Petroglyph National Monument

Geologic Resources Inventory Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2017/1547

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science
ON THE COVER

Photograph of Albuquerque volcanoes. Three spatter cones, known as the Sisters, form a distinctive skyline west 

of Albuquerque, New Mexico. These small volcanoes are part of the Albuquerque volcanic field and occur in the 

Volcanoes area of Petroglyph National Monument. The volcanic field was active about 156,000 years ago. NPS 

photograph by Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National Monument).

THIS PAGE

Photograph of the West Mesa escarpment along the Rinconada Canyon Trail. Erosion of the Santa Fe Group 

sediments that underlie a basaltic cap rock has caused large blocks of rock to tumble down the eastern 

escarpment of the mesa. Most of the petroglyphs were chiseled into the dark patina of desert varnish on these 

large boulders, exposing the lighter colored basaltic rock beneath. NPS photograph by Dale Pate (Geologic 

Resources Division).
Petroglyph National Monument

Geologic Resources Inventory Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2017/1547

Katie KellerLynn

Colorado State University Research Associate

National Park Service Geologic Resources Division

Geologic Resources Inventory

PO Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225

November 2017

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a 

range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience 

in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural 

resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the 

advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The 

series also provides a forum for presenting more lengthy results that may not be accepted by publications with page 

limitations.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically 

credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a 

professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly 

involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and 

policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products 

does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

This report is available from the Geologic Resources Inventory website, and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website. To receive this report in a format optimized for screen readers, please email irma@nps.gov.

Please cite this publication as:

KellerLynn, K. 2017. Petroglyph National Monument: Geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2017/1547. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 354/140570, November 2017
iii

Contents

Page

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Products and Acknowledgments . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

GRI Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Geologic Setting, History, and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Park Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Geologic Setting and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

West Mesa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Petroglyphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Geologic Resource Management Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Disturbed Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Wind Erosion, Transport, and Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Rockfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Volcanic Resource Inventory, Assessment,

and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Earthquakes and Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Abandoned Mineral Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Cave Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Paleontological Resource Inventory, Monitoring, and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Volcanic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Geologic Map Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Geologic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Source Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

GRI GIS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

GRI Map Posters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Use Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Future Geologic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Arroyos in New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Earthquakes in New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Erosion Control and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Geology of National Park Service Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Geological Surveys and Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

NPS Resource Management Guidance and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

USGS Reference Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Volcanic Hazards in New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix A: Scoping Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2006 Scoping Meeting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2017 Conference Call Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix B: Geologic Resource Laws, Regulations, and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

v

Figures

Figure 1. Satellite image of West Mesa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Figure 2 (facing page). Photographs of petroglyphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 3. Map of major geologic features in New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 4. Geologic time scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 5. Graphic of fault types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 6. Photograph of the Sandia Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 7. Cross sections of the Albuquerque basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 8. Photograph of Vulcan, Bond, and Butte Volcanoes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 9 (facing page). Panoramic photograph of spatter cones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 10. Graphic of the sequence of lava flows and eruptions at the monument and vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 11 (left). Photographs of basalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 12. Photograph of columnar jointing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 13. Graphic of lava-tube formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 14. Photograph of pahoehoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 15. Photograph of the trail in Boca Negra Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 16. Photograph of desert varnish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 17. Photograph of gullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 18. Photograph of the Santa Fe Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 19. Photograph of dust accumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 20. Photograph of rockfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 21. National earthquake probability map and local intensity map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Page

Tables

Page

Table 1. Bedrock and surficial deposits at Petroglyph National Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Comparison of volcanic map units in the GRI GIS data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 3. Geologic resource management issues at Petroglyph National Monument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 4. GRI GIS data layers for petr_geology.mxd (Connell 2006; scale 1:50,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 5. GRI GIS data layers for mnse_geology.mxd (Shroba et al. 2003; scale 1:24,000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vii

Executive Summary

The Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) provides geologic map data and pertinent geologic 

information to support resource management and science-informed decision making in more than 270 

natural resource parks throughout the National Park System. The GRI is one of 12 inventories funded 

by the National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Program. The Geologic Resources 

Division of the NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate administers the GRI.

