each monument unit. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

102CONCLUSION Overall, continuation of the present monument activities on water resources would result in locally short- term, minor adverse impacts. However, the activities of external landowners would continue to result in regionally longterm, moderate to major adverse impacts on water resources. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND SOILS) Vegetation and Wildlife Due to their remote locations, limited access, and low visitation, the three units of the monument probably receive fewer human impacts (hiking, maintenance, and construction) overall to their natural resources than do many other types of National Park Service units. Adverse human impacts to the natural resources tend to be minor and local in the monument, including ethnographic plant collecting and aircraft overflight effects on wildlife. However, grazing and vehicle use at both Keet Seel and Inscription House do have moderate, long- term, adverse effects on the natural resources locally and regionally. Grazing, trampling, and vehicle impacts have disturbed the landscape so much in certain areas that only exotic plant species are able to survive and the native seed sources are disappearing. Erosion and stream bank collapse would be aggravated by grazing, trampling, hiking, and vehicle use, since all of these activities remove native ground cover. This ongoing erosion and compaction does increase exotic plant invasions (mainly cheatgrass, tamarisk, and Russian olive). Native grasses have already been lost in many of these disturbed areas. Wildlife that may have frequented these areas would have moved into new areas where less vehicle 

noise, better forage (native plants), and found. The natural resources at Betatakin have protected for more than 60 years due to boundary fence that effectively sealed olivestock grazing and trampling from adNation land. Adverse human impacts (hand construction) are very minor at the century of fire suppression has led to a hcombustible fuels in Betatakin Canyon, recently implement a mechanical fuels rreduce the chance of wildland fire damastructures. Fuel reduction in the monumactivity that would have a moderate, loneffect. There would be only short- term, 

effects on the vegetation and wildlife whplace, but the oak forest resprouts rapidbe only temporarily displaced. Otherwisand animal communities, particularly ware largely self- sustaining and naturally find in the semiarid Southwest. Exotics olive, and cheatgrass) do threaten Betatathe fenced boundary, but the potential fminor at this time, because exotics rarelunless an open, disturbed site becomes a

Soils Sandstone and shale soils as well as the mare affected locally in minor, adverse wahikers (soil compaction and broken micvehicle vibrations (rockfall). The monummaintenance program can result in rockmicrobiotic crust disturbance. Generallshort- term adverse effects. Specific con
ENVIRONMENT

however, can result in long- term, adverse impacts by destroying the integrity of the microbiotic crusts, which takes years to regenerate and reform. Impacts would be adverse, ranging in intensity from minor to moderate, depending on location and magnitude of the activity (maintenance, construction, or recreational). The duration would range from short- to long- term, depending on the size and intensity of the project. Also, any loss of vegetation during construction projects would result in increased wind dispersal of soils, especially on the mesa tops. This loss of vegetation and subsequent loss of soils would be a moderate, long- term adverse effect, because of the difficulty of restoring these soils and their nutrients. Without these nutrients, revegetation would be less successful. Mitigation measures used by the monument during maintenance and construction projects include using previously disturbed sites for staging and stockpiling, returning the disturbed site to its previous grade, salvaging of local plants, and revegetating with native species immediately after a project is finished. Currently hiking, grazing and trampling, and the use of motorized vehicles at Keet Seel and Inscription House have adverse effects on soils around and inside of the riparian areas. Trampling and compaction due to these uses, especially in wet areas, result in long- term, moderate adverse impacts to soils, both locally and regionally. Soil instability leads to increased erosion in both dry and wet environments. Recovery of stability in sandstone environments is a difficult, if not an impossible outcome, and becomes more difficult the larger the disturbed area becomes. There may be some minor effects from aircraft noise on stability and rockfall at the monument, but these have not 

been measured. Impacts from such aircranticipated to be adverse, but minor.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the past decades, the conditions of (vegetation, wildlife, and soils) within thactually improved at Betatakin, owing to the boundary fence. The elimination of canyon has provided a long- term, majoon the biotic communities. However, KeInscription House have been less succesexternal activities, mainly grazing. Past and present uses (hiking, camping, and motorized vehicles) by external entand Inscription House have resulted in llosses of native riparian vegetation, loss increased exotic invasions, and increaseThese external activities result in regionmoderate to major adverse effects on bioCONCLUSION The overall impact on biotic communiticurrent monument activities would be lominor, and adverse. However, the extertheir activities would continue to have a moderate to major adverse impacts on bThere would be no impairment of NavaMonument’s resources or values. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED Navajo sedge has been located on Navajthe federal unit and monument activitieaffect this population. Navajo sedge wouexperience local, moderate, long- term a
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

104because of grazing and trampling outside the monument. Inventory and monitoring of Navajo sedge is an ongoing activity of the Navajo Nation botanist. The alcove bog orchid was found at Betatakin, but most monument activities do not directly affect these populations because of trail closures. These orchids were protected during the fuel reduction project undertaken in 2000, even though they are relatively resilient to trampling, light grazing, and light- intensity fires. The impacts from fuel reduction were local, minor, and short term. Mitigation would include rerouting maintenance activities so they avoid direct contact with the orchid populations. Initial inventory and monitoring was completed on these orchid populations during 1999 and 2000, and monitoring continues to be an ongoing process. The Navajo sedge, alcove bog orchid, and northern leopard frog are species dependent on moisture, thus natural changes in moisture, which are out of the monument's control, could have a moderate and long- term adverse effect on these populations. Exotic invasions around Inscription House, but not within the monument boundaries, could slowly out- compete the Navajo sedge population, leading to its demise. Mitigation measures would include fencing off the population from grazing and trampling and controlling exotics nearby. Currently the monument has guided tours and performs routine maintenance activities at Betatakin and Keet Seel, where there is Mexican spotted owl (MSO habitat).Development of trails and facilities as well as grazing and trampling does impact this species, depending on the time of year. These impacts vary from locally minor to moderate, and short to long term, depending on the activity. Mexican spotted owls were documented in Navajo National Monument from 1989 to 1998, and Navajo Fish and Wildlife 

designated Betatakin Canyon a protecte(PAC) for Mexican spotted owls. Due to designation of critical habitat for the MS(February 1, 2001) and the MSO Recovermonument would consult with the U.S. Service and the Navajo Nation prior to itrail maintenance, construction, fuel redrecreational activities. Mitigation effortimplementing projects outside the MSO (September 1 through February 28). Con(NPS, Navajo Nation, and USFWS) monat the monument has been recommendeany mechanical fuel reduction projects. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the past decades and currently, threndangered species have been fairly welthree units at Navajo National Monumeunits’ inaccessibility to the public. Presethe monument would result in local, shoadverse impacts to such species. Howevspecies and species of concern in the vicmonument are either bats or birds, whicmigratory during certain times of the yecontrol over any external adverse impacPast and present uses (hiking, camping, 

and motorized vehicles) by various entitmonument are assumed to have regionamoderate adverse impacts to the Mexicaowing to loss of habitat for the owl, loss prey, and loss of solitude during critical nesting. The Navajo sedge is at a critical Nation land, owing to overgrazing and tbog orchid is assumed to be doing better 
ENVIRONMENT

fenced canyon of Betatakin than elsewhere on the Navajo Nation lands where grazing and trampling occur. CONCLUSION The overall impacts of current monument activities on threatened and endangered species are local, short term, minor and adverse. For any proposed or on- going projects that may have minor adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat, the NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, activities of external landowners would continue to have regional, long- term, minor to moderate adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. Visitor Understanding And Experience Visitor understanding and experience would undergo moderate, adverse, long- term impacts from the dated, inaccurate exhibits, lack of interpretation of American Indian culture, limited access to Betatakin, and structures and trails that do not meet ADA standards. There would also be minor to moderate, long- term, adverse effects from limited access to Keet Seel, and no access to Inscription House. Foreign visitors would suffer long- term minor adverse effects from the lack of foreign language translations, and all visitors would endure short- term, minor, adverse effects from construction projects. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the long term, visitor experience and understanding would enjoy a minor- to- moderate beneficial impact from the realignment of the Shonto Road, which would reduce traffic and congestion in the visitor center parking lot. Also, as a result of the paving and realignment of the highway, 

more visitors might be induced to use th“shortcut” to Page, possibly increasing vlong term.

CONCLUSION Visitor understanding and experience wmoderate, adverse, long- term impacts uThere would be no impairment of NavaMonument’s resources or values. 

Remoteness Remoteness at the headquarters unit wolocal, minor, adverse impacts from existService development, traffic in the parkthe trails, maintenance activities, aircraflocal residents in the form of noise, artifmodern human- made structures. NPS mactivities that generate noise could be screduce adverse effects on the natural souvisitor periods. There would be local, madverse effects on natural soundscapes dor construction projects, such as replaciRemoteness in the backcountry would clocal, minor, adverse effects from aircraoccasional local resident vehicle noise, afrom NPS and local residences. Artificiaresidences could be mitigated with directo reduce the adverse effects on natural CUMULATIVE IMPACTS One foreseeable action adjacent to the mremoteness is the planned relocation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There woumoderate, adverse effects to the natural 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

106construction. Upon completion of the Shonto Road cutoff, there would be a beneficial, minor, long- term effect of reducing noise and artificial light within the monument, because local traffic now going through the parking lot would be diverted. Under this alternative, there would continue to be only limited consultation with tribes and others, and there would be little National Park Service influence in protecting the natural soundscape, lightscapes, and scenic vistas from activities on adjacent lands. If aircraft overflights and vehicle tours increase, the cumulative effect on the natural soundscape would be local and moderate. New vendors or businesses on the boundary and access road could have a cumulative moderate to major adverse effect on scenic vistas, natural soundscape, and lightscapes, depending on what would be developed. CONCLUSION Under Alternative A, ongoing NPS activities would have a minor, long- term, adverse effect on remoteness. Moderate to major long- term, adverse effects to remoteness could occur from new development or activities on adjacent land. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. Socioeconomic Environment To calculate the total economic effects of visitor spending on the local economy, visitor data and assumptions were put into the money generation model. All dollar amounts reflect FY2001 dollars. Visitation is steady at around 66,000 per year, about 30 percent of visitors stay in motels in the local area, and 17 percent camp (the rest are either local visitors or visitors 

who stay overnight outside of the local avisitors spend about 1.5 days in the area, spend about one day. The money generathat the economic effects of visitor spenthrough the local economy would be $2,$800,000 in personal income, 68 jobs, anvalue added. There would also be effects from monumongoing minor construction projects unThe staff of 11 permanent and 11 seasonawith spending on utilities, supplies, and contribute to the local economy. Ongoinrehabilitation projects, totaling some $2next fifteen years would also create somcycle money into the local economy. Thoperations and construction when multmoney generation model under this alte$2,500,000 in sales, 46 jobs, $1,400,000 and $1,600,000 in total value added. The local, moderate, benefit on the local ecoshort term and would last through the pconstruction of new facilities. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Construction of the Shonto Road bypashave minor, short- term, beneficial impatemporary jobs during construction. Thoperation of a campground adjacent to hwould have minor, long- term, beneficiajobs and from campground fees that worolled over into the local economy. 
ENVIRONMENT

CONCLUSION Under Alternative A, visitors and park operations would have a moderate, beneficial, long- term effect on the socioeconomic environment. There would be no impairment of monument resources. Monument Operations Under Alternative A, not building or remodeling the current facilities greatly limits opportunities for outreach and visitor education. Office space is also inadequate, and employees are forced to share areas for projects and general work activities. This creates a safety and fire hazard as employees begin to stack boxes and files where space is available. The adverse impact would be moderate and long term and would affect both public relations and monument operations. Housing remains an extremely important issue for the park and staff. Two of the trailers have been condemned and removed. Existing, habitable structures are deteriorating and have ongoing problems with rodents. Each available house is occupied, leaving only a one- room cabin for park volunteers, a seasonal workforce of six to ten rangers, and guests. The local communities of Shonto and Kayenta offer little housing for rent or lease for non- Navajo people. This lack of housing would have a profound stifling effect on hiring and retaining employees and attracting volunteers. This could result in the use of nearby hotels at great expense or in not hiring seasonals, curtailing visitor operations. Lack of adequate housing would result in a long- term, moderate to major adverse impact on park operations. Park housing and office space do not meet ADA standards. The visitor center has been retrofitted with automatic doors, but other operational facilities and 

houses have not. Inaccessible facilitito result in adverse long- term, modevisitors and staff with disabilities. Fire protection is inadequate. In 1965 thbuilding was constructed without internsystems. As a result, the building is protehandheld fire extinguishers and low- prhydrants. Fire protection is limited, bechydrants don’t meet pressure standards not available. Kayenta offers the closest at a response time of one hour. Replacemmonument’s main waterlines, which is sand winter of 2001, would remedy inadepressure, but inadequate fire preparednto have a moderate, long- term adverse imonument’s ability to protect visitors, smuseum collection items, and governmefire. Police protection is limited because of liThe monument has commissioned law ebut their authority only extends to monupolice have authority on tribal lands (su

Betatakin and Keet Seel ) and are located the monument area. Jusrisdiction at the remains unclear. The continuation of thhave moderate, long- term adverse effecoperations. A revised Memorandum of the headquarters unit may mitigate jurisCommunication systems are slow and oequipment is outdated, preventing emplperforming their jobs as efficiently as pocontinue to have a long- term, moderatemonument operations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

108CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The present infrastructure is inadequate in meeting the program needs of the current staff. As public expectations grow for educational and community outreach services, the lack of office space and maintenance facilities would constrain what the monument is able to provide. Lack of available housing limits the number of employees who can be housed in the area. At present, the staff is constrained in hiring and is limited in what it can offer the public. CONCLUSION The current conditions and limited amount of office space and housing leaves the monument unable to accommodate people with disabilities and unable to accommodate more staff in the future and compromises safety. Inadequate numbers of housing units limits the monument’s ability to recruit and retain staff and attract volunteers, thereby limiting the number of programs and projects undertaken during the year. The water wells that provide drinking water for the entire park are antiquated and offer no backup in case of pump failure. Communications systems are inadequate and inefficient, and jurisdictional issues limit law enforcement. The visitor center and residential area have no fire suppression system to protect visitors, museum collections, monument employees, and the equipment and office supplies. The No- Action Alternative would perpetuate inefficient and inadequate monument operations. A moderate adverse long term impact on the monument would occur because it would remain difficult for the monument to make needed improvements to infrastructure and visitor facilities at the headquarters unit. One reason is that it is a little more difficult to secure NPS funds for 

improvements on lands not held in fedeAnother reason is that the monument is in fully the fee demonstration program, improvements to visitor facilities to manof the inability to collect fees on non- fe

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Under the No- Action Alternative, the cexisting trails to Betatakin and Keet Seelaccess to areas of Keet Seel, would adverdirectly and indirectly, archeological rewith the sites. In addition, archeological to, or easily accessible from, public accesvulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvepossible vandalism. Erosion and livestock grazing and trampto result in moderate to major adverse imarcheological resources. Rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Inscription House, and other cliff dwellthe monument vary in their stability, buSnake House's alcoves are especially unpotential for major, adverse impacts to scliff dwellings. Moderate to major adverse impacts to eresources would result from the lack of culturally appropriate interpretive messhistories and values to which the ethnogrelated. Lack of adequate curatorial facilities and trained in curation would continue to hamoderate, adverse impacts upon museu
ENVIRONMENT

The Mexican spotted owl, a federally threatened species, nests in Betatakin and Keet Seel Canyons. Human activity in Betatakin Canyon, for example, trail maintenance, fuel reduction activities, or visitor use, would have minor to moderate adverse impacts on the spotted owl; however, nesting has been successful during the years monitored. For any proposed or on- going projects that may have minor or moderate adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat, the NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dated, inaccurate exhibits and the lack of proper interpretation of American Indian cultures would continue to have moderate, adverse impacts upon visitor understanding and experience. Visitors with disabilities would experience moderate adverse impacts caused by continued inaccessibility of trails and structures. Loss in Long- Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short- Term Gain Potential short- term effects caused by construction activities on archeological resources would be mitigated by data recovery, resulting in no long- term loss of the site information. The lack of adequate monitoring of cultural resources, especially at Inscription House and Keet Seel, could somewhat reduce the availability of cultural resources for future research, education, and possible interpretation. As described under “Unavoidable Adverse Impacts,” rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Keet Seel, Inscription House, and other cliff dwellings, with the potential for major, adverse impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. 

