Prepared by:
U.S. Department Of Interior
National Park Service
White Sands National Monument
New Mexico
February 18, 2003
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Environmental Assessment/Assessment of Effect
Concession and Restroom Construction and Visitor Center Restoration
Otero County, New Mexico
SUMMARY
This environmental assessment describes options for constructing a concession facility and handicap accessible public restrooms, modifying existing concession parking removing spaces to the east and constructing spaces to the west, removing the 1986 cinderblock addition to the visitor center and restoring the view of the dunes from the historic visitor center patio. Included is an analysis of the impacts on the project location. Two alternatives are analyzed. The preferred alternative A would construct a new concession facility, and modern restrooms, modify concession existing parking, increase space for the Interpretive staff, remove the 1986 cinderblock addition and restore the view of the dunes from the historic visitor center. This document describes such action and provides an environmental analysis. Alternative B (no action) would continue in the existing condition with no change to the concession location, no restroom improvements, no increase in facility space, no change in parking, no removal of the 1986 cinderblock addition and no restoration to the view of the dunes from the historic visitor center patio.
If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may mail comments to the address below. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals available for public inspection in their entirety.
Please send comments by March 31, 2003.
Address comments to:
Superintendent
White Sands National Monument
P.O. Box 1086
Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. 88330-1086
or to: diane_white@nps.gov
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1: Regional Map of New Mexico and Location of White Sands National Monument
Figure 2: Vicinity Map of White Sands National Monument
IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Impairment of Park Resources or Values
IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS
Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources, Ethnographic Resources and Museum Collections
Water Resources Including Floodplains and Wetlands
Threatened and Endangered Species
ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Figure 4: Overall Plan of Proposed Facilities
Figure 5: Floor Plan of Proposed Concession
Figure 6: Floor Plan of Proposed Restroom
Figure 7: Floor Plan of Proposed Restoration to the Visitor Center
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
Impacts on Cultural Resources and Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act
Impacts on Cultural Resources: Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures
IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
APPENDIX A: Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and Species of Concern
The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to construct a White Sands National Monument concession facility, modify existing concession parking removing spaces to the east and constructing spaces to the west, construct modern public restrooms and restore the view of the dunes from the historic visitor center. The following is a discussion of the purpose and need for this proposed construction project
The present concession is located within the park’s historic adobe visitor center. The visitor center is a 1930s era adobe building constructed in the Pueblo Revival Style by the Civil Works Administration. The visitor center is one of the contributing buildings in the park’s historic district and cultural landscape listed to the National Register of Historic Places. Two additions have been added in the past to the visitor center to increase the concession space. One of the additions is cinderblock and was constructed in 1986. This addition does not integrate well with the historic adobe building and blocks the view of the dunes, originally conceived by the architects Lyle E. Bennett and Robert W. Alders.
Additionally, the current concession is too small to adequately serve the number of visitors who use it. The retail space is less than 1,270 square feet with souvenirs and limited food service crammed into the concession. A single tour bus can overwhelm the concession. Over the past 10 years the park has received approximately 60,000 visitors per month from March through August, topping nearly 70,000 visitors in July alone. Annual visitation is just under 600,000 people. Visitor satisfaction with the park’s "commercial facility" is rated at 75 percent, which does not meet the park’s goals.
Public restrooms at the park’s visitor center are located in a 1930s era building. The existing restrooms have been up dated but they have a limited capacity and do not serve groups on tour busses or increased crowds during special events well. The present restrooms are not handicap accessible. The high use and subsequent care of the inadequate historic restroom building creates addition work for maintenance staff.
The present office space occupied by the park’s interpretive staff is exceedingly limited and cramped. Three small offices totaling approximately 556 square feet, house records and files plus three permanent interpretive employees, the Western National Parks Association employees and a number of park volunteers.
White Sands National Monument (the monument) was established in 1933 by presidential proclamation for "...the preservation of the white sands and additional features of scenic, scientific, and educational interest." The monument contains about half of the world’s largest gypsum sand dune field and is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior.
White Sands National Monument is located within the Tularosa Basin in south-central New Mexico (Figures 1 and 2). The nearest town is Alamogordo, 15 miles east of the monument. The city of Las Cruces is 60 miles southwest of the monument headquarters. A visitor center and administrative facilities are located at the monument headquarters, on U.S. Highway 70 between Alamogordo and Las Cruces, New Mexico. The western portion of the monument is within Doña Ana County, and the eastern portion of the monument is within Otero County. The monument is almost entirely surrounded by military lands, including the White Sands Missile Range managed by the U.S. Army, and Holloman Air Force Base. Land within the monument boundary is entirely federally owned.
Figure 1: Regional Map of New Mexico and Location of White Sands National Monument
Figure 2: Vicinity Map of White Sands National Monument
...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (National Park Service organic act, 16 USC 1).
The National Park Service Management Policies 2001 (NPS, 2000) also state (1.4.4):
The impairment of park resources and values may not be allowed by the Service unless directly and specifically provided for by the legislation or by the proclamation establishing the park. The relevant legislation or proclamation must provide explicitly (not by the implication or inference) for the activity, in terms that keep the Service from having the authority to manage the activity so as to avoid the impairment.
STUDY AREA POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT
The area under consideration for this analysis includes the land adjacent to the northwest and southwest sides of the visitor center bounded by the entrance road and the northwest parking lot (Figure 3).
Scoping is a process to identify the resources that may be affected by a project proposal, and to explore the possible alternative ways of achieving the proposal while minimizing impacts. White Sands National Monument conducted both internal scoping with appropriate NPS staff and external scoping with the public and interested and affected groups and agencies.