This report synthesizes discussions from a scoping meeting in 2006 and a follow-up conference call in 

2017 (see Appendix A). Chapters of this report discuss the monument’s geologic setting and significance, 

including distinctive geologic features and processes within Petroglyph National Monument; describe 

the geologic history leading to the present-day landscape; highlight geologic issues facing resource 

managers; and provide information about the previously completed GRI map data.

Although authorized for the protection of more 

than 20,000 petroglyphs (prehistoric or historic 

rock carvings), Petroglyph National Monument also 

contains significant geologic resources. The petroglyphs 

themselves were etched into a geologic resource—

basaltic (characteristically dark volcanic rock rich in 

iron and magnesium) bounders—that tumbled off

the West Mesa escarpment (erosional margin). The 

monument is located west of downtown Albuquerque 

within the Albuquerque volcanic field and contains the 

Albuquerque volcanoes—a line of cinder and spatter 

cones that developed as a result of a fissure eruption 

about 156,000 years ago. The monument contains five 

volcanoes that formed along a fissure near the center 

of the Rio Grande rift—a tear in the North American 

continent that is the result of regional stretching of 

Earth’s crust. Three volcanoes—Vulcan, Black, and JA—

are accessible from a small parking area off Atrisco 

Vista Boulevard (formerly known as Paseo del Volcan) 

on the western side of the monument. The two other 

volcanoes in the monument—Bond and Butte—are 

farther north. The monument also contains a series of 

lava flows and cinder deposits around vents (openings 

at Earth’s surface through which magma erupts and 

volcanic gases are emitted). The two oldest lava flows 

form the eastern margin of West Mesa.

This report is supported by two GRI GIS data sets 

of the bedrock and surficial geology of Petroglyph 

National Monument. Connell (2006) was the source 

map used in compiling a GRI GIS data set (petr_

geology.mxd) that covers the entire monument at 

a scale of 1:50,000. Terminology and map units by 

Connell (2006) are used in this report. Connell (2006) 

mapped sixteen 7.5-minute quadrangles that make 

up the Albuquerque–Rio Rancho metropolitan area 

and vicinity. Four of these quadrangles—Volcano 

Ranch, Los Griegos, Albuquerque West, and La Mesita 

Negra SE—are part of the GRI GIS data. In addition, 

the GRI team converted Shroba et al. (2003) into a 

GRI GIS data set (mnse_geology.mxd) that covers 

the southwestern area of the monument at a scale of 

1:24,000. Shroba et al. (2003) mapped the La Mesita 

Negra SE 7.5-minute quadrangle. These two mapping 

projects—Connell (2006) by the New Mexico Bureau 

of Geology and Mineral Resources and Shroba et al. 

(2003) by the US Geological Survey—interpreted the 

monument’s geology slightly differently. Because the 

map by Connell (2006) covers the entire monument, 

this report primarily followed that interpretation. 

Notable differences between the two mapping projects 

are highlighted in the report, however.

The poster (in pocket) is the primary figure of this 

GRI report. It displays the GRI GIS data draped over a 

shaded relief image of the monument and surrounding 

area. It includes a legend with all the map units within 

the monument.