The lack of a cultural landscape inventolong- term loss in the integrity of contribthe landscape(s). 

Irreversible/Irretrievable ComResources Irreversible commitments of resources abe reversed, except perhaps in the extrewould include, for example, the consumof nonrenewable resources such as mineextinction of a species. Irretrievable commitments of resources lost for a period of time, as a resource is simultaneously precludes other uses. Fofacilities are developed in a forest, the tithe developed land is lost for as long as tArcheological resources associated with Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription Hoarcheological resources adjacent to or etrails and other public access areas, wouvulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvpossible vandalism. The loss of surface amaterials, alteration of artifact distributof contextual evidence could result. Becresources are nonrenewable resources, irreversible/irretrievable loss of these re
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

110IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B—FOCUS ON NPS LAND Cultural Resources ARCHEOLOGY, STRUCTURES, AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Preservation maintenance of the dwellings at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House, as well as the other pre- contact and historic structures listed on the monument's list of classified structures, would continue as needed, to mitigate wear and deterioration of the structures without significantly altering either their present form or character. All preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken in accordance with the National Park Service's Management Policies, 2001 and DO- 28, Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline, as well as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties, With Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.Archeological resources on the mesa top could be at risk from proposed construction. Known archeological resources would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. If such resources could not be avoided, impacts would be mitigated through data recovery. Impacts would be adverse and range in intensity from minor to major, depending upon the number, importance, and integrity of the resource(s). The necessity of monitoring construction activities to ensure the protection of archeological resources would be determined on a case- by- case basis by Navajo National Monument's archeologist. If during construction previously unknown archeological resources are discovered, all work in 

the immediate vicinity of the discovery wthe resources could be identified and doappropriate mitigation strategy developwith the Navajo Nation's tribal historic and other associated tribes. In the event funerary objects, sacred objects, or objepatrimony are discovered, provisions ouAmerican Graves Protection and Repatr3001) of 1990 would be followed. Although expansion of the visitor center historic and design integrity of the strucresult in only a minor impact to monumvisitor center was determined ineligible National Register of Historic Places. Thwould be mitigated by historical and arcdocumentation of the existing visitor ceexpansion. There would be no impacts to the historon monument's list of classified structurList of Classified Structures). Though potentially important cultural laidentified, protected, and preserved, incresulting from enhanced interpretation resources or the expansion or constructcenter, amphitheater, and parking areastrailheads, trails, and overlooks; and picsites could result in the overuse and degcontributing landscape features as roadand structures, and vegetation. Such impadverse and long- term, ranging in intenmoderate. However, the monument's enand educational programs would also inappreciation of cultural resources and h
ENVIRONMENT

preserved and managed, as well as provide an understanding of how to experience such resources without inadvertently damaging them. Trails and trailheads would be sited to avoid adversely impacting known cultural resources, including potential cultural landscapes. In addition, the use of appropriate materials and colors for all permanent signs erected would allow the signs to meld as much as possible into the natural surroundings. Increased and/or unauthorized visitation at Keet Seel, Betatakin, and Inscription House, guided tours of the dwelling interiors at Keet Seel, and overnight camping at Keet Seel, could result in increased deterioration of the ancient dwellings through wear and tear and vandalism—a long- term, adverse impact ranging in intensity from minor to moderate. However, the monument's enhanced interpretive and educational programs would instill an understanding and appreciation of the value of the monument's cultural resources and how they are preserved, as well as provide an understanding of how to experience such resources without inadvertently damaging them. At Keet Seel there would be less impact to the cliff dwelling under Alternative B since visitors would not be permitted in the alcove. This would result in a long- term benefit with moderate intensity. In addition, further studies would occur to determine the carrying capacity of the resources that could result in the imposition of visitation levels or constraints that would contribute to the stability or integrity of the resources without unduly restricting their use or interpretation. Also, through an increase in the number of staff at the monument there would be more regular patrols at each of the units, resulting in a long- term benefit of moderate intensity. 

Visitor impacts would range from minor intensity under this alternative. Unescor

from the visitor center to Betatakin coulcultural resources. This would occur boand in nearby areas of Navajo Nation lanwould be traversing. Impacts like leavinarcheological remains and removing arcfrom sites located near the trail would owould not be guided by a park ranger. Thave the potential to produce moderateeffects. This could be mitigated to some better signage and relocation of trails awarcheological sites. Another visitor imparelocation of the campground at Keet Semonument boundaries. Due to the presematerials in the Keet Seel unit, construccampground would have an impact of meffect. This impact could be mitigated to 

through consultation with tribes and daarcheological sites that might be located boundaries. With the opening of Inscriplimited guided hikes, there would be the to moderate long- term adverse effects tdue to increased activity in areas where archeological sites. This could be mitigarelocation of trails away from archeologpresence of a park ranger to guide visitoHouse. Natural occurrences would also continudwellings and open archeological sites aThe most common forms of natural impanimal activity. Rockfall is a serious threSeel, Inscription House, and other cliff dalcoves in the monument vary in terms o
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

112Betatakin’s and Snake House's alcoves are unstable, with the potential for major impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. Keet Seel’s and Inscription House's alcoves are more stable and are more likely to suffer moderate impacts. Moisture that moves through the alcoves and canyon bottoms in the form of runoff or seeps also impacts archeological sites in the monument. In Betatakin seeps have the potential to cause moderate to major impacts to structures in the alcove as well as to buried archeological deposits located below Betatakin. At Keet Seel and Inscription House runoff has the potential to cause moderate impacts to structures roofs, walls, and buried archeological deposits located in the canyon bottoms. There are also major impacts to archeological middens related to cliff dwellings and open archeological sites that are being severely impacted by arroyo cutting in the canyon bottoms. This is most noticeable at Keet Seel and Inscription House, where the potential for adverse impacts is greater. Currently, the archeological middens related to both Keet Seel and Inscription House are being destabilized by arroyo cutting. Animal activity results in impacts to the cliff dwellings and open archeological sites through nesting and burrowing. Currently, raptors are constructing large nests in Betatakin, impacting roofs and walls with moderate intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House rodents burrowing and bats constructing nests in structures have undermined walls and floors, resulting in adverse impacts with moderate intensity. Limited controls have been put in place to remove rodents from archeological sites to other locations, resulting in a beneficial affect with minor intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House it is difficult to construct or maintain a fence to ensure that no livestock grazing would occur within park boundaries. Livestock grazing and trampling near Keet Seel and Inscription House has contributed to the growth of 

arroyos that have adversely impacted opsites on the canyon bottoms with moderMeasures have been taken to curb livesttrampling and further destruction of cul

resulting in a minor beneficial effect. 

Pollutants and acid rain deteriorate pictpetroglyphs, and historic inscriptions in monument's units with minor impacts. Wthe monument might be able to mitigate to the pictographs, petroglyphs, and histhrough treatment (including documentwith businesses in nearby communities. provide a long- term benefit of minor to Development adjacent to Navajo Nationresult in long- term, minor to moderate cultural resources. Navajo National Mowith neighboring jurisdictions to ensure management practices do not impair the cultural resources, viewsheds, or distant ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES Consultation with associated tribes indicontact cliff dwellings, structures, and ppetroglyphs are sacred. The surroundinlandscape, of which the monument’s resintegral part, also has significant culturaassociated tribes. Alternative B would insame moderate adverse impacts to ethnowould be realized under Alternative A. E

such as the routine stabilization and maancestral sites, present visitor facilities, dwellings, and intrusion on traditional uimportant places or resources, would co
ENVIRONMENT

in Alternative A. Navajo National Monument would continue to consult with associated tribes and other concerned individuals to mitigate the intensity of such longterm, adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts from backcountry closures and continued access to traditional use would be similar to those expected under Alternative A. There would be a moderate, beneficial, long- term impacts from the establishment of the tribal consultation committee, which would mitigate many of the ongoing adverse impacts by improving communication between associated tribes and the National Park Service and resulting in deeper understanding, collaborative solutions, and more sensitive management of traditional uses. There would also be moderate, beneficial, long- term impacts from increased staff and patrol to prevent vandalism to culturally important places or resources. There would be moderate, short- term adverse impacts to traditional use activities at Betatakin as a result of extending the visitor season and allowing visitors to hike all day long to Betatakin, provided that requests for access to these resources for traditional cultural purposes, are considered through the special use permit process. There would also be moderate, short- term adverse effects to traditional activities on the mesa top as a result of more trails and visitors on the rim (Alternative B proposes the most extensive trails). Navajo National Monument would continue to consult with associated tribes to mitigate the intensity of such long- term, adverse impacts through appropriate scheduling of visitor activities that would take traditional activities into consideration, and the increased tribal consultation in Alternative B would facilitate timely and effective mitigation. Alternative B would have a moderate beneficial long- term effect on ethnographic resources from expanded 

interpretation of contemporary tribal aslands and resources and resulting greateunderstanding of ethnographic issues. F

American Indian participation in the intethnographic resources would result in beneficial impact to the monument’s ethresources. Such actions would support tenhancement, and preservation of ethnoand the continuation of traditional cultuas increase non- Indian knowledge and American Indian cultures. MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Museum collections under this alternatisame beneficial impacts as they would u

because of transferring collections to thArcheological and Conservation Centerbenefits identified under Alternative A, provide other benefits in the form of an lab facility for collections and staff dediccollections. This would result in a benefmoderate long- term intensity. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts would be similar to Alternative A. However, with the possibvisitation to Keet Seel, Betatakin, and In

there would be an increased impact and vandalism and deterioration of archeolooutside of monument boundaries. Furththe monument would also mean an incractivity and the use of vehicles that mighadverse effects on archeological sites. T
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

114have an intensity ranging from minor to moderate, long term, given the increase in visitation and development. CONCLUSION Cultural resources at Navajo National Monument would benefit in the long term from comprehensive planning, because actions and priorities would be established to clarify management goals, reduce conflict between natural and cultural resources management, and accommodate interpretation, visitor use, and traditional uses with minimum damage to both cultural and natural resources. Greater visitor understanding and appreciation of the resources associated with the monument would also contribute to their protection and preservation. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. SECTION 106 SUMMARY As in Alternative A, monument staff would continue to meet the guidelines of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Given that there would be more development and visitation at the site, there would be increased consultation and more comprehensive planning in coordination with the tribes. Prior to implementing any of the actions described in Alternative B, Navajo National Monument’s cultural resource staff would identify National Register eligible or listed cultural resources that could be potentially affected by the proposed actions and apply the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), all in consultation with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Paiute Tribe, and the Zuni Tribe, to determine whether or not the proposed action would adversely impact cultural resources. 

If it is determined that the proposed actimpact National Register eligible or liste

monument staff would prepare an envirto analyze the impacts of the action on tcultural and natural resources and woulexecute a memorandum of agreement wNation’s tribal historic preservation offiwith 36 CFR Part 800.6[c], Resolution of Memorandum of Agreement, to stipulate 

effects would be minimized or mitigatedcultural resources affected, other associbe signatories to the memorandum of agIf it is determined that the proposed actadverse effect on National Register eligib

resources, monument staff would documdetermination on an assessment of effecform to the Navajo Nation’s tribal historoffice and associated tribes for review aninform the Arizona State Historic Preser

Natural Resources WATER RESOURCES, WETLANDS, AFLOODPLAINS In addition to the impacts already discuAlternative B proposes more constructioincreased visitation over a longer period are no natural or artificial watercoursesseeps, or arroyos, on the mesa top of Betproposed construction and most of the iwould take place, adverse effects on watbe negligible. However tinajas, or tempoexist on the mesa top, but there would bIn addition, groundwater does not occu
ENVIRONMENT

the mesa and most likely would not be encountered during any construction projects. There could be local short- term, minor adverse effects on water quality due to increased sedimentation spilling down into Betatakin Canyon if a major rain event were to occur while the area was under construction. There would be no Section 404 permitting requirements for the construction included in Alternative B as long as materials are not dredged out of or placed into an arroyo or watercourse during construction. Increased visitors into Betatakin Canyon could lead to more trail erosion, and that would have locally long- term, minor adverse effects on water quality. Increased vehicle use of the parking lot could increase chemical runoff from the pavement into Betatakin Canyon, but eventual dissolution into the water table would result in local, short- term, minor adverse effects. Increased visitor use at Keet Seel (hiking and camping) could increase the rate of erosion especially around the campground, but this would be minor when compared with the disturbance that already occurs there from continual grazing and trampling. More tours into Inscription House would have local, long- term, minor adverse effects on the already eroded stream banks. Proposed fencing and protective barriers around both Keet Seel and Inscription House would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to water quality by eliminating grazing, trampling, and increased erosion within the monument boundaries. The Storm Water Rule (40 CFR, Parts 122, 123, 124) requires an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Notice of Intent be submitted to the EPA, with a copy sent to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality—Water Quality Division, on construction activities, including clearing and grading, that occur on land in excess of five 

acres. If fewer than five total acres of landisturbed in Alternative B, a NPDES notnot be submitted to the EPA and the AriEnvironmental Quality—Water Quality Water Pollution Prevention Plan would The buildings, campground, picnic areamaintenance, and parking areas at the hnot subject to major arroyo flooding. Fltops, while a nuisance, is not hazardous accommodated by site designs, storm drwould be local, minor, adverse, and shohazard to hikers to Keet Seel and Inscripbe moderately adverse and short- term, 

mitigated by warnings issued to visitors floods, quicksand, and unsanitary water guide or when they get a permit to go thcampground is near the ranger station aabove the arroyo, and not likely within tfloodplain. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the past decades, water resources hthe same since the monument has little cgroundwater or watershed waters that fdistinct units, thus the adverse impacts, Alternative A, are local, short term, and monument boundaries. Reasonable foreseeable future actions aAlternative B, such as expanding existinresult in slightly more potential for incresedimentation and erosion as a result of development on the mesa top at Betatakuse of new and existing trails at all three 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

116monument would also result in slightly more potential for increased sedimentation and erosion, which could temporarily adversely affect water quality (both development and recreation). Fencing improvements around Keet Seel and Inscription House to eliminate grazing would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to water quality. 

