GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER VI: PLANNING FOR THE PARK--THE 1970S (continued)

Other Plans for Development

Environmental Assessment for McKittrick Canyon

In 1975, the government acquired the right-of-way for a new access road to McKittrick Canyon. Construction of a new road, which would make the canyon much more accessible to visitors, made the need for visitor facilities in the canyon more imperative. The Master Plan provided for the road, as well as a parking area, and information and ranger station with a shaded waiting area. During 1976, staff at the Denver Service Center completed the Environmental Assessment of the buildings and utilities for McKittrick Canyon. The Environmental Assessment was necessary to determine how the comfort station and utilities could be developed. Under existing conditions, an aerial power line served the Pratt cabin, but there was no comfort station, water, or telephone available for visitors. Besides no action, three alternatives were proposed for the utilities for the ranger station and comfort station. All of the alternatives included electrical and telephone systems; two also included sewage treatment and water systems, the primary difference between the two being the type of sewage treatment provided. [31] The Environmental Assessment merely described the alternatives and made no recommendation about which should be adopted. Planners subsequently adopted the alternative that utilized a septic tank and leach field.

Upper Dog Canyon Development Concept Plan and Environmental Assessment

After 1975, the only way visitors could reach Dog Canyon was by using the trail system from other parts of the park. Automobile access to Dog Canyon, in the northern part of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, had been closed by landowners who refused to allow park visitors to travel across their property. Negotiations between the landowners and numerous government agencies were prolonged until 1977 when Eddy County acquired the necessary right-of-way and agreed to cooperate with the State of New Mexico to build a road to the park boundary. Planning for development near the northern boundary of the park progressed rapidly after road access to the canyon had been assured. While the Master Plan had provided for a ranger residence, contact station, primitive campground, and corral for park stock in Upper Dog Canyon, development of the area hinged upon the location of a dependable source of water for the residential area and for Park Service livestock.

Before the federal government acquired the land from J.C. Hunter, Jr., the Laurie Kincaid family had lived at the Upper Dog Canyon site, in a house built a number of years earlier by Fred Cox. In 1976, the park ranger lived in the old house. Existing structures that dated from the 1930s included the house and a stockshed; more recent structures included two fiberglass water tanks and a metal storage shed (see Figure 19). Other facilities present in 1976 included a horse corral, a fenced pasture, a fire circle, a pit toilet associated with the temporary camping area, a weather station, and two earthen tanks that had been used for stock water storage prior to establishment of the park. Several midden sites, one deemed eligible for nomination to the National Register, were associated with the development area. The area also contained a one-mile nature trail and trailheads leading up Dog Canyon to Lost Peak and Pitchfork Canyon. Water for the ranger residence was obtained from Upper Dog Canyon Spring, which flowed weakly at 0.3 gallons per minute. A septic tank provided waste treatment for the residence. Electric power and telephone service, with frequent interruptions, were supplied from El Paso Gap, via Dell City. [32]

The Environmental Assessment for development of Upper Dog Canyon, completed in April 1978, expanded on the scheme that had been set forth in the Master Plan. The Environmental Assessment offered three alternatives besides no action. All three provided for the demolition of existing structures and replacement with residential and barn/storage units meeting park service standards. In each of the alternatives the residential area contained a three-bedroom residence with garage for the park ranger. The ranger's residence was combined with the contact station. The residential area also included two two-bedroom apartments for seasonal employees, with a garage for each residence. In each of the alternatives, the barn and corral complex was located at the south end of the developed area, in the vicinity of the existing stockshed. To provide water to the residences and for emergency visitor use, each alternative called for drilling a deep well and, if the flow justified development, construction of a 20,000-gallon storage tank, and purification and distribution systems. If the drilling effort failed to produce a sufficient supply of water, the existing water source, Upper Dog Canyon Spring, would be renovated and augmented with roof catchment and surface runoff collection. If necessary, supplemental water would be trucked to the area. [33]

Each of the three alternatives involved 9.5 acres of land and varied only in the locations of the residential and campground areas. [34] One alternative placed the campground just inside the park boundary on the east side of the entrance road. The residential area was also on the east side of the road, between the campground and the barn area. A second alternative was similar to the first, but placed the campground on the west side of the road and nearer to the residential area. The third alternative placed the residential area west of the road, nearer the park boundary, with the campground on the site of the existing camping area. Each alternative had impacts on visitor use and experience, management, aesthetics, and the archeological resources present at the site. The estimated cost for the first and second alternatives was $613,000. The cost for the third alternative was $10,000 more because of an additional structure needed to cross the drainage channel to the residential area. The Environmental Assessment did not recommend any particular alternative but merely pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each. Park managers ultimately selected the third alternative.

CONTINUE >>>