[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64146-64147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30655]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Petroglyph National Monument, Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the Final General Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement for Petroglyph National Monument, 
Albuquerque, 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 a Final General Management Plan/Development Concept 
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/DCP/EIS) for Petroglyph 
National Monument.
    The Final 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 Final 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 estimated 15,000 prehistoric petroglyphs and other 
significant natural and cultural resources that are on the west side of 
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The monument is the first National Park System 
area specifically

[[Page 64147]]

established to protect and interpret rock carvings and their setting.
    Public input has identified issues and concerns which include 
management 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 
visitor center, parking areas and trail heads, a heritage education 
center, and a petroglyph research center. Other issues addressed in the 
Final 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. These alternatives are summarized below:
    Alternative 1: The overall approach of alternative 1, the proposed 
action and the 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 only on elected designated mesa-top trails and at three 
crossing points. No horses or bicycles would be allowed in petroglyph 
viewing areas or archeological sites anywhere in the monument. Mesa top 
resources and visitor experiences would be monitored to identify 
adverse impacts. Impacts on cultural and natural resources, the 
regional economy, visitors and values held by culturally affiliated 
groups 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 at 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, traditional 
and cultural 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. Overall impacts on 
cultural and natural resources and values held by culturally affiliated 
groups would be similar to and in some cases slightly less under this 
alternative than under alternative 1.
    Alternative 3: The overall approach would be to have easy access to 
the mesa-top views and the volcanoes as well as petroglyph 
concentrations below the escarpment. Visitors would be directed to a 
visitor/heritage education center at 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 that would exist at the monument without a change in current 
management direction or an approved management plan--providing a 
baseline for evaluating the changes and impacts that would occur under 
the three action alternatives. There would be parking areas and minor 
trail improvements in some areas. There would be no new visitor 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: The no action period will end 30 days after the Environmental 
Protection Agency publishes notice that the Final GMP/DCP/EIS has been 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency. After this period a 
Record of Decision can be issued by the National Park Service. A Record 
of Decision will not be issued prior to February 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Questions about this document should be addressed to 
Superintendent, Petroglyph National Monument, 6001 Unser Blvd. NW, 
Albuquerque, NM 87120 phone# (505) 899-0205.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public reading copies of the Final GMP/DCP/
EIS will be available for review at the following locations: Office of 
Public Affairs, National Park Service 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20240; Department of Interior Natural Resources Library, 1849 C 
Street NW, Washington, DC 20240; Petroglyph National Monument Las 
Imagines Visitor Center, 4732 Unser Blvd.,NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico; 
and local public libraries in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    Dated: November 25, 1996.
Vickie E. White,
Acting Superintendent, Petroglyph National Monument.
[FR Doc. 96-30655 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P