ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

RELOCATE RUINS ROAD

Aztec Ruins National Monument

New Mexico

Dear Friends of Aztec Ruins National Monument:

Enclosed is the Relocate Ruins Road Environmental Assessment prepared by
the National Park Service. The document proposes to relocate 2,100 feet
of the main monument road (Ruins Road, also designated State Road 248
and County Road 2900). This action is needed to mitigate heavy truck
traffic on the road. Vibrations from traffic pose a vibrational risk to
monument resources. They are of a nature, intensity, and originate at a
distance such that they can cause damage to both the historic visitor
center and the West Ruin. Two alternatives are discussed.

1\) The no action alternative which would maintain the status quo of the
2,100 foot section of Ruins Road; and,

2\) The proposed action alternative in which the National Park Service
proposes to relocate approximately 2,100 feet of Ruins Road to the
south, and to improve the roadway geometry and safety.

We are providing this document for public review and comment. The public
comment period closes 45 calendar days after the date at the top of this
letter. If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may
mail comments to the name and 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. There also may be
circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent\'s
identity, as allowable by law. **If you wish us to withhold your name
and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment.** We will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.

Please address your comments to:

Superintendent

Aztec Ruins National Monument

#84 County Road 2900

Aztec, NM 87401-9715

Sincerely,

Stephanie Dubois, Superintendent

Enclosure

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

PURPOSE AND NEED 1

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONUMENT 1

BACKGROUND, PREVIOUS PLANNING, SCOPING, AND VALUE ANALYSIS 3

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS 5

Issues 5

Derivation of Impact Topics 5

ALTERNATIVES 12

ALTERNATIVE A ‑ NO ACTION 12

ALTERNATIVE B ‑ PROPOSED ACTION 12

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 16

Mitigation Measures of the Proposed Action 17

General Construction Schedule and Costs 19

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED 20

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 24

Location, Access, and Setting 24

Natural Resources 25

Cultural Resources 25

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 29

ALTERNATIVE A ‑ NO ACTION 35

ALTERNATIVE B ‑ PROPOSED ACTION 40

COMPLIANCE 48

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 51

SELECTED REFERENCES 53

PREPARERS 55

CONSULTANTS 55

ILLUSTRATIONS

Vicinity Map 2

Figure 1, Preferred Alternative 13

TABLES

1\. Comparative Summary of Alternatives 21

2\. Summary Of Environmental Consequences 22

Appendices

1.  US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter

2.  Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division State of
    New Mexico

######## PURPOSE AND NEED

At Aztec Ruins National Monument (NM), San Juan County, New Mexico, the
National Park Service (NPS) proposes to relocate approximately 2,100
feet of the main monument road (Ruins Road, also designated State Road
248 and County Road 2900) (Vicinity Map). This action is needed to
mitigate the vibrations + from heavy truck and other traffic on the
road. Vibrations from traffic pose a vibrational risk to monument
resources. A 1994 vibration study, and additional vibration
investigations in 2001 indicated that vibrations from traffic on Ruins
Road, especially at the southwest intersection at the park entrance, are
a vibrational risk and have possibly contributed to damage to the
visitor center, a building that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. Traffic vibrations are also a risk to the western-most
rooms of the West Ruin.

An environmental assessment (EA) analyzes the preferred alternative and
alternatives and their impacts on the environment. This EA has been
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
1508.9), and the NPS's Director's Order (DO) -12 (*Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making*).

**PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONUMENT**

Aztec Ruins NM was established in 1923 by Presidential Proclamation 1650
(January 24, 1923, 42 stat. 2295, appended). In recognition of a \"ruin
of great antiquity and historical interest,\" President Warren G.
Harding established the national monument \"with a view to the
preservation of said ruin for the enlightenment and culture of the
Nation.\"

The ruin to which the proclamation refers is the West Ruin, a
multi-story masonry pueblo of about 450 rooms. Dendrochronology
indicates initial building dates of about 1110 through 1120, with
repairs and remodeling continuing through the first half of the 12th
century. Building style and artifacts recovered indicate that the
prehistoric Anasazi culture, or Ancestral Pueblo people as many of their
pueblo descendants prefer them to be called, settled and built here. The
first inhabitants were closely related to people who lived at Chaco
Canyon to the south. But remodeling and artifacts from later use of the
pueblo in the 13th century indicate the later people were more closely
related to those living at Mesa Verde to the north.

The *General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan/Environmental
Assessment* (GMP), approved in September, 1989, describes the
significance of the monument, which \"lies in its great physical
remains, the stories of past cultures that occupied the Animas River
valley, and its role in a larger regional prehistoric context. Because
of its many unexcavated features, the monument holds great potential for
future scientific inquiry into the archeology of the American Southwest.
In addition, because of its association with early-day archeologist Earl
Morris, the story of Aztec Ruins encapsulates the history of American
archeology throughout the Southwest.\" The monument was named to the
World Heritage List in 1987 because of its status as a Chacoan outlier.

![](media/image1.png){width="5.978472222222222in"
height="8.352777777777778in"}

**BACKGROUND, PREVIOUS PLANNING, SCOPING, AND VALUE ANALYSIS STUDY**

**Background and Previous Planning:** Private residential development
north of the monument, on the west side of the Animas River, continues
to grow, resulting in increased traffic on Ruins Road not only from
residents, but also from oil and gas development. During warmer months
of the year, an almost continuous stream of traffic travels past the
monument within visual and auditory distance of the visitor center and
the West Ruin. In addition to causing almost continuous distractions to
visitors, vibrations generated from vehicles, especially larger trucks,
may also be damaging delicate archeological resources. Heavy road
traffic and the resultant vibrations from traffic that pose a
vibrational risk to monument resources were documented in the 1989 GMP,
the 1993 Aztec Ruins NM Land Protection Plan, the 1993 Aztec Ruins MN
Statement for Management, and the Vibration Investigation (King 1994).

**Vibration Study:** In 1994, Mr. Kenneth King, a licensed geophysicist
specializing in vibration engineering was retained to study the effects
of vibration on the archeological and historic structures of the
monument. The vibration study determined what vibration frequencies the
more pertinent structures are sensitive to, how far some of the sources
of vibrations should be kept from the structures, and how much vibration
energy is induced to the structures from normal daily activities. The
summation of the study developed a suggested vibration "zoning" of the
structures. The zoning is a guide for safe future use of vibration
sources near the ruins and for the future protection of the ruins.

The vibration study found that vibrations caused by vehicular traffic on
Ruins Road pose a vibrational risk to the monument resources and
concludes: "The ruins road SW intersection is a vibration risk to the
visitor center and a possible risk to the western ruins. The
intersection is too heavily traveled by heavy vehicles, its surface is
too rough, it is too close to the visitor center and it has a
deceleration-acceleration section in the worst place that could be
selected for vibration risk to the area."

**Scoping:** Scoping is the effort to involve agencies and the general
public in determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the
environmental document. Among other tasks scoping determines important
issues and eliminates issues not important; allocates assignments among
the interdisciplinary team members and/or other participating agencies;
identifies related projects and associated documents; identifies other
permits, surveys, consultations etc. required by other agencies; and
creates a schedule which allows adequate time to prepare and distribute
the environmental document for public review and comment before a final
decision is made. Scoping includes any interested agency, or any agency
with jurisdiction by law or expertise (including the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
\[ACHP\], the State Historic Preservation Officer \[SHPO\], and Indian
Tribes) to obtain early input.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service, ACHP, SHPO, and interested Indian
Tribes were contacted and invited to participate in the scoping process.
Their participation would continue to be requested throughout the life
of this planning effort (letter on file at monument headquarters).

Scoping for this project resulted in a number of issues or impact topics
to be addressed in this document. These impact topics are described in
detail in the Issues and Impact Topics section later in this document.

Value Analysis

**Description:** A Value Analysis (VA) is a process of arriving at an
optimal solution to a complex issue through a structured and reasoned
analysis of the factors and functions related to the issue.

**Goal:** The goal of the VA process is to provide a structured
procedure that:

-   ensures functional requirements are met,

-   all viable alternatives are considered,

-   the factors used to evaluate them are sound,

-   all alternatives are tested equally against these criteria,

-   solutions are cost effective on initial and life-cycle cost basis,

-   benefit to cost relationships were considered,

-   an independent second opinion was provided, and;

-   the rationale for decisions is clearly documented.

The overarching goal is that everyone can feel confident that the best
solution, the best value was, in fact, achieved.

**Process:** The VA process involves the gathering of necessary
background material, usually by the office requesting the VA; a VA
workshop with a 5-7 person team led by a VA facilitator; an oral
presentation of the findings of the VA session upon its conclusion; and
a written report of those findings. The composition of the VA Study Team
is tailored to meet project requirements, but is typically composed of
people familiar with the project, as well as independent team members
who bring perspective and insight to the study.

During the VA workshop, the essential functions being met by the project
are studied, cost estimates are analyzed, and the entire range of
alternative solutions are investigated. Factors are developed for
evaluating the alternatives and alternatives are numerically rated, by
team consensus, using those factors. The relative importance of the
advantages of each alternative are weighed, and a ranking is developed
showing how well each of the alternatives addresses the project needs,
and recommendations are made by the study team.

**Topics for Study:** Value Analysis can be applied to decisions of any
scale, from broad scope conceptual plans for a park, to decisions
concerning building program, to selection of flooring, or to decisions
concerning administrative issues such as reorganization of an office.
Studies conducted at the Denver Service Center tend to focus on planning
and design issues. Value Studies are mandated by law for NPS projects
over half a million dollars.

**Ruins Road Value Analysis Study:** Recognizing the sensitivity of
potential cultural resources in the pasture, the sensitivity of known
cultural resources (ruins) that are subject to destructive vibrations
generated from Ruins Road traffic, and the potential of increased noise
impacts to residents of the trailer park from relocating Ruins Road
closer to them, a comprehensive effort was made to identify a relocated
road site that would best resolve all issues. This effort resulted in a
VA study conducted in December 2001 at the NPS's Denver Service Center,
Denver, Colorado. The Value Analysis group included representatives from
Aztec Ruins NM, Federal Highway Administration, and the Denver Service
Center.

The December VA examined a number of alternatives for relocation of the
2,100 foot-long section of Ruins Road. The preferred alternative in this
EA is based on findings and recommendations generated from the December
VA site while minimizing impacts to the monument's cultural resources,
Ruins Road traffic, and residents of the trailer park.

The proposed action to relocate 2,100 feet of Ruins Road is consistent
with the VA findings and is an initial step to preserving monument
resources.

**ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS**

**Issues**: Issues and concerns affecting this proposal were identified
from past NPS planning efforts, environmental groups, and input from
other state and federal agencies. The major issues are the conformance
of this proposal with the 1989 GMP; biotic community issues including
special status species (threatened, endangered, species of concern, and
designated critical habitats); recreational values; Ruins Road traffic;
floodplains and wetlands, air quality; prime and unique farmland;
cultural (historic and archeological) resources; socioeconomic values;
noise; environmental justice; and effects on monument operations.

**Derivation of Impact Topics**: Specific impact topics were developed
for discussion focus, and to allow comparison of the environmental
consequences of each alternative. These impact topics were identified
based on federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders; 2001 NPS
*Management Policies*; and NPS knowledge of limited or easily impacted
resources. A brief rationale for the selection of each impact topic is
given below, as well as the rationale for dismissing specific topics
from further consideration.

**Impact Topics Included in this Document**

**Biotic Communities**: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
calls for an examination of the impacts on all components of affected
ecosystems. NPS policy is to protect the natural abundance and diversity
of all the park\'s naturally occurring communities. The 2001 NPS
*Management Policies*, DO‑77 (Natural Resources Management), and the
1993 Aztec Ruins NM Statement for Management, among other NPS and park
policies, provides general direction for the protection of the natural
abundance and diversity of all the monument\'s naturally occurring
communities. This impact topic addresses all impacted communities. Since
the proposed action alternative would involve manipulation of natural
resources, biotic communities would be addressed as an impact topic in
this document.

**Cultural Resources**: The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA, 16 USC 470 et seq.), the 1916 NPS Organic Act, and NPS planning
and cultural resource guidelines call for the consideration and
protection of historic properties in development proposals. (The term
historic properties refers to all cultural resources, including
prehistoric archeological sites, cultural landscapes, ethnographic
sites, and historic sites eligible for or listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.) The evaluation of potential impacts of
proposed actions on significant historic properties is required by NEPA
and NHPA, as is attention to the provisions of the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) for sites where human
remains or burials may be present.Alternatives in this document have the
potential to impact cultural resources. Therefore, cultural resources is
an impact topic that will be addressed in this document.

#########  **Archeological Resources:** Aztec Ruins NM encompasses a variety of archeological resources. The West and East Ruins, the Hubbard site, nine small mounds, a pueblo known as the Earl Morris Ruin, and numerous remnants of kivas, foundations, walls, terraces, refuse mounds, and middens associated with ancestral Puebloan cultures of the Chacoan period (northwestern New Mexico circa AD 900-1150) and the Mesa Verdean period (southwestern Colorado circa AD 1200-1300) that primarily comprise the prehistoric landscape.

######### 

######### One archeological site LA 1674 is known in the eastern portion of the project area (Mathews 1989). LA 1674 was re-recorded during an archeological survey of the project area conducted in 2000 and 2001, by Moore Anthropological Research under contract to the NPS. The NPS, in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, has determined that archeological site LA 1674 is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Prehistoric materials occur within the project area; therefore archeological resources are analyzed in this environmental assessment.

**Historic Structures:** Located immediately north of the proposed road
realignment, the Aztec Ruins Visitor Center occupies the historic home
of Earl Morris. The historic Pueblo revival style Earl Morris house is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. West Ruin Ruins Road
is not considered a historic road and the NPS recommends that Ruins Road
is ineligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
Concurrence has not yet been received from the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Officer regarding the eligibility of Ruins Road. Because
the no action alternative would impact the Earl Morris House, historic
structures are addressed as an impact topic in this environmental
assessment.