Internal scoping was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of White Sands National Monument, and planning professionals of the National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office in Santa Fe and Denver. Team members met on October 24, 2002 to discuss the purpose and need for the project; important resource topics; past, present, and foreseeable impacts; ongoing maintenance activities; and possible mitigation measures of the proposed action.
Scoping consisted of public news releases sent to newspapers in Alamogordo, Las Cruces, Albuquerque and El Paso with notice of the intent to prepare an environmental assessment and requesting comment from concerned citizens or groups. Advertisements were placed in the Alamogordo, Las Cruces and Albuquerque newspapers on October 27 and 28, 2002. The New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (NMSHPO) was also contacted since the area is located in an historic district. The NMSHPO was supportive of the plan provided they were given the opportunity to review the design documents. There were no comments from the public during the project scoping.
Figure 3: Plan of Existing Facilities
IMPACT TOPICS ANALYZED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The white sand dunes are a primary resource of the monument and make up the largest gypsum sand dune field in the world. The white sand dunes are granules of nearly pure hydrated calcium sulfate and range up to 50 feet in height. Annual dune movement varies from 30 feet per year to nearly stationary where vegetation predominates. Older dune deposits of the Duneland-Yessum soil association are stabilized and have extensive soil crust and some vegetation (USDA-SCS 1976). The area east and south of the dunefield is mostly flat, deep, well-drained wind-deposited soil of moderately coarse texture and very high in gypsum content of the Yessum-Holloman soil association. The project area is located on the flat, well-drained wind-deposited soil.
The project area is topographically flat with desert landscaping. The original desert vegetation was removed from the area in the 1930s when the visitor center was constructed. The vegetation planted in the area includes cottonwood, four-wing saltbush, pickleweed, little-leaf sumac, soaptree yucca, and claret-cup cactus.
The following plant communities are found on the 144,000-acre monument: (New Mexico Natural Heritage Program 1994).
Non-native or exotic plants include salt cedar (tamarisk) scattered throughout the monument. Salt cedar and other exotics are being controlled in the area within one mile of monument public roads. African rue, Russian thistle, Malta star-thistle, and ragweed are found and controlled on disturbed sites around buildings and road shoulders.
Native wildlife found on the park includes six species of amphibians, 12 snake species, 13 lizard species, one turtle species, 210 bird species, and 26 mammal species. Bird species include various perching birds as winter migrants and nesting during spring, some spring and fall migratory shore birds and migratory raptors. Mammals include various rodents, bats, and medium sized mammals such as gray and kit fox, coyote, badger, raccoon, ringtail, and bobcats.
Wildlife in the project area is limited to lizards and various rodents. Perching bird species can also be seen in the area, these include cactus wren, roadrunner, curved-bill thrasher and scott’s oriole. The size of the area and close proximity to pedestrian visitor traffic limits the number of species present.
The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in 1992 (16USC 470 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and the National Park Service's Cultural Resource Management Guideline (NPS, 1996), Management Policies (NPS, 2001), and Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making Handbook (NPS, 2001) require the consideration of effects on cultural resources, including those listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
The undertakings described in this document are subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, under the terms of the 1995 programmatic agreement among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. The State Historic Preservation Officer (NMSHPO) has reviewed the concession, restroom and restoration proposal and comment.
National Park Service Management Policies (2001) categorizes cultural resources as archeological resources, ethnographic resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and museum collections. Historic structures and cultural landscapes will be considered here. Archeological resources, ethnographic resources and museum collections will be discussed in the section on impact topics dismissed from further analysis.
The park has an historic district encompassing the adobe visitor center, residences and maintenance buildings. The historic district was listed to the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. The historic district also contributes to the park’s cultural landscape, which was nominated to the National Register in 2002.
The visitor center is adjacent to the area of the proposed concession and restroom. This project also addresses the restoration of a portion of the visitor center. The visitor center is the cornerstone of the park’s historic district and cultural landscape. The building is a two-story stuccoed adobe built during the 1930s in Pueblo Revival Style. The building has projecting wooden vigas and canales with portals supported by log posts along the front facade. The interior has corner fireplaces, wall niches, exposed viga and latilla ceilings, with original WPA era furnishings and tin light fixtures. Lyle E. Bennett and Robert W. Alders designed the building. The construction was performed by the Civilian Works Administration.
About 500,000-600,000 visitors enter the monument annually. The main use season is March through October, with Easter weekend and school spring breaks especially busy. Summer temperatures influence use, with daytime highs commonly reaching 100 degrees.
Other than primitive backcountry camping, use is confined to daylight hours along the corridor of the eight-mile public road. The road ends at the "Heart of the Sands," a loop of parking and picnic areas that is the focal point of visitor use in the dunes. People enjoy playing on the dunes near the road, hiking, picnicking, and photographing the dune landscape. Few people hike more than one mile from the main road. The monument is almost entirely surrounded by military land and public access is restricted on roads providing access to remote areas of the monument. Ranger guided interpretive hikes are led daily along from the dunes road, and one trip per month is led to the western portion of the monument and Lake Lucero playa.
Impairment of Park Resources or Values
In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the preferred and other alternatives, National Park Service policy (NPS 2000) requires analysis of potential effects to determine whether actions would impair park resources.
The fundamental purpose of the National Park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. National Park Service managers must always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the National Park Service the management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute impairment of the affected resources and values. Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgement of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute an impairment. An impact would be more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a resource or value whose conservation is:
Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing the park, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the park. This environmental assessment will analyze the potential effects of all alternatives presented to determine if the alternative would result in an impairment of park resources. An impairment finding is included in the conclusion section for the following impact topics: soil, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, and visitor use as well as the conclusion section for each alternative.
IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS
Section 118 of the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et. Seq.) requires a National Park Service unit to meet all federal, state, and local air pollution standards. White Sands National Monument is designated a Class II air quality area under 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. The proposed action will not increase air pollution. The primary source of air pollution in the park is from automobiles. The proposed action will not cause vehicle traffic to significantly increase. The proposed action would have no effects on air quality beyond the effect of the existing monument everyday operations.
Cultural Resources: Archeological Resources, Ethnographic Resources and Museum Collections
National Park Service Management Policies (2001) categorizes cultural resources as archeological resources, ethnographic resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and museum collections. Archeological resources, ethnographic resources and museum collections are considered here.
White Sands National Monument has approximately 144,000 acres. Less than one percent has archeological resource survey. Information on the park’s cultural resources is based on limited pedestrian survey and horseback reconnaissance. Sites appear to be scattered throughout the monument primarily in the vegetated sand dunes, mesquite and grassland areas. Site density in the active dunes and in the playa areas is expected to be low.
In general, the park contains both prehistoric and historic sites. These include Paleolithic, Archaic, Mogollon and Apache artifact scatters and hearth sites. Two pueblo period Mogollon villages are documented within the park. The park also has historic roads, corrals, wells and water tanks, along with one 1950s era missile tracking station. The park has an historic district known as the Parabolic Dune Hearth Mounds listed to the state register as property 434. The hearth mounds district has been determined to be eligible for the New Mexico State Register of Historic Places.
A record search of the White Sands National Monument and Archaeological Records Management System (ARMS) files was conducted for the area of the proposed concession relocation. The record search revealed that there was one survey within the project area that located no archeological resource sites. The proposed action would have no effects on archeological resources.
In addition, there are no known ethnographic resources in the project area. Ethnographic resources within the park consist of plant material collected by Native American groups. In past year’s plant materials have not been collected in the project area and are readily available else where in the park. The proposed action would have no effects on ethnographic resources.
The park has 10,812 objects and specimens in its museum collection. The vast majority of the collection is stored at the National Park Service Western Archeological and Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona. Collections located at the park are not stored in any of the facilities considered under this project. This project is not expected to generate new collections. The proposed action would have no effects on museum collections.
The monument consists of 144,000 acres (225 square miles) of Chihuahuan Desert valley floor between elevations of 3,890 and 4,116 above sea level. The monument is known for the world’s largest gypsum sand dune field, of which about half is on the monument and the rest on military land. Just west of the monument, the rugged San Andres Mountains slope down to the western portion of the monument. From the western boundary of the monument, low gradient alluvial slopes (bajadas) drain down into a closed basin, with the low area of the basin and monument forming a playa or mostly dry lakebed called Lake Lucero. North and east of the playa is a very gently sloping land surface called Alkali Flat, which merges easterly into the sand dune field. East and south of the dune field are flat areas of grass mixed with shrubs. The proposed action would have no effects on terrain features including the dune field, the San Andres Mountain slopes, playas, or grass and shrub lands.
Water Resources Including Floodplains and Wetlands
National Park Service policies require protection of water quality consistent with the Clean Water Act (1977), a national policy to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters and to prevent, control, and abate water pollution. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal agencies to avoid, where possible, impacts on wetlands. Proposed actions that have the potential to adversely impact wetlands must be addressed in a Statement of Findings. The proposed actions would avoid wetlands, therefore the topic of wetlands has been dismissed from further analysis and a Statement of Findings for wetlands will not be prepared. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires all federal agencies to avoid construction within the 100-year floodplain unless no other practical alternative exists. The proposed action would have no effects on water resources including floodplains and wetlands.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended, 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 species of concern, as well as state-listed threatened, endangered, rare, declining, and sensitive species. The proposed action would have no effects on state- or federally-listed threatened or endangered species.
A number of species are listed for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act as endangered or threatened and may be found on the monument (Appendix A). Several state-listed species may also be found. State and federal listings are by county, with no explanation of where in the county they may be found. None of the listed plants are known on the monument, and with the exception of night blooming cereus cactus, are not likely to be found due to requirements of soil type, elevation, and moisture. No listed birds or mammals are known to nest or breed within the monument, although they may pass through the area. Occasional sporadic through flight or foraging use is possible by migratory birds. A breeding population of the state-listed White Sands Pupfish occupies the Lost River, which ends about 1,000 feet upstream from the monument boundary.
Community Social/Economic Conditions
The city of Alamogordo, New Mexico, is 15 miles east of the monument, and has a population of about 35,000. Holloman Air Force Base is just east of the monument, with a base population of about 4,000. Military spending dominates the local economy. Tourism adds to the economy, and the monument draws national and international visitors. Other nearby tourist attractions include the Space Center Museum in Alamogordo, Oliver Lee Memorial State Park south of Alamogordo, the resort town of Cloudcroft and Lincoln National Forest east of Alamogordo, and the resort town of Ruidoso and two casinos to the northeast.
West, north and south of the monument is the White Sands Missile Range, managed by the U.S. Army. This area of 2 million plus acres is the largest Department of Defense installation and has been a primary military testing and training reservation since the beginning of World War II. Fort Bliss is south of and adjacent to the missile range, with over 1 million acres. Also west of the monument is the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect desert bighorn sheep. On the east side of the monument is Holloman Air Force Base, which is the home base of the F-117 Stealth fighter jet, a German Air Force flight training unit, and several research and development facilities. Airspace over the monument is controlled by the military and ground access to most of the monument boundary is via military land and roads and controlled by military security.
The city of Las Cruces is 60 miles west of the monument, with a population over 100,000, and diversified economy including New Mexico State University. The cities of El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Republic of Mexico, are 90 miles south of the monument, with a combined population of about 2 million. El Paso/Juárez provides a transportation hub, a major entry port from Mexico to the U.S., NAFTA oriented manufacturing, oil refining, the University of Texas at El Paso, and Fort Bliss Army base. The proposed action would have no effects on community social or economic conditions.