This report contains two main tables. One of the main 

tables (table 1) provides a brief geologic description and 

setting for each map unit. Table 1 emphasizes geologic 

time and takes the form of a stratigraphic column where 

map units are listed from oldest to youngest, bottom to 

top. Geologic terms used in the map unit descriptions 

are defined below table 1. The other main table (table 3) 

summarizes the geologic resource management issues at 

the monument and connects them to relevant geologic 
viii

map units. The issues are ordered with respect to 

management priority and include the following: erosion 

(resulting chiefly from storm-water runoff); disturbed 

lands; wind erosion, transport, and deposition; 

rockfall; volcanic resource inventory, assessment, and 

protection; earthquakes and faults; abandoned mineral 

lands; cave resource management; paleontological 

resource inventory, monitoring, and protection; and 

volcanic hazards. A discussion of each of these issues 

follows table 3. Three other tables are included in the 

report: table 2 provides a comparison of the volcanic 

map units in the GRI GIS data; tables 4 and 5 highlight 

the GRI GIS data layers for petr_geology.mxd and 

mnse_geology.mxd, respectively.
ix

Products and Acknowledgments

The NPS Geologic Resources Division partners with the Colorado State University Department of 

Geosciences to produce GRI products. The New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 

developed one source map and reviewed GRI content. The US Geological Survey also developed one 

source map. This chapter describes GRI products and acknowledges contributors to this report.

GRI Products

The GRI team undertakes three tasks for each park in 

the Inventory and Monitoring program: (1) conduct a 

scoping meeting and provide a summary document, 

(2) provide digital geologic map data in a geographic 

information system (GIS) format, and (3) provide a GRI 

report (this document). These products are designed 

and written for nongeoscientists.

Scoping meetings bring together park staff and geologic 

experts to review and assess available geologic maps, 

develop a geologic mapping plan, and discuss geologic 

features, processes, and resource management issues 

that should be addressed in the GRI report. Following 

the scoping meeting, the GRI map team converts the 

geologic maps identified in the mapping plan to GIS 

data in accordance with the GRI data model. After the 

map is completed, the GRI report team uses these data, 

as well as the scoping summary and additional research, 

to prepare the GRI report. The GRI team conducts no 

new field work in association with their products.

The compilation and use of natural resource 

information by park managers is called for in the 1998 

National Parks Omnibus Management Act (§ 204), 2006 

National Park Service Management Policies, and the 

Natural Resources Inventory and Monitoring Guideline 

(NPS-75). The “Additional References” chapter and 

Appendix B provide links to these and other resource 

management documents and information.

Additional information regarding the GRI, including 

contact information, is available at http://go.nps.gov/gri. 

The current status and projected completion dates of 

products are available at http://go.nps.gov/gri_status.

Acknowledgments

The GRI team thanks the participants of the 2006 

scoping meeting and the 2017 follow-up conference 

call (see Appendix A) for their cooperation in this 

inventory. Thanks very much to the New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources and the 

US Geological Survey for their maps of the area; this 

report and accompanying GIS data could not have been 

completed without them. Thanks to Dale Pate (NPS 

Geologic Resources Division) for his input about cave 

management, clarification on the definition of a cave, 

and for many of the photographs used in this report. 

Thanks to Andy Jochems (New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources) for his input on the 

Quaternary faults in the vicinity of the monument. Also, 

thanks to Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State 

University) and Michael Barthelmes (NPS Geologic 

Resources Division) for their help in creating many of 

the graphics in this report. Also, Matt Zimmerer (New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources), 

Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National Monument), 

and Dale Kissner (Petroglyph National Monument) 

provided many photographs, including some taken 

specifically for this report.

Review

Dale Kissner (Petroglyph National Monument)

Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National Monument)

Shari Kelley (New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources)

Matt Zimmerer (New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources)

Jason Kenworthy (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Dale Pate (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Editing

Michael Barthelmes (NPS Geologic Resources 

Division)

Report Formatting and Distribution

Jason Kenworthy (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Michael Barthelmes (NPS Geologic Resources 

Division)
x

Source Maps

Sean D. Connell (New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources)

Ralph R. Shroba (US Geological Survey)

Ren A. Thompson (US Geological Survey) 

Dwight L. Schmidt (US Geological Survey) 

Stephen F. Personius (US Geological Survey)

Florian Maldonado (US Geological Survey)

Theodore R. Brandt (US Geological Survey) 

GRI Digital Geologic Data Production

Andrea Croskrey (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Georgia Hybels (Colorado State University)

Stephanie O’Meara (Colorado State University)

GRI Poster Design

Dalton Meyer (Colorado State University)

Georgia Hybels (Colorado State University)

GRI Poster Review

Georgia Hybels (Colorado State University)

Rebecca Port (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Jason Kenworthy (NPS Geologic Resources Division)

Michael Barthelmes (NPS Geologic Resources 

Division)
1

Geologic Setting, History, and Significance

This chapter describes the regional geologic setting of the monument and summarizes connections 

among geologic resources, other park resources, and park stories.

