[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