In August, 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed that federal agencies must assess the effects of their actions on farmland soils classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil, which particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. There is no farmland or agriculture practiced on the monument, and therefore prime and unique farmlands has been dismissed as a possible impact topic. The proposed action would have no effects on prime and unique farmland.
According to the guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality, environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic 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. 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 Environmental Justice Guidance (1998). Therefore, environmental justice was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.
NPS Management Policies (NPS, 2000) direct the NPS to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. The Service will restore degraded soundscapes to the natural condition wherever possible, and will protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to noise (undesirable human-caused sound).
Using appropriate management planning, superintendents will identify what levels of human-caused sound caused by the proposed action can be accepted within the management purposes of parks. The frequencies, magnitudes, and duration of human-caused sound considered acceptable will vary throughout the park, being generally greater in developed areas and generally lesser in undeveloped areas. In and adjacent to parks, the Service will monitor human activities that generate noise that adversely affects park soundscapes, including noise caused by mechanical or electronic devices. The Service will take action to prevent or minimize all noise that, through frequency, magnitude, or duration, adversely affects the natural soundscape or other park resources or values, or that exceeds levels that have been identified as being acceptable to, or appropriate for, visitor uses at the sites being monitored. Proposed actions generating noise from construction will be temporary in duration. Motor vehicle and pedestrian noise at the visitor center and concession facility are expected in the developed area, and therefore soundscapes are not considered for analysis.
Project members met to discuss the best and worst features of the current concession, public restrooms and visitor center, to outline the objectives for the project, and to brainstorm ideas for achieving the objectives. The objectives include restoring the view of the dunes from the visitor center patio and removing the cinder block addition from the historic adobe visitor center. In addition, the park would like to increase and modernize concession retail space, provide handicap accessible restrooms and increase interpretive staff office space. Square footage figures were obtained for similar, recently constructed concessions in the region for functional space comparisons. Following numerous discussions, alternatives were prepared and evaluated.
This alternative would construct a concession and restroom facility to the area west of the visitor center bounded by the entrance road and the northwest parking lot. In addition, the northern portion of the historic visitor center and view of the dunes from the patio would be restored to the original 1930s era architectural designs (Figure 4).
The proposed concession is 2,272 square feet in area (Figure 5). An 809 square foot, modern restroom with 11 lavatories and three urinals (Figure 6), would be constructed adjacent to the concession alleviating the use of the nearby 833 square foot historic restroom with seven lavatories and two urinals. All construction would comply with accessibility standards. Less than one acre or approximately 8,000 square feet of previously disturbed land will be cleared and 12" of fill added for the foundations. Landscaping around the facilities and disturbed area would occur as necessary, matching the existing desert landscaping with native species. Existing buried utilities in the proposed construction area would be used. A 16,500 square foot area of existing concession parking would be removed from the east and constructed to the west. A 3,500 square foot area of parking for recreational vehicles would be paved on an existing gravel shoulder north of the parking lot. The 1,931 square foot cinderblock storage addition constructed in 1986 to the historic adobe visitor center would be removed (Figure 7). After removal of the cinderblock addition, the 44’-6" long visitor center patio wall would be restored. The remaining 784 square foot historic portion of the visitor center now occupied by the concession would be restored to the original 1930s era design specifications. The interpretive staff would then use the restored portion of the visitor center.
The existing concession within the historic visitor center would continue to be utilized. The 1,270 square foot space for retail and 556 square foot space for interpretive functions would remain inadequate. The capacity of the 833 square foot public restroom would not be increased and they would not be handicap accessible. The loss of integrity to the historic adobe visitor center would remain uncorrected. The view of the dunes would continue to be obstructed by the 1986 cinderblock addition.
ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
The alternative for constructing the concession and restroom outside of the historic district was dismissed. Locating these facilities outside of the historic district would remove them from the area most used by visitors. This alternative would require new ground disturbance in a previously undisturbed location leading to building construction outside of the developed area of the park. In addition, new utility and sewer lines would be needed. The NMSHPO did not support this alternative. The view from the patio of the dunes could be blocked.