Cultural Landscapes and Ethnographic Resources: Cultural landscapes are
broadly defined by the NPS as, "a reflection of human adaptation and use
of natural resources and are often expressed in the way land is
organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, circulation
systems, and the types of structures that are built. The character of a
cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads,
buildings, walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values
and traditions" (DO-28: 87).

Cultural landscapes are the result of the long interaction between man
and the land. Shaped through time by land-use practices as well as
levels of technology, and economic conditions, cultural landscapes
provide a living record of an area's past. The dynamic nature of modern
human life contributes to the continual reshaping of cultural
landscapes; making them a good source of information about specific
times and places, but at the same time rendering their long-term
preservation a challenge.

Three cultural landscapes have been identified at Aztec Ruins NM, a
prehistoric designed landscape, a historic designed landscape, and a
historic vernacular landscape. The NPS recommends that the prehistoric
and the historic designed landscape are eligible to be listed in the
National Register. The NPS has not yet completed consultations with the
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the eligibility
of these landscapes, therefore both cultural landscapes would be treated
as potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. Because
the proposed action could impact the potentially eligible prehistoric
and historic designed landscapes, cultural landscapes will be addressed
as an impact topic in this environmental assessment.

Ethnographic resources are defined by the NPS as any "site, structure,
object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional
legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural
system of a group traditionally associated with it" (Director's Order
28, *Cultural Resource Management Guideline*, 191). Ethnographic
resources within the project area are associated with the prehistoric
designed landscape discussed above and may include objects of cultural
patrimony or other objects and features significant to those groups
affiliated with the monument. Native Americans traditionally associated
with the lands of Aztec Ruins NM, and others with whom monument staff
regularly consult, are concerned about ground disturbance at the
monument and the potential discovery of ethnographic resources including
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural
patrimony. Because of the potential for inadvertent discovery of any
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural
patrimony, ethnographic resources are analyzed in this environmental
assessment. Copies of the environmental assessment will be forwarded to
each affiliated tribe or group for review and comment.

**Monument Operations**: These operations could be affected by the
alternatives. Therefore, monument operations will be addressed as an
impact topic in this document.

**Recreational Values**: Providing for visitor enjoyment is one of the
elemental purposes of the NPS according to the 1916 Organic Act. The
1989 Aztec Ruins NM GMP established provisions for recreational uses by
providing quality facilities for a more meaningful visitor experience.
Alternatives in this document have potential to affect recreational
values at Aztec Ruins NM. Therefore, recreational values will be
addressed as an impact topic in this document.

**Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Analysis**

**Air Quality:** The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.), requires federal land managers to protect park air quality, while
the 2001 NPS *Management Policies* address the need to analyze air
quality during park planning. Aztec Ruins NM was designated Class II
under the 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended. Class II areas can have
changes in air quality if these changes are the result of moderate,
well‑controlled growth.

The 1963 Clean Air Act provides that the federal land manager (the
assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks and the park
superintendent) has an affirmative responsibility to protect the park\'s
air quality related values (including visibility, plants, animals,
soils, water quality, cultural and historic resources and objects, and
visitor health) from adverse air pollution impacts. Section 118 of the
1963 Clean Air Act requires the park to meet all federal, state, and
local air pollution standards. Section 176(c) of the 1963 Clean Air Act
requires all federal activities and projects to conform to state air
quality implementation plans to attain and maintain national ambient air
quality standards.

Should the proposed action alternative be selected, local air quality
would be temporarily affected by dust and vehicle emissions. Hauling
material and operating equipment during the construction period would
result in increased vehicle exhaust and emissions. Hydrocarbons, NO~x~,
and SO~2~ emissions would be rapidly dissipated by air drainage since
air stagnation is rare at the project site.

Fugitive dust plumes from construction equipment would intermittently
increase airborne particulates in the area near the project site, but
loading rates are not expected to be significant. To partially mitigate
these effects, such activity would be coupled with water sprinkling to
reduce dust.

There would be temporary increases in air pollution during construction
of the project, primarily from operation of the construction equipment.
To reduce construction equipment emissions, the monument would apply
appropriate mitigating measures limiting idling of construction
vehicles.

Overall, there would be a slight and temporary degradation of local air
quality due to dust generated from construction activities and emissions
from construction equipment. These effects would last only as long as
construction occurred and the monument\'s Class II air quality would not
be affected by the proposal. Therefore, air quality was dismissed as an
impact topic in this document.

**Special Status Species (Threatened, Endangered, Species of Concern,
and Designated Critical Habitats):** The 1973 Endangered Species Act, as
amended, requires an examination of impacts to all federally listed
threatened or endangered species. NPS policy requires examination of the
impacts to state listed threatened or endangered species and federal
candidate species.

In a letter dated December 22, 2000 (USFWS Reference No. #2-22-01-I-089)
(Appendix A), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided a list
of special status species that may be within the project area or depend
on it for critical habitat.

Knowledgeable monument natural resource staff conducted a literature
search in monument records and a field survey of the project site for
listed species that may live in or depend on the project site for
habitat. No such species were found. Should the proposed alternative be
implemented there would be no impacts to any listed special status
species or designated critical or essential habitats. Therefore, special
status species was dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

**Environmental Justice**: 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
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low‑income
populations and communities. No alternative would have health or
environmental effects on minorities or low‑income populations or
communities as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency\'s Draft
Environmental Justice Guidance (July 1996). Environmental Justice was
dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

**Floodplains and Wetlands**: Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain
Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) require an examination of
impacts to floodplains and wetlands; of potential risk involved in
placing facilities within floodplains, and protecting wetlands. The 2001
NPS *Management Policies*; DO‑2 (Planning Process Guidelines), 1982; and
DO-12 (NEPA Guideline), 2001, provide direction on developments proposed
in floodplains and wetlands.

No jurisdictional wetlands would be disturbed as the result of the
proposed alternative. The west end of the proposed road relocation would
just dip into the 100 year floodplain of the Animas River. This is a
special flood hazard area inundated by 100-year flood, with no base
flood elevations determined.

The 1993 NPS Floodplain Management Guidelines V. Scope, B. *Excepted
Actions*, 2. States "This guideline does not apply to certain park
functions that are often located near water for the enjoyment of
visitors but do not involve overnight occupation. Examples include:" "b.
Entrance, access, and internal roads to or within units of the NPS."
National Park Service roads are exempt from NPS Floodplain Management
Guidelines, therefore compliance with EO 11988 would not be required.

Therefore, floodplains and wetlands was dismissed as an impact topic in
this document.

**Prime and Unique Farmland**: 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 United
States Department of Agriculture\'s Natural Resource Conservation
Service as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defined as soil
that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage,
fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as
fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According to the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, there are no prime farmlands associated with the
project area. Therefore, the topic of prime and unique farmland was
dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

**Indian Trust Resources:** Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any
anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources from a proposed project or
action by Department of Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in
environmental documents. The federal Indian trust responsibility is a
legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United
States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights,
and it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with
respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes.

There are no Indian trust resources in Aztec Ruins NM. The lands
comprising the monument are not held in trust by the Secretary of the
Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians.
Therefore, Indian trust resources was dismissed as an impact topic.

**Socioeconomic Values**: Socioeconomic values consist of local and
regional businesses and residents, the local and regional economy, and
monument concessions. The local economy and most business of the
communities surrounding the monument are based on professional services,
construction, ranching; and tourist sales and services; the regional
economy is strongly influenced by tourist activity. The approved 1989
GMP discussed the socioeconomic environment and impacts extensively.

Local and Regional Economy: Should the proposed action alternative be
implemented, short‑term economic benefits from construction related
expenditures and employment would include economic gains for some local
and regional businesses and individuals. Possible disturbance and
inconvenience to monument visitors from construction activities would be
temporary and only occur during the construction period.

Traffic flow into and out of the monument and project area would be
maintained.

There would be short‑term benefits to the local and regional economy;
local and regional businesses would not be appreciably affected in the
long‑term. Therefore, socioeconomic values was dismissed as an impact
topic in this document.

**Noise**: The 2001 *Management Policies* states that the NPS would
strive to preserve the natural quiet and natural sounds associated with
the physical and biological resources of parks. Activities causing
excessive or unnecessary unnatural sounds in and adjacent to parks would
be monitored, and action would be taken to prevent or minimize unnatural
sounds that adversely affect park resources or values, or visitors\'
enjoyment of them.

In April 2001 a noise study (King, 2001 report on file at monument
headquarters) was conducted to determine traffic noise levels on the
existing Ruins Road, at the proposed site to relocate the road (170 feet
south from the present road location), and at the trailer park south of
the proposed road relocation site. A summery of the noise study for the
proposed relocation site indicates:

1.  The noise from the general traffic is at or below the normal ambient
    background. The average induced acoustics from traffic on the
    boundary road at the 170 feet south sites was 50-59 dB. The ambient
    acoustic background varied from 42 to 54 dB;

2.  The maximum traffic noise documented was from very heavy diesel
    trucks carrying drilling equipment. They gave a maximum reading of
    67 dB on line 3 at 170 feet. The higher reading on line 3 was due to
    the roughness of the road at the intersection;

3.  A second highest reading was from a motorcycle with very poor
    mufflers. It induced a reading of 64 dB at the site of the proposed
    relocation. The main noise was induced when the motorcycle
    accelerated from the intersection.

4.  Low flying aircraft gave a reading of 72 dB at the 170-foot site but
    was not included in the data set.

5.  The maximum vibrations induced by the traffic were 1.5 mm/sec at 24
    Hz; the vibrations were induced by a very heavy truck hitting the
    rough road at the intersection. The vibration value is below the
    general sensitivity of humans but not below the sensitivity of the
    mud adobe of monument structures.

This study shows that the traffic induced noise level at the proposed
relocation site 170 feet south from the present road would be in the
50-60 db range which is very near the ambient background for that area.
An occasional heavy truck or motorcycle could have a short-term peak of
approximately 70 dB. These are values for total open space. Any
vegetation or walls would buffer these levels from 6 to 12 dB.

Ambient acoustic minimal background within the Ruins complex, away from
traffic and people was 32-45 db.

Relocating 2,100 feet of Ruins Road 170 feet south from its present
location would have little measurable change on noise levels to
residents at the south border of the monument. Therefore, noise was
dismissed as an impact topic in this document.

**ALTERNATIVES**

**Introduction**

The alternatives section describes two management alternatives for the
relocation of 2,100 feet of Ruins Road. Alternatives for this project
were developed to resolve pertinent visitor use, resource, and
management issues.

**The no action alternative** describes the action of continuing the
present management operation and condition, it does not imply or direct
discontinuing the present action or removing existing uses,
developments, or facilities. The no action alternative provides a basis
for comparing the management direction and environmental consequences of
the proposed action. Should the no action alternative be selected, the
NPS would respond to future needs and conditions associated with
cultural resource management at Aztec Ruins NM without major actions or
changes in course.

**The proposed action alternative** presents the NPS preferred
alternative and defines the rationale for the action in terms of
resource protection and management, visitor and operational use, costs,
and other applicable factors. All actions described in the preferred
alternative are consistent with the approved 1989 GMP and related
monument documents.

**The environmentally preferred alternative** is the alternative that
would promote the national environmental policy as expressed in Section
101 of NEPA.

**A summary table** comparing the environmental consequences of each
alternative is presented at the end of the alternatives section.

**ALTERNATIVE A ‑ NO ACTION**

Under the no action alternative, 2,100 feet of Ruins Road would not be
relocated; the mainline and termini would remain as is. The monument
approach and entrance would remain unchanged in their present location,
and improvements to the west parking lot entrance would not be made.

##### ALTERNATIVE B ‑ PROPOSED ACTION (Figure 1)

######  Road Alignment

[Mainline and Termini]{.underline}: The proposed action alternative is
to relocate 2,100 feet of the main monument road (Ruins Road)
approximately 230 feet to the south. This relocated road segment would
be reconstructed from the monuments' southern boundary to County Road
2900 on the eastern edge of the monument.

![](media/image2.png){width="6.402777777777778in" height="8.4in"}

The western project terminus would consist of a 3-way "T" intersection
(located approximately 230 feet south of the existing, similar-type
intersection near the monument's entrance). The existing 15 MPH curve at
the eastern terminus (located at the eastern boundary of the monument)
would be replaced with a 450 foot radius curve before tying into County
Road 2900 immediately north of the curve.

The principal purpose for relocating the road would be to mitigate road
vibration generated from traffic, especially heavy trucks. Vibrations
from traffic pose a vibrational risk to monument resources. The proposal
would also improve the roadway geometry and curve safety.

#### [National Monument Approach]{.underline}: The north leg of the proposed intersection at the western Ruins Road terminus would be the entrance into Aztec Ruins NM. This section of road would follow the alignment of the existing entrance roadway and would reconstruct the road from the new intersection up to the entrance of the visitor center parking area. 

Culverts would be placed in irrigation ditches along the route that
could also serve as storm runoff drainage. The ditches are very close to
the road edge and culverts would mitigate a roadside hazard (vehicles
falling into the open ditches) and reduce maintenance costs.

A lockable gate would be installed at the monument entrance to control
after hours access to the monument.

#### [RV Parking]{.underline}: The RV exit road from the west parking lot would be relocated approximately 80 feet to the north from its present location.

#### [Maintenance and Gas Well Access Roads]{.underline}: Relocated access roads for the monument's maintenance facility would be left (north) of mainline station 300+260, and the gas well access would be left of the monument's approach roadway station 200+070. It would be necessary to relocate these access roads because relocating 2,100 feet of Ruins Road would eliminate the current access. A low standard access to private property (parcel 101-40) extending south from the proposed road alignment would also be constructed.

###### Road Design

[Typical Section]{.underline}: The typical section proposed for the
mainline roadway would be 12-foot wide traffic lanes, a 3 foot wide
paved shoulder, and a 4:1 or flatter foreslope. These 12-foot wide lanes
would comply with all appropriate regulations and standards and ensure
that trucks could navigate the monument section safely

The typical section for the approach into the monument would be 11
foot-wide traffic lanes, 2 foot-wide paved shoulders, and 4:1 or flatter
foreslope. Concrete curbing would be constructed along the left edge of
roadway to carry drainage to asphalt rundowns.