Park Establishment

Petroglyph National Monument, situated 11 km (7 mi) 

west of downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico, protects 

one of the largest petroglyph sites in North America. 

The monument features more than 20,000 petroglyphs 

pecked into the dark desert varnish that coats the 

basaltic boulders along the West Mesa escarpment (fig. 

1). Many of the petroglyphs are recognizable as animals, 

insects, people, and geometric designs (fig. 2). Some 

petroglyph images may have served both a practical 

purpose (e.g., marking a location) and have a sacred or 

spiritual meaning. Different ethnographic groups may 

interpret the meaning of a particular design differently 

(see Anschuetz et al. 2002). Some meanings may only 

ever be known to their carvers.

Although a small percentage of petroglyphs date as far 

back as 2000 BCE (before common era), the majority 

(90%) were created by the ancestors of today’s Pueblo 

people, who have lived in the Rio Grande valley since 

before 500 CE (common era). A population increase 

around 1300 CE resulted in many new settlements, 

and the majority of the petroglyphs are thought to have 

been carved from that time through the late 1680s. This 

period of settlement ended with the arrival of the first 

Spanish explorers. Other images date from historic 

periods, starting in the 1700s with petroglyphs carved 

by early Spanish settlers.

The monument comprises 2,928 ha (7,236 ac) of land 

owned by the US government, State of New Mexico, 

and City of Albuquerque. The monument is managed 

cooperatively by the National Park Service and City of 

Figure 1. Satellite image of West Mesa. Much of West Mesa—a basaltic lava–capped “table land”—and its 23-km- 

(17-mi-) long escarpment lie within the monument. Lava flows topped by spatter cones and cinders cover the mesa’s 

surface. The mesa is west of the Rio Grande and downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico. Image © 2017 Google. 

Annotations by Jason Kenworthy (NPS Geologic Resources Division).
2
3

Figure 2 (facing page). Photographs of petroglyphs. Prehistoric and historic rock carvings, called “petroglyphs,” are 

a geological–archeological resource connection at the monument. Most were carved between about 1300 and the 

late 1680s on the basaltic boulders along the West Mesa escarpment. Some of the images seem familiar, such as birds, 

snakes, humans, stars, and stairways; others, such as spirals, stimulate multiple interpretations. NPS photographs by 

Dale Pate (Geologic Resources Division).

Albuquerque Open Space Division. This arrangement 

is distinctive, as is the monument’s proximity to a 

major metropolitan area; few large cities in the United 

States have young volcanic features in the middle of 

them. Moreover, the monument protects much of 

the remaining open space in the Albuquerque region, 

including important natural resources associated 

with the Rio Grande rift, Rio Grande (river), and 

Albuquerque volcanic field (discussed below).

As Albuquerque developed westward across West Mesa, 

population growth placed a greater and greater burden 

on the petroglyph-covered basalt escarpment. Vandals 

desecrated and destroyed many of the petroglyphs, 

and housing developments on the volcanic cliffs would 

have made the area off-limits to visitors. In response, 

citizens worked to establish Indian Petroglyph State 

Park at Boca Negra Canyon. In addition, a forwardthinking woman, Ruth Eisenberg, was responsible 

for the preservation of the five volcanoes now in the 

monument. In the late 1960s, while undertaking a 

University of New Mexico class project researching 

the ownership of the volcanoes, Eisenberg discovered 

that they were privately owned, and for sale. Fearing 

that they would be subdivided and suburbanized, she 

established “Save the Volcanoes” and managed to get 

public and political backing. In 1973 and 1976, the 

City of Albuquerque bought the cones—the southern 

three then the northern two, respectively—and created 

Volcano Park. In 1986, the entire 27-km- (17-mi-) long 

escarpment—the location of most of the petroglyphs—

was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

On 27 June 1990, the petroglyph escarpment and the 

volcanoes became part of the National Park System with 

the creation of Petroglyph National Monument.