Figure 4: Overall Plan of Proposed Facilities
Figure 5: Floor Plan of Proposed Concession
Figure 6: Floor Plan of Proposed Restroom
Figure 7: Floor Plan of Proposed Restoration to the Visitor Center
Table 1. Summary of Alternatives
This alternative would construct a concession and restroom facility to the area west of the visitor center bounded by the entrance road and the northwest parking lot. In addition, the northern portion of the historic visitor center and view of the dunes from the patio would be restored to the original 1930s era architectural designs. The proposed concession is 2,272 square feet in area. An 809 square foot, modern restroom with 11 lavatories and three urinals would be constructed adjacent to the concession alleviating the use of the nearby 833 square foot historic restroom with seven lavatories and two urinals. All construction would comply with accessibility standards. Less than one acre or approximately 8,000 square feet of previously disturbed land will be cleared and 12" of fill added for the foundations. Landscaping around the facilities and disturbed area would occur as necessary, matching the existing desert landscaping with native species. Existing buried utilities in the proposed construction area would be used. A 16,500 square foot area of existing concession parking would be removed from the east and constructed to the west. A 3,500 square foot area of parking for recreational vehicles would be paved on an existing gravel shoulder north of the parking lot. The 1,931 square foot cinderblock addition constructed in 1986 to the historic adobe visitor center would be removed. After removal of the cinderblock addition, the 44’-6" long visitor center patio wall would be restored. The remaining 784 square foot historic portion of the visitor center now occupied by the concession would be restored to the original 1930s era design specifications. The interpretive staff would then use the restored portion of the visitor center. |
The existing concession within the historic visitor center would continue to be utilized along with the existing restrooms. |
ALTERNATIVE DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION: Construct concession and restroom outside of the historic district. |
|
This alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it would increase concession, office and storage space, provide modern handicap accessible restrooms and restore a portion of an important historic building. |
|
|
Table 2. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts
|
Impact Topic |
Construct new concession in the area west of the visitor center bounded by the entrance road and the northwest parking lot. Construct modern restrooms adjacent to the proposed concession. Remove a portion of the existing concession parking area to the east and construct parking to the west. Remove the 1986-cinderblock addition to the historic adobe visitor center. Restore the view of the dunes from the visitor center patio. |
The existing concession within the historic visitor center would continue to be utilized along with the existing restrooms. |
|
Soil |
Estimated one acre of disturbance to previously disturbed land. Short-term disturbance. |
No new disturbance or impact would occur on soil and vegetation. |
|
Vegetation |
Estimated one acre of disturbance to previously disturbed vegetation. Short-term disturbance. |
No new disturbance or impact would occur on vegetation. |
|
Wildlife |
Temporary minor loss of habitat to small mammals, birds and reptiles. |
No new disturbance to wildlife. |
|
Cultural Resources
Cultural Landscapes |
|
Impacts from past projects would continue. |
|
Visitor Use |
No negative impact. Improved services, handicap accessible restrooms and restored view of the dunes. |
Negative impact to visitors through continued use of inadequate public restrooms and limited concession space. |
|
Park Operations |
No negative impact. Reduced workload maintaining modern restrooms. Reduced impacts to historic facilities. |
Continued intensive maintenance of historic facilities impacted by high use. |
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
Impacts are described in terms of context (site-specific, local, or regional), duration (short-term or long-term), and intensity (negligible, minor, moderate, or major. The thresholds of change for the duration and intensity of an impact are defined as follows:
Short-term: The impact lasts one year or less
Long-term: The impact lasts more than one year
Negligible: The impact is at the lowest levels of detection
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
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA), require 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 determined by combining the impacts of each alternative with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions. Therefore it was necessary to identify other ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future actions within White Sands National Monument and, if applicable, the surrounding region.
No past or present projects or management actions within the monument have occurred that would directly affect resources in the area analyzed in this environmental assessment.
Impacts on Cultural Resources and Section 106 of The National Historic Preservation Act
In this environmental assessment, impacts to cultural resources are described in terms of type, context, duration, and intensity, as described above, which is consistent with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These impact analyses are intended, however, to comply with the requirements of both NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with National Historic Preservation Act implementing Section 106 regulations (36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties), impacts to archaeological resources were identified and evaluated. This includes (1) determining the area of potential effects; (2) identifying cultural resources present in the area of potential effects that are either listed to or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places; (3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to affected cultural resources either listed to or eligible to be listed in the National Register; and (4) considering ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects.
Under the Advisory Council’s regulations a determination of either adverse effect or no adverse effect must also be made for affected cultural resources. An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register, e.g. diminishing the integrity of the resource’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5, Assessment of Adverse Effects). A determination of no adverse effect means there is an effect, but the effect would not diminish in any way the characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register.
CEQ regulations and the National Park Service’s Conservation Planning, Environment Impact Analysis and Decision-making (NPS, 2001) also call for a discussion of the appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an analysis of how effective the mitigation would be in reducing the intensity of a potential impact, e.g. reducing the intensity of an impact from major to moderate or minor. Any resultant reduction in intensity of impact due to mitigation, however, is an estimate of the effectiveness of mitigation under NEPA only. It does not suggest that the level of effect as defined by Section 106 is similarly reduced. Although adverse effects under Section 106 may be mitigated, the effect remains adverse.
A Section 106 summary is included in the impact analysis section of each alternative. The Section 106 summary is an assessment of the effect of the undertaking (implementation of the alternative) on cultural resources, based upon the criterion of effect and criterion of adverse effect found in the Advisory Council’s regulations.
As with all units of the National Park System, management of White Sands National Monument is guided by the 1916 Organic Act; the General Authorities Act of 1970 and the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the management of the National Park System; NPS Management Policies (NPS, 2000); and other applicable federal laws and regulations. The conditions prescribed by laws, resolutions, and policies most pertinent to the planning and management of the monument are summarized below:
Desired Condition: Federal- and State-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are sustained.
Source: Endangered Species Act; NPS Management Policies.
Desired Condition: Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural condition as possible except where special management considerations are warranted.
Source: NPS Management Policies.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A: (PREFERRED) CONSTRUCT CONCESSION FACILITY AND RESTROOM AND RESTORE THE HISTORIC VISITOR CENTER
Analyses of the potential intensity of impacts to soils were derived from available soils information and park staff’s past observations of the effects on soils from both visitor use and construction activities. The thresholds of change for the intensity of impacts to soils are defined as follows:
Negligible: the impact is at the lowest levels of detection and causes very little or no physical disturbance /removal, compaction, unnatural erosion, when compared with current conditions.
Minor: the impact is slight but detectable in some areas, with few perceptible effects of physical disturbance/removal, compaction, or unnatural erosion of soils.
Moderate: the impact is readily apparent in some areas and has measurable effects of physical disturbance/removal, compaction, or unnatural erosion of soils.
Major: the impact is readily apparent in several areas and has severe effects of physical disturbance/removal, compaction, or unnatural erosion of soils.
Impairment: a major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.