##### The proposed section for the maintenance access road would be 11-foot wide lanes with a 1-foot wide paved shoulder and 4:1 or flatter foreslope.

[Roadway Obliteration:]{.underline} Once the 2,100-foot long segment of
Ruins Road would be relocated, the existing roadway through the monument
would be obliterated. The existing asphalt pavement would be lifted,
removed, and disposed of at approved landfill areas outside the
monument. Pavement removal would be either by rotary milling (bo-mag) or
ripping with ripper teeth attached to a loader/grader. A strip of
existing pavement immediately adjacent to the historic walls would be
saw cut and removed by hand to avoid the possibility of damaging the
walls. After the pavement would be removed, the existing roadbed would
be scarified seeded.

The exit from the parking lot to be obliterated be ripped, recontoured,
scarified, and reseeded. The fill that had originally been placed to
construct that section should be removed and could be used as fill in
the proposed road realignment. The dirt road access to the gas well
would be scarified and reseeded.

[Signing]{.underline}: The new west end intersection just below the
monument entrance would be a 3-way stop sign, with advance "STOP AHEAD"
warning signs installed on the southern and eastern legs of the
intersection.

Speed limits immediately adjacent to the Aztec Road project area are now
posted at 25 MPH. The 25 MPH speed limit signage would be retained as
requested by the City of Aztec.

The signing within the monument would be modified to reflect the
existing traffic patterns through the monument. Recreational vehicles
would be directed past the visitor center parking lot and into the west
parking lot. A "DO NOT ENTER" sign would be installed at the end of the
RV exit roadway.

[Road Maintenance]{.underline}: The City of Aztec or San Juan County
would perform maintenance on the relocated Ruins Road segment under a
maintenance agreement between the monument and the City of Aztec and/or
San Juan County. Either a permanent maintenance easement or a formal
land transfer to the City would be required for this work.

[Utilities]{.underline}: Utility lines for water, sewer, gas, and
overhead electric and telephone would remain in place, but some power
poles would be relocated slightly from the path of the proposed
roadways. The monument would coordinate utility concerns with the City
of Aztec, the City of Farmington, Qwest, Comcast Cable, El Paso Gas, and
Public Service Company of New Mexico.

**ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE**

In accordance with DO-12, the NPS is required to identify the
"environmentally preferred alternative" in all environmental documents,
including EAs. The environmentally preferred alternative is determined
by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, which is guided by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that "\[t\]he environmentally
preferable alternative is the alternative that would promote the
national environmental policy as expressed in Section 101 of NEPA, which
considers

-   fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations;

-   assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and
    esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

-   attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
    and unintended consequences;

-   preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our
    national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
    that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

-   achieve a balance between population and resource use that would
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities; and

-   enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources."

    Generally this means the alternative that causes the least damage to
    the biological and physical environment. It also means the
    alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
    cultural, and natural resources." (Council on Environmental Quality,
    "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental
    Policy Act Regulations" (40 CFR 1500-1508), *Federal Register* Vol.
    46, No. 55, 18026-18038, March 23, 1981: Question 6a.).

The preferred alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative.
Relocating 2,100 feet of Ruins Road is necessary to ensure maximum
protection of the monument's cultural resources from vibrations caused
by heavy vehicle traffic. Implementing the preferred alternative would
help to alleviate current cultural resource impacts with minimum effect
on other resources and result in long-term beneficial impacts to
cultural resources and management operations.

**Staging Area**: The staging area for equipment and material storage
would be on the new road corridor.

**Mitigation Measures of the Proposed Action**: Mitigation measures are
analyzed as part of the proposed action. These actions have been
developed to lessen the adverse effects of the proposed action.

[Natural Resources]{.underline}: Construction zones would be identified
and fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some similar
material prior to any construction activity. The fencing would define
the construction zone and confine activity to the minimum area required
for construction. All protection measures would be clearly stated in the
construction specifications and workers would be instructed to avoid
conducting activities beyond the construction zone as defined by the
construction zone fencing.

Temporary impacts associated with road construction would occur, such as
soil and vegetation disturbance and the possibility of soil erosion. In
an effort to avoid introduction of exotic plant species, no hay bales
would be used. Hay often contains seed of undesirable or harmful alien
plant species. Therefore, on a case‑by‑case basis the following
materials may be used for any erosion control dams that may be
necessary: rice straw, straws determined by NPS to be weed‑free (e.g.,
Coors barley straw or Arizona winter wheat straw), cereal grain straw
that has been fumigated to kill weed seed, and wood excelsior bales.
Standard erosion control measures such as silt fences and/or sand bags
would also be used to minimize any potential soil erosion.

Silt fencing fabric would be inspected weekly or after every major
storm. Accumulated sediments would be removed when the fabric is
estimated to be approximately 75% full. Silt removal would be
accomplished in such a way as to avoid introduction into any wetlands or
flowing water bodies.

Although soil side‑cast during construction would be susceptible to some
erosion, such erosion would be minimized by placing silt fencing around
the excavated soil. Excavated soil may be used in the construction
project; excess soil would be stored in approved areas.

In order to minimize possible impacts to subsurface cultural resources,
the proposal calls to construct the relocated road segment on imported
soil rather than excavate for road base. Any soil brought into the
monument for this project would be from sources approved by monument
resource staff as free of noxious weeds and other deleterious material.

Revegetation plantings would use native species from genetic stocks
originating within or close to the monument if possible. Revegetation
efforts would be to reconstruct the natural spacing, abundance, and
diversity of native plant species. All disturbed areas would be restored
as nearly as possible to preconstruction conditions shortly after
construction activities are completed. The principal goal is to avoid
interfering with natural processes.

Throughout the project area soils and vegetation are already impacted to
a degree by various human and natural activities. Construction would
take advantage of these previously disturbed areas wherever possible.
Soils within the project construction limits would be compacted and
trampled by the presence of construction equipment and workers. Soils
would be susceptible to erosion until revegetation takes place.
Vegetation impacts and potential compaction and erosion of bare soils
would be minimized by conserving topsoil in windrows. The use of
conserved topsoil would help preserve microorganisms and seeds of native
plants. The topsoil would be respread in as near as original location as
possible, and supplemented with scarification, mulching, seeding, and/or
planting with species native to the immediate area. This would reduce
construction scars and erosion.

Some petrochemicals from construction equipment could seep into the
soil. To minimize this possibility, equipment would be checked
frequently to identify and repair any leaks.

[Cultural Resources:]{.underline} Avoidance of archeological site LA
1674 is preferred, however balancing the potential negative impacts to
LA 1674 with the continued vibration stresses to the monument's primary
cultural resources compels road realignment. In addition, improvement of
traffic safety strengthens the argument for relocating the road.
Unfortunately, avoidance of LA 1674 is not possible due to the
constraints of topography and park boundaries. The only location for the
road realignment is the field adjacent to the existing road.

Data recovery at LA 1674 would be destructive in itself because it
removes important information from its original context and as such is
considered an "undertaking" under regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800). Excavation of cultural resources
within the right-of-way may also result in the discovery and disturbance
of Native American human remains, funerary items, sacred items, and
items of cultural patrimony as defined under the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act. American Indian tribes traditionally
associated with the lands of Aztec Ruins NM, and others with whom
monument staff regularly consults, have expressed concern about ground
disturbance at the monument. Therefore, data recovery at LA 1674 is not
a preferred mitigation strategy for LA 1674.

Although avoidance of the archeological site cannot be attained and
excavation is not a preferred action, potential impacts to the site
could be mitigated through site burial. In consultation with the New
Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer and concerned affiliated
tribes, the NPS proposes to mitigate impacts to LA 1674 by burying the
portion of LA 1674 within the proposed right-of-way as a preservation
technique via the road design. Burial of an archeological site can serve
as a form of preservation for that site and can be considered a form of
mitigation. Impacts that may result from site burial should be
identified, considered, and compared against the positive impacts that
such an action may have. Because site burial would make that portion of
LA 1674 beneath the road realignment inaccessible for the foreseeable
future, it is further recommended that a program of remote sensing be
conducted prior to any construction activity to acquire information
across the entirety of LA 1674. Limited archeological testing to confirm
certain features detected with remote sensing may be appropriate but
should be kept to a minimum.

During remote sensing and construction activities, site clearing should
be accomplished by hand. Surface preparation should include hand
placement of a protective layer to mark the original ground surface and
to provide a surface for construction vehicle traffic. Construction
equipment should be of a low ground-pressure type operated at one-half
speed (NPS, Site Preservation Plan, 2002).

All workers would be informed of the penalties for illegally collecting
artifacts or intentionally damaging any archeological or historic
property by construction crews. Workers would also be informed of the
correct procedures in case previously unknown resources are uncovered
during construction activities.

Copies of this environmental assessment will be forwarded to American
Indian tribes traditionally associated with the lands of Aztec Ruins NM,
and others with whom monument staff regularly consult for review and
comment. In the unlikely event that human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered during
construction, provisions outlined in the *Plan of Action Regarding the
Treatment and Disposition of Inadvertently Discovered Cultural Items
That May Be Excavated or Removed as a Result of Four Planned Projects at
Aztec Ruins National Monument* would be followed. The monument staff
developed this plan in 2000, in consultation with American Indian tribes
as required by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act (NAGPRA) \[Public Law No. 101-601; 25 USC Section 3001-3013; 104
Statutes 3048-3058\] and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 10)
particularly Sections 10.3 through 10.7.

**Sustainability:** The NPS has adopted the concept of sustainable
design as a guiding principle of facility planning and development. The
objectives of sustainability are to design NPS facilities to:

-   minimize adverse effects on natural and cultural values,

-   reflect their environmental setting,

-   maintain and encourage biodiversity,

-   construct and retrofit facilities using energy-efficient materials
    and building techniques,

-   operate and maintain facilities to promote their sustainability, and

-   to illustrate and promote conservation principles and practices
    through the sustainable design and ecologically sensitive use.

Essentially, sustainability is living within the environment with the
least impact on the environment. The proposed action subscribes to and
supports the practice of sustainable planning, design, and use of Ruins
Road and associated public and administrative facilities

**General Construction Schedule and Costs**: Construction for this
project is expected to last approximately five months, starting in
January 2003; however, construction could be delayed by weather
conditions or other unexpected events. The cost of this project is
expected to be approximately \$707,000 (gross 2002 dollars).

**ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED**

In addition to the proposed action alternative, the December 2001 Value
Analysis Study examined two other road alignment alternatives. Following
are the two alignment alternatives that were considered and dismissed
and the reasons why they were dismissed.

All three alternatives considered in the Value Analysis relocated the
Ruins Road segment approximately 230 feet to the south -- away from the
Visitor Center and ruins and outside the Vibration Zones identified in
the 1994 King report. All alternatives presented a 135-meter radius at
the eastern terminus with the idea that the curve and Ruins Road would
be signed for 25 MPH. Each alternative placed the new road on fill
material to avoid disturbance to known archeological resources in the
area.

Alternatives #1 and #2 created a radius at the western side that would
allow vehicles to pass through without having to stop. This would
eliminate a majority of the vibration caused by acceleration and
deceleration at a stop sign. However, both alternatives had the entrance
to the monument located in the middle of the radius. Alternative #3
creates a "T" intersection at the western side. This creates a safer
intersection with the monument entrance.

The VA team agreed that relocating the road outside of the vibration
zones is the only real alternative that would meet the objectives of the
project. Additionally, the team agreed that alternative #3 was the only
alternative that fully addressed the safety issues. The VA team reviewed
the estimates for the three alternatives that were presented and
Alternative #3 was found to be the lowest cost alternative.

+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| **Table 1**                     |                                    |
|                                 |                                    |
| **Comparative Summary of        |                                    |
| Alternatives and Extent To      |                                    |
| Which**                         |                                    |
|                                 |                                    |
| **Each Alternative Meets the    |                                    |
| Project Objectives**            |                                    |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| **Alternative A -- No Action**  | **Alternative B -- Preferred       |
|                                 | Alternative**                      |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| ##                              | [Mainline and                      |
|                                 | Termini]{.underline}:              |
| ## [Main                        | Approximately 2,100 feet of the    |
| line and Termini]{.underline}:  | main monument road (Ruins Road)    |
| 2,100 feet of Ruins Road would  | would be approximately 230 feet to |
| not be relocated; the mainline  | the south.                         |
| and termini would remain as is. |                                    |
|                                 | ####                               |
| ##                              |                                    |
|                                 | #### [National Monume              |
| ##  [                           | nt Approach]{.underline}: The nort |
| National Monument Approach]{.un | h leg of the proposed intersection |
| derline}: The monument approach |  at the western Ruins Road terminu |
|  and entrance would remain unch | s would be the entrance into Aztec |
| anged in their present location |  Ruins NM. This section of road wo |
|                                 | uld follow the alignment of the ex |
| ##                              | isting entrance roadway and would  |
|                                 | reconstruct the road from the new  |
| ## [RV Parking]{.underline}: Im | intersection up to the entrance of |
| provements to the west parking  |  the visitor center parking area.  |
| lot entrance would not be made. |                                    |
|                                 | Culverts would be placed in        |
| ##                              | irrigation ditches along the route |
|                                 | that could also serve as storm     |
| ## [Meets P                     | runoff drainage. The ditches are   |
| roject Objectives?]{.underline} | very close to the road edge and    |
|                                 | culverts would mitigate a roadside |
| No. Resources would continue to | hazard (vehicles falling into the  |
| be at risk from vibrations;     | open ditches) and reduce           |
| monument approach, RV parking   | maintenance costs.                 |
| lot exit road, and resource     |                                    |
| security would not be improved. | A lockable gate would be installed |
|                                 | at the monument entrance to        |
|                                 | control after hours access to the  |
|                                 | monument.                          |
|                                 |                                    |
|                                 | [RV Parking]{.underline}: The RV   |
|                                 | exit road from the west parking    |
|                                 | lot would be relocated             |
|                                 | approximately 80 feet to the north |
|                                 | from its present location.         |
|                                 |                                    |
|                                 | **[Meets Project                   |
|                                 | Objectives?]{.underline}**         |
|                                 |                                    |
|                                 | Yes. Relocating Ruins Road would   |
|                                 | decrease resource risks from       |
|                                 | vibrations; monument approach, RV  |
|                                 | parking lot exit road, and         |
|                                 | resource security would be         |
|                                 | improved.                          |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------------+