CONCLUSION The overall effect of the proposed increase in monument activities, both construction and visitation, would result in local, short- term, minor adverse impacts on water resources, while protective fencing would have a long- term, moderate beneficial impact. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (VEGETATION, WILDLIFE, AND SOILS) 

Vegetation and Wildlife In addition to the impacts already discussed in Alternative A, because of increased visitation and construction proposed in Alternative B, particularly around Betatakin, there would be long- term, minor to moderate adverse effects on the natural resources. Increased visitation would result in more noise and disturbance to wildlife on top and inside the canyon. This could result in a locally minor adverse effect by displacing some mammals, particularly small mammals. There would be locally moderate adverse effects on birds that might roost and nest in the canyon, displacing them farther away from the monument. There would be a minor, short- term, adverse effect from trails and other construction projects, which would destroy the native vegetation. Mitigation would include revegetating immediately after project completion, utilizing native species. Immediate revegetation minimizes the chance of exotics invading these 

disturbed sites. On the other hand, morwould provide a long- term moderate beand the monument by allowing them moon the mesa top and keeping them off thThe relocated campground for Keet Seenew site temporarily to invasion of exotshort- term, moderate adverse effects. T

mitigate by both hardening the new site old site immediately with native vegetativery labor- intensive (multi- year) projecestablishing natives in this isolated locatsurrounded by exotics. Increased visitation at Keet Seel and Inswould have local, long- term, minor advalready disturbed natural resources both the monument boundaries. On the othebe long- term, moderate benefits to the potherwise have had the opportunity to vProposed fencing improvements around 

Inscription House to keep grazing out wo

moderate beneficial impacts to the biotic 

livestock would decrease the entry of exomonument lands. More park staff would result in a long- tmajor beneficial impact on the natural rthe monument. There would be increaseopportunities and contacts with visitors the unique ecological quality of these canatural soundscape experience found at locations. Increased resource staff woulmonument to be proactive in initiating rand monitoring of all park resources (wfauna). 
ENVIRONMENT

Soils Locally in Alternative B, there would be short- term, moderate adverse effects on soil stability because of new trails and buildings and more visitors at Betatakin. On the other hand, more hardened and maintained trails could reduce the number of "social" trails (and broken microbiotic crusts), which develop as visitors wander around the open mesa environment, resulting in a long- term, moderate beneficial impact to both soils and visitors. An increase of visitors at both Inscription House and Keet Seel would have long- term, minor adverse effects on soil stability because more visitors would have the opportunity to go off trail. However, the tours would be guided and more staff would be available to patrol trails, providing a longterm, moderate beneficial impact to both soils and visitors. Proposed fencing improvements around both Keet Seel and Inscription House to keep grazing out would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to soils by reducing soil compaction and erosion. A relocated campground at Keet Seel would have a shortterm, minor adverse effect on soil stability around the construction site. Mitigation for both the old and new sites would include salvaging of local native plants, hardening of specific tent sites, and immediate revegetation. As with all soil disturbance that is not revegetated immediately, exotic vegetation has the potential to invade and dominate the native plants. The impacts of exotics invading this remote location would be short term and minor at the new site, provided appropriate mitigation during and after construction is performed. Mitigation using restoration and native plant revegetation for development projects and trails proposed for all three sites would have short- term, minor adverse effects on the 

soils locally. On the other hand, mitigatiimmediately and correctly would providmajor benefit to soil stabilization and heCUMULATIVE IMPACTS Reasonable foreseeable future actions aAlternative B, such as expanding existinresult in more potential for trampling of microbiotic crusts, particularly at Betatavisitor use of new and existing trails and activities would result in local, short- terimpacts to the biotic communities by incand disturbance of vegetation and microIncreased visitor use and construction aresult in local, short- term, minor adverwildlife, owing to loud noises temporarispecies. It is possible that continued incwould result in long- term, moderate imdisplacing wildlife, but some species marather than displaced. Protective fencing and Inscription House would have long- 

beneficial impacts to biotic communities, eliminating livestock grazing, trampling, natural systems. 

CONCLUSION The overall effect of the proposed increactivities on biotic communities would rterm, minor to moderate adverse impacwould result in long- term, moderate bethe resources. There would be no impaiNational Monument’s resources or valu
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

118THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES In addition to the impacts already discussed in Alternative A, increased human presence and noise (hiking, trail maintenance, and construction) in the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) critical habitat which also includes Keet Seel, where 

grazing and trampling occurs, would have a long- term, moderate adverse effect. These owls have been known not to nest or breed when under stress during certain times of the year. In addition, MSOs can only survive in an area where prey is abundant, thus the smaller rodents are also important to the long- term recovery of the owl. Rodents may also be affected by these disturbances (see Wildlife section). Mitigation would include scheduling all monument activities to occur outside of the MSO breeding season (September 1 through February 28) and monitoring MSO populations to determine if the monument's activities are having any adverse affects. Increased human presence and noise would have long- term, minor adverse effects on other listed species and species of concern, including all of the transient raptors (bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, and California condor) and potential inhabitants (southwestern willow flycatcher and the black- crowned night heron). All of these birds may want to establish themselves in the monument, however, even present use levels might prohibit them from doing so. It is unknown at this time if the present or increased levels of visitor use adversely affect the establishment of these birds, but the potential exists. Increased activities would also cause short- term, minor adverse effects to all the bat species. Fencing improvements around Keet Seel and Inscription House to eliminate grazing would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to endangered plants and animals. The 

relocated campground for Keet Seel wouproximity of visitors to the Mexican Spotsensitive breeding season, resulting in lon

moderate adverse impacts. Additional park staff would result in a loto major beneficial impact on the naturaat the monument, including addressing endangered species concerns. Consultatneeds would be better served with a stafthe task. Increased staffing would increa

opportunities to discuss endangered spemonument. Additional resource staff womonument to be proactive in initiating rand monitoring of not only listed specieconcern. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Reasonable foreseeable future actions aplanning for Navajo National Monumenmanagement plan that could affect threaendangered species, such as constructiovisitation, would result in local short- temoderate adverse impacts. More visitatimore potential for trampling of plants, wboth visitation and construction would wildlife species, particularly if they are nProtective fencing around Keet Seel and would have long- term, moderate beneficthreatened or endangered species by elimgrazing, trampling, and disturbance to na

CONCLUSION The overall effect of the proposed increactivities on threatened and endangered 
ENVIRONMENT

in local, short- term, minor to moderate adverse impacts, while fencing would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to the resources. For any proposed or on- going projects or changes in visitor use patterns that may have minor or moderate adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat, the NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. Visitor Understanding And Experience Visitor understanding and experience would undergo moderate, long- term, beneficial effects from a longer tour season to Betatakin and Keet Seel, improved access to Betatakin, limited tours to Inscription House, and enhanced exhibits and interpretation of Navajo and Hopi culture. Visitor understanding and experience would undergo moderate, long- term, beneficial effects for visitors with disabilities because of the greater access and interpretive opportunities that would be provided by expanded interpretive media, enhanced exhibits, and additional staff. Understanding and experiences for youth would undergo moderate, long- term beneficial effects as a result of improved exhibits and expanded programs on- and off- site. All visitors would endure short- term, moderate, adverse effects from construction, expansion, and exhibit rehabilitation activities. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the long term, visitor experience and understanding would experience a minor- to- moderate beneficial impact from the realignment of the Shonto Road, which would reduce traffic and congestion in the visitor center parking lot. Also, as a result of the paving and realignment of the 

highway, more visitors may be induced tBIA 221 “shortcut” to Page, possibly incrover the long term. 

CONCLUSION Moderate, long- term, beneficial impactexperience and understanding would reimplementation of Alternative B. There impairment of Navajo National Monumvalues. 

Remoteness Existing development and ongoing activto have minor, local, adverse effects on rdescribed under Alternative A. Alternatconstruction than Alternative A, includiexpanding the visitor center from 5,000 up to 4.5 miles of new trails on the mesa structures, two composting toilets, addiresidences (increase from seven to nine 3,500 square foot administration buildinfoot curatorial building near existing strmaintenance facilities, and utility upgraheadquarters area. Alternative B also prof a ranger station at Inscription House, Betatakin, and a campground at Keet Seconstruction would cause additional percaused noise at these locations, but the econstruction on the natural soundscape minor, and short term. The addition of these new structures intwould have a minor, long- term, adverse vistas and lightscapes. This would be milocating new structures out of importan
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

120materials and colors that blend with the environment, using outdoor lights only where absolutely necessary, and selecting fixtures for necessary lights that direct light downward. Alternative B proposes the extension of trails of the mesa top by 4.5 miles, which would extend the area where human conversation would interrupt the natural soundscape and would increase the likelihood of visitors in Betatakin Canyon hearing voices from above. In this alternative, more people would be on the Betatakin trail (increase from one tour of 25 people per day to perhaps 100 people per day hiking down independently, and extending the season from three months to five or six months). People would be more dispersed and in the area a greater portion of the year, further affecting the natural soundscape in the backcountry. The numbers to Keet Seel would be kept to 20 per day, but the season would be extended from three months to five or six months. Establishing tours at Inscription House (small guided tours of about 15 people up to two times per week) would introduce human conversation to a very quiet area. These adverse effects would be local and minor. A beneficial, minor effect would be that more visitors would be able to get away from the headquarters area and into the backcountry to have the opportunity to experience the natural soundscape. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The future relocation of the Shonto Road would have the same impacts as described in Alternative A. Potential adverse effects on remoteness of future development and activities on adjacent land would be somewhat less than expected under Alternative A, because the establishment of a tribal consultation committee would provide an opportunity for the NPS to work with tribes toward mutually compatible 

activities. New development or activitieor moderate long- term effects on the nalightscape, and scenic vistas. CONCLUSION Similar to Alternative A, under Alternatifacilities and ongoing NPS activities wouminor adverse effects on remoteness. In Alternative B, there would be minor adv

construction on remoteness, and they wshort term. A minor beneficial effect is twould be in the backcountry to experienMinor to moderate long- term, adverse 

could occur from new development or aland. There would be no impairment of Monument’s resources and values. 

Socioeconomic Environment To calculate the total economic effects othe local economy, visitor data and assuinto the money generation model. Total Alternative B would stay at around 66,00

expected that the overnight visitors wouthey would under Alternative A, because opportunities on the rim and more oppoBetatakin, for an average stay of 1.8 daysgeneration model projects that the econvisitor spending multiplied through the would be $2,800,000 in sales, $1,000,00income, 79 jobs, and total value added oeffects on the local socio- economy woumoderate, local, and long term. There would also be effects from the moand construction proposed in this altern
ENVIRONMENT

increase to 16 permanent and 15 seasonal employees, and the gross construction costs of structures and trails at the monument (design costs and fabrication of interpretive materials would not affect the local economy and were not counted) would be $7,750,000. The total effect when multiplied through the money generation model under this alternative would be $8,000,000 in sales, 118 jobs, $3,700,000 in personal income, and $4,400,000 in total value added. The majority of this local, moderate benefit on the economy would be short term, lasting through the period of construction of new facilities. NPS ownership of the land at headquarters under this alternative would cause a moderate adverse effect from the loss, because any loss of tribal land is unacceptable to many tribal people. Because of the relatively small size of the parcel, 240 acres out of 16,224,896 acres (.0016%) of the Nation land and because it is very localized, the adverse 

effect from lack of acceptance would be short term. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As expected under Alternative A, construction of the Shonto Road bypass by the BIA would have minor, short- term beneficial impacts by creating temporary jobs during construction. The potential local operation of the campground adjacent to headquarters unit would have minor, long- term beneficial impacts by creating jobs and as a result of money from potential fees entering the local economy. In Alternative B, previous loss of Navajo Nation land over decades for various governmental and private uses make the loss of any additional tribal lands highly unacceptable to the tribe, so NPS ownership of this small parcel may have a moderate, long- term, adverse effect. 

CONCLUSION Under Alternative B, visitors and park ohave a moderate, beneficial, long- term socioeconomic environment and moderbenefits from new construction. 

Monument Operations This alternative would provide for increfacilities, including the development emremodeling of the visitor center to increvisitor areas and offices, a new administbuilding, new curatorial workspace and additional maintenance facilities. There improvements to utilities, fire suppressicommunications systems. These impactbeneficial, long term, and major. The park would build new efficiency apstyle housing units, providing for increaresidency, relieving the monument of its Housing would also be designed to meet current units meet. An adequate supply would greatly improve the ability of the and retain employees and to attract voluon monument employees would be beneand major in intensity. Office space would also be increased, alwork and research space. Storage space included for the monument's artifacts ancollections. Remodeling the visitor centopportunity to install updated computer intranet networks in addition to modernfire systems. Fire protection would be grrehabilitation of utilities, installation of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

122systems in existing buildings, and construction of new offices and housing that fully meets codes. In addition, the park would hire specialized staff to provide for greater resource protection, law enforcement, resource management, and curation of artifacts. Collectively, such improvements would result in long- term, moderate to major, beneficial impact on monument operations. There would be moderate to major beneficial long- term effects from obtaining the land base of the monument headquarters, because it would be easier for the monument to get funding for the identified needed facilities with NPS ownership of the land. It would also clarify jurisdiction and improve police protection at the headquarters unit. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Improvements in the amount and quality of housing and office space would allow the staff to increase services and programs offered to the public. Increased staffing would allow for greater preservation of vital resources and enhanced educational and outreach opportunities in the future. CONCLUSION Under this alternative, the monument would experience long- term, moderate and major benefits due to improved housing and new office space, both of which would meet the increased size of the staff and all ADA mandates. Fire codes would also be met in residential housing and the modernized office infrastructure. Computers and communication systems would be updated to meet demands of the modern workplace. This alternative would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of monument operations.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increased visitor use of existing trails to Seel and moving the campground at Keemonument’s boundary would adversely resources associated with the sites, as wresources on adjacent Navajo Nation lanresources adjacent to, or easily accessible areas could be vulnerable to surface distudamage, and possible vandalism. Disturbarcheological resources associated with access, especially involving potential disremains, would constitute a major adverethnographic resources and their associAdverse impacts associated with increasBetatakin and Keet Seel would be somewbeneficial effects resulting from visitors education and a greater appreciation of resources from enhanced interpretation guided tours. However, the net effect woin adverse impacts to archeological resodamage from construction, routine mainvisitor access and impacts, management modifications of roads, trails, and other Erosion would continue to have moderaimpacts on archeological resources, but archeological resources resulting from ltrampling would be less under this alterNo- Action Alternative. Rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Inscription House, and other alcove dwin the monument vary in terms of their sBetatakin’s and Snake House's alcoves a
ENVIRONMENT

unstable, with the potential for major, adverse impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. The Mexican spotted owl, a federally threatened species, nests in Betatakin and Keet Seel Canyons. Trail maintenance and fuel reduction activities in Betatakin Canyon would have minor to moderate adverse impacts on the spotted owl. Increased visitor use of Betatakin Canyon, associated with both the increase in the daily amount of time visitors are in the canyon and the longer visitation season at Betatakin, could have a long- term, moderate adverse impact on the spotted owl. However, much of the extended visitation period would occur when nesting activity is absent or completed for the season. For any proposed or on- going projects or changes in visitor use patterns that may have minor or moderate adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat, the NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Loss in Long- Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short- Term Gain Potential short- term effects caused by construction activities on archeological resources would be mitigated by data recovery, resulting in no long- term loss of the site information. As described under Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Keet Seel, Inscription House, and other cliff dwellings, with the potential for major, adverse impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. Some soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat would be permanently removed and unavailable for other purposes, due to the construction of trails and facilities. Wildlife 

habitat or vegetation could also be degraincreased access to undisturbed areas. 

Irreversible/Irretrievable ComResources Irreversible commitments of resources abe reversed, except perhaps in the extrewould include, for example, the consumof nonrenewable resources such as mineextinction of a species. Irretrievable commitments of resources lost for a period of time, as a resource is simultaneously precludes other uses. Fofacilities are developed in a forest, the tithe developed land is lost for as long as tArcheological resources associated espeof Betatakin , Keet Seel, and Inscription archeological resources adjacent to or etrails and other public access areas woulvulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvpossible vandalism. The loss of surface amaterials, alteration of artifact distributof contextual evidence could result. Becresources are nonrenewable resources, irreversible/irretrievable loss of these reSome soils, vegetation, and wildlife habipermanently removed to build trails or vwould be an irreversible commitment of because it is unlikely that the trails and fwould ever be abandoned and reclaimedThe construction of trails and facilities wconsiderable amounts of fossil fuels, lab
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

124materials such as wood, aggregate, and bituminous materials. However, these materials are not in short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued 

availability of these resources. Proposed also result in an irreversible commitmenfunds.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C (PREFERRED): EMPHASIZE PARTNERSHIPS Cultural Resources ARCHEOLOGY, STRUCTURES AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES Preservation maintenance of the dwellings at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House, as well as the other pre- contact and historic structures listed on the monument's list of classified structures, would continue as needed, to mitigate to the extent possible wear and deterioration of the structures without significantly altering either their present form or character. All preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would be undertaken in accordance with the National Park Service's Management Policies, 2001 and DO- 28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline, as well as the Secretary of 

the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.Archeological resources on the mesa top could be at risk from proposed construction. Known archeological resources would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. If such resources could not be avoided, impacts would be mitigated through data recovery. Impacts would be adverse and range in intensity from minor to major, depending on the number, significance, and integrity of the resource(s). 