Impacts of Alternative A on Soils
Constructing the proposed concession facility would require ground disturbance to an area previously disturbed in the 1930s when the visitor center was constructed. Underground utilities have also been installed in the area. The original entrance road passed through the project area between the visitor center and public restroom. The entrance road was relocated a short distance to the west away from the visitor center and restroom when traffic levels began to affect pedestrian visitor safety. The area has since received drip irrigation and desert vegetation landscaping. Construction would disturb less than one acre of land. Construction of a concession and restroom along with modifications to parking would disturb soil on the ground surface. Limited excavation of soil would occur to modify existing utilities. The buildings would rest on a slab foundation. Impacts would be moderate causing some disturbance and compaction of the soil when compared with current conditions. The change would be small and localized and of little consequence.
A road maintenance project, along with a noxious weed and a fire management plan being developed are the only other programs with potential for affecting soil and vegetation on the monument. There will be no cumulative effects expected in the proposed project area. Impacts would be minor and short-term lasting one year or less.
On a short-term basis there would be minor disturbance of previously disturbed soil. On a long-term basis there would be no significant overall impact on soil. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Soils
No new disturbance or impact would occur on soil.
No other past or present management actions would combine with this proposed action to result in an increased or cumulative impact on soil and vegetation.
Conclusion
There would be no new impact on soil.
All available information on known vegetation in the park was compiled. Where possible, information from field studies of vegetation and observations of exotic species were compared with the immediate project area. Predictions about short- and long-term site impacts were based on previous observations of visitor and construction impacts to vegetation. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact are defined as follows:
Negligible: an action that could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or a resource, 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 a resource. The change would be 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 resource. The change would be measurable and of consequence to the species or resource but more localized.
Major: an action that would have a noticeable change to a population or individuals of a species or resource. The change would be measurable and result in a severely adverse or major beneficial impact, and possible permanent consequence, upon the species or resource.
Impairment: a major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.
Impacts of Alternative A on Vegetation
Constructing the proposed concession facility would require ground disturbance to an area previously disturbed in the 1930s. Vegetation in the area was stripped in the 1930s when the visitor center was constructed. The area has since received drip irrigation and desert vegetation landscaping. Construction would disturb less than one acre of land in and area predominantly revegetated with fourwing salt-bush. Disturbance would consist of removing the existing vegetation for the construction of the concession and restroom, along with modifications to the parking lot. Impacts would be minor, resulting in change to a few individuals of a species. The change would be small and localized and of little consequence.
A road maintenance project, along with a noxious weed and a fire management plan being developed are the only other programs with potential for effecting vegetation on the monument. There will be no cumulative effects expected in the proposed project area. Impacts would be minor and short-term lasting one year or less.
On a short-term basis there would be minor disturbance of previously disturbed vegetation. On a long-term basis there would be no significant overall impact on vegetation. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Vegetation
No new disturbance or impact would occur on vegetation.
No other past or present management actions would combine with this proposed action to result in an increased or cumulative impact on vegetation.
Conclusion
There would be no new impact on vegetation.
All available information on known wildlife in the project area was compiled. Predictions about short- and long-term site impacts were based on project area observations. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact are defined as follows:
Negligible: an action that could result in a change to a population or individuals of a species or a resource, 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 a resource. The change would be 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 resource. The change would be measurable and of consequence to the species or resource but more localized.
Major: an action that would have a noticeable change to a population or individuals of a species or resource. The change would be measurable and result in a severely adverse or major beneficial impact, and possible permanent consequence, upon the species or resource.
Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.
Impacts of Alternative A on Wildlife
Impact on wildlife by new disturbance to previously disturbed soil and vegetation would constitute a temporary loss of habitat to a few individual lizards, birds, and rodents that use the areas adjacent to the visitor center. These species are expected to return once the project is completed. Overall impact on populations of these species that use the habitat adjacent to the visitor center would be negligible, resulting in change to a few individuals of a species or a resource. The change would be so small and localized that it would be of little consequence.
Impact on wildlife would be short-term and negligible. There would be no significant impact on overall wildlife populations using this type of habitat. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Wildlife
There would be no new disturbance to wildlife or habitat. Existing disturbance from pedestrian traffic would continue, consisting of negligible displacement from habitat immediately adjacent to the existing concession, restrooms, parking area and visitor center.
There would be no significant short-term or long-term impact on wildlife.
Impacts on Cultural Resources: Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures
For purposes of analyzing potential impacts to the cultural landscape and historic structures/buildings, the thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact are defined as follows:
Negligible: Impact is at the lowest levels of detection it is barely measurable with no perceptible consequences to the cultural landscape or historic structure(s). For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Minor: Disturbance results in little, if any, loss of significance or integrity to the National Register eligibility of the cultural landscape or historic structure(s). For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Moderate: Disturbance does not diminish the significance or integrity of the cultural landscape or historic structure(s) to the extent that their National Register eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be no adverse effect.
Major: Disturbance diminishes the significance and integrity of the cultural landscape or historic structure(s) to the extent that they are no longer eligible to be listed in the National Register. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be an adverse effect.
Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant National Park Service planning documents.
Impacts of Alternative A on Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures
Consultation with the NMSHPO has been conducted and a finding of no adverse effect made. The NMSHPO office supports the proposal to construct a new concession and restroom facility, remove the 1986 cinderblock addition, and restore the patio view of the dunes. The NMSHPO indicated that "removal of the 1986 addition is a good preservation measure that will restore the visitor center to its original, historic condition". In addition, the "new buildings are visually compatible with the existing ones and won’t have a visual impact on the historic district".
The proposed concession building and restroom will compliment the Pueblo Revival architecture reflected in the park’s historic district. The concession and restroom will be constructed with modern materials but will have the look of an adobe building. The walls will taper toward the roof parapet, the exterior will be stuccoed to match the historic district and the roofline will be in scale with the surrounding buildings. Restoration of the view of the dunes from the visitor center patio, the removal of the cinderblock addition and the restoration of the adjacent adobe wall will be in keeping with the 1930s era architectural plans. This project will have no adverse effect on the park’s historic district and cultural landscape. Disturbances would be minor, resulting in little loss of significance or integrity to the National Register eligibility of the cultural landscape or historic structures.