+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **Table 2**            |                      |                      |
|                        |                      |                      |
| #                      |                      |                      |
| ###### SUMMARY OF ENVI |                      |                      |
| RONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES |                      |                      |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| # **Impact Topic**     | **Alternative A**    | **Alternative B**    |
|                        |                      |                      |
|                        | **No Action**        | **Proposed Action**  |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Biotic Communities     | The effect of the no | If the proposed      |
|                        | action alternative   | action would be      |
|                        | on biotic            | implemented there    |
|                        | communities would be | would be short-term  |
|                        | negligible and long  | negligible impacts   |
|                        | term. There would be | to natural           |
|                        | no impairment of     | resources. With      |
|                        | monument biotic      | mitigation as        |
|                        | community resources. | described in the     |
|                        |                      | "Mitigation" section |
|                        |                      | above, the overall   |
|                        |                      | effect of            |
|                        |                      | construction and     |
|                        |                      | post construction    |
|                        |                      | activities of the    |
|                        |                      | preferred            |
|                        |                      | alternative would    |
|                        |                      | have no long-term    |
|                        |                      | impact to any        |
|                        |                      | natural resources,   |
|                        |                      | individual species   |
|                        |                      | or populations of    |
|                        |                      | animals or plants,   |
|                        |                      | or any biotic        |
|                        |                      | communities as a     |
|                        |                      | whole. There would   |
|                        |                      | be no impairment of  |
|                        |                      | monument biotic      |
|                        |                      | community resources. |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Archeological          | Minor long-term      | Minor to moderate    |
| Resources              | direct adverse       | long-term beneficial |
|                        | impacts to the West  | impacts to West      |
|                        | Ruins. Disturbance   | Ruins. Removal of    |
|                        | is confined to a     | traffic vibration    |
|                        | small area with      | stress risks to West |
|                        | little, if any, loss | Ruins would preserve |
|                        | of important         | and stabilize        |
|                        | information          | resources integral   |
|                        | potential. No        | to the cultural      |
|                        | impairment of        | integrity of the     |
|                        | monument resources   | monument.            |
|                        | or values.           |                      |
|                        |                      | Minor long term      |
|                        | No impacts to        | direct adverse       |
|                        | archeological site   | impacts to LA 1674.  |
|                        | LA 1674.             | Disturbance is       |
|                        |                      | confined to a small  |
|                        |                      | area with little, if |
|                        |                      | any loss of          |
|                        |                      | important            |
|                        |                      | information          |
|                        |                      | potential. No        |
|                        |                      | impairment of the    |
|                        |                      | monument's resources |
|                        |                      | or values.           |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Cultural Landscapes    | No direct or         | Negligible long-term |
|                        | indirect impacts to  | direct adverse       |
|                        | cultural landscapes  | impacts to the       |
|                        | within the monument. | park\'s prehistoric  |
|                        | No impairment to     | designed landscape.  |
|                        | cultural landscape   | Minor long-term      |
|                        | features or values   | indirect adverse     |
|                        | within Aztec Ruins   | impacts to historic  |
|                        | NM.                  | designed landscape   |
|                        |                      | primarily through    |
|                        |                      | changes in views. No |
|                        |                      | impairment to        |
|                        |                      | cultural landscape   |
|                        |                      | resources or values  |
|                        |                      | within the park.     |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| **Table 2**            |                      |                      |
|                        |                      |                      |
| #                      |                      |                      |
| ###### SUMMARY OF ENVI |                      |                      |
| RONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES |                      |                      |
|                        |                      |                      |
| continued              |                      |                      |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Historic Structures    | Minor to moderate    | Minor to moderate    |
|                        | long-term direct     | long-term beneficial |
|                        | adverse impacts to   | impacts to the Earl  |
|                        | historic structures. | Morris house. No     |
|                        | Impacts would alter  | impairment to        |
|                        | a defining feature   | cultural resources   |
|                        | of the Earl Morris   | or values that are   |
|                        | house, but would not | intregal to the      |
|                        | diminish the         | monument.            |
|                        | integrity of the     |                      |
|                        | resource to the      |                      |
|                        | extent that its      |                      |
|                        | National Register    |                      |
|                        | eligibility is       |                      |
|                        | jeopardized. No      |                      |
|                        | impairment to        |                      |
|                        | cultural resources   |                      |
|                        | or values integral   |                      |
|                        | to the monument's    |                      |
|                        | cultural identity.   |                      |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Ethnographic Resources | No direct or         | Negligible long-term |
|                        | indirect impacts to  | direct adverse       |
|                        | ethnographic         | impacts to           |
|                        | resources within the | ethnographic         |
|                        | monument. No         | resources. No        |
|                        | impairment to        | impairment to        |
|                        | ethnographic         | ethnographic         |
|                        | resources or values  | resources or values  |
|                        | intregal to the      | that are key to      |
|                        | cultural integrity   | cultural integrity   |
|                        | of the monument.     | of the monument.     |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Recreational Values    | Impacts to           | Over the short term, |
|                        | recreational values  | recreational values  |
|                        | would continue to be | would be adversely   |
|                        | adverse, minor in    | affected by noise,   |
|                        | intensity, and       | dust, fumes, delays, |
|                        | long-term; there     | and construction     |
|                        | would be no change   | vehicle traffic      |
|                        | over existing        | along this section   |
|                        | conditions.          | of Ruins Road for a  |
|                        |                      | very short time.     |
|                        |                      | Over the long term   |
|                        |                      | visitors would       |
|                        |                      | benefit from less    |
|                        |                      | noise and minimally  |
|                        |                      | less visual          |
|                        |                      | intrusion into the   |
|                        |                      | monument's cultural  |
|                        |                      | resources and an     |
|                        |                      | improved road        |
|                        |                      | section.             |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
| Monument Operations    | Under this no action | The preferred        |
|                        | alternative,         | alternative would    |
|                        | existing and future  | result in a          |
|                        | impacts to monument  | long-term, minor to  |
|                        | operations would     | moderate, directly   |
|                        | continue; these      | beneficial impact to |
|                        | impacts would be     | monument operations. |
|                        | adverse, minor in    |                      |
|                        | intensity, and       |                      |
|                        | long-term.           |                      |
+------------------------+----------------------+----------------------+

**AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

Detailed information on natural, cultural, and other resources in Aztec
Ruins NM may be found in the 1989 GMP. A summary of the resources
associated with this project follows.

**Location, Access, and Setting:** Aztec Ruins NM is in San Juan County,
northwestern New Mexico, within the Four Corners region; the only area
in the United States where four states -- New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado,
and Utah -- border one another. The monument is adjacent to the north
edge of the town of Aztec, and approximately 15 miles east of
Farmington, New Mexico.

Gently rolling grassy terraces closest to the core of the Aztec Ruins
complex are bisected by two major drainages -- Farmer Arroyo to the east
and Estes Arroyo to the west. Most of the area around Aztec Ruins has
been heavily modified since about 1880; cultivated and irrigated
farmland, pasture, and orchards surround the monument. The southern
monument boundary lies just south of the east-west portion of Ruins Road
to be relocated. Residences, a trailer park, and a curio shop lie just
outside the southern and eastern monument boundaries.

Monument facilities include a visitor center/administrative complex
(lobby, information desk, bookstore, audiovisual room, and museum),
staff offices, curatorial storage, and a library/conference room. A
maintenance area includes a shop, office buildings, and paved parking
area. A mobile home is used for administrative offices. An abandoned
building that was a curio shop is near the visitor center and a
residence and curio shop/business is leased from the monument by the
former owner. Visitor facilities include interpretive trails and a
picnic area.

**Recreational Values:** Traffic on the nearby Ruins Road detracts from
the visitor experience, both audibly and visually. The road is visible
from the first overlook and from the plaza on the self-guided trail in
the West Ruin. The sight of moving traffic is a constant reminder of the
modern world that the visitor just came from, and detracts from the
setting and experience of thinking about and feeling the meaning and
significance of this prehistoric site. The sounds of accelerating and
decelerating vehicles, both large and small, is an additional assault on
the senses, pulling the visitor away from experiencing the site in a
peaceful and thoughtful way. The reconstructed Great Kiva should be a
place for quiet contemplation, but the rumble of traffic permeates the
building.

**Ruins Road**: The primary access to the monument is Ruins Road, which
is also designated as State Road 248 and County Road 2900. The road was
constructed in the 1930s and consists of two 12-foot paved lanes with
1-foot shoulders. Ruins Road from NM 516 to the curve at the monument
parking lot entrance is owned and maintained by the City of Aztec. From
the parking lot entrance to the curve that turns the road north, Ruins
Road is owned by the State of New Mexico and maintained by the City of
Aztec. From the curve north, Ruins Road is owned and operated by San
Juan County.

Ruins Road is a heavily traveled public road that accommodates a large
volume and mix of traffic, including local traffic, commercial and
industrial traffic (i.e. heavy trucks), and monument visitors. In 1995
the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was 700 vehicles; it is projected that
by the year 2022 the ADT would be 1,555 vehicles. Approximately 400 feet
south of the existing Ruins Road are residences and a trailer park.

**Visitation:** Over the last decade, visitation at the monument ranged
from 93,894 (1992) to 58,318 (1999). The annual average visitation for
the last ten years is 83,549.

**West Area Parking:** A recreational vehicle parking area is just west
on the monument approach road.

**Natural Resources:** Most of the native vegetation within the pasture
(construction zone) has been disturbed by grazing and associated
agricultural practices. The pasture vegetative community is
predominantly grasses dominated by exotic species. Very little native
wildlife occupies the pasture, the most common species are rodents
although mule deer are frequently seen.

**Cultural Resources:**

**Archeological Investigations/Resources:** The primary archeological
resources of Aztec Ruins NM consist of the East and West Ruins, the
Hubbard site, the Earl Morris Ruin and the remains of numerous
prehistoric room blocks, several multi-story buildings, round
depressions, middens, earthworks, and road segments. Additional historic
resources include fences, corrals, buildings, and fruit trees. When
viewed from the air, the East and West Ruins appear to be mirror images
of each other; the West Ruin was excavated by Earl Morris between 1916
and 1922.

A 1994 vibration study and vibration investigations in 2001, indicated
that vibrations from traffic on Ruins Road, especially at the southwest
intersection at the park entrance, are a vibrational risk and have
possibly contributed to damage to the visitor center, a building that is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic vibrations
are also a risk to the western-most rooms of the West Ruin.

Proclaimed a national monument in 1923, the entire park is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Aztec Ruins NM was recognized as a
World Heritage Site in 1987. Although adjustments to the monument's
National Register nomination have not kept pace with boundary
adjustments since 1920, cultural resources located within later
additions to the park are considered eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.

Relocating a segment of Ruins Road would realign the new road section
through a field that contains buried and surface deposits of both
prehistoric and historic-era archeological materials. In the autumn of
2000 and the summer of 2001, Moore Anthropological Research (MAR)
conducted an intensive archeological survey for the NPS to determine the
extent, depth, and nature of cultural deposits within the right-of way
of the proposed realignment of Ruins Road. One archeological site LA
1674, the Animas River Ruin, was re-recorded (Moore and Nathan 2001).

LA 1674 is a multi-component site with a prehistoric Pueblo II-III
habitation and an historic 20^th^ century homestead. The prehistoric
component includes at least seven buried and at least partially intact
architectural and activity area features including a hearth, a pit, and
cobble walls, described by Matthews (1989) and Moore (2001). These
prehistoric features may post-date the initial construction of the Aztec
Ruins complex by the Chacoan culture. All present and past excavations
of LA 1674 verify post Chacoan occupation and possibly late Chacoan (AD
1075-1150) occupation of LA 1674. It is not known if deeper parts of the
site may date to the Chacoan occupation of the nearby Great Houses.
Historic features occur on or within about two feet of the present
ground surface, except for the dugout and cistern.

##### The north and south boundaries of LA 1674 have not been determined, but the total site area is estimated to be about 5.4 acres, with a depth of 1.8 meters. About 0.8 acres of the site lie within the proposed realignment right-of-way and would be directly affected by construction. About 4.6 acres would be indirectly impacted by construction. The archeological survey of the corridor in the eastern end of the realignment corridor revealed artifacts in both the upper and subsurface strata. Around 20-35 historic artifacts were recorded in the top stratigraphic layers. The historic artifacts indicate a historic occupation of the area spanning about 120 years. None of the historic artifacts represents a specific feature area. Prehistoric artifacts from subsurface strata all relate to the Pueblo II to Pueblo III use of the area. Most of the prehistoric items recorded were found within the expanded boundary of LA 1674. Artifacts include black-on-white sherds, indented corrugated sherds, black-on-red sherds, flakes, cobble choppers, cores, a broken biface, groundstone and animal bone. Based on ceramic types the site dates from AD 1075 to 1300. No other prehistoric sites were encountered. The NPS recommends and the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer concurs that archeological site LA 1674 is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

**Historic Structures**: The visitor center occupies a portion of the
historic home/office of Earl Morris, which was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places in 1996 (Aztec Ruins Administration
Building-Museum). Morris built his home in the far southwest corner of
the monument's present-day boundary during 1919-1925, of materials
reclaimed from excavations at the West Ruin. The materials and design of
the Pueblo revival house were chosen to blend with the nearby West Ruin.
Morris lived in the building until the early 1930s. The building was
later expanded to serve as a combined visitor center/museum. Today the
Earl Morris house contains the monument's visitor center, some
interpretive and resource management offices, library, and museum. Ruins
Road, providing access to Aztec Ruins NM, does not possess any
distinguishing design/constructed elements within the segment under
project consideration and it is not a contributing element to either the
historic vernacular or historic designed landscape.