The necessity of monitoring constructiothe protection of archeological resourcedetermined on a case- by- case basis by NMonument's archeologist. If during conunknown archeological resources are dithe immediate vicinity of the discovery wthe resources could be identified and doappropriate mitigation strategy developwith the Navajo Nation's tribal historic and other associated tribes. In the event 

funerary objects, sacred objects, or objepatrimony are discovered, provisions ouAmerican Graves Protection and Repatr3001) of 1990 would be followed.  Although remodeling of the visitor centhistoric and design integrity of the strucresult in only a minor impact to monumvisitor center was determined ineligible National Register of Historic Places. Thwould be mitigated by historical and arcdocumentation of the existing visitor ceexpansion. There would be no impacts to the historon the monument's list of classified struList of Classified Structures). Though important cultural landscapes wand preserved, increased visitor use resuinterpretation of the monument's resouor construction of outdoor exhibits; traioverlooks; and picnicking and camping 
ENVIRONMENT

the overuse, deterioration, and degradation of such contributing landscape features as roads and trails, buildings and structures, and vegetation. Such impacts would be adverse and long term, ranging in intensity from minor to moderate, depending on the resource(s) affected and their significance. However, the monument's enhanced interpretive and educational programs would also have a long- term, beneficial impact on cultural resources, by increasing visitor appreciation of cultural resources and how they are preserved and managed, as well as providing an understanding of how to experience such resources without inadvertently damaging them. Animal activity results in impacts to the cliff dwellings and open archeological sites through nesting and burrowing. Currently, raptors are constructing large nests in Betatakin, impacting roofs and walls with moderate intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House rodents burrowing and bats building nests in structures have undermined walls and floors, resulting in impacts of moderate intensity. Limited controls have been put in place to remove rodents from archeological sites to other locations, resulting in a beneficial effect with minor intensity. At Keet Seel and Inscription House it is difficult to construct or maintain a fence to ensure that no livestock grazing would occur within park boundaries. Livestock grazing and trampling near Keet Seel and Inscription House have contributed to the growth of arroyos that have adversely impacted open archeological sites on the canyon bottoms with moderate to major intensity. Measures have been taken to curb livestock grazing and trampling and further destruction of cultural resources, resulting in a minor beneficial affect. In Alternative C, however, through greater cooperation with American Indian tribes and local communities, livestock grazing and trampling might be limited or removed from 

areas affecting Keet Seel and Inscription resulting in a long- term beneficial effec

major intensity. Pollutants and acid rain deteriorate pictpetroglyphs, and historic inscriptions in monument's units with minor impacts. Wthe monument might be able to mitigate to the pictographs, petroglyphs, and histhrough treatment (including documentwith businesses in nearby communities. cooperation with local communities and resulting beneficial effects could be long intensity. Increased and/or unauthorized visitatioBetatakin, as well as overnight camping result in increased deterioration of the along- term, moderate adverse impact. Uthis could be mitigated to some degree tcooperative agreements with American 

communities, other law enforcement agfamilies assisting the monument in monpatrolling Betatakin, Keet Seel, and InscThis would result in a long- term beneficmoderate intensity. There would also be Betatakin, thus, limiting any adverse effsites on the trail or at Betatakin. In additenhanced interpretive and educational pinstill an understanding and appreciatiomonument's cultural resources and how as well as provide an understanding of hsuch resources without inadvertently daDetermining and monitoring the carryinresources could result in the imposition 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

126constraints that would contribute to the stability or integrity of the resources without unduly restricting their use or interpretation. By having more hikers going to Betatakin there would be the potential for moderate long- term adverse effects to archeological sites located along the trail. Relocating trail segments so that visitors were no longer traversing across archeological sites could mitigate this. The same is true of Inscription House unit with increased visitation and use of the area. This could result in a moderate long- term adverse effect. However, relocating trail segments so that visitors are no longer traversing on or near archeological sites could mitigate this effect. Also, as a result of an increase in the number of staff at the monument there would be more regular patrols at each of the units, resulting in a long- term benefit of moderate intensity. Increased activities from partnerships with American Indians would result in adverse effects to archeological resources in and out of the monument boundaries. Horses and vehicles would be kept outside of the monument boundaries, negating any impact. It is preferred that the campground at Keet Seel remain outside the boundary, but may be relocated within. Either location would have minor to moderate long- term adverse effects on archeological resources. At Inscription House there would be more protection through the partnerships in the form of patrols and monitoring of cultural resources, resulting in a longterm benefit of moderate intensity. Also, there would be guided visits by local people to Inscription House, increasing the visitation with some impact to cultural resources outside of the monument boundary and benefiting the cultural resources through increased understanding by local people for the need to protect cultural resources in the area. 

Both adverse impacts and beneficial effe

increased visitation to Inscription HousDevelopment adjacent to Navajo Nationresult in long- term, minor to moderate resources. Navajo National Monument neighboring jurisdictions to minimize thland management practices on the monuresources, viewsheds, or distant vistas. Partnerships with universities and other facilitate research and monitoring of the cultural resources in line with managemprovide long- term moderate beneficial establishing baseline as well as long- term aspects of theses resources for both intemanagement goals. ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES Consultation with associated tribes indicontact cliff dwellings, structures, and ppetroglyphs are sacred. The surroundinlandscape, of which the monument’s resintegral part, also has significant culturaassociated tribes. Alternative C would insame beneficial and negligible impacts tresources as identified under Alternativ

impacts, such as the routine stabilization ancestral sites, present visitor facilities, dwellings, and intrusion on traditional uimportant places or resources, would counder Alternative A. Beneficial impacts from backcountry cloaccess to traditional use would be similaunder Alternative A. There would be mo
ENVIRONMENT

long- term impacts from the establishment of the tribal consultation committee and from increased staff and patrol, the same as under Alternative B. There would be moderate, short- term adverse impacts to traditional use activities at Betatakin as a result of extending the visitor season and providing more guided hikes to Betatakin provided that access to these resources for traditional cultural purposes are considered through the special use permit process. There would also be moderate, short- term adverse effects to traditional activities on the mesa top as a result of more trails and visitors on the rim (under this alternative, trails would be expanded more than under Alternative A, but less than under Alternative B). Navajo National Monument would continue to consult with associated tribes to mitigate the intensity of such long- term, adverse impacts through appropriate scheduling of visitor activities to take traditional activities into consideration, and the increased tribal consultation proposed in Alternative C would facilitate timely and effective mitigation. Alternative C would have a moderate to major beneficial long- term effect on ethnographic resources from expanded interpretation of contemporary tribal associations with park lands and resources and resulting greater visitor understanding of ethnographic issues. Facilitating direct 

American Indian participation and involvement in the interpretation of ethnographic resources would result in a long- term, beneficial impact to the monument’s ethnographic resources. Such actions would support the protection, enhancement, and preservation of ethnographic resources and the continuation of traditional cultural practices, as well as increase non- Indian knowledge and appreciation of American Indian cultures. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Alternative C would provide the greatesfor the museum collections. This would the museum collections would be transfArcheological and Conservation Centera long- term beneficial effect of major inAlternative C there would be a small facmonument to house collections that neeas a result of the request of the monumeaffiliated American Indian tribes or colltransition from being in the field to beinWestern Archeological and Conservatiowould result in a long- term beneficial e

intensity. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts would be similar to both Alternative A and Alternative B. HoAlternative C, there would be greater imresources outside of the monument becavisitation through the use of horses and also add to the pollution in the canyons. be minor to moderate, given the increasuse of horses or vehicles. CONCLUSION Cultural resources at Navajo National Mbenefit in the long term from comprehebecause actions and priorities would be management goals, reduce conflict betw

cultural resources management, and accinterpretation, visitor use, and traditionminimum damage to both cultural and nGreater visitor understanding and appre
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

128resources associated with the monument would also contribute to their protection and preservation. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. SECTION 106 SUMMARY In meeting the guidelines of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, except that under Alternative C, monument staff would be working more closely with the tribes with regard to cultural resources off of the monument, given that NPS activity would be contributing to the adverse effect in the form of horse concessions to Keet Seel. Prior to implementing any of the actions described in Alternative C, Navajo National Monument’s cultural resource staff would identify National Register eligible or listed cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed actions and apply the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects), all in consultation with the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Paiute Tribe, and Zuni Tribe, to determine whether or not the proposed action would adversely impact cultural resources. If it is determined that the proposed action would adversely impact National Register eligible or listed cultural resources, monument staff would prepare an environmental assessment to analyze the impacts of the action on the monument’s cultural and natural resources, as well as negotiate and execute a memorandum of agreement with the Navajo Nation’s tribal historic preservation office, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6[c], Resolution of Adverse Effects—Memorandum of Agreement, to stipulate how the adverse effects would be minimized or mitigated. Depending on the cultural 

resources affected, other associated tribsignatories to the memorandum of agree

If it is determined that the proposed act

adverse effect on National Register eligibresources, monument staff would documdetermination on an assessment of effecthe form to the Navajo Nation’s tribal hioffice and associated tribes for review aninform the Arizona State Historic Preser

Natural Resources WATER RESOURCES, WETLANDS, AFLOODPLAINS In addition to the impacts already discuand B, Alternative C would have an addimajor beneficial impact to water resourcpartnerships and various cooperative agstaff could increase educational awarenissues and work with the local communito minimize and mitigate potential shortsources of pollution. This is not just an eaesthetic concern, a healthy watershed icontinued survival of the local families abusinesses. The backcountry campground at Keet Swhere it is, substantially above the arroythe regulatory floodplain. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the past decades water resources (condition) have almost solely been affecentities, whether it be Navajo Nation or businesses, such as the Black Mesa Coal 
ENVIRONMENT

natural processes such as increased erosion. Because of the small areas of landownership in three isolated locations, the activities occurring on Navajo National Monument, such as hiking, camping, maintenance activities, and the use of motorized vehicles, have had and continue to have shortterm, minimal impacts to the water resources.Reasonable foreseeable future actions associated with the planning for Navajo National Monument’s general management plan that could affect water resources, such as expanding existing facilities, would have short- term, minor adverse impacts to water resources. Water pollution issues occurring external to the park would be addressed through cooperative efforts among the National Park Service, associated landowners, State of Arizona, Department of Environmental Quality, and the Navajo Nation. The Water Resources Division of the National Park Service would be implementing a baseline survey on water quality for the monument in the year 2001. The minor adverse impacts of the preferred alternative, in conjunction with the adverse impacts of other reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in adverse cumulative impacts to water resources, ranging in intensity from minor to moderate, depending on the scope of the potential actions and their locations. However, the adverse impacts of the preferred alternative would be a relatively minor component of the overall cumulative impact, because of its limited scope. CONCLUSION The overall effect of monument activities on water resources would be short term and minor. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. 

BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (VEGETATAND SOILS) 

Vegetation and Wildlife In addition to the impacts summarized iBetatakin would have more controlled vAlternative C than under Alternative B, a long- term, moderate to major beneficprotection and preservation of the naturSeel would have additional adverse impahorse usage as compared to Alternative would be local and minor, when existing described under Alternative A, are taken Increased partnerships would have a mobeneficial impact on the management of natural resources. The Navajo Nation hresources department that could assist mproviding biological expertise in both reday operations. All partnerships would education for the staff, general public, nlocal community on the importance of pnatural systems, which are extremely raregion. Soils Increased use of horses and vehicles at Kthe normal level of grazing and hiking wterm, moderate adverse effects to soil stespecially in wet conditions, has been shdamage to soils than hikers, but less than However, increased partnerships would monument to educate staff, visitors, and community on ways to minimize and midisturbance throughout the monument 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

130partnership would result in long- term, moderate beneficial impacts on soils. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Reasonable foreseeable future actions associated with Alternative C, such as expanding educational opportunities and partnerships, would result in long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to biotic communities. The minor adverse impacts of the preferred alternative, in conjunction with the adverse impacts of other reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in adverse cumulative impacts to vegetation, soils, and wildlife, ranging in intensity from minor to moderate, depending on the scope of the potential actions and their locations. However, the adverse impacts of the preferred alternative would be a relatively minor component of the overall cumulative impact, because of its limited scope. CONCLUSION The overall effect of the proposed increase in partnerships and educational opportunities would be long term, moderate, and beneficial. There would be no impairment of Navajo National Monument’s resources or values. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES In addition to the impacts already discussed in Alternatives A and B, increased potential for horse use at Keet Seel would have minor, short- term adverse effects on the Mexican spotted owl (MSO). These impacts would become moderate in intensity if the horses were kept overnight in the existing campground outside the boundary during the sensitive MSO breeding season. If the campground is relocated inside the boundary (but no horse use there), there could be minor to moderate effects from the increased proximity of people to MSO breeding habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service will be required for any 

effects. Increasing partnerships in the local comother agencies would result in a long- teeffect on listed species and species of cowould be increased opportunities to edumitigating any adverse impacts. Througmonument could develop a systematic mwith the Navajo Nation for all listed speconcern. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Reasonable foreseeable future actions aAlternative C, such as expanding educatand partnerships, would result in long- tbeneficial impacts to threatened and endHowever, the adverse impacts of the prewould be a relatively minor component cumulative impact, owing to the limited preferred alternative. CONCLUSION The overall effect of increased partnershopportunities on threatened and endangbe long term, major, and beneficial. Theimpairment of Navajo National Monumvalues. 

Visitor Understanding And ExIn addition to the impacts already discuunder Alternative C, visitor understandiwould realize the beneficial, minor- to- having more interaction between visitorNation residents because of potential en
ENVIRONMENT

compatible Indian- based tourist services adjacent to the monument. Visitor understanding and experience would realize a beneficial, minor- to- moderate, long- term effect from the increased presence of employees from the various Southwest Indian Nations working at the park as a result of cooperative programs and projects. Visitor understanding and experience would have a beneficial, minor- to- moderate, long- term effect from the increased interpretive collaboration between Southwest Indian Nations and NPS interpreters in the development of printed media, videos, exhibits, and waysides. The understanding and experiences of youth would realize moderate to major long- term effects because of improved exhibits, expanded programs on and off- site, and because of direct involvement of youth in internships, partnerships, and other new programs engaging their direct involvement in the monument. Collection of fees would have an adverse, minor, short- term effect on some visitors. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Over the long term, visitor experience and understanding would experience a minor- to- moderate beneficial impact from the realignment of the Shonto Road, which would reduce traffic and congestion in the visitor center parking lot. Also, as a result of the paving and realignment of the highway, more visitors may be induced to use the AZ 564-BIA 221 “shortcut” to Page, possibly increasing visitation over the long term. Under Alternative C, the possible use of horses and other Indian Nation concession services (jeeps, four- wheel- drive 

vehicles) for backcountry transport may moderate safety impact on visitors. CONCLUSION Moderate, long- term, beneficial impact

implementation of Alternative C. Altern

greatest potential benefits to visitor undexperience. There would be no impairmNational Monument’s resources and val

Remoteness Existing development and ongoing activto have minor, local, adverse effects on rAlternative A. Alternative C proposes mthan Alternative A, including remodelinadding up to 2.3 miles of new trails on thtwo shade structures, one composting toresidences (increase from seven to nine square foot administration building and 

curatorial building near existing structumaintenance facilities, and upgrading utheadquarters area. Alternative C also prof ranger caches at Inscription House anstaging area at Keet Seel (outside of the bconstruction would cause additional percaused noise at these locations, but the econstruction on the natural soundscape minor, and short term. The addition of these new structures intwould have a minor, long- term, adverse vistas and lightscapes. This would be milocating new structures outside of impoof materials and colors that blend with tusing outdoor lights only where absolut
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

132selecting fixtures for necessary lights that direct light downward. Alternative C proposes the extension of mesa top trails by 2.3 miles, which would extend the area where human conversation would interrupt the natural soundscape and would increase the likelihood of visitors in Betatakin Canyon hearing voices from above. Alternative C proposes partnerships with local people to establish guided access and tours to the remote sites that would be compatible with the mission of the monument and within current capacities of 1,500 visitors per year for Keet Seel and limited to 25 people per day on one guided hike to Betatakin, as established in the 