No other past or present management actions would combine with this proposed action to result in an increased or cumulative impact to the historic district or cultural landscape. The effect would be long-term and minor.
The NMSHPO has been formally consulted and a determination of no adverse effect has been made. The NMSHOP supports the removal of the 1986 cinderblock addition and the restoration of the historic visitor center to its original condition. The NMSHPO has determined that the proposed concession design is compatible with the existing buildings and will have no visual impact. The effect of constructing the proposed concession and restroom facility would be long-term and minor.
Because there would be no adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no anticipated impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Cultural Landscapes and Historic Structures
No disturbance or new impacts would occur on the cultural landscape or the historic buildings. Under this alternative past disturbance would continue. The historically intended view of the dunes from the visitor center patio would continue to be obstructed by the 1986 concession addition. The 1986 cinder block addition to the historic adobe visitor center would continue to be incompatible with the historic architecture. The historic restrooms would continue to have high use for which they were not designed. The existing disturbance is moderate, it does not diminish the significance or integrity of the cultural landscape or historic structure(s) to the extent that their National Register eligibility is jeopardized
Cumulative Impacts
Past management actions would combine with this proposed no-action to result in a cumulative impact on cultural resources. The view of the dunes from the visitor center patio would continue to be obstructed by the 1986 concession addition. The 1986 cinder block addition to the historic adobe visitor center would continue to be incompatible with the historic architecture. High use of the historic restrooms would continue. Disturbance has been and would continue to be long-term and moderate.
Park observations on visitor use were employed to estimate the effects of the alternative actions on visitors. The impact on visitor services was analyzed. The thresholds of change for the intensity of an impact are defined as follows:
Negligible: The impact is barely detectable, and/or will affect few visitors.
Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, and/or will affect some visitors.
Moderate: The impact is readily apparent and/or will affect many visitors.
Major: The impact is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect the majority of visitors.
Impacts of Alternative A on Visitor Use
Visitors would have improved services offered at the proposed concession, by increasing and modernizing the retail space. In addition, a modern handicap accessible public restroom facility would be provided. The view from the visitor center patio would be restored, allowing visitors the opportunity to enjoy the scenery of the dunes, connecting the interpretation of the dunes within the visitor center with the natural landscape. There would be some minor disruption to the area during construction but service would continue. Parking and traffic patterns would not be significantly changed.
There would be a positive effect of improved service and safety, and no long-term impact on general visitor use. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Visitor Use
Although vehicle access and parking would be maintained, concession facility would remain the same with no increase in space. The public restrooms would continue to be inadequate and would not be handicap accessible. The proposed no action would have a long-term moderate impact on visitors.
There would be a moderate long-term effect on visitor use through the continued use of inadequate public restrooms and limited concession space.
Park Operations, for the purpose of this analysis, refers to the current staff available to adequately protect and preserve vital park resources and provide for an effective visitor experience. The discussion of impacts to park operations focuses on maintenance and interpretive resources given current funding and staffing levels. Park staff knowledge was used to evaluate the impacts of each alternative and is based on the current description of park operations presented in the Purpose and Need section of this document. Definitions for levels of impacts to Park Operations are as follows:
Negligible: Park operations would not be affected or the effect would be at or below the lower levels of detection, and would not have an appreciable effect on park operations.
Minor: The effect would be detectable, but would be of a magnitude that would not have an appreciable adverse or beneficial effect on park operations. If mitigation were needed to offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple and successful.
Moderate: The effects would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial adverse or beneficial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public. Mitigation measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful.
Major: The effects would be readily apparent and would result in a substantial adverse or beneficial change in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff, the public and be markedly different from existing operations. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be needed, could be expensive, and their success could not be guaranteed.
Impacts of Alternative A on Park Operations
The construction of a concession and restroom facility would reduce the workload on the maintenance staff. Discontinued high impact use of both the present concession and the historic 1930s era restroom facility would make preservation and maintenance of the historic buildings much easier. Although there would be some additional square footage in the new facility, the new modern space would require less intensive maintenance than the historic restroom being removed from public use. In addition, the area of the visitor center vacated by the concession and the space used for the historic restroom would be restored and made available to the interpretive staff. The effects would be readily apparent and moderate, resulting in a substantial beneficial changes in park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public.
No other past or present management actions would combine with this proposed action to result in an increased or cumulative impact on park operations. The project would have a long-term beneficial effect.
There would be no impact on park operations. Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing proclamation of White Sands National Monument; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument or to opportunities for enjoyment of the monument; or (3) identified as a goal in the monument’s master plan or other relevant National Park Service planning document, there would be no impairment of the monument’s resources or values.
Impacts of Alternative B on Park Operations
Maintenance of the historic visitor center and public restrooms would continue unchanged. High impact use of both the present concession and the historic 1930s era restroom facility would continue, along with the associated preservation efforts on the historic buildings. The intensive maintenance of the historic facilities related with visitor use would not improve. Space for the park’s interpretive staff would remain inadequate. The effects would be long-term and moderate, resulting in continued adverse effects to park operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public.
The proposed no action would have a moderate long-term effect on monument operations. There would be no improvement in the efficiency of maintenance of monument operations. There would be no enhancement of space for the interpretive staff.
IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that "the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101:
Alternative B would have no change to visitor use and service. There would be no new disturbance to soil, vegetation, wildlife, or cultural resources, however it would not restore the historic visitor center patio or remove the 1986 cinderblock addition. There would be no increase in space for the Interpretation staff or improvement to the public restrooms. Visitor satisfaction with the park’s "commercial facility" would remain inadequate.