**Cultural Landscapes:** The prehistoric designed cultural landscape is
about 320 acres in size and includes all lands within the current
authorized boundary of Aztec Ruins NM, including the West Ruin, Hubbard
Tri-Wall site, Earl Morris Ruin, East Ruin, and Mound "F" located north
of the current alignment of Ruins Road. The NPS recommends that the
identified prehistoric designed landscape within the monument boundaries
is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, but
has not yet received concurrence from the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office.

Because natural landforms apparently played an important role in the
layout and use of the prehistoric landscape, the true limits of the
prehistoric landscape associated with the Aztec Ruins NM have not been
and likely will not be determined. It is probable that the boundaries of
the prehistoric designed landscape may extend beyond the authorized
boundaries of the park. It is reasonable to consider the Estes Arroyo as
a western boundary, the terrace above Farmer Arroyo to the north as a
northeastern boundary, and the Animas River as a southeastern boundary
of the larger prehistoric designed landscape. There are no visible,
above ground features south and east of Ruins Road that are presently
identified and documented as features within this landscape, however,
this area may reasonably be expected to have been a part of the
prehistoric designed landscape. Remote sensing of LA 1674 may identify
additional cultural resources in the area, such as remnants of Chacoan
roads.

A potentially eligible historic designed landscape is identified north
of the project area in the southwestern corner of the monument. The
historic designed landscape is 7 acres in size. The boundary of the
historic designed landscape follows the monument's 1987 southern
boundary from its southwest corner about 600 feet east, turns north at a
90 degree angle for about 120 feet, returns to the west northwest about
400 feet before turning north for 150 feet then west again for about 200
feet to the power line and returning south about 300 feet to meet the
1987 southwest boundary of the monument and intersecting Ruins Road.
This historic designed landscape, known as the visitor center complex,
includes the lawns and grounds surrounding the historic Earl Morris
house, which serves as the present park visitor center, the parking area
for the visitor center, the monument entrance and parking lot, and the
picnic area to the east of the visitor center. In 2002, the maintenance
and former employee residential areas to the east of the picnic grounds,
which were included in the original 1997 cultural landscape inventory,
were deleted from the boundaries of the historic designed landscape
because of significant changes made in this area over the past 50 years.
The NPS recommends that the historic designed landscape, with these
deletions, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but
has not yet received concurrence from the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Officer. The historic designed landscape is outside of the
project area and would not be directly disturbed by construction
activity. There could, however, be indirect impacts to the historic
designed landscape because realignment of Ruins Road could impact the
park entry through changes in views.

The historic vernacular landscape includes the agricultural lands with
the monument's authorized boundaries. Prior to the establishment of the
park, the majority of the land in and around the prehistoric ruins was
under cultivation. Over the years, the cultivated acreage was reduced
due to development of the national monument and the growing town of
Aztec. The historic vernacular landscape is about 320 acres in size and
is roughly triangular in shape, with the recommended boundaries at
Farmer's Ditch on the north, the Animas River on the east, and the
trailer park and residential development on the south. The western
boundary of the historic vernacular landscape extends beyond Ruins Road
to include agricultural lands to the edge of Farmer's Ditch. Although
Ruins Road bisects the historic vernacular landscape, it is not included
as a landscape element. Landscape features associated with the historic
vernacular landscape include irrigation features associated with Farmers
Ditch, waters of the Animas River, irrigated hay fields and pasture,
livestock, and the orchard located west of Hubbard Ruin. Lands within
and in view of the project area retain a rural character and hold
remnants of agricultural elements and features, however, the historic
vernacular landscape has lost integrity such as patterns of spatial
organization, historic vegetation, associated buildings and structures,
land use activities, and cluster arrangements. As a result of the loss
of associated features and specific landscape characteristics, the
integrity of the historic vernacular landscape has been compromised and
the NPS recommends that it is not eligible for listing on the National
Register.

**Ethnographic Resources:** Ethnographic resources within the project
area are associated with the prehistoric designed landscape. The
prehistoric designed landscape includes the excavated and unexcavated
ruins within the current boundary of the park. Remote sensing within the
area of potential effect may identify additional cultural features in
the area, such as remnants of Chacoan roads. Ethnographic resources
within the project area may include objects of cultural patrimony or
other objects and features significant to those groups affiliated with
the monument. Native Americans traditionally associated with the lands
of Aztec Ruins NM, and others with whom monument staff regularly
consult, are concerned about ground disturbance at the monument and the
potential discovery of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects,
or objects of cultural patrimony, therefore ethnographic resources are
analyzed in this environmental assessment.

Monument Operations: Drivers traveling south on Ruins Road approach the
southeast corner beyond the recommended speed limit and fail to
negotiate the curve; this is an unsafe turn in the road, where many
vehicle accidents have occurred in years past.

Several times drivers have collided with the monument\'s chain link
fence. Although the accidents are minor, the fence usually requires
replacement. If the driver is identified, the cost of replacement has
been covered by their insurance; if the driver is not identified, the
monument pays for the materials and the labor to repair the damaged
sections.

**ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**Introduction:** This section describes the environmental consequences
associated with the alternatives. This environmental consequences
section is organized by impact topics, which distill the issues and
concerns into distinct topics for discussion analysis. These topics
focus on the presentation of environmental consequences, and allow a
standardized comparison between alternatives based on the most relevant
topics. NEPA requires consideration of context, intensity and duration
of impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and measures to
mitigate for impacts. National Park Service policy also requires that
"impairment" of resources be evaluated in all environmental documents.

**General Definitions:** The following definitions were used to evaluate
the context, intensity, duration, and cumulative nature of impacts
associated with project alternatives:

**Impact Intensity**

For this analysis, intensity or severity of the impact is as defined as
follows:

-   *Negligible* -- impact to the resource or discipline is barely
    perceptible and not measurable and confined to a small area. For
    cultural resources the impact is at the lower levels of detection;
    for National Register properties, there is no change in any
    character-defining features of the resource (no adverse effect).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor* -- impact to the resource or discipline is perceptible and
    measurable and is localized. For cultural resources the impact is
    slight, but detectable (no adverse effect).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate* -- impact is clearly detectable and could have
    appreciable effect on the resource or discipline. For cultural
    resources the impact is readily apparent; for National Register
    properties, the effect would not be harmful to those characteristics
    that qualify the property for inclusion on the National Register (no
    adverse effect).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major* -- impact would have a substantial, highly noticeable
    influence on the resource or discipline on a regional scale. For
    cultural resources the impact is severely adverse or exceptionally
    beneficial; for National Register properties, the effect would be
    harmful to character-defining features of the National Register site
    (adverse effect).

######## Impact Duration

The duration of the impacts in this analysis is defined as follows:

-   *Short term* -- impacts that last less than one year.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Long term* -- impacts that last longer than one year.

##### Direct versus Indirect Impacts

The following definitions of direct and indirect impacts were used in
this evaluation:

-   *Direct* -- an effect that is caused by an action and occurs at the
    same time and place

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Indirect* -- an effect that is caused by an action but is later in
    time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably
    foreseeable.

**Cumulative Effects:** The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act,
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 were determined by combining the impacts of the
preferred alternative -- to relocate 2,100 feet of Ruins Road and remove
2,100 feet of the existing Ruins Road -- with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore it was necessary to
identify other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions within
Aztec Ruins NM and, if applicable, the surrounding region.

The 1989 Aztec Ruins NM GMP ensures the monument has a clearly defined
direction for visitor use and resource preservation for the next decade
or longer. Other than the proposed action of relocating Ruins Road, no
reasonably foreseeable future development is anticipated for the road,
but the monument does anticipate remodeling the visitor center, as well
as erecting boundary fencing, improving the monument's irrigation
system, and implementing elements of the approved 1989 GMP as funding
become available.

Cumulative impacts for this project, Relocate 2,100 feet of Ruins Road,
are considered for all alternatives and are presented at the end of each
Impact Topic.

**Methodology:** Overall, the NPS based these impact analyses and
conclusions on the review of existing literature and monument studies,
information provided by experts within Aztec Ruins NM and other
agencies, professional judgments and monument staff insights, the New
Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer, and public input.

**Impact Assessment for Cultural Resources:** In this environmental
assessment of effect, impacts to cultural resources are described in
terms of type, context, duration, and intensity, 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 Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In
accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
regulations implementing Section106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800,
*Protection of Historic Properties*), impacts to cultural resources were
identified and evaluated by (1) determining the area of potential
effects; (2) identifying cultural resources present in the area of
potential effects that were either listed in 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 in 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,
National Register eligible cultural resources. An *adverse effect*
occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any
characteristic 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 NPS's *Conservation Planning, Environmental
Impact Analysis and Decision-making* (Director's Order #12) 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 Section106 is similarly reduced.
Although adverse effects under Section106 may be mitigated, the effect
remains adverse.

A Section106 summary is included in the impact analysis sections for
archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and
ethnographic resources under the preferred alternative. The Section106
Summary is intended to meet the requirements of Section106 and is an
assessment of the effect of the undertaking (implementation of the
alternative) on cultural resources, based upon the criterion of effect
and criteria of adverse effect found in the Advisory Council's
regulations. Because definitions of intensity (negligible, minor,
moderate, or major) vary by impact topic, intensity definitions are
provided separately for each cultural resource impact topic analyzed in
this environmental assessment of effect.

# **Archeological Resources Intensity Thresholds:**

Negligible: There are no perceptible consequences to an archeological
site(s) potential to yield important information. For purposes of
Section 106, the determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

Minor: **Adverse impact** - disturbance of a site(s) is confined to a
small area with little, if any, loss of important information potential.
**Beneficial impact** -- preservation of a site(s) in its natural state.
For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be *no
adverse effect*.

Moderate: **Adverse impact** - disturbance of the site(s) would not
result in a substantial loss of important information. For purposes of
Section 106, the determination of effect would be *adverse effect*.
**Beneficial impact** -- stabilization of the site(s). For purposes of
Section 106, the determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

Major: **Adverse impact** -- disturbance of the site(s) is substantial
and results in the loss of most or all of the site and its potential to
yield important information. For purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect would be *adverse effect*. **Beneficial impact**
-- active intervention to preserve the site. For purposes of Section
106, the determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

## Historic Structures / Buildings Intensity Thresholds:

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of detection - barely
perceptible and not measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

Minor: **Adverse impact** - impact would not affect the character
defining features of a National Register of Historic Places eligible or
listed structure or building. **Beneficial impact** - stabilization/
preservation of character defining features in accordance with the
*Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties*, to maintain existing integrity of a structure or building.
For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be *no
adverse effect*.

> Moderate: **Adverse impact** - impact would alter a character defining
> feature(s) of the structure or building but would not diminish the
> integrity of the resource to the extent that its National Register
> eligibility is jeopardized. **Beneficial impact** -- rehabilitation of
> a structure or building in accordance with the *Secretary of the
> Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties*, to
> make possible a compatible use of the property while preserving its
> character defining features. For purposes of Section 106, the
> determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

Major: **Adverse impact** - the impact would alter a character defining
feature(s) of the structure or building, diminishing the integrity of
the resource to the extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed in
the National Register. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of
effect would be *adverse effect*. **Beneficial impact** -- restoration
in accordance with the *Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties*, to accurately depict the form,
features, and character of a structure or building as it appeared during
its period of significance. For purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

## Cultural Landscapes Intensity Thresholds:

Negligible: Impact(s) is at the lowest levels of detection - barely
perceptible and not measurable. For purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

Minor: **Adverse impact** - impact would not affect the character
defining features of a National Register of Historic Places eligible or
listed cultural landscape. **Beneficial impact** -- preservation of
character defining features in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's standards, to maintain existing integrity of the cultural
landscape. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect
would be *no adverse effect*.

> Moderate: **Adverse impact** - impact would alter a character defining
> feature(s) of the cultural landscape but would not diminish the
> integrity of the landscape to the extent that its National Register
> eligibility is jeopardized. **Beneficial impact** -- rehabilitation of
> a landscape or its features in accordance with the Secretary of the
> Interior's standards, to make possible a compatible use of the
> landscape while preserving its character defining features. For
> purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect would be *no
> adverse effect*.

Major: **Adverse impact** - impact would alter a character defining
feature(s) of the cultural landscape, diminishing the integrity of the
resource to the extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed in the
National Register. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of
effect would be *adverse effect*. **Beneficial impact** -- restoration
in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's standards, to
accurately depict the features and character of a landscape as it
appeared during its period of significance. For purposes of Section 106,
the determination of effect would be *no adverse effect*.

**Ethnographic Resources Intensity Thresholds:**

Negligible: **Adverse impact** - impact(s) would be barely perceptible
and would neither alter resource conditions, such as traditional access
or site preservation, nor the relationship between the resource and the
affiliated group's body of beliefs and practices. **Beneficial impact**
-- there would be no change to a group's body of beliefs and practices.
For purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect on TCPs would
be *no adverse effect.*

Minor: **Adverse impacts** - impact(s) would be slight but noticeable
and would neither appreciably alter resource conditions, such as
traditional access or site preservation, nor the relationship between
the resource and the affiliated group's body of beliefs and practices.
**Beneficial impact** - would allow traditional access and/or
accommodate a group's traditional practices or beliefs. For purposes of
Section 106, the determination of effect on TCPs would be *no adverse
effect.*

Moderate*:* **Adverse impact** - impact(s) would be apparent and would
alter resource conditions, such as traditional access, site
preservation, or the relationship between the resource and the
affiliated group's beliefs and practices, but the group's beliefs and/or
practices would survive. For purposes of Section 106, the determination
of effect on TCPs would be *adverse effect*. **Beneficial impact** -
would facilitate a group's beliefs and practices. For purposes of
Section 106, the determination of effect on TCPs would be *no adverse
effect.*

Major: **Adverse impact** - impact(s) would alter resource conditions,
such as traditional access, site preservation, or the relationship
between the resource and the affiliated group's body of beliefs and
practices, to the extent that the survival of a group's beliefs and/or
practices would be jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the
determination of effect on TCPs would be *adverse effect.* **Beneficial
impact** - would *encourage* a group's beliefs or practices. For
purposes of Section 106, the determination of effect on TCPs would be
*no adverse effect.*

**IMPAIRMENT OF AZTEC RUINS NM RESOURCES OR VALUES**

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the
preferred and other alternatives, the 2001 NPS *Management Policie*s and
DO-12, require analysis of potential effects to determine if actions
would impair monument 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. NPS
managers must always seek ways to avoid or minimize to the greatest
degree practicable adverse impacts on park and monument resources and
values. However, the laws do give NPS 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 NPS management discretion to allow certain impacts
within parks, that discretion is limited by statutory requirement that
the NPS 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 NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park
resources or values, including 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. However, an impact
would more likely constitute an impairment to the extent it affects a
resource or value whose conservation is:

-   necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
    establishing legislation or proclamation of the park;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to
    opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   identified as a goal in the monument's Master Plan or General
    Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning documents.