Backcountry Management Plan (1995). The season of tours might be extended from three months to five or six months. This would result in greater numbers of people in the backcountry for a longer period of the year, their voices affecting the natural soundscape. These adverse effects would be local and minor. A beneficial, minor effect would be that more visitors would be able to get away from the headquarters area and into the backcountry to have the opportunity to experience natural soundscapes. While motor vehicles are not permitted within the NPS units of land, it is possible that local guides will use motorized vehicles them to get visitors closer to the remote sites. Noise from such vehicles would have a moderate to major adverse effect on the natural soundscape, and the visibility of such vehicles would have minor to moderate effects on the natural setting. This could be mitigated by establishing good communication in the tribal consultation group and developing agreements with guides that recognize the value of remoteness and outline ways to protect monument sites. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The future relocation of the Shonto Roasame impacts as described under Alternadverse effects of future development anadjacent land to remoteness would be sothose expected for Alternative A, becausof a tribal consultation committee, partnagreements would provide an opportunwork with tribes and others toward devcompatible activities. New development have minor or moderate long- term effesoundscape, lightscape, and scenic vistaCONCLUSION As under Alternative A, under Alternativfacilities and ongoing NPS activities wouminor adverse effects on remoteness. In 

Alternative C, there would be minor advconstruction on remoteness, and they wshort- term duration. A minor beneficiamore visitors would be in the backcountremoteness. Minor to moderate long- teto remoteness could occur from new deactivities, such as guided motorized acceAlternative C has the greatest potential omitigate these impacts through consultaand agreements. There would be no impNational Monument’s resources or valu

Socioeconomic Environment To calculate the total economic effects othe local economy, visitor data and assuinto the money generation model. Total alternative would stay at around 66,000 
ENVIRONMENT

expected that the overnight visitors would stay longer than in Alternative A, because of more opportunities on the rim, more cultural programs and links to American Indians, and more opportunities to get to Betatakin, for an average stay of 2.0 days. The money generation model projects that the economic effects of visitor spending multiplied through the local economy would be $3,100,000 in sales, $1,000,000 in personal income, 86 jobs, and total value added of $1,700,000. These effects on the local socio- economy would be beneficial, moderate, and long term. There would also be effects from the monument operation and construction proposed in this alternative. Staff would increase to 16 permanent and 16 seasonal employees, and the 

gross construction costs of structures and trails at the monument (design costs and fabrication of interpretive materials would not affect the local economy and were not counted) would be $7,300,000. The total effect when multiplied through the money generation model under this alternative would be $7,600,000 in sales, 114 jobs, $3,600,000 in personal income, and $4,300,000 in total value added. The majority of this local, moderate, benefit on the local economy would be short term, during the period of construction of new facilities. As expected under Alternative B, NPS ownership of the land at headquarters under this alternative would cause a moderate adverse effect from the loss, because any loss of tribal land is unacceptable to many tribal people. Because of the relatively small size of the parcel, 240 acres out of 16,224,896 acres (.0016%) of the Navajo Nation land and 

because it is very localized, the adverse effect from lack of acceptance would be short term. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As expected under Alternative A, constrRoad bypass by the BIA would have minbeneficial impacts by creating temporarconstruction. The potential local operatcampground adjacent to headquarters uminor, long- term beneficial impacts by from money from campground fees enteeconomy. Previous loss of Navajo Nation land ovegovernmental and private uses makes thadditional tribal lands highly unacceptaNPS ownership of this small parcel coullong- term, adverse effect on the tribe. CONCLUSION Under Alternative C, visitors, park operconstruction would have a moderate, belong- term effect on the socioeconomic the effects would be very similar to thosAlternative B. 

Monument Operations The beneficial effects under Alternative as those expected under Alternative B, ihousing, rehabilitated utilities, accessibidisabilities, expanded maintenance, impprotection, a modernized infrastructurebase to support these facilities. The benalternative would be moderate to major In addition, partnerships would provide monument operations. The monument volunteer programs to increase the num
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

134interpreters and craft demonstrators. There would also be the opportunity to involve local volunteers to help monitor cultural and natural resources and help in monument operations. Partnerships would allow enhanced resource protection through increased visitation to backcountry archeological sites, increasing a law enforcement presence, preventing vandalism and illegal entry to the sites. The campground would also have a volunteer host to monitor the campsites and report any emergencies. The establishment and support of partnerships would increase opportunities for community outreach as well as for providing improved emergency services within the monument and surrounding areas. The resultant impact would be long term, beneficial, and moderate in intensity. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Improvements in the amount and quality of housing and office space would allow the staff to increase services and programs offered to the public. Increased staffing would allow for greater preservation of vital resources and enhanced educational and outreach opportunities. CONCLUSION The effects of implementing Alternative C would be the same as those expected under Alternative B. In addition, the establishment of partnerships would have beneficial longterm, moderate impacts on monument operations by improving community relationships, extending staff with volunteers, and strengthening visitor services and protection of resources. Benefits would be the long- term community support of fire protection and increased law enforcement from nearby communities. New housing would allow the monument to house staff, volunteers, and short- term employees. New housing would 

be built to efficiency standards and woumandates. Office space would be enlargadministration building would be constrwould house a fire truck, shop bays, and sewage system would be rehabilitated. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Increased visitor use of existing trails to Seel, as well as increased use of horses aSeel, would adversely affect archeologicassociated with the sites, as well as archeon adjacent Navajo Nation lands. Archeadjacent to, or easily accessible from, pubbe vulnerable to surface disturbance, inadpossible vandalism. Disturbance of archeassociated with increased visitor access, potential disturbance of human remainsmajor adverse effect to ethnographic resassociated cultural values. Adverse impacts associated with increasBetatakin and Keet Seel would be somewbeneficial effects resulting from visitors education and a greater appreciation of resources from enhanced interpretation guided tours. However, the net effect woin adverse impacts to archeological resodamage from construction, routine mainvisitor access and impacts, management modifications of roads, trails, and other Erosion would continue to have moderaimpacts on archeological resources. Advarcheological resources resulting from l
ENVIRONMENT

trampling would be fewer under this alternative than under either the No- Action Alternative or Alternative B. Rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Keet Seel, Inscription House, and other cliff dwellings. The alcoves in the monument vary in terms of stability, but Betatakin’s and Snake House's alcoves are especially unstable, with the potential for major, adverse impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. The Mexican spotted owl, a federally threatened species, nests in Betatakin and Keet Seel Canyons. Trail maintenance and fuel reduction activities in Betatakin Canyon would have minor to moderate adverse impacts on the spotted owl. Increased visitor use of Betatakin Canyon, associated with both the increase in the daily time visitors would be in the canyon and the longer visitation season at Betatakin, could have a long- term, moderate adverse impact on the spotted owl. However, much of the extended visitation period would occur when nesting activity is absent or completed for the season. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required. Loss in Long- Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve Short- Term Gain Potential short- term effects caused by construction activities on archeological resources would be mitigated by data recovery, resulting in no long- term loss of the site information. As described under Unavoidable Adverse Impacts, rockfall is a serious threat to Betatakin, Keet Seel, Inscription House, and other cliff dwellings, with the potential for major, adverse impacts to structures within the cliff dwellings. 

Some soils, vegetation, and wildlife habipermanently removed and unavailable fdue to the construction of trails and facihabitat or vegetation could also be degraaccess to undisturbed areas is provided. 

Irreversible/Irretrievable ComResources Irreversible commitments of resources abe reversed, except perhaps in the extrewould include, for example, the consumof nonrenewable resources such as mineextinction of a species. Irretrievable commitments of resources lost for a period of time, as a resource is simultaneously precludes other uses. Fofacilities are developed in a forest, the tithe developed land is lost for as long as tArcheological resources associated espeof Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription archeological resources adjacent to or etrails and other public access areas, wouvulnerable to surface disturbance, inadvpossible vandalism. The loss of surface amaterials, alteration of artifact distributof contextual evidence could result. Becresources are nonrenewable resources, irreversible/irretrievable loss of these reSome soils, vegetation, and wildlife habipermanently removed to build trails or vwould be an irreversible commitment of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

136because it is unlikely that the trails and facilities that are constructed would later be abandoned and reclaimed. The construction of trails and facilities would require considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as wood, aggregate, and bituminous materials. However, these materials are not in short supply, and their use would not have an adverse effect on the continued availability of these resources. Proposed construction would also result in an irreversible commitment, or expenditure, of funds. 
ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

NAVAJO NATIONAL MONUMENT GMP

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Concept Continue existing management. Focus management on the existing land base to achieve the purposes of the 

monument. 

Manage the eAlternative Bboundary to athrough coop

Cultural Resources General. Beneficial, moderate, long-term 

impacts (except to some American Indian tribes) would result from ongoing maintenance and stabilization of ancient structures. 

General. All structures and archeological sites would have a long-term major beneficial impact resulting from more research, more stabilization and maintenance, and a better understanding of resources by staff and visitors. 

General. Samgreater benefsupport, and neighbors an

Moderate adverse long-term impacts could result from natural rockfall within the alcove. Moderate adverse impacts would continue to be caused by raptors and rodents. Minor adverse long-term impacts may result from vibrations from traffic and noise transmitted through rock, air pollutants (acid rain on pictographs, petroglyphs, and inscriptions), and research activities.

Adverse impacts would be the same as under Alternative A from rockfall, raptors, rodents, vibration, pollutants, and research. 

Adverse Impafrom rockfall, pollutants, an

Betatakin. A minor beneficial impact results from frequent year-round ranger protection from vandalism. 

Betatakin. Same beneficial impacts as identified for Alternative A. 

Betatakin. SAlternative A

Continued use of the trail to Betatakin Canyon would have moderate, long-term adverse impacts on archeological sites outside of the park boundary on Navajo Nation land. 

Use of the trail to Betatakin Canyon by more visitors would be somewhat less directly supervised and could have longterm adverse impacts on archeological sites outside the park boundary on Navajo Nation land. This would be mitigated by rerouting segments of the trail, and the net effect would be minor impacts to archeological resources.

More visitors Canyon could impacts on apark boundarwould be mitiof the trail andirect supervThe net effecarcheologica
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

138

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Cultural Resources 

(cont.)

Keet Seel. Beneficial moderate long-term impacts would result from ranger presence in the summer months. 

Keet Seel. A beneficial moderate longterm impact would result from keeping visitors out of the village and providing a longer season of ranger protection from vandalism. 

Keet Seel. Bsimilar to thofrom providinprotection froeven greater through agretribes. 

Major long-term adverse impacts could result from erosion of archeological sites in the canyon bottom. Moderate adverse long-term impacts to village structures would be caused by continued visitor foot traffic, and to archeological sites from livestock movements. Minor long-term adverse impacts to ancient structures may result from occasional vandalism. Continuing minor to moderate long-term impacts to potential archeological sites at existing campground outside of boundary.

Same adverse impacts as Alternative A, except there would no longer be impacts from visitor foot traffic, which would be eliminated, and impacts from livestock movements would be reduced through NPS actions. Minor to moderate long-term adverse impacts could occur to archeological sites from relocating the campground inside the boundary.

Moderate advvillage structucontinued visThe same adB. 

Curbing grazing and trampling would have a minor beneficial impact. 

Greater control of grazing through communication with tribes would have a moderate beneficial impact. 

There is the pimpacts of grand partnershimpact. 

Inscription House. A beneficial long-term major impact would result from continuing to keep visitors out of the village. 

Inscription House. Beneficial impacts would be the same as identified for Alternative A, plus there would be a major beneficial impact of more protection of resources from vandalism from increased NPS ranger patrol. 

Inscription Hwould be the even greater through agretribes. 

Major long-term adverse impacts would be caused to archeological sites by the severe erosion occurring in the arroyo and livestock movements. Major long-term adverse impacts to structures would be caused by vandalism. 

Major long-term adverse impacts would be caused to archeological sites by erosion, but impacts from livestock movements would be reduced by NPS actions. 

Same adversplus potentiaof grazing thrpartnerships beneficial imp

Curbing grazing would have a minor beneficial impact. 

Greater control of grazing through communication with tribes would have moderate beneficial impact. 

Greater contrcommunicatioand partnershbeneficial imp
ENVIRONMENT

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Cultural Resources 

(cont.) 

Headquarters Unit. An archeological survey to determine the extent and location of sites on the rim for further protection would have a moderate, beneficial longterm impact. Maintenance and minor construction would have minor to moderate impacts on archeological sites, which would be mitigated. Adaptive reuse of historic structures would have a moderate beneficial impact. 

Headquarters Unit. Same beneficial 

impacts as Alternative A. 

Headquarterimpacts as A

More trails and structures on the rim would have both direct and indirect long-term adverse impacts on archeological sites. The effect would be minor because it would be mitigated by locating trails and other structures out of sensitive areas, and by improving visitor understanding and protection of resources. 

Same adversas Alternative extent.

Museum Collection. There would be beneficial moderate long-term effects of safe storage of most artifacts at WACC and MNA. There would be moderate adverse long-term effects of lack of adequate storage and staff to protect artifacts on site. 

Museum Collection. Same beneficial impacts as Alternative A. There would be beneficial moderate long-term effects to artifacts from adequate on-site storage, holding area for artifacts undergoing repatriation, lab, and staff.

Museum Cobeneficial maconsolidating WACC or MNmoderate lonadequate on-

Ethnographic Resources Moderate to major adverse impacts from routine stabilization, visitor access to the 

dwellings, and intrusion on traditional uses, or uncontrolled visitor access and vandalism would continue. 

Same adverse and beneficial impacts as in Alternative A, mitigated by additional moderate beneficial impacts from improved resource understanding and management from establishment of tribal consultation committee, and more staff to protect resources. 

Same adverse Alternative A, moderate benunder Alternat

There would be moderate to major beneficial impacts from backcountry closures. There would be beneficial, minor to moderate longterm impacts of stronger relationships with tribes and better mutual understanding of ethnographic resources and their management from continued tribal access and cultural uses. 

There would be moderate short-term adverse impacts to tribal access and cultural uses as a result of extending the visitor season and allowing visitors to hike all day long to Betatakin. This would be mitigated through consultation and scheduling. There would be moderate short-term adverse effects to traditional activities on the mesa top as a result of additional trails and visitors on the rim. 

There would bimpacts to tribfrom extendinproviding morwould be mitigconsultation awould be minotraditional actiresult of additrim. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

140

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Ethnographic Resources 

(cont.) 

There would be a moderate beneficial impact if the GMP effort resulted in new interpretive messages to the visitor and better visitor understanding and respect for traditional uses. Without these interpretive messages, there would be a moderate adverse effect on understanding by visitors and tribal youth. 

There would be a moderate beneficial long-term effect from expanded interpretation of ethnographic resources and the resulting greater understanding by visitors and American Indian youth. 

There would beneficial lonand direct tribinterpretation and the resulthe part of visyouth. 

Natural Resources Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains. Trampling, urine, and fecal 

matter from livestock grazing and trampling on adjacent land would cause long-term, moderate to major adverse effects on stream quality at Keet Seel and Inscription House. Minor to moderate adverse longterm regional impacts of a declining water table would continue, largely from a regional climatic phenomenon. Erosion and arroyo cutting at Keet Seel and Inscription House would cause long-term moderate to major adverse impacts of sedimentation in streams. 

Water Resources, Wetlands, and Floodplains. There would be adverse effects similar to Alternative A, except there would be opportunities to mitigate impacts of grazing and trampling, vehicles, and horses through better consultation with tribes, and there would be increased shortterm moderate adverse impacts from additional construction. 

Water ResouFloodplains. those identifieexcept there opportunities grazing and thorses througagreements, 

There would be local, minor, short-term adverse effects on water quality and wetlands from mesa-top runoff into Betatakin. Seeps and springs in Betatakin would realize a beneficial impact from closure of cross-canyon trail. There would be minor, short-term adverse effects from erosion and sedimentation from construction.

Same as Alternative A, plus increasing the number of visitors into Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House would result in an adverse, short-term, minor impact.

Same as Alte

There would be short-term, minor adverse effects of flooding to facilities on the mesa top. Flood hazard to Keet Seel hikers would be moderately adverse, short-term, and mitigated by warnings. 

Same as Alternative A, plus hazard to Inscription House hikers, similar to Keet Seel hazard. 

Same as Alte

Vegetation and Wildlife. Fuel reduction and integrated pest management activities would have minor, short-term adverse effects, but in the long term impacts would be moderate and beneficial. 

Vegetation and Wildlife. Beneficial impacts from fuel reduction and integrated pest management would be similar to Alternative A. 