List of Agencies and Organizations
Agencies and Organizations contacted for information; or that assisted in identifying important issues, developing alternatives, or analyzing impacts; or that will review and comment upon the environmental assessment/assessment of effect include:
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer
U.S. Department of the Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service
Diane E. White, Cultural Resource Specialist, White Sands National Monument, New Mexico.
White Sands National Monument:
James A. Mack Superintendent
John Mangimeli, Chief of Interpretation
Cliff Spencer, Chief Ranger
Bill Conrod, Chief of Resource Management
John Ford, Facility Manager
Diane White, Cultural Resource Specialist
Senator Bingaman, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Senator Domenici, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Representative Pearce, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Chairman Taylor, Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi, Arizona.
Governor Lucero, Pueblo of Isleta, Isleta, New Mexico.
Governor Alvidrez, Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo, El Paso, Texas
Governor, Piro-Mano-Tiwa Pueblo of Guadalupe, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Governor Vallo, Pueblo of Acoma, Acoma, New Mexico.
Governor Loretto, Pueblo of Jemez, Jemez Pueblo, New Mexico.
Governor Quetawki, Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, New Mexico.
Governor Gonzales, Pueblo of San Idelfonso, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
President Misquez, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mescalero, New Mexico.
Otero County Board of Commissioners, Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Mayor Don Carroll, Alamogordo, New Mexico.
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, Southwest Regional Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
National Parks and Conservation Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
NEW MEXICO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
"White Sands National Monument Vegetation." Southwest Geographic Information Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
1976 Soil Survey Of White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Wilderness Recommendation – White Sands National Monument, New Mexico.
1976 Final Master Plan, White Sands National Monument, New Mexico.
National Park Service Management Policies 2001. Washington, D.C.
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making, Director’s Order #12 and Handbook. Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX A: Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species and Species of Concern
Doña Ana County:
Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status
Rio Grande silvery minnow Hybognathus amarus federal:endangered
Sneed pincushion cactus Coryphantha sneedii sneedii federal: endangered
Night blooming cereus Cereus greggii var. greggii state: endangered
federal: species of concern
Dune prickly pear Opuntia arenaria state: endangered
Mescalero milkwort Polygala rimulicola mescalerorum
state: endangered
federal: species of concern
Todsen’s pennyroyal Hedeoma todsenii federal: endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus federal: threatened
Interior least tern Sterna antillarum federal: endangered
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida federal: threatened
Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis federal: endangered
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus federal: endangered
Nodding rock-daisy Perityle cernua federal: species of concern
Organ Mountain primrose Oenothera organensis federal: species of concern
Organ Mountain figwort Scrophularia laevis federal: species of concern
Sand prickly pear Opuntia arenaria federal: species of concern
Sandhill goosefoot Chenopodium cycloides federal: species of concern
Standley whitlow-grass Draba stanleyi federal: species of concern
Desert pocket gopher Geomys bursarius arenarius federal: species of concern
Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus australis
federal: species of concern
Townsends big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii federal: species of concern
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii federal: species of concern
Pecos River muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ripensis federal: species of concern
White Sands woodrat Neotoma micropus leucophacea federal: species of concern
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum federal: species of concern
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius federal: species of concern
Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii federal: species of concern
Black tern Chlidonias niger federal: species of concern
Desert viceroy butterfly Limenitis archippus obsoleta federal: species of concern
Anthony blister beetle Lytta mirifica federal: species of concern
Dona Ana talussnail Sonorella todseni federal: species of concern
Alamo beard tongue Penstemon alamosenis federal: species of concern
Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status
Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus Echinocereus fendleri kuenzleri federal: endangered
Sacramento Mountains thistle Cirsium vinaceum federal: threatened
Sacramento prickly poppy Argemone pleiacantha extimus federal: endangered
Todsen’s pennyroyal Hedeoma todsenii federal:endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus federal: threatened
Interior least tern Sterna antillarum federal: endangered
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida federal: threatened
Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis federal: endangered
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus federal: endangered
White Sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa state: threatened
Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes federal: endangered
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus federal: species of concern
Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus federal: species of concern
Desert pocket gopher Geomys bursarius arenarius federal: species of concern
Penasco (Least) chipmunk Tamias minimus atristriatus federal: species of concern
Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii federal: species of concern
Rio Grande cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis federal: species of concern
Guadalupe southern pocket gopher Thomomys umbrinus guadalupensis
federal: species of concern
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus federal: species of concern
Townsends big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii federal: species of concern
White Sands woodrat Neotoma micropus leucophacea federal: species of concern
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum federal: species of concern
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius federal: species of concern
Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii federal: species of concern
Black tern Chlidonias niger federal: species of concern
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis federal: species of concern
Yellow billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus federal: species of concern
White Sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa federal: species of concern
Sacramento mountain salamander Aneides hardii federal: species of concern
Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly Euphydrydryas anicia cloudcrofti
federal: species of concern
Sacramento Mountains silverspot butterfly Icaricia icarioides federal: species of concern
Sacramento Mountains blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides federal: species of concern
Alamo beard tongue Penstemon alamosensis federal: species of concern
Night blooming cereus Cereus greggii var greggii federal: species of concern
Goodings onion Allium gooddingii federal: species of concern
Guadalupe rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus var texensis federal: species of concern
Gypsum scalebroom Lepidospartum burgessii federal: species of concern
Sierra Blanca cliff daisy Chaetopappa elegans federal: species of concern
Villard’s pincushion cactus Escobaria villardii federal: species of concern
Wright’s marsh thistle Cirsium wrightii federal: species of concern