Impairment may result from NPS activities in managing the park, visitor
activities, or activities undertaken by concessionaires, contractors,
and others operating in the park.

A determination of impairment is made for each impact topic within each
"Conclusion" section of this EA under "Environmental Consequences".

**ALTERNATIVE A ‑ NO ACTION**

**[Biotic Communities:]{.underline}** Under this no action alternative,
2,100 feet of Ruins Road would not be relocated. Therefore, there would
be no new impacts to any biotic communities under this no action
alternative.

***Cumulative Impacts**:* Past development within Aztec Ruins NM and the
surrounding region has contributed to increased soil erosion and
compaction, vegetation loss, and minor to moderate long-term impacts on
the abundance and diversity of wildlife by changing the capacity of
habitats to provide necessary food, shelter, and reproduction sites.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with the GMP, such as
remodeling the existing visitor center, relocating an existing park
residence or removing it and constructing a new one, expanding and
enhancing interpretive opportunities for visitors, erecting boundary
fencing and improving the monument's irrigation system, have the
potential to further impact soils and biotic communities. The potential
impacts associated with the GMP would be adverse and range in intensity
from minor to moderate, depending upon both the scope of the potential
actions and the location. However, because there is no construction
associated with this Relocate Ruins Road no action alternative, this
alternative would not be a component of such an overall cumulative
impact.

***Conclusion:*** The effect of the no action alternative on biotic
communities would be negligible and long term. There would be no
impairment of monument biotic community resources.

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 legislation or proclamation of Aztec
Ruins NM; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument;
or (3) identified as a goal in the monument's general management plan or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the monument's resources or values.

## 

**Archeological Resources:** Under the no action alternative there would
be minor long-term direct adverse impacts to the excavated masonry walls
of the West Ruin from continued traffic vibration stresses. The impact
would be confined to a small area with little, if any loss of important
information potential and the National Register status of the site would
be unaffected. If the no-action alternative is implemented and Ruins
Road is not realigned, the NPS would continue to monitor the condition
of the West Ruin walls. If warranted by conditions, a conservator would
provide treatment to the West Ruin walls, such as re-adhering detached
plaster. The park preservation staff would continue to treat West Ruin
walls by continuing stabilization work (replacing mortar, repairing
failed or threatened portions of wall, replacing stones) and backfilling
selected rooms.

There would be no ground disturbance related to construction activities
and no impacts to site LA 1674.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** Archeological resources at Aztec Ruins NM are
subject to damage from vandalism, visitor access, road vibration
stresses, natural processes, and disturbance and loss of some
archeological resources during excavation, preservation, and
construction activities. Past development in the monument has resulted
in the disturbance and loss of some archeological resources during
excavation and construction activities. Reasonably foreseeable future
actions at the monument, such as erecting boundary fencing and improving
the monument's irrigation system could also disturb archeological
resources. Road vibration stresses to archeological resources from the
existing Ruins Road would continue. Thus, the no action alternative
would contribute to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions on archeological resources.

***Conclusion**:* There would be minor long-term direct adverse impacts
to the excavated masonry walls of the West Ruin. The no action
alternative would contribute to the cumulative impacts to archeological
resources in the region. Because there is no major adverse impacts to
resources that are intregal to the cultural integrity of the monument,
there would be no impairment to archeological resources.

**Historic Structures:** The no-action alternative would continue
existing conditions. There would be minor to moderate long-term direct
adverse impacts to the Earl Morris house. Traffic vibration would
continue to stress the foundations of the historic Earl Morris house,
which is vulnerable to cracking when subjected to vibration. The impact
would alter a character defining feature of a National Register of
Historic Places eligible structure, but would not diminish the integrity
of the resource to the extent that its National Register eligibility is
jeopardized. If the no-action alternative is implemented and Ruins Road
is not realigned, the NPS would continue to monitor the condition of the
Earl Morris house foundation. If warranted by conditions, appropriate
specialists would provide treatment to the Earl Morris house.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** In conjunction with the impacts of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of
the no action alternative would contribute to cumulative impacts on
historic structures at Aztec Ruins NM. Past actions at the monument such
as adapting the Earl Morris house for use as the park\'s museum and
visitor center have adversely impacted historic structures. Reasonably
foreseeable future actions at the monument, such as remodeling the Earl
Morris house could disturb historic structures.

***Conclusion**:* There would be minor to moderate long-term direct
adverse impacts to historic structures. Because there would be no major
impacts to the monument's cultural resources or values there would be no
impairment of historic structures resources.

**Cultural Landscapes:** Implementation of the no action alternative
would result in no change to existing conditions and no direct or
indirect impacts to cultural landscapes within the area of potential
effect.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** In conjunction with the impacts of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of
the no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on
cultural landscapes at Aztec Ruins NM. Past actions at the monument such
as excavation of the ruins and reconstruction of the Great Kiva have
adversely impacted the prehistoric designed landscape. More recent
activities including development of recreational vehicle parking and
location of administrative buildings have also impacted the historic
designed landscape. Reasonably foreseeable future actions at the
monument, such as erecting boundary fencing and improving the monument's
irrigation system could disturb the historic designed landscape.

***Conclusion**:* There would be no direct or indirect impacts to
cultural landscapes within the monument. There would be no impairment to
cultural landscape features or values within Aztec Ruins NM.

**Ethnographic Resources**: The no action alternative would continue
existing conditions and there would be no direct or indirect impacts to
ethnographic resources. Ruins Road would not be realigned, there would
be no disturbance associated with construction activities, and no
potential for inadvertent discovery of human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** Some ethnographic resources at Aztec Ruins NM
have been adversely impacted from past ground disturbances, some of
which occurred before establishment of the monument and/or as a result
of inadvertent impacts prior to the legal requirements for the
protection of ethnographic resources. In conjunction with the impacts of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation
of the no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts
on ethnographic resources.

***Conclusion:*** The no action alternative would not directly or
indirectly impact ethnographic resources within the monument. There
would be no impairment to ethnographic resources or values within Aztec
Ruins NM.

**Recreational Values:** Under the no action alternative, the road would
not be relocated thus traffic would continue to detract from the visitor
experience, both audibly and visually. The sounds of accelerating and
decelerating vehicles would continue to distract the visitor away from
experiencing a peaceful and thoughtful site. The reconstructed Great
Kiva should be a place for quiet contemplation, but the rumble of
traffic would continue to permeate the building.

The sights and sounds of moving traffic would continue to be a constant
reminder of the modern world that the visitor just came from, and would
continue to detract from the setting and experience of thinking about,
and feeling, the meaning and significance of this prehistoric site.
There would be no change to recreational values over existing
conditions; however, impacts to recreational values would continue to be
adverse, minor in intensity, and long-term.

***Cumulative Impacts**:* Past development within Aztec Ruins NM and the
surrounding region has contributed to minor to moderate long-term
adverse impacts on recreational values in the monument by changing the
solitary and emotional experience of the ruins' historic setting.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with the GMP, such as
remodeling the existing visitor center, relocating an existing park
residence or removing it and constructing a new one, expanding and
enhancing interpretive opportunities for visitors, erecting boundary
fencing and improving the monument's irrigation system, have the
potential to further impact recreational values, both negatively and
positively and short and long term. The potential impacts associated
with the GMP would be adverse and range in intensity from minor to
moderate, depending upon the duration, the scope of the potential
actions, and the location of activities. Because Ruins Road would not be
relocated under this no action alternative, negative impacts to
recreational values of visitors experiencing the ruins would not be
abated because noise and other intrusions associated with and generated
by Ruins Road traffic would continue. Therefore, the no action
alternative would be a component of a minor, long-term adverse
cumulative impact to Aztec Ruins NM recreational values.

***Conclusion**:* Impacts to recreational values would continue to be
adverse, minor in intensity, and long-term; there would be no change
over existing conditions.

**Monument Operations*:*** Under this no action alternative, existing
and future impacts to monument operations would continue; these impacts
would be adverse, minor in intensity, and long-term.

Some drivers traveling south on Ruins Road approach the southeast corner
beyond the recommended speed limit and fail to negotiate the curve. Many
vehicle accidents have occurred at this corner in years past. Several
times drivers have collided with the monument\'s chain link fence,
requiring replacement of the damaged fence sections. If the driver is
identified, the cost of replacement has been covered by their insurance;
if the driver is not identified, the monument pays for the materials and
the labor to repair the damaged sections.

Under the no action alternative, the curve would not be corrected and
occasional accidents would be expected to continue as would damage to
the monument's chain link fence. In some cases, the monument would
continue to bear the material and labor cost of replacing the fence.

Under this no action alternative, barriers to prevent access to the
monument after hours would remain unchanged. Such barriers consists of a
wooden barrier and chain stretched across the parking lot entrance,
which can easily be walked over. Since it is a short walk to the
resources, visitors park just outside the chain after hours and casually
walk into the park, despite the barrier and signs. Thus, the number of
unauthorized after-hours visitors, and associated preservation and
safety concerns, would remain unchanged.

***Cumulative Impacts*:** Because no reasonably foreseeable future
changes with monument operations involving Ruins Road are anticipated,
existing cumulative adverse impacts to monument operations would be
expected to continue. These cumulative impacts are adverse, minor, and
long-term. Reasonably foreseeable future monument actions, such as
implementing the GMP, remodeling the visitor center, erecting boundary
fencing and improving the monuments irrigation system, could result in
short-term, minor to moderate increases in the workloads of monument
staff. However, the no action alternative with this proposal would not
relocate Ruins Road so there would be no additional cumulative impacts
to monument operations under this alternative.

***Conclusion:*** Under this no action alternative, existing and future
impacts to monument operations would continue; these impacts would be
adverse, minor in intensity, and long-term.

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 legislation or proclamation of Aztec
Ruins NM; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument;
or (3) identified as a goal in the monument's general management plan or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the monument's resources or values.

**ALTERNATIVE B ‑ PROPOSED ACTION**

**Biotic Communities*: ***The entire road relocation project is located
either in previously disturbed areas or the long-manipulated area of the
pasture. The relocated Ruins Road would be 2,100 feet long with two 12
foot-wide paved travel lanes with 3 foot-wide paved shoulders for a
total area of 63,000 sq. ft. The 230 foot-long access road to the
maintenance area would be paved with two 11 foot-wide lanes and 1
foot-wide shoulders for a total area of 5,520 sq. ft. An additional
area, the construction zone, would be disturbed by construction
equipment on either side of the relocated road during construction. The
construction zone would extend approximately 8 to 10 feet beyond the
road shoulders on each side of the road. Once construction would be
completed, the construction zone would be recontoured to preconstruction
contours where possible and revegetated.

The existing 26 foot-wide, 2,100 foot length of Ruins Road occupies an
area of about 54,600 square feet. Most of this existing road would be
obliterated and revegetated thus returning most of the existing road to
a road-less condition.

There would be short term and localized increased noise levels during
construction. The project would protect natural resources through
erosion control and prevention along the road corridor. Throughout areas
of soil disturbance, topsoil would be removed and stockpiled prior to
construction. This topsoil would be re‑spread on the existing road area
when the existing road would be removed. The use of stockpiled topsoil
would help to preserve microorganisms and plant seeds. Accepted erosion
protection measures would be used such as jute mesh, hydro mulch, and
sterile annual grass hybrids. Revegetation would proceed according to
guidelines established by monument resource staff. Vegetation impacts
and potential erosion of bare soils would be minimized by storing and
replacing topsoil, seeding, and/or revegetating.

Loss of wildlife would be proportional to the amount of habitat lost.
The existing road corridor and pasture have been previously affected
through years of close association with vehicles and attendant human
activity, and pasture uses, such as cultivation and grazing; any
wildlife in the area have unquestionably been long habituated to human
activity, noise, and traffic. Larger wildlife would probably avoid the
construction zone to a certain extent during construction. During
construction some small animals, such as rodents, may be killed or
forced to relocate to areas outside the construction zone. Overall
populations of affected species might be slightly and temporarily
lowered but no permanent negative effects on wildlife would be
anticipated.

Overall, if the proposed action would be implemented there would be
short-term negligible impacts to natural resources. The overall effect
of construction and post construction activities would have no long term
impact to any natural resources, individual species or populations of
animals or plants or any biotic communities as a whole.

***Cumulative Impacts***: Past and present development in and around
Aztec Ruins NM have contributed to increased soil erosion and
compaction, vegetation removal and wildlife disturbance, and the area
has experienced a net loss of native biotic communities over the past

decades due to localized development. Wildlife is more restricted by
current land uses, the density of development, and human activity than
before the land was developed.

The reasonably foreseeable future actions approved in the Aztec Ruins NM
GMP have the potential to produce further disturbance to biotic
communities through development and use. Potential impacts would include
short-term habitat degradation due to noise and human activity during
construction.

The impacts upon biotic communities by implementing the proposals in the
GMP would be adverse and range in intensity from minor to moderate,
depending upon both the scope of the potential actions and the location.
Biotic community impacts associated with both the preferred alternative
and future actions would be lessened by requirements to provide
mitigation measures during and after construction and the removal of an
equivalent amount of existing road and restoring the site to
preconstruction conditions.

The cumulative effect of the Relocate Ruins Road preferred alternative
on biotic communities, in combination with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, would be minor, adverse, and
long-term. The adverse impacts of this Relocate Ruins Road preferred
alternative would be a minor component of the overall cumulative impact
of GMP implementation.