Geologic Setting and History

The monument’s geologic setting consists of four 

groupings of rock or unconsolidated deposits. The 

oldest rocks in the monument are sedimentary and 

originated as basin fill (primarily sand and gravel) in 

the Rio Grande rift. Another grouping of geologic units 

in the monument is associated with the development 

of the Rio Grande (river) and its tributaries. A third 

grouping is composed of a series of basaltic lava flows 

and near-vent (an opening at Earth’s surface through 

which magma erupts and volcanic gases are emitted) 

deposits that make up the Albuquerque volcanic field. 

A fourth grouping is associated with ongoing geologic 

processes and the agents of gravity, running water, and 

wind (table 1).

Rio Grande Rift

Spanning about 1,000 km (600 mi)—from the state of 

Chihuahua in northern Mexico to central Colorado—

the Rio Grande rift is a major feature of crustal 

extension (pulling apart of Earth’s crust) (fig. 3). It is 

one of only a few active rifts worldwide that are ripping 

apart continental crust; others include the East Africa 

rift, Rhine graben in Germany, and Lake Baikal rift in 

Russia. In New Mexico, crustal extension progressed 

from south to north along the Rio Grande rift, starting 

about 36 million years ago (Eocene Epoch; fig. 4) in 

the south and initiating about 22 million years ago 

(Miocene Epoch) in the north (Price 2010). Rio Grande 

rifting is estimated to have begun about 26 million years 

ago in the vicinity of the monument (Kelley 2010).

One consequence of extension is faulting where basins 

drop downward along normal faults (fig. 5) relative to 

uplifted mountain ranges, called “rift-flank uplifts” or 

“fault-block mountain ranges.” The Sandia Mountains 

are an example of a rift-flank uplift near the monument 

(figs. 6 and 7). These mountains are the northernmost of 

a series of ranges that bound the eastern side of the Rio 

Grande rift. They extend southward to the Manzanita 

and Manzano Mountains in the vicinity of Salinas 

Pueblo Missions National Monument (see GRI report 

by KellerLynn in preparation). The Sandia Mountains 

are about 24 km (15 mi) east of the monument visitor 

center and dominate the eastern Albuquerque skyline 

(fig. 6). At 3,184 m (10,447 ft) above sea level, North 

Sandia Peak is the highest point in the range.

Whereas mountain ranges formed on the up-thrown 

side of the normal faults along the rift, basins 

(elongated, down-dropped crustal units or blocks 

bounded on both sides by high-angle normal faults that 

dip toward each other) formed on the downthrown 

side. The Rio Grande rift consists of eight major basins 
4

Period Epoch Years Ago Map Unit 

(symbol) Geologic Description Setting

Quaternary Holocene 11,700 to 

present day

Active streamvalley alluvium 

(Qa)

Light grayish to yellowish brown sand, silty to 

clayey sand, and gravel; boulders are common 

along the western flank of the Sandia 

Mountains. Very weakly developed soils (stage 

I carbonate morphology) to nonexistent soils. 

Thickness: 1–12 m (3–40 ft). 

Modern incised 

tributary stream 

valleys

Quaternary Holocene 11,700 to 

present day

Las Padillas 

Formation, 

intermediate 

channel and 

floodplain 

(Qrpm)

Pinkish gray to grayish brown sand and 

pebbly sand with lenses of reddish brown silt 

and clay; contains paleochannel, point-bar, 

and overbank levee deposits. Very weak to no 

soil development. Thickness: 15–34 m (50–

112 ft) in wells (base of unit not exposed).

