[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39003-39004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18676]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Petroglyph National Monument, Draft General Management Plan/
Development Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Draft General Management Plan/
Development Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Petroglyph
National Monument, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and Public Law 101-313 (the legislation that
established the monument) the National Park Service announces the
availability of the Draft General Management Plan/Development Concept
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/DCP/EIS) for Petroglyph
National Monument. This notice also announces public meetings for the
purpose of receiving public comment on the Draft GMP/DCP/EIS.
The Draft GMP/DCP/EIS has been prepared in cooperation with the
City of Albuquerque, the State of New Mexico, and the Federal Aviation
Administration. The purpose of this Draft GMP/DCP/EIS is to set forth
the basic management philosophy of the monument and the overall
approaches to resource management, visitor use, and facility
development that would be implemented over the next 10-15 years.
Petroglyph National Monument, encompassing 7,244 acres, was
established in June 1990 as a new unit of the National Park System to
preserve the more than 15,000 prehistoric and historic petroglyphs and
other significant natural and cultural resources that are on the west
side of
[[Page 39004]]
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The monument is the first National Park System
area specifically established to protect and interpret rock carvings
and their setting.
Public input and meetings identified issues and concerns addressed
in the combined document, which include partnership responsibilities,
cultural and natural resource protection, protection of sites and
values of culturally affiliated groups, and location and function of
visitor and administrative facilities such as a visitor center, parking
areas and trail heads, a heritage education center, and a petroglyph
research center. Other issues addressed in the GMP/DCP/EIS include
interpretation, education, visitor circulation and access, public use
of the monument, and boundary adjustments.
There are four alternatives for the development, resource
management, and visitor use of the monument. The alternatives describe
different visitor experiences and different kinds and locations for
facilities under a common resource management and protection approach.
All alternatives have a common resource management approach because of
resource management laws and policies that apply to various aspects of
all National Park System areas, including cultural landscape and
archaeological site values, natural resources, and various other
aspects of monument management.
Alternative 1: The overall approach of the proposed action and
National Park Service's preferred alternative, would be to provide
various ways for visitors of different ages and abilities to see and
appreciate many of the monument's significant resources. Visitors would
be directed to a visitor center/heritage education center at Boca Negra
Canyon. Horseback and bicycle riding would be permitted on selected
designated mesa-top trails and at three crossing points. No horses or
bicycles would be allowed in petroglyph viewing areas or archaeological
sites anywhere in the monument. Mesa-top resources and visitor
experiences would be monitored to identify adverse impacts. Most
impacts on the cultural and natural resources would be minimal or, in
some cases, beneficial. New structures would impact the cultural
landscape. There could be adverse impacts on values held by culturally
affiliated groups from the intrusion of bicycles and horses.
Alternative 2: This alternative would preserve the greatest portion
of the monument and adjacent lands in as natural a condition as
possible, with the fewest intrusions from development and fewer
opportunities for public access and use. Visitors would be directed to
a visitor center in Lava Shadows where they would have access to
selected petroglyphs. A heritage education center would be built at
Boca Negra Canyon. Visitors would have more opportunities to see the
petroglyphs with a greater sense of solitude than in Alternative 1.
More areas of the monument would be reserved for research, American
Indian use, and occasional guided tours than in the other alternatives.
Horse and bicycle use would not be permitted in this alternative except
at two escarpment crossings. Impacts would be similar to and in some
cases slightly more positive under this alternative than under
Alternative 1 because there would be fewer facilities and these
facilities would be in previously disturbed areas.
Alternative 3: The overall approach would be to provide the easiest
and greatest amount of access to areas with many petroglyphs and to the
scenic mesa-top vistas. Visitors would be directed to a visitor/
heritage education center in Rinconada Canyon. From the visitor center
many visitors would drive to a new 10-mile mesa-top loop road that
would provide easy access to the mesa-top views and the volcanoes.
Parking and trails would be developed at the volcanoes and geologic
windows areas. Horse and bicycle use would be provided at three
escarpment crossings. This alternative would have the greatest impact
on natural resources, cultural resources, and values held by culturally
affiliated groups.
Alternative 4: The ``no-action'' alternative, describes the
conditions and impacts that would exist at the monument without a
change in current management direction or an approved management plan.
There would be no new visitor or heritage education center. This
alternative would have the fewest facilities. Horseback and bicycle
riding would be permitted within the monument only where currently
allowed. The interim visitor center at Las Imagines would become the
primary visitor center, accommodating only a limited number of
visitors. Archeological sites, petroglyphs, and the cultural landscape
would continue to be adversely impacted by vandalism.
DATES: Comments on the Draft GMP/DCP/EIS should be received no later
than November 6, 1995. The dates and times for public meetings
regarding the Draft GMP/DCP/EIS can be obtained by contacting
Petroglyph National Monument at 505-839-4429.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the Draft GMP/DCP/EIS should be submitted to
Superintendent, Petroglyph National Monument, 4735 Unser Blvd., NW.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87120, 505-839-4429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public reading copies of the Draft GMP/DCP/
EIS will be available for review at the following locations: Department
of Interior Natural Resources Library, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20240; Office of Public Affairs, National Park Service, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Southwest Systems Support Office,
1100 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Petroglyph National
Monument, Las Imagines Visitor Center, 4735 Unser Blvd., NW.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and local public libraries.
Dated: July 21, 1995.
Ernest W. Ortega,
Acting Superintendent, Southwest System Office.
[FR Doc. 95-18676 Filed 7-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