Vegetation aimpacts from integrated pesimilar to Alte
ENVIRONMENT

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Natural Resources 

(cont.)

Livestock grazing and trampling would continue to have a moderate, long-term adverse impact on plants and moderate long-term adverse impacts on wildlife at Keet Seel and Inscription House. All sites would have continuing moderate, longterm adverse impacts on vegetation from invading exotic plants. Vehicle use in the adjacent canyons would have moderate, adverse, short-term effects on vegetation and wildlife.

Livestock grazing and trampling and exotic plants would have similar adverse impacts as in Alternative A, but there would be opportunities to mitigate these impacts through greater tribal consultation. 

Livestock graplant impacts Alternative Bgreater oppoimpacts throuagreements, 

encouragemewould have locompared to tWould be mitiweed-free hay

Visitors hiking into Betatakin Canyon would have minor short-term adverse effects on wildlife. 

An increase in the number of visitors to Betatakin Canyon, their presence for a longer period of the day and a longer part of the year, could result in minor adverse short-term impacts from trampling of vegetation and disruption of wildlife. 

Visitor impacBetatakin CaAlternative Bmitigation as visitation beccompletely gu

Construction at the headquarters area would have short-term, local minor adverse effects on vegetation, and temporary, minor adverse effects on wildlife. 

Construction at the headquarters area would have short-term, local moderate adverse effects on vegetation, and temporary, minor adverse effects on wildlife. Additional well-defined trails would have a beneficial impact of keeping visitors off of vegetation and away from wildlife. Construction of the primitive campground at Keet Seel would have minor short-term adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife. 

Construction would have sadverse effectemporary, mwildlife similaextensive. 

 There would be a major beneficial longterm impact from increased staff to monitor 

and protect resources. 

Major beneficincreased staresources. Moderate bengreater oppoon natural resactions to bet
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

142

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Soils. Erosion from livestock grazing and trampling, hiking, horses, and motorized vehicles would cause long-term, minor adverse effects to microbiotic crusts at Betatakin, and moderate long-term adverse effects at Keet Seel and Inscription House. Fuel reduction actions and construction would cause local, minor, short-term adverse effects to soils. 

Soils. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, plus there would be additional adverse short-term moderate impacts to the headquarters unit soils from more construction of buildings and trails at headquarters and a primitive campground at Keet Seel, and indirect long-term moderate impact to soils from increased trail shortcuts. There would be a moderate, beneficial longterm impact to soils as a result of more people staying on more well-defined and better patrolled trails. There would be opportunities to mitigate the impacts of grazing and trampling, horses, and vehicles on soils through increased tribal consultation. 

Soils. ImpactAlternative Bgreater oppoof livestock gand vehicles agreements, 

Natural Resources 

(cont.) 

Threatened and Endangered Species.Navajo sedge would continue to have moderate, long-term adverse effects from livestock grazing and trampling outside the boundary. 

Threatened and Endangered Species.Adverse impacts would be similar to Alternative A for Navajo sedge, bog orchids, and Mexican Spotted owl.

Threatened All of the advto Alternative 

Minor and short-term adverse effects to alcove bog orchids in the monument would continue to occur from NPS fuel reduction actions. Mitigation measures would be undertaken. 

The increase in visitors to Betatakin, increase in the daily time period people would be in the canyon, and the longer season, along with continued grazing near Keet Seel and relocation of the campground and activities on adjacent land would have a moderate and possibly long-term adverse effect on the Mexican spotted owl. Mitigation of impacts to owls would be accomplished through consultation and scheduling potentially disruptive activities outside of breeding season. Increased tribal consultation could 

mitigate impacts of grazing and trampling.

A major long-be the mitigacould come fpartnerships, education. 

Hiking within the monument and activities on adjacent Navajo land (hiking, camping, grazing, trampling, and motorized vehicle access) have regional, long-term, moderate adverse impacts to the Mexican Spotted Owl. 
ENVIRONMENT

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Natural Resources 

(cont.)

For any proposed or on-going projects that may have minor or moderate adverse effects on listed species or critical habitat, the NPS will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Activities on adjacent land and outside grazing and trampling would have minor to moderate short-term adverse impacts on the Mexican spotted owl. Mitigation of impacts to owls would be accomplished through consultation and by scheduling potentially disruptive activities outside of breeding season. 

Increased activity may prevent the Southwestern willow flycatcher and transient raptors from re-establishing in Betatakin Canyon, and would cause minor short-term adverse effects to all of the bat species. 

Development Navajo Natioimpacts to th

There would be moderate, adverse, longterm impacts from dated, inaccurate exhibits, lack of interpretation of Navajo and Hopi cultures, limited access to Betatakin, and structures and trails that do not meet ADA requirements. There would be minor to moderate long-term adverse effects from limited access to Keet Seel, and no access to Inscription House. 

There would be moderate, long-term, beneficial effects from a longer visitor season to Betatakin and Keet Seel, improved access to Betatakin and Inscription House, enhanced exhibits and interpretation, greater opportunities for people with disabilities, more staff to meet visitor needs, and more interaction between visitors and local people at Inscription House. 

There would impacts as explus a benefiof even more and local peoencouragemebased tourist monument. 

There would be minor adverse effects from language translation problems, and shortterm minor adverse effects from construction projects. 

There would be short-term, moderate, adverse effects from construction activities. 

Effects of conof the Shonto described un

Visitor Understanding and 

Experience

There would be a long-term, beneficial minor effect from reducing local traffic from the parking area when BIA relocates the Shonto Road. 

Effects of relocating Shonto Road would be the same as identified for Alternative A. 

There would visitors from 

Remoteness Natural Soundscapes. Local short-term minor adverse impacts would continue at 

the headquarters area (and down into Betatakin Canyon) from aircraft, traffic in the headquarters area parking lot, NPS maintenance activities, and visitor voices on the trails. 

Natural Soundscapes. There would be similar adverse impacts as described in Alternative A, but with increased visitor voices on trails and into Betatakin Canyon. The effects would still be minor, short-term and local. A beneficial, minor effect would be that more visitors would have the opportunity to experience the natural soundscape on rim trails and to Betatakin. 

Natural Sounheadquarters similar to tho
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

144

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Remoteness 

(cont.) 

There would be short-term moderate adverse impacts from construction. Future relocation of the Shonto Road by BIA would reduce traffic noise in the monument.

The adverse effects from construction noise would be similar to those described for Alternative A, with a longer duration, that would still be moderate and shortterm.

Construction Alternative B

There would be short-term, moderate adverse effects of noise in the backcountry from activities on adjacent land. 

Effects of noise in the backcountry would be similar to Alternative A, except there would be an opportunity to mitigate local resident vehicle noise through tribal consultation. 

Impacts to thsimilar to thoB, with greatethrough tribal and partnersh

Natural Lightscapes. NPS and local residences have a minor, long-term, local adverse effect. This could be mitigated by installing directed lighting fixtures. Local traffic through the headquarters unit has some minor, short-term adverse effects on lightscapes, but would be mitigated when the BIA relocates the Shonto Road out of the monument. Potential development along the entrance road or immediately adjacent to the park would have moderate long-term adverse effects on natural lightscapes. 

Natural Lightscapes. Impacts to 

lightscapes would be similar to those described for Alternative A, except there would be opportunities through tribal consultation to encourage the use of directed lighting fixtures by local residents and potential future development. 

Natural Lighbe similar to tAlternative Bexpanded opuse of directeresidents and through tribal and partnersh

Scenic Vistas. Existing park development at headquarters, the hogan at Keet Seel, and scattered local structures have minor, local, long-term adverse impacts on the remote and undeveloped character of the landscape. 

Scenic Vistas. Additional NPS construction at headquarters and minor structures at Betatakin, Keet Seel, and Inscription House would increase the human-made environment, but the effects would still be minor, local, long-term and adverse. Mitigation would include keeping the scale small, locating structures out of scenic vistas and selecting materials and colors that blend with the landscape. 

Scenic Vistadevelopment similar to tho

Potential future development along the entrance road or on adjacent land would have a moderate to major impact on scenic vistas and the remote, undeveloped landscape. 

Potential future development could have adverse effects similar to Alternative A, but could be mitigated by working with tribes to minimize visual impacts to scenic vistas.

Potential futueffects similabe further mitand developipartnerships scenic vistas
ENVIRONMENT

Impact Topic 

Alternative A (No Action): 

Continue Existing 

Management 

Alternative B: Focus on NPS 

Land 

Alterna

Empha

Socio-Economy There would be beneficial, local, moderate long-term effects of 10 permanent jobs and 

11 seasonal jobs, as well as from visitor spending at local businesses. There would be minor, short-term local beneficial effects from construction jobs, both NPS and the BIA Shonto Road relocation. There would be a local beneficial minor effect if the campground adjacent to the headquarters unit were locally managed. Tourism would have a beneficial, moderate, long-term effect locally and regionally. 

The beneficial impacts would be the similar to those described for Alternative A, but with more jobs: 16 permanent and 14–16 seasonal. There would also be visitors to Inscription House, providing a beneficial impact to markets nearby. There would be more construction than in Alternative A, resulting in minor to moderate short-term beneficial effects. 

The beneficiathose describjobs would in17 seasonal There would beneficial lonpartnerships businesses o

 NPS ownership of the land at headquarters 

would have a moderate long-term adverse effect on the Navajo Nation. 

NPS ownershwould have a effect on the 

Projections of Money Generation Model—multiplier effect of visitor spending on the local economy: • Sales—$2,400,000 • Personal income—$800,000 • Jobs—68 • Value added—$1,300,000

Projections of Money Generation Model—multiplier effect of visitor spending on the local economy: • Sales—$2,800,000 • Personal income—$1,000,000 • Jobs—79 • Value added—$1,500,000

Projections omultiplier effelocal econom• Sales—• Persona• Jobs—8• Value ad

Monument Operations There would be moderate, major, long- term, adverse impacts from inadequate 

employee housing, inadequate office space, housing and office space that does not meet ADA requirements, inadequate infrastructure, inadequate computer and communication systems, inadequate funding for current operations, and lack of fire protection combined with limited police protection. 

There would be beneficial, long-term moderate to major effects from improved housing and office space that meets ADA requirements, rehabilitated infrastructure, updated computer and communication systems, adequate operational funding, and improved fire protection. 

The beneficiaas described partnerships moderate, lonfire protectionoperations anvolunteer in tminor, benefi

 There would be moderate to major 

beneficial long-term effects from obtaining the land base of the monument headquarters. 

There would beneficial lonthe land base headquarters

CONSULTATION AND COORD

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND CONSULTATION Notices and Newsletters The planning process formally began when the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999. The first newsletter was distributed in November 1999, to announce the beginning of the planning process, summarize the process and schedule, confirm the purpose and significance of the park, and invite people to submit their vision for the future of the park and identify issues. Comments were received regarding the purpose and significance, as well as regarding resource protection, access, jobs, and relationships with American Indian tribes. A second newsletter was released in May 2000. It presented the issues raised by responses to the first newsletter, goals for the plan, and three draft alternative concepts. The alternatives were framed around the central question of providing more access to remote sites, or limiting access and providing visitor understanding through other means. 

A. No action—continue existing management B. Greater access and variety of experiences C. More guided tours while emphasizing protection of resources 

Response was split quite evenly between keeping things the way they are (Alternative A), or providing more access (Alternative B), with no one supporting the middle ground between them (Alternative C). 

One of the main assumptions of the drafsecond newsletter was greater access to reopening the lower portion of the AspeStudies in the summer of 2000 revealed present no safe, practical routes down thcanyon. The planning team refocused threflect other options, as well as incorporexpanded American Indian Consultatio

Visitor Use Survey A visitor use survey was conducted from August 2000. Two questions were intenplanning effort. One asked what is speciNational Monument, and responses incand beauty of the landscape, the cliff dwcultures, nature, interpretation, and facquestion asked what is most important tfor the future of the monument. Responpreservation, more access, more limited experience, interpretation, cultures, and American Indian Consultation During initial scoping, local chapters of were visited by a member of the planninpeople of the beginning of the planning newsletters, and gather comments. InscChapter, Shonto Chapter House, TonalDevelopment Planning Committee, and Mountain Chapter House were visited iDecember 1999. 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

148About 30 leaders of American Indian tribes were invited to a consultation meeting in Kayenta, Arizona, on January 20, 2000. The meeting was attended by members of the Hopi and the Navajo Tribes. Discussion included concerns regarding the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, ethnographic resources, resource preservation, differing viewpoints of tribes and EuroAmerican culture, access over tribal lands, tribal relations, and local governance. The 30 tribal leaders were invited again to a consultation meeting in Kayenta, Arizona, May 10, 2000, to discuss the draft alternatives presented in the second newsletter. The meeting was attended by members of the Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni Tribes. Discussion included conflicts between residents and visitors, law enforcement and jurisdiction issues, Inscription House, specific concerns of each tribe, and future consultations. Revised draft alternatives were presented at the Shonto Chapter House (with the invitation extended to Inscription House Chapter and Navajo Mountain Chapter) on February 24, 2001. There was interest in partnerships and economic development. The park superintendent offered additional opportunities for further consultation with affiliated tribes, and additional consultations were held with Hopi, San Juan Paiute, and Zuni tribal members between January and July 2001. 

Section 106 Consultation Section 106 of the National Historic Pre(16USC270, et seq.) requires that for any cultural resources either listed in or eligNational Register of Historic Places and Nation’s tribal historic preservation offitribes, and the Advisory Council on Histopportunities to comment. The THPO, Council, and associated tribes have had participate in the planning process since Consultation for Species of CoThe Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16Uensure that any action taken by a federajeopardize the continued existence of anthreatened species or result in the destrumodifications of critical habitat. Section federal agencies consult with the U.S. FiService (USFWS) to make that determinregarding threatened, endangered, propspecies occurring in the area were obtaiin July 2000 (Appendix D). Additional inspecies of concern was obtained from thWildlife Department of the Navajo Nati(Appendix D). 
CONSULTATION A

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT American Indian Tribes with Potential Cultural Association to the Monument The Hopi Tribe Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

Moapa Band of Paiutes The Navajo Nation Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Pueblo of Acoma Pueblo of Cochiti Pueblo of Isleta Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Laguna Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Picuris Pueblo of Pojaque Pueblo of San Felipe Pueblo of San Ildefonso Pueblo of San Juan Pueblo of Santa Ana Pueblo of Santa Clara Pueblo of Santa Domingo Pueblo of Tesuque Pueblo of Taos 

Pueblo of Zia Pueblo of Zuni San Juan Southern Paiutes Southern Ute Tribe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic PreservatiU.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Window RNational Park Service 

Glen Canyon National RecreatioFlagstaff Areas Petrified Forest National Park 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Senators and RepresentaU.S. Representative J. D. Hayworth U.S. Senator Jon Kyl U.S. Senator John McCain State Agencies Arizona Department of Environmental Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Parks—State Historic Pres
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

150Local Governments Inscription House Chapter House Kayenta Chapter House Kayenta Township Navajo Mountain Chapter House Shonto Chapter House Organizations National Parks and Conservation Association Western National Parks Association PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT DOCUMENT This section contains the comments received through letters and e- mail after the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Navajo National Monument was released on July 16, 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 136, p. 46689- 46690). The comment period was open until September 30, 2002, and was extended one week at the request of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. About 150 copies were sent to agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals on the mailing list. In addition, the complete text of the Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was posted on the NPS internet web site. The National Park Service considered all written comments according to the requirements of 40 CFR 1503. Summary of Written Comments A total of eight written responses were received by letter or web – three from associated American Indian tribes, two from federal agencies, and three from individuals. The Hopi 

Tribe supports the Preferred Alternative 

Partnerships, with a few minor revisionNavajo Tribal Park, Navajo Nation, poinof Tsegi Canyon Navajo Tribal Park in tother issues. The Pueblo of Laguna said no great impact on them, and NPS may pEnvironmental Protection agency gave trating of “Lack of Objections” (LO), refview of the adequacy of the document. TWildlife service requested corrections ospecies, clarification on impact methodoassurances on further consultation as acimplemented. They support the preferrIndividual comments ranged from suppalternative, to concerns about limits on Follow- up consultations were held with Monument Valley Navajo Tribal Park (Nthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Octaddress substantive comments. 