***Conclusion**:* If the proposed action would be implemented there
would be short-term negligible impacts to natural resources. With
mitigation as described in the "Mitigation" section above, the overall
effect of construction and post construction activities of the preferred
alternative would have no long-term impact to any natural resources,
individual species or populations of animals or plants, or any biotic
communities as a whole. There would be no impairment of monument biotic
community resources.

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 legislation or proclamation of Aztec
Ruins NM; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument;
or (3) identified as a goal in the monument's general management plan or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the monument's resources or values.

**Archeological Resources:** Implementation of alternative B would
result in minor to moderate long term direct beneficial impacts to the
West Ruins. Relocation of Ruins Road and removal of traffic vibration
risks would preserve and stabilize resources integral to the cultural
integrity of the monument.

Implementation of Alternative B would result in minor long-term direct
adverse impacts to LA 1674. These impacts would be confined to a small
area with little, if any, loss of important information potential. There
will be no excavation or cuts into the site with the exception of one
required drain. The depth of the drain is restricted to one foot below
the surface, within the previously disturbed plow zone, and would impact
a very restricted area. Road design features and construction procedures
are prescribed to minimize impacts and to preserve the site more
effectively (NPS, Site Preservation Plan 2002). The National Register
eligibility of the site would be unaffected. LA 1674 is located within
the right-of-way of the proposed Ruins Road realignment. Avoidance of
archeological site LA 1674 is preferred, however balancing the potential
impacts to LA 1674 with the continued vibration stresses to the
monument's primary cultural resources compels road realignment. Due to
the constraints of topography and park boundaries, avoidance of LA 1674
is not possible. The preferred action is to avoid impacts to the
monument's primary cultural resources through realignment of the road
and the only location for the road realignment is the field adjacent to
the existing road. Impacts to LA 1674 would be mitigated by stipulations
as specified in the site preservation plan for LA 1674, including
burying the site through road design, and obtaining baseline date on the
site via remote sensing prior to construction activity.

***Cumulative Impacts**:* In conjunction with the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of
alternative B, the proposed action, would contribute to cumulative
impacts on archeological resources in the area. Archeological resources
at Aztec Ruins NM are subject to damage from vandalism, visitor access,
excavation, traffic vibration stresses, and natural processes occurring
perhaps before establishment of the monument and/or as a result of
inadvertent impacts prior to the legal requirements for archeological
survey, site protection and mitigation. Reasonably foreseeable future
actions at the monument, such as erecting boundary fencing and improving
the monument's irrigation system, could also disturb archeological
resources.

***Conclusion:*** Under alternative B there would be minor to moderate
direct long-term beneficial impacts to West Ruin. Minor direct long-term
adverse impacts would occur to archeological site LA 1674. There would
be no major adverse impacts to a resources or values that are key to the
natural or cultural integrity of the monument and no impairment of the
monument's cultural resources or values.

**Section 106 Summary*:*** In accordance with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS proposes and the
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office concurs that alternative
B, the preferred alternative, would have an effect on an eligible
historic property, but the effect would not be adverse. Site LA 1674
would be protected according to stipulations specified in the site
preservation plan and agreed to by the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office. These stipulations include burying the site through
road design and obtaining baseline date on site LA 1674 via remote
sensing prior to construction activity. The determination of no adverse
effect on historic properties was derived by weighing minor adverse
impacts that would occur to site LA 1674 against minor to moderate
beneficial impacts to resources integral to the cultural integrity of
Aztec Ruins NM.

### [Historic Structures:]{.underline} Implementation of alternative B would have minor to moderate long-term direct beneficial impacts to the Earl Morris house. Relocating the road away from the Earl Morris house would reduce traffic vibration stresses to the historic house's foundation. Reducing traffic vibration stresses would stabilize and make possible a compatible use of the property while preserving its character defining features.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** In conjunction with the impacts of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of
Alternative B would not contribute to cumulative impacts on historic
structures at Aztec Ruins NM. Past actions at the monument such as
adapting the Earl Morris house for use as the park\'s museum and
administrative offices have adversely impacted historic structures.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions at the monument, such as
remodeling the Earl Morris house could disturb historic structures.

***Conclusion:*** Implementation of alternative B would result in minor
to moderate long-term beneficial impacts to historic structures. There
would be no major adverse impact to resources or values whose
conservation is necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
establishing legislation or proclamation of Aztec Ruins NM or that are
key to the cultural integrity of the park. There would be no impairment
of cultural landscape resources or values within Aztec Ruins NM.

***Section 106 Summary**:* In accordance with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS proposes that the
Alternative B would result in a finding of no adverse effect to historic
properties. The action would maintain the integrity of the Earl Morris
house which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

**[Cultural Landscapes:]{.underline}** Implementation of alternative B
would result in negligible direct long-term adverse impacts to the
prehistoric designed landscape. The new alignment of Ruins Road,
approximately 200 feet south of its current location, would locate the
road closer to the southern margins of the cultural landscape. The new
alignment would not affect character defining features of a potentially
National Register eligible landscape.

Alternative B would result in minor indirect long-term adverse impacts
to the historic designed landscape. Changing the road's location would
move the road from its close proximity to the monument's historic
designed landscape features and would reconfigure the park's entry,
which would result in changes in views. Although Ruins Road, itself, is
not a contributing element, the park entry off of Ruins Road is a
contributing feature to the identified historic designed landscape.
Changes to the monument entry would not affect the character defining
features of the historic designed landscape.

Implementation of alternate B would have a minor long-term indirect
impact on the vernacular designed landscape by enclosing the open
irrigation ditches near the new route. This would affect the appearance
but not the function of the ditches. Such minor long-term impacts would
not be adverse, because the NPS has recommended that the historic
vernacular landscape is not eligible for listing in the National
Register; there would be no appreciable change in integrity of the
landscape.

***Cumulative Impacts:*** Combined with other past and foreseeable
projects, such as boundary fencing, implementation of Alternative B
would contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural landscapes in Aztec
Ruins NM. The prehistoric designed landscape has been adversely impacted
from past agricultural activity as well as from past excavation,
restoration, and construction activities, some of which may have
occurred before establishment of the monument and/or as a result of
inadvertent impacts prior to the legal requirements for archeological
survey, site protection, and mitigation. The historic designed landscape
has been adversely impacted from past construction activities such as
fencing and changes in viewshed.

***Conclusion:*** Negligible to minor long-term direct adverse impacts
to cultural landscapes would occur particularly through changes in
historic designed views from the monument entry and through a new road
alignment on the southern margins of a potentially eligible cultural
landscape. There would be no major adverse impacts to resources or
values whose conservation is necessary to fulfill specific purposes
identified in the establishing legislation of Aztec Ruins NM or that are
key to the cultural integrity of the park, nor would there be major
adverse impacts to resources or values that are identified as a goal in
the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS planning
documents. Therefore, there would be no impairment of cultural landscape
resources or values within Aztec Ruins NM.

***Section 106 Summary**:* In accordance with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's regulations (36 CFR 800) the NPS proposes that
implementation of Alternative B, the preferred action, would result in a
determination of no adverse effects to historic properties. Impacts
would not affect the character defining features nor diminish the
integrity of a potentially eligible cultural landscape to the extent
that its National Register eligibility is jeopardized.

## Ethnographic Resources: Implementing alternative B would have negligible direct long-term adverse impacts to ethnographic resources. Impacts to ethnographic resources would be barely perceptible and would neither alter resource conditions, such as traditional access or site preservation, nor the relationship between the resource and the affiliated people's beliefs and practices. Ethnographic resources would be protected to the greatest extent possible through stipulations proposed in the site preservation plan for LA 1674, including road design eliminating cuts and excavations and by burying possible ethnographic resources via road design. The likelihood for inadvertent discovery and disturbance of Native American human remains, funerary items, sacred items, and items of cultural patrimony as defined under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is reduced due to road design and site preservation as outlined in the Site Protection Plan.

***Cumulative Impacts*:** Combined with the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, negligible long-term
cumulative impacts to ethnographic resources would be expected. Some
ethnographic resources in the area have been adversely impacted from
past excavation, agricultural and construction activities, and visitor
use pressures. Other foreseeable future construction projects such as
boundary fencing and irrigation improvement also have the potential to
impact ethnographic resources. In the unlikely event that human remains,
funerary objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered during
construction, provisions outlined in the *Plan of Action Regarding the
Treatment and Disposition of Inadvertently Discovered Cultural Items
that May be Excavated or Removed as a Result of Four Planned Projects at
Aztec Ruins NM* would be followed.

***Conclusion:*** Alternative B would have negligible direct long-term
impacts to ethnographic resources. There would be no major, adverse
impacts to ethnographic resources or values whose conservation is
necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing
legislation or is key to the natural or cultural integrity of the
monument and no impairment of the monument's ethnographic resources or
values.

## Section 106 Summary: In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations (36 CFR 800) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the NPS proposes that implementing Alternative B would result in a determination of no adverse effect to ethnographic resources. This determination is based on an assessment of the potential impacts to ethnographic resources in the project area, coupled with the mitigating measures of avoiding ethnographic resources through remote sensing prior to construction and via road design (NPS, Site Preservation Plan, 2002).

## 

[Recreational Values:]{.underline} If the proposed action is
implemented, the 2,100-foot section of Ruins Road would be relocated;
traffic would be further from the ruins. Visual impacts of traffic on
the road would not be diminished appreciably but audible distractions to
visitors would be reduced. To a greater extent than under present
conditions, visitors would experience a peaceful and thoughtful site.
The reconstructed Great Kiva would be more of a place for quiet
contemplation and inward reflections on the meaning and significance of
this prehistoric site.

Relocating the west area RV parking area entrance road approximately 80
feet to the north from its present location would correct the existing
operational problems by providing a slightly wider paved width and a
slightly flatter turning radius out of the parking area. This would
provide for a safe avenue of entrance and exit and reduce visitor
frustration.

The relocation of the west parking lot exit allows correction of some
access concerns. The curve in the road is too sharp to accommodate all
lengths of vehicles, some vehicles go off the road as they turn the
corner. The junction where the parking lot access road meets Ruin Road
would also be widened so all vehicle lengths would be able to negotiate
the turn without having wheels slip into the irrigation ditch. Enclosing
the irrigation ditch as part of this project would also remedy this
safety issue.

Construction of the relocated Ruins Road, installing culverts in the
roadside irrigation ditches, and other actions of this alternative would
be expected to occur from January to May 2003. The existing Ruins Road
would remain open and unaffected for use while the relocated road would
be constructed. There may be the potential for short-term delays usually
not exceeding 15 minutes while the ends of the existing road and
replacement road are connected and culverts installed. Total time
required to connect the road ends and install culverts would be expected
to take five working days or less.

Traffic could be reduced to one lane during the connection process and
could be subject to alternating, one‑way movement at the construction
zone. Flaggers and/or pilot cars could be used to regulate traffic. The
New Mexico Department of Transportation would receive notice of the
construction schedule, and the general public would be notified through
public media and roadside signing. Construction signing would be
installed to reduce traffic hazards due to construction.

There would be no construction activities at weekends or legal holidays;
this would minimize disruption to road traffic.

Construction vehicles associated with the project would contribute to
traffic using Ruins Road. Because of frequent use by heavy vehicles,
there might be some potential for road damage. However, enforcement of
weight limits and other federal, state, and local regulations and
contractual stipulations would minimize the potential for conflicts
and/or damage.

During construction activities, travelers using the road would be
subject to the increased commercial truck traffic hauling construction
material, and noise, dust, and visual intrusion. At times, drivers could
experience traffic delays short-term traffic delays. Although drivers
caught in the delays would be frustrated and consider the delays
interminable, major construction‑related traffic delays would not be
anticipated. Although traffic delays could be possible, access would be
provided immediately to any emergency vehicles.

Over the short term, recreational values would be adversely affected by
noise, dust, fumes, delays, and construction vehicle traffic along this
section of Ruins Road for a very short time. There would be long term,
moderate intensity, positive impacts to the recreational experience from
less traffic-related noise and minimally less visual intrusion into the
monument's cultural resources and an improved road section should the
proposed alternative be implemented.

***Cumulative Impacts*:** Construction associated with reasonably
foreseeable future actions, such as remodeling the visitor center,
erecting boundary fencing and improving the monument's irrigation system
may be coincident with construction associated with the proposal of
relocating Ruins Road. When future construction occurs, construction
vehicles could cause congestion along nearby roads and in the monument's
parking area. Such congestion would impact all visitors regardless of
travel mode, because private vehicles and tour buses share the same
roadways, and would temporarily reduce the quality of experience for
visitors. The impacts associated with each individual project would
generally be short-term and minor, lasting only as long as construction.
However, the cumulative intensity of such impacts could be magnified by
the number of construction activities occurring simultaneously. The
short-term, minor, construction related, adverse impacts of the
preferred alternative, in conjunction with adverse impacts of other
reasonably foreseeable future actions, could result in minor short-term
adverse cumulative impacts to visitor use; however, the adverse impacts
of the preferred alternative would be a small component of any overall
cumulative impact. In addition, any adverse cumulative impacts
associated with implementation of the preferred alternative would be
partially offset by the moderate beneficial impacts of the actions
proposed.

*Conclusion:* Over the short term, recreational values would be
adversely affected by noise, dust, fumes, delays, and construction
vehicle traffic along this section of Ruins Road for a very short time.
Over the long term visitors would benefit from less noise and minimally
less visual intrusion into the monument's cultural resources and an
improved road section.

**[Monument Operations]{.underline}*:*** Relocating Ruins Road would
result in a long-term, minor to moderate, direct beneficial impact upon
monument operations by removing or appreciably lessening the cause of
vibration impacts on monument resources and, thus eliminating or
substantially reducing the amount of time and direct dollars to repair
and stabilize damage to cultural resources.

Vibration monitoring would continue in both the visitor center and
ruins. However, it is expected that cracks in the visitor center walls
would not grow or increase at the same rate as when the road was located
nearby, thus potentially lessening the immediacy of the need for
possible structural repair.