Written Comments In accordance with Council on Environregulation implementing the National EAct, all letters from federal, state, or locAmerican Indian Tribes, as well as all sucomments, must be reprinted in the FinImpact Statement. Responses must be psubstantive comments. Comments are s• Challenge accuracy of information • Dispute information accuracy • Suggest different viable alternatives • Provide new information that makes a ch
CONSULTATION A

In other words, comments are substantive if they raise, debate, or question a point of fact or policy. Comments in favor or against the proposed action or alternatives, or comments that only agree or disagree with NPS policy, are not considered substantive. 

Letters and web responses to the Navajo 

Monument Draft General Management PImpact Statement are reprinted here, wisubstantive comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

152

COMMENTS 

1 

2 

2 

3 4 
PUBLIC COMM

RESPONSES 

1. The Hopi wording has been incorporated. The word 

“removed” has been changed to “moved. 

2. The words are cited from the 1909 Presidential 

proclamation establishing the monument, as explained in the sidebar. The purpose and significance statements and primary interpretive themes on the following pages reflect the broader foundation for future interpretation and management. No change. 

3. Added “distinct” to significance statement. The 

introduction to associated tribes also states that each is 

distinct. 

4. Identification of specific pamphlets is too detailed for the 

GMP. The inclusive interpretive themes and the plan’s description of broadening interpretive stories will provide guidance for such pamphlets. No change.
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

154

COMMENTS RESPONSES 
PUBLIC COMM

COMMENTS 

5 

6 

7 

8 9 

1011
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

156

RESPONSES 

5. The NPS was unaware of the designation of Tsegi Canyon 

Navajo Tribal Park. The tribal park has been added to the 

region map, as well as identifying the tribal park in the discussion of tribal relationships to the monument. 

This general management plan is intended to provide broad guidance for future management of Navajo National Monument, and to provide a base for more detailed planning. A more detailed, joint management plan with Navajo Parks and Recreation Department is an appropriate next step, and the intent to pursue a joint plan has been added to the sections entitled “Visitor Understanding – Backcountry Experience,” “Partnerships.” 

6. The NPS recognizes the interest of the Navajo Nation in 

economic development and tourism, and supports tourism that is closely managed to prevent damage to lands and archeological resources. The wording has been changed in the section entitled “Main Issues of the GMP, Partnerships” to reflect that values may not be inconsistent, merely different.

In the environmental impact analysis, it was determined that the proposed action has no adverse actions on the socio- economic environment. There is no proposal to control or limit grazing on lands outside of federal ownership. The GMP states an interest by the NPS in working cooperatively to protect the environment, such as native plants and water quality. The NPS currently keeps trespass cattle out of the federal land to prevent resource damage, and will continue to do so. That is not a change from current conditions. And the proposed action would allow a modest increase in visitation, and would

particularly encourage a type that woulof stay for visitors and would result in eNo change. 

7. A statement has been added to the sect

“Partnerships” in the plan that states thor partnership that relies on Navajo NaNavajo Nation has jurisdiction. 

8. The idea of a more detailed joint manag

and has been addressed in the response 

9. Navajo National Monument has cultur

more intact, more natural setting, remoand present cultures surrounding the sdistinctly different than Mesa Verde. FAmerican public on this GMP discuss presources carefully so this does NOT b

No change. 

10. This park is somewhat different than Can

is federal ownership of the parcels with ta little more control over what happens omore detailed joint management plan ideresponse to comment 5 could address the

11. De- authorization would require an act o

first steps are detailed feasibility study anWhile the idea of tribal management has scoping of the GMP, no detailed proposacame forward from the tribe. The NPS dlikely to happen within the 15- 20 year timThis idea has been added to the GMP in “Alternatives Considered And Dismissed
PUBLIC COMM

COMMENTS RESPONSE
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

158

COMMENTS 
PUBLIC COMM

COMMENTS RESPONSES 
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

160

COMMENTS 

1213
PUBLIC COMM

COMMENTS RESPONSES 

12. The table in the “Affected Environmen

“Potential Threatened, Endangered, CSpecies of Concern” has been changed “endangered” for the condor, and “thrleopard frog. 

13. The first paragraph of the “Environme

“Methodology,” “Threatened and Endsection has been re- written to address 

13 
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

162

COMMENTS RESPON
PUBLIC COMM

COMMENTS RESPONSES 

14. The impact has been added to “Env

Consequences,” “Impacts of AlternEmphasize Partnerships,” “Visitor UExperience.” 

15. Alternatives B and C offer some add

opportunities while protecting resoexpanded opportunities include extseason to Betatakin and Keet Seel, oper day to Betatakin, and establishiof Inscription House, which has beesince 1968. These actions are depenadequate staff or partners to guide tconsultation with the U.S. Fish and permission from the Navajo Nation front of Inscription House, but offeavailable today (the “No Action” alt

14 

15 
PUBLIC COMMENT/NPS RESPONSE 

164

COMMENTS RESPO
APPENDIX A: LEG
APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

166
APPENDIX B: MEMORANDUM OF AGREE

MA

Between the Navajo Tribe, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and N

Relating to the Recreational Development of the Navajo N
APPENDIX B: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

168
APPENDIX C: TSEGI CANYON NAVAJO TRIB
APPENDIX C: TSEGI CANYON NAVAJO TRIBAL PARK 

170
APPENDIX D: SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTE

An important step in the planning process is the selection of a preferred alternative. The planning team evaluated the draft alternatives utilizing a process called “Choosing by Advantages ” (CBA). This process is used extensively by government agencies and the private sector to make complex decisions. It identifies and compares the relative advantages of each alternative and is based on values that are made explicit and are derived from the goals of the project, public comments, consultations, and laws and policies. Cost is a consideration—cheapest is not always best, but the process helps identify the best value for the money. The CBA process also provides a systematic way to look for improving the preferred alternative by incorporating the important advantages of other alternatives. PROCESS The CBA was conducted by members of the planning team and included two NPS superintendents from nearby parks. The process began with reviewing the purpose and significance of Navajo National Monument, the stakeholders and their points of view, the alternatives and their differences, and relevant laws, policies, or other constraints. Factors were developed that reflect the values expressed in this discussion and were used to compare the alternatives: 

Resource Protection • Protect resources from visitor impacts and with increased 

monitoring and patrol (factor includes primarily natural and cultural resources and ethnographic resources and use). 

• Protect remoteness (dark night skies, 

vistas). 

• Protect collection; promote knowledVisitor Experience/Understanding • Visitor experience—improve in front 

opportunities to remote sites. Improv

Operational Efficiency • Operations—ability to efficiently and 

monument. 

• Facilities • Staff • Fees • Land base/agreements • Good relations with tribes, n

• Recruit and retain local employees. • Visitor safety. 

For each factor, the team identified the alternative based on specific characterisof that alternative. Each advantage was gthat reflected its importance when compadvantages of the other alternatives. By advantage scores for each alternative, thdetermine which alternative had the greimportance of advantages. Alternatives willustrate the best combination of greateleast cost, or the best value. 
APPENDIX D: SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

172RESULTS Alternative C emerged as having the greatest total advantages and good value for the cost. It was further refined to incorporate some of the advantages of Alternative B to expand the preferred alternative presented in this plan, and to provide the best future for Navajo National Monument. The main reasons this alternative was selected are: • Alternative C is strongest on protection of natural and cultural 

resources and remoteness because it addresses the threats emanating from beyond NPS- controlled land. It is these threats that pose the greatest long- term resource protection problem, and by involving the surrounding communities and the American Indian tribes, Alternative C provides for a holistic and sustainable approach to resource and remoteness protection that has the potential to positively impact both the resources of the monument and the surrounding Indian Nation lands and communities. 

• Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity to improve 

visitor understanding of the many cultures through a variety of perspectives provided by greater consultation with and direct involvement of affiliated tribes. Connections between visitors and resources, visitors and the local community, and the local 

community and the monument would be protection would be enhanced by fosterin

• For the reasons given above, Alternative C 

environmentally preferred alternative. Thpreferred alternative is the alternative thanational environmental policy as expressNational Environmental Policy Act. Ordin

alternative that would cause the least damand physical environment; it also means twould best protect, preserve, and enhancnatural resources. 

• The consolidation of the museum collect

protection and value to research and sciecosts associated with this than have been extensive consultation with institutions arequired, but long- term benefits include maximum physical protection, single poinresearch, and involvement of American Incollection management. 

• Alternative C received support in America
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SPECIES OF 
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SPECIES OF CONCERN 

174
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SP
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SPECIES OF CONCERN 

176
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SP
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SPECIES OF CONCERN 

178
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SP
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SPECIES OF CONCERN 

180
APPENDIX E: LETTERS REGARDING SP

APPENDIX F: PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJ

Both alternatives B and C propose that the National Park Service seek to acquire through purchase or exchange the headquarters unit. The land on which the headquarters, visitor center, campground, picnic area, overlooks, trails, employee housing, and maintenance are located is currently Navajo Nation Land used by the National Park Service under a Memorandum of Understanding. The proposal in alternatives B and C is to seek transfer of that land to the NPS, through exchange or purchase. While the existing arrangement works well, the transfer would ensure longterm maintenance and improvement of facilities and clarify issues of jurisdiction and liability. Specific criteria are used by the National Park Service to evaluate boundary adjustments, which apply to the proposal to add the headquarters to Navajo National Monument. The following list identifies the criteria and how they apply to this proposal: 

• To include significant resources or opportunities for 

public enjoyment related to the purposes of the park. 

Proposal: The proposed parcel contains the visitor center, campground, picnic area, popular trails, and views into the canyons and of Betatakin, a primary resource. For most visitors, this is the only area of the park they experience and gain understanding of these sensitive, remote cliff dwellings. Inclusion of this parcel ensures long- term maintenance and improvement of these facilities for visitor enjoyment and appreciation. It would be more feasible to secure funding for facility 

improvements if the land were in NPS ownership. It 

would also make fee collection by thwhich would allow the monument to invest fees into improvements for vis• To address operational and man

as access and boundary identificor other natural features or road

Proposal: Addition of this parcel woboundary along a major landscape feridge, canyon rim, or road. Howeveanother aspect of this criteria, which National Park Service housing and mwithin the boundaries of the monumlong- term maintenance and improvmore feasible to secure funding for fif the land was in NPS ownership. Aparcel would also clarify jurisdiction unanswered in the present agreemen• To protect park resources critica

park’s purposes. 

Proposal: There are no immediate thresources under the current agreemeNation for the use of this land as heaTwo of the three criteria above have recommend a boundary adjustment, requirement to meet at least one. Of criteria, both must be met to further adjustment: 
APPENDIX F: PROPOSED BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

184

• The added lands will be feasible to administer 

considering size, configuration, ownership, costs, and other factors. 

Proposal: This 240 acre parcel contains most of the monument’s infrastructure, already maintained by the staff. Costs of administering the parcel would not increase operating costs. • Other alternatives for management and resource 

protection are not adequate 

Proposal: Alternatives for management and resource protection have been identified in the plan, and the full evaluation of impacts is in the EIS. They are summarized below: 

Alternative A- Review and revise Memorandum of Understanding with Navajo Nation regarding land at headquarters to reflect current interests and concerns. 

- Lack of clarity of NPS jur

headquarters unit. 

- Difficulty in funding facil

Alternatives B/C – Seek transfer oto NPS from Navajo Nation by pwith agreement and endorsemen

+ Clarify and improve jurheadquarters unit. + Increase opportunities improvements. 

- Navajo Nation may perce

lands as unacceptable. 

While transferring this 240 acre unit to trecommended, it would only be sought the Navajo Nation. If agreed to, legislatirequired for authorizing the addition. IAlternatives B or C could still be implem
BIBLIO

Ambler, J. Richard 1985 Navajo National Monument: An Archeological 

Assessment. In Northern Arizona University Archeological Report, No. 974. Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University. 

Arizona Department of Commerce 2001 State, County, and Community Profiles, 

http://www.commerce.state.az.us/ 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region. 2000 Arizona State Endangered Species List 

(http://ifw2es.fws.gov/endspcs/lists). 

Austin, Mary, Ed Austin, Bertha Austin, and Lee Austin 1968 The Early History of Navajo National Monument 

and the Tsegi Canyon. Tape and transcript in the collections of Navajo National Monument. 

Belnap, J. 1996 “Soil Surface Disturbances in Cold Deserts: Effects 

on Nitrogenase Activity in Cyanobacterial- Lichen Soil Crusts.” Biology and Fertility of Soils 23: 362–367. 

Boyers, L. M. 1934a Birds Collected by the 1933 Rainbow Bridge–

Monument Valley Expedition. Deposited with University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. 6p. 

1934b Mammals Collected by the 193

Monument Valley ExpeditionUniversity of California MuseZoology. 7p. 

Briscoe, M. 1974 An Investigation of the Invert

of the Tsegi and Naha FormatCanyon, Arizona. Specimens aGeology Department. 77p. 

Brotherson, J. D., and J. Fairchild. 1977 Ecological Studies at Navajo N

Part I. National Park Service, 100+p. 

Brotherson, J. D., G. Nebeker, M. Skoug

1978 “Plants of Navajo Nationa

Basin Naturalist 38(1): 19–

Brotherson, J. D, and S. R. Rushforth. 1981 “Influence of Cryptogamic Cr

Relationships of Soils in NavaMonument, Arizona.” Great B73–78. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

186Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, W. E. Evenson, J. R. Johansen, and J. Fairchild. 1980 “Spatial Patterns of Plant Communities in Navajo 

National Monument, Arizona.” Great Basin 

Naturalist 45: 1–13. 

Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, W. E. Evenson, J. R. Johansen, and C. Morden. 1980 “Population Dynamics and Age Relationships of 

Eight Tree Species in Navajo National Monument, Arizona.” Journal of Range Management 36: 250–

256. 

Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, W. E. Evenson, L. A. Szyska, J. Fairchild, J. R. Johansen, and C. Morden. 1980 Ecological Studies at Navajo National Monument, 

Part II. National Park Service, Southwest Region. 400+p. 

Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, and J. Johansen. 1983 “Effects of Long- Term Grazing on Cryptogam 

Communities in Navajo National Monument, Arizona.” Journal of Range Management 36(5): 579–

581. 

Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, J. R. Johansen, J. 

Fairchild, and W. E. Evanson. No date. Community Ecology of Navajo National 

Monument. Unpublished. Available at Navajo National Monument. 

Brotherson, J. D., S. R. Rushforth, J. R. JClair, and G. T. Nebeker. 1981 Ecological Studies at Navajo N

Part III. National Park Service350+p. 

Brotherson, J. D., L. A. Szyska, W. E. Ev1981 “Bird Community Compositio

Habitat and Season in BetatakNational Monument, ArizonaNaturalist 41: 298–309. 

Bunzel, Ruth L. 1932 Zuni Origin Myths. Forty- Seve

the Bureau of American EthnoWashington, D.C.: Governme

Bureau of American Ethnology 1911 Preliminary Report on a Visit 

National Monument, ArizonaEthnology Bulletin 50, pages 1–

Christensen, A. L. 1991 Microenvironment of Cliff Dw

Canyon, Arizona. Kiva 57(1): 3

Christensen, P. K. 1979 Groundwater in the Navajo N

Area. National Park Service, SWater Resources Report 80- 1
Clark, C. C. 1935 Mammals of the Tsegi Drainage Area: Based upon 

Field Work by the Rainbow Bridge–Monument Valley Expedition of 1934 and 1935. Rainbow Bridge 

Monument Valley Expedition Preliminary Bulletins, 

Biological Series 4. 

Cole, L. C. 1935 Report on the Herpetology of the Navajo Country: 

Based upon Field Work by the Rainbow Bridge–Monument Valley Expedition Of 1934 and 1935. Rainbow Bridge Monument Valley Expedition 

Preliminary Bulletins, Biological Series 1. 

Colorado State University 1985 Telephotometer Data Collected at Navajo 

National Monument from 1977 to 1985, housed at CSU. 

Cutler, H. C., and L. W. Blake. 1970 Plants from Betatakin and Keet Seel, Arizona. 31p. 

Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Cummings, Byron 1952 Indians I Have Known. Tucson: Arizona 

Silhouettes. 

Cushing, Frank Hamilton 1923 “Origin Myth from Oraibi.” Journal of American 

Folk- lore 36 (1923) 163–170. 

Dean, J. S. 1964 Tree- Ring Dates from Betatak

National Monument; a prelimCopy available at Navajo Nati

Drost, C. A. 2000 Inventory of Threatened, End

Candidate Species at Navajo NUSGS Forest and Rangeland ECenter, Colorado Plateau FielAZ. 

Eaton, T. H., Jr. 1937 Amphibians, Reptiles, Mamm

Birds of the Navajo Country. BNational Youth Administratio

Fairchild, J. A. and J. D. Brotherson. 1980 “Microhabitat Relationships o

in Navajo National MonumenRange Management 33: 150–156

Fewkes, Jesse Walter 1900 “Tusayan Migration Tradition

of the Bureau of American Eth

Flowers, S. 1963 Lichen and Moss Flora of Bet

Vicinity, Navajo National MoUniversity of Utah Division of (miscellaneous papers numbe
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

188Guernsey, Samuel James 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona: Report of 

the Archaeological Fieldwork of 1920–1923. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1). 

Hack, J. T. 1945 Recent Geology of the Tsegi Canyon. An appendix 

in Archaeological Studies in Northeast Arizona, Beals, Brainerd, and Smith, University of California. 

Hill, Kenneth C., Emory Sekaquaptewa, and Mary Black 1997 Hopi Dictionary Project—Hopi 

Dicitionary/Hopiikwa Lavaytutuveni; A HopiEnglish Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

Holiday, S. 1998 A Flora of Tsegi Canyon. M.A. Thesis. Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Hopi Tribe 2001. Hopi Tribe official web site, 

http://www.hopi.nsn.us/ 

House, D. E. 1987 Recovery Plan for Navajo Sedge (Carex specuicola 

J. T. Howell). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 

Howard Leight Hearing Protection 2001 Noise Levels and Frequency, 

http://www.howardleight.com

on/NoiseLevelsAndFrequenc

Johansen, J. R. 1986 Flora of Navajo National Mon

Park Service, Southwest Regio“Ecological Studies at Navajo Monument, Part I.” 

2000 Studies of Microbiotic Crust C

Navajo National Monument. Department of Biology, John Ohio. 

Journal of American Folklore 1923 “The Origin Myth of Zuni.” In 

Folklore 36: 135–162. 

Karbchuer, K. C. 1936. Keet Seel Canyon Vegetation. Sout

Monthly Report, supplement 

Lachel Hansen and Associates 1985 Betatakin Trail Technical Stud

National Park Service. Copy aNational Monument. 

March, J. E., and T. H. Nash. 1979. “Lichens in Relation to the Fo

Plant in New Mexico.” Bryolo
Mayes, V. O., and B. B. Lacy. 1989. Nanise: A Navajo Herbal. Tsaile, AZ: Navajo 

Community College Press, 153p. 

McDougall, W. B. 1939. Beaver Habitat in Navajo National Monument. 

Unpublished. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Michigan State University, Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources 2000 Estimating National Park Visitor Spending and 

Economic Impacts; The MGM2 Model, Daniel J. Stynes, Dennis B. Propst, Wen- Huei Chang, and Ya Yen Sun, prepared for the National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho. Available at http://www.nps.gov/planning/mgm/ 

National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior No date. Author unknown. Plant Ecology of the Inscription 

House Ruin Area, Arizona. 33p. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

1987 Statement for Management, Navajo National 

Monument. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

1995 Backcountry Management Plan, Navajo National 

Monument. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

1996 Resources Management Plan, Navajo National 

Monument. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

1997 Cultural Resource Managemen

(Director’s Order- 28). Copy aNational Monument. 

1999a Inventory of Threatened, En

Candidate Species at Navajo Monument. Prepared for thService by Charles Drost. CNavajo National Monumen

1999b General Management Plan- N

Monument, Newsletter 1, Novavailable at Navajo National M

2000a Archeological Site Hazardous 

Program, Betatakin Ruin, NavMonument (http://fire.nifc.nps.gov/ashfa

2000b Aspen Forest Trail Relocation 

Navajo National Monument. Navajo National Monument. 

2000c General Management Plan- N

Monument, Newsletter 2, Maavailable at Navajo National M

2001a Management Policies. Copy av

National Monument. 

2001b Conservation Planning, Envir

Analysis, and Decision- Makin12). Copy available at Navajo N

2001c Public Use Statistics, http://ww
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

190Navajo Nation 2001a Endangered Species List for the Navajo Nation, 

Division of Natural Resources, Navajo Fish and Wildlife Department. 

2001b Navajo Nation Home Page, 

http://www.navajo.org/ 

Noise Center of the League 2001 Noise Levels in our Environment Fact Sheet, 

http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm 

Norcini, Marilyn, et al. 2001 A Literature Review of Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni 

Associations with Navajo National Monument. On file, National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry 2000 Navajo National Monument Visitor Survey, Final 

Report, prepared by Dr. Marty Lee, Shanon Smith, and Anthony Succa for the National Park Service. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Robinson, A. M. 1986 Phytoecology of Slickrock Soil Islands at Navajo 

National Monument, Arizona. Northern Arizona University. 

Rothman, Hal K. 1991 “Navajo National Monument: A Place and Its 

People, an Administrative History,” Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers 

No. 40, Santa Fe, NM. Copy aNational Monument. 

Schulman, E. 1948 “Dendrochronology at Navajo 

Monument.” Tree- Ring Bullet

St. Clair, L. L., S. R. Rushforth, and J. D1986 “The Influence of Microhabit

Distribution and Abundance oLichens in Zion National ParkNational Monument, Arizona

262. 

Towner, Ronald H. 1996 The Archaeology of Navajo Or

University of Utah Press. 

University of Arizona, Analytical CenterChemistry. 1979 Fourth Quarterly Report of th

National Monuments Aerosol 

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department o2001 Census 2001, http://www.censU.S. Claims Commission 1974 “The Hopi: Their History and 

Hopi Indians. New York: GarlClaims Commission Docket 2
U.S. Department of Commerce 1939 to present. Climatological data weather station at 

Navajo National Monument. Available at Navajo National Monument. 

Vandiver, V. W. 1936 Geology of Navajo National Monument. 

Southwest Monuments Monthly Reports, July 46–55. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Viele, Catherine W. 1993 Navajo National Monument. Tucson: 

Southwestern Parks and Monument Association. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Wachter, Bruce, Ph.D. 1978 Rock Motion Hazard, Geologic Analysis of Rock 

Deterioration at Selected National Park Service Archeological Sites, prepared for the Western Archeological Center, Tucson, Arizona, National Park Service. Copy available at Navajo National Monument. 

Wetherill, M. A. 1935 Birds at Navajo. Southwest M

Report. Copy available at NavMonument. 

1937 Herbarium at Navajo Nationa

Southwest Monuments MontCopy available at Navajo Nati

Wetherill, M. A., and A. R. Phillips. 1939 “Bird Records from the Navaj

51: 100–102. 

Wieczorek, Gerald F., and Edwin L Har2000 “Rock- fall Hazard Assessmen

Trail, Navajo National MonumGeological Survey AdministraNational Park Service. Copy aNational Monument. 

Woodbury, A. M. 1963 Biological- Ecological Aspects 

Canyon, Navajo National MoEnvironmental Biological ResUtah Division of Biological ScMiscellaneous papers number 

LIST OF PR

PREPARERS OF DOCUMENT—NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Preparers of the document were involved in consultations, planning team meetings, development of alternatives, and writing various sections of the plan. Additional specific contributions are identified below. National Park Service Intermountain Region and Support Office Greg Cody, (formerly) NEPA/106 Specialist (formerly Intermountain Support Office—Denver). Overall coordination of NEPA/106 compliance. B.A., M.A. (History), 8 years with the NPS. Laura Hudson, (formerly) Natural Resource Specialist (Intermountain Support Office—Denver). Natural resource planning and analysis, consultation with U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and Navajo Nation Department of Wildlife regarding species of concern. B.A. (Biology), M.S. (Ecology), 19 years with the NPS. Edward Lee Natay, Park Ranger serving on Intermountain Regional Director’s Staff as the Regional American Indian Trust Responsibilities Officer (office at Intermountain Support Office—Santa Fe). Advice and counsel on intergovernmental consultation for the GMP, particularly regarding issues that may affect American Indian tribal interests, practices, and traditional park resources (such as cultural and/or natural places of religious value to Indian tribes). 

Alexa Roberts, (formerly) Cultural Anth(Intermountain Support Office—Santa Fand analysis of ethnographic resource im(Anthropology), 7 years with the NPS. Suzanne Stutzman, Landscape Architect(Intermountain Support Office—Denveoverall coordination of the project; analand socio- economy, cost estimates. B.SArchitecture), 24 years with the NPS. 

Navajo National Monument Rick Best, (formerly )Ranger. Monumenvisitor experience planning and analysisyears with the NPS. James Charles, (formerly) Superintendeof the monument, including planning. B(Anthropology), 18 years with Bureau of years with NPS. Kevin Harper, (formerly ) Archeologist. analysis of cultural resources. B.A., M.Ayears with NPS. John Laughter, Maintenance Supervisorcoordination of local chapter communicmonument operations. 24 Years with NPNational Monument. Brenton White, (formerly )Ranger. Analoperations. B.S. (Psychology), M.P.A. (M
LIST OF PREPARERS 

194Administration, Natural Resource Management), 4 years with the NPS. CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS National Park Service—Navajo National Monument Irv Francisco, (formerly) Supervisory Ranger Glenn Gossard, Acting Superintendent Curlinda Holiday, Administrative Assistant Rose James, Administrative Officer Rosemari Knoki, Interpretive Ranger Melissa Memory, (formerly) Archeological Technician Steve Nez, Maintenance Worker National Park Service—Intermountain Support Office, Denver Linda Clement, Curation Specialist Neil DeJong, Chief of Interpretation and Education Michelle Gudorf, (formerly) GIS Specialist Lori Kinser, Visual Information Specialist Richard Kohen, Interpretation and Education Kim Sykoriak, Interpretation and Education 

Ronnie Walls, Interpretation and Educa

National Park Service—Other Units Joe Alston, (formerly) Superintendent, GNational Recreation Area Kayci Cook, (formerly) Assistant SuperiCanyon National Recreation Area Kate Hammond, (formerly) Interpretive Ferry Center (Denver) Michele Hellickson, (formerly) SuperinForest National Park Sam Henderson, Superintendent, FlagstCharlotte Obergh, Management AssistaNational Recreation Area Pauline Wilson, American Indian CoordNational Recreation Area Others Linda Carlson, Carlson Editing Shirley Cloud- Lane, (formerly) Parks anDepartment, Navajo Nation Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, Director, HopPreservation Office, Hopi Tribe Terri Mortgart, Cultural Preservation O
G

ABBREVIATIONS CFR—Code of Federal Regulations EIS—Environmental Impact Statement GMP—General Management Plan NAGPRA—Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act NPS—National Park Service PL—Public Law Sec. 106—Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act THPO—Tribal Historic Preservation Office USC—United States Code DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS Accessibility—the provision of NPS programs, facilities, and services in ways that include individuals with disabilities, or makes available to those individuals the same benefits available to persons without disabilities. Affiliated American Indian tribes—the lineal descendents or culturally affiliated Native American groups, for the purposes of fulfilling the intent of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Anasazi—Navajo term meaning “ana” (

(older); old ones, elders. Also, means anancient enemies. Archeological resource—any material evidence of past human life or activitiesresource is capable of revealing scientifiinformation through archeological reseAmerican human remains, funerary objeand objects of cultural patrimony belonaffiliated Native American groups throuthe Native American Graves Protection Act. Associated American Indian tribes—tr

associations to the area of the monumendistinct set of beliefs and a relationship tand landscapes of the monument area. Tprecedes the establishment of the monu

generations. Backcountry—refers to undeveloped p

monument (without roads, buildings, pasmall numbers of visitors. Cultural landscape—a geographic area

cultural and natural resources and the wanimals therein, associated with an evenor exhibiting other cultural or esthetic vCultural resource—an aspect of a cultuvalued by or significantly representative contains significant information about a resource may be a tangible entity such a
GLOSSARY 

196objects, archeological resources, or ethnographic resources, or an intangible activity such as cultural practices. Ecosystem—system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment, considered as a unit. Environmental impact statement—a detailed NEPA analysis document that is prepared when a proposed action or alternatives have the potential for significant impact on the human environment. Ethnographic landscape—an area containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that traditionally associated people define as heritage resources. The area may include plant and animal communities, structures, and geographic features, each with their own special local names. Ethnographic resources—objects and places, including sites, structures, landscapes, and natural and cultural resources, with traditional cultural meaning and value to associated peoples, as determined by research and consultation. Exotic species—species that occupy park lands directly or indirectly as the result of deliberate or accidental human activities (also referred to as nonnative, alien, or invasive species). Front country—refers to the area of the monument developed with roads, buildings, parking lots, overlooks, campgrounds, etc., to serve many visitors and administer the monument. General management plan (GMP)—a plan that clearly defines direction for resource preservation and visitor use in a park and serves as the basic foundation for decision making. GMPs are developed with broad pubic involvement. 

Hanging garden – Aclove hanging gard

very specialized and variable sub- compsystem. They often harbor endemic, rarplant species.Hisatsinom—Hopi term meaning ancesImpact—the likely effects of an action oupon specific natural, cultural, or socioeImpacts may be direct, indirect, cumulaadverse. Impairment—an impact so severe that, judgment of a responsible NPS managerintegrity of park resources or values and Organic Act. Implementation plan—a plan that focu

implement an activity or project needed 

term goal. An implementation plan may project or an ongoing activity. Lightscapes (natural ambient)—the sta

resources and values as they exist in the caused light. Management prescriptions—an NPS midentifies the desired future condition fowithin NPS units. Prescriptions include cultural resource conditions, desired visand the appropriate level of managemenof facilities. Mitigation—modification of a proposal intensity of its impact on a particular resNational park system—the sum total of now or hereafter administered by the SeInterior through the National Park Serv
monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes. National Register of Historic Places—the comprehensive list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of national, regional, state, and local significance, designated by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and entered in the National Register of Historic Places. Native species—all species that have occurred now or occur as a result of natural processes on land designated as units of the NPS. Natural change—recognized as an integral part of the functioning of natural systems. Natural condition—describes the condition of resources that would occur in the absence of human dominance over the landscape. Natural resources—physical resources (such as water, air, soils, geologic features), physical processes (such as weather, erosion, wildland fire), biological resources (such as native plants, animals, communities), biological processes (such as photosynthesis, succession, evolution), and ecosystems. Preservation—the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a historic structure, landscape, or object. Work may include preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, but generally focuses on the ongoing preservation maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new work. Pueblo—Spanish term meaning village or town. This term was applied to Native American villages encountered by 

Spanish explorers and settlers of the SouPueblo. Remoteness—a lack of modern intrusio

vehicles, buildings, parking lots, and briobstructing the night sky. Soundscape (natural)—the aggregate onon- human- caused sounds that occur itogether with the physical capacity for tsounds. Stabilization—interventive treatment aincrease the stability or durability of an preventative conservation measures fail 

of deterioration to an acceptable level odeteriorated so far that its existence is jeStewardship—the cultural and natural r

ethic of employing the most effective coequipment, and technology to prevent, aimpacts that would compromise the interesources. Traditional—pertains to the recognizabnecessarily identical, cultural patterns trgroup across at least two generations. Sy“ancestral” and “customary.” Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (official appointed by the tribe’s chief godesignated by a tribal ordinance or presthat has assumed the responsibilities of Preservation Officer (SHPO) for purposcompliance on tribal lands. In accordanthe National Historic Preservation Act, THPO is upon approval by the DirectorService.

NPS D-43a