If the 2,100 feet of Ruins Road would be relocated and the curve
improved, it would be expected that incidents involving south-bound
drivers failing to make the curve and colliding with the monument's
chain link fence would appreciable decrease. Thus, the need to
occasionally repair a damaged fence would be eliminated.

Relocating the exit from the west parking lot would be primarily to
control access to the lot after hours; the access would be to the north
of the locked entrance gate. The relocated entrance would have a locked
gate that would serve as a stronger closure, both physically and
psychologically to would-be after-hours visitors, than the present
entrance chain. This would help reduce the number of unauthorized
after-hours visitors, and associated preservation and safety concerns.
The monument would work out an arrangement with local authorities for
unhindered passage through the locked entrance gate for emergency
services.

***Cumulative Impacts*:** Reasonably foreseeable future actions at Aztec
Ruins NM, such as remodeling the visitor center, erecting boundary
fencing and improving the monument's irrigation system, could result in
short-term, minor adverse increases in the workloads of the monument's
resource management staff, due to increased needs for resource
monitoring and protection during construction. None of the reasonably
foreseeable projects are anticipated to be coincident with
implementation of the preferred alternative, but the intensity of these
minor, short-term adverse impacts could be magnified by a number of
construction activities occurring simultaneously. However, these adverse
impacts would be short-term and a small component of any overall
cumulative impact to monument operations.

***Conclusion:*** The preferred alternative would result in a long-term,
minor to moderate, directly beneficial impact to monument 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 legislation or proclamation of Aztec
Ruins NM; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the monument;
or (3) identified as a goal in the monument's general management plan or
other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of
the monument's resources or values.

**COMPLIANCE**

This EA provides disclosure of the planning and decision‑making process
and potential environmental consequences of the alternatives. The
analysis of environmental consequences was prepared on the basis of a
need to adequately analyze and understand the consequences of the
impacts related to the proposed developments and to involve the public
and other agencies in the decision‑making process.

In implementing this proposal, the NPS would comply with all applicable
laws and executive orders, including the following:

**NEPA**: The environmental analysis was prepared in accordance with the
regulations of the Council on Environmental Policy Act (CEQ) (40 CFR
1500 et seq.) and in part 516 of the U.S. Department of the Interior\'s
Departmental Manual (516 DM).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the basic national
charter for environmental protection; among other actions it calls for
an examination of the impacts on the components of affected ecosystems.
The 1989 GMP, 2001 NPS *Management Policies*, DO-12 (*Conservation
Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making*); and DO‑77
(*Natural Resources Management*), among other NPS and monument policies,
provides general direction for the protection of the natural abundance
and diversity of all the monument\'s naturally occurring communities.

Various agencies have been contacted and consulted as part of this
planning and environmental analysis effort. Appropriate federal, state,
and local agencies have been contacted for input, review, and permitting
in coordination with other legislative and executive requirements.

**Special Status Species**: Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 USC 1531 et seq.). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires
all federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or
critical habitats.

**Cultural Resources**: The NPS is mandated to preserve and protect its
cultural resources through the Organic Act of August 25, 1916, and
through specific legislation such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended), and the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, NPS *Management Policies 2001*, the
*Cultural Resource Management Guideline* (DO-28), and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation\'s implementing regulations regarding
*Protection of Historic Properties* (36 CFR 800). Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that federal
agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over undertakings
consider the effect of those undertakings on properties on or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the state historic
preservation office an opportunity to comment.

As construction occurs, an archeologist will monitor activities to
assure that archeological resources are not impacted. If unknown buried
deposits are located, documentation of the resources will occur.
Construction will avoid impacting deposits whenever possible. However,
in the unlikely event that impacts to previously unknown or known buried
deposits are unavoidable, data recovery excavation may be undertaken.
Data recovery efforts would be guided by the provisions of the 1966
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in 1992 (16 USC 470); the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), the
Advisory Council regulations *Protection of Historic Properties 2000*
(36 CFR Part 800), and NPS *Cultural Resource Management Guidelines,*
Release 5, 1997, and use a project-specific research design developed by
the monument in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic
Preservation Office.

In the unlikely event that human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered during
construction, provisions outlined in the *Plan of Action Regarding the
Treatment and Disposition of Inadvertently Discovered Cultural Items
that May be Excavated or Removed as a Result of Four Planned Projects at
Aztec Ruins National Monument* ( NPS, *Plan of Action* 2000, 2001) would
be followed. The Aztec Ruins NM staff, developed this plan in 2000, in
consultation with American Indian tribes as required by the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)\[Public Law No.
101-601; 25 USC Section 3001-3013; 104 Stat. 3048-3058\] and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR 10) particularly Sections 10.3 through
10.7

The NPS developed this Plan of Action as required by NAGPRA and its
implementing regulations to address the treatment and disposition of any
Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and
objects of cultural patrimony that may be encountered, excavated, or
removed as a result of four projects planned on park lands. The notified
Indian tribes include the Hopi Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Mescalero
Apache Tribe, the Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Jemez,
Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Nambe,
Pueblo of San Felipe, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of
San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Santa
Clara, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Santa
Domingo, Pueblo of San Juan, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, and the Pueblo of Zuni.

In a letter dated March 20, 2000, and pursuant to 43 CFR 10.3(c)(1) and
10.5(a)(1)-(b) the park superintendent notified the tribal governments
of the 26 tribes listed above with regard to plans for the completion of
four projects scheduled to take place in the park, including Ruins Road
realignment. This notification specifically provided the appropriate
information required by 43 CFR 10.3(c)(1), and proposed consultation as
described at 43 CFR 10.5 (a)(1) and (b).

Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.5(a)(1) and (b)(2)-(3), staff from Aztec Ruins NM
consulted with Indian tribes at a meeting held at the monument on April
19, 2000, regarding the four activities and the treatment and
disposition of any Native American human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that are encountered,
excavated, or removed as a consequence of the activities.

######## Representatives from the Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Acoma, Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Southern Ute Tribe were present at the April 19, 2000 consultation meeting. 

########  CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

## AGENCIES and ORGANIZATIONS

Agencies and Organizations contacted for information; or that assisted
in identifying important issues, developing alternatives, or analyzing
impacts; or that have been sent the EA for review and comment include:

## [Federal Agencies]{.underline}

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service

## [State Agencies]{.underline}

Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division (office of
State Historic Preservation Officer)

## [Associated Native Americans]{.underline}

  -- --------------- ----------------- ------------------ -----------------
     Pueblo of       Pueblo of Isleta  Pueblo of Sandia   Jicarilla Apache
     Cochiti                                              Tribe

     Hopi Tribe      Pueblo of Jemez   Pueblo of Santa    Southern Ute
                                       Ana                Tribe

     Pueblo of       Pueblo of         Pueblo of Santa    Ute Mountain
     Laguna          Pojoaque          Clara              Tribe

     Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of San     Pueblo of Santo    Ysleta del Sur
                     Felipe            Domingo            Pueblo

     Navajo Nation   Pueblo of Zia     Pueblo of Taos     Mescalero Apache
                                                          Tribe

     Pueblo of       Pueblo of San     Pueblo of Tesuque  Pueblo of Acoma
     Picuris         Ildefonso                            

     Pueblo of San   Pueblo of Zuni                       
     Juan                                                 
  -- --------------- ----------------- ------------------ -----------------

American Indian tribes traditionally associated with the lands of Aztec
Ruins NM, and others with whom monument staff regularly consults, were
apprised by letter of the proposed action on January 17, 2001 (letter on
file at monument headquarters). The proposed project was discussed with
affiliated tribes on April 19, 2000, and February 15, 2001, at Aztec
Ruins NM. American Indian tribes traditionally associated with the lands
of Aztec Ruins NM, and others with whom monument staff regularly
consult, expressed concern about ground disturbance at the monument and
the potential inadvertent discovery of human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony.

Comments regarding the proposed action were received from the Pueblo of
Ysleta del Sur, the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, the Mescalero Apache, and
the Hopi Tribe. Comments from the Pueblo of Ysleta del Sur, Pueblo de
San Ildefonso and the Mescalero Apache indicated support for the
project. Comments from the Hopi Tribe expressed concerns regarding the
monument's *Plan of Action* relating to Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 (NAGPRA). The Hopi
Tribe asked that an addendum be added to the park's *Plan of Action*
addressing concerns that if any NAGPRA items were encountered that they
remain *in situ* and not undergo a determination of cultural
affiliation. After review of the revised *Plan of Action* the Hopi Tribe
indicated in a letter of June 11, 2001, that the Hopi Cultural
Preservation Office had

no further immediate concerns regarding archeological testing for the
road relocation project and asked to be provided with a copy of the
testing report for review and comment.

Copies of the environmental assessment will be forwarded to each
affiliated tribe or group for review and comment. If subsequent issues
or concerns are identified, appropriate consultations would be
undertaken.

**SELECTED REFERENCES**

Cordell, Linda S.

1984. *Prehistory of the Southwest*, Academic Press, Inc., New York,
      Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Publishers

Hutt, Sherry; Blanco, Caroline; Varmer, Ole.

1999. Heritage Resources Law: Protecting the Archeological and Cultural
      Environment, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, New
      York John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lister, Florence C. and Robert H.,

1968. *Earl Morris and Southwestern Archeology* Albuquerque, University
      of New Mexico Press.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1989. Matthews, Meredith H. "Results of the Second Phase or
      Archaeological Field Work for the New Mexico State Road 44
      Extension to Aztec Ruins National Monument." Report 87-SJC-072A.

**Executive Orders**

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

**National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior**

######## Director\'s Orders

DO‑2 *Park Planning*

DO-12 *Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and
Decision Making*

DO‑28 *Cultural Resource Management Guideline,* Release No. 5, 1997.

DO-47 *Sound Preservation and Noise Management*

1916. Aztec Ruins National Monument General Management Plan/Development

Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment

1989. *General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan/Environmental
      Assessment, Aztec Ruins National Monument*. (Copy available at
      Aztec Ruins National Monument).

1990. *Aztec Ruins National Monument Administrative History of an
      Archeological Preserve*, prepared by Robert H. Listor and
      Florence C. Listor. (Copy available at Aztec Ruins National
      Monument).

1993 Aztec Ruins National Monument Land Protection Plan

1993. Aztec Ruins National Monument Statement for Management

1994. Vibration Investigation of Archaeological Structures, Aztec Ruins
      National Monument, New Mexico. August 27. K. King, Consultant.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1996. *National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Aztec
      Ruins Administration Building/Museum*. Prepared for the National
      Park Service by Historic Research Associates, Inc. Copy available
      at Aztec Ruins National Monument.

1997. *Aztec Ruins National Monument: Cultural Landscapes Inventory
      Historic Designed Landscape-Level 2*, prepared by the University
      of Arizona. (Copy available at Aztec Ruins National Monument).

1998. Cultural Resource Management Guideline. Release 5. Washington, DC

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1997. *Aztec Ruins National Monument: Cultural Landscapes Inventory
      Historic Vernacular Landscape-Level 2,* prepared by National Park
      Service, Intermountain Region, (Copy available at Aztec Ruins
      National Monument).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2000. Moore, Roger A. and Nathan, Randy L. "Archaeological Monitoring
      and Documentation of Test Trenches within the Proposed Ruins Road
      Realignment, Aztec Ruins National Monument, San Juan County, New
      Mexico." Moore Anthropological Research, Technical Report No.
      2000-096. NMCRIS Activity No. 76024.

2001. *Aztec Ruins National Monument: Cultural Landscapes Inventory
      Prehistoric Designed Landscape-Level 2,* prepared by National Park
      Service, Intermountain Region, (Copy available at Aztec Ruins
      National Monument).

2001 Moore, Roger A. and Nathan, Randy L. "Phase I & II Archaeological
Monitoring and Documentation of 28 Test Trenches, and Historic Research,
for the Proposed Ruins Road Realignment, Aztec Ruins National Monument,
San Juan County, New Mexico," Moore Anthropological Research, Aztec, New
Mexico. NMCRIS Activity No. 76243.

2001. Relocate Ruins Road Value Analysis Study. Dec 18. On File at DSC.

2002. Bradford, James E. *Site Preservation Plan at LA 1674: An
      Alternative to Standard Data Recovery Techniques: Ruins Road
      Realignment Project, Aztec Ruins National Monument, New Mexico*,
      Aztec, New Mexico, April 2002).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2002. *Environmental Assessment: Remodeling Interior of Visitor Center:
      Aztec Ruins National Monument, San Juan County, City of Aztec, New
      Mexico*, (Copy available at Aztec Ruins National Monument).

**U.S. Federal Government**

1864 Act of Congress (13 Stat. 325)

1890 Act of Congress (26 Stat. 650)

1906 Joint Resolution of Congress (34 Stat. 831)

1955 Federal Air Quality Law

1963 Clean Air Act, as amended

1966 National Historic Preservation Act

1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

1973 Endangered Species Act, as amended

1977 Clean Water Act

1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

36 CFR 800.11 40 CFR, Part 503

**Preparers**

National Park Service, Denver Service Center

Jane Sikoryak, Cultural Resource Specialist

Steve Stone, Natural Resource Specialist

**Consultants**

National Park Service, Aztec Ruins National Monument

Brian Culpepper, Archeologist

Stephanie Dubois, Superintendent

Theresa Nichols, Chief-Interpretation and Resource Management

# U.S. Department Of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Denver, CO

Greg Budd, Design Team Leader

Tom Pudo, Project Manager

**Appendix A**

**US Fish and Wildlife Service**

**List of Special Status Species dated December 22, 2000**

![](media/image3.png){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="8.363194444444444in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="6.496527777777778in"
height="7.946527777777778in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="8.438194444444445in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="6.499305555555556in" height="6.31875in"}

**Appendix B**

**Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division**

**State of New Mexico**

**Letter of Concurrence regarding Ruins Road Realignment Project,**

**Aztec Ruins National Monument, 2002**

![](media/image7.png){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="8.565277777777778in"}

![](media/image8.png){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="8.605555555555556in"}

![](media/image9.png){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="7.342361111111111in"}