Underlies modern 

(inner) valley of the 

Rio Grande

Quaternary

Holocene 

to Upper 

Pleistocene

126,000 to 

present day

Radiocarbon 

dating of 

detrital 

charcoal: 

1,790 ± 90 

and 4,550 ± 

140

Younger streamvalley alluvium 

(Qay)

Pale- to light-brown sand, muddy sand, 

and pebble to cobble gravel; boulders 

locally present along the front of the Sandia 

Mountains. Weakly developed soils (stage I 

and II carbonate morphology). Thickness: as 

much as 24 m (79 ft).

Rio Grande 

tributaries; Qay 

locally contains 

active stream-valley 

alluvium (Qa)

Quaternary

Holocene 

to Upper 

Pleistocene

126,000 to 

present day

Eolian sand, 

undivided

(Qe)

Pink to light yellowish brown, well-sorted 

sand. Weakly developed (stage I to II+ 

carbonate morphology) to nonexistent soils. 

Thickness: 1–3 m (3–10 ft).

Laterally extensive, 

active and inactive 

sand sheets and 

discontinuous lowrelief dunes oriented 

north to northeast

Quaternary Holocene to 

Pleistocene

2.6 million to 

present day

Colluvium 

and alluvium, 

undivided

(Qca)

Sand and gravel. Weakly to strongly 

developed calcic soils (stage I to III+ carbonate 

morphology). Thickness: as much as 5 m (16 

ft).

Along hill slopes and 

margins of mesacapping lavas

Quaternary

Upper to 

Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

11,700

Intermediate 

stream-valley 

alluvium

(Qam)

Yellowish brown to reddish yellow sand, 

silty clay, and gravel; variable rock types, 

dominated by chert and volcanic clasts west 

of the Rio Grande. Variable soil development.

Rio Grande 

tributaries

Quaternary Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

126,000

Los Duranes 

Formation

(Qrd)

Pale brown to light reddish brown sand, sandy 

gravel and sandy clay. Weakly developed soils 

(stage I carbonate morphology on sand). Qrd

surface is commonly mantled by eolian sand. 

Thickness: 40–52 m (130–170 ft).

Rio Grande terrace 

(former floodplain), 

44–48 m (144–157 

ft) above the 

present-day 

floodplain

Quaternary Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

126,000

Albuquerque 

volcanoes, vents 

(Qbv)

Larger cinder and spatter cones. Smaller vents 

denoted by an asterisk (*) in GRI GIS data.

Albuquerque 

volcanic field

Quaternary Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

126,000 

Whole-rock 

238U/230Th 

dating: 

156,000 ± 

20,000

Basaltic lavas of 

the Albuquerque 

volcanoes

Flow 5 (Qb5) 

Flow 4 (Qb4) 

Flow 3 (Qb3) 

Flow 2 (Qb2) 

Flow 1 (Qb1)

Vesicular olivine tholeiite (fig. 11) lava 

flows. Locally divided into five flows (Qb1–

Qb5) based on surface morphology and 

stratigraphic position.

Albuquerque 

volcanic field

Table 1. Bedrock and surficial deposits at Petroglyph National Monument.
5

Period Epoch Years Ago Map Unit 

(symbol) Geologic Description Setting

Quaternary Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

126,000

Older streamvalley alluvium 

(Qao)

Light reddish brown sand and gravel. Variable 

soil development; some exhibits stage I to III 

carbonate morphology with few or no clay 

films. Thickness: 2–14 m (7–46 ft).

Rio Grande 

tributaries

Quaternary Middle 

Pleistocene

781,000 to 

126,000

Lomatas Negras 

Formation (Qrl)

Pale brown to pink sandy pebble to cobble 

gravel. Thickness: commonly 3–12 m (10–40 

ft) but locally reaches 18 m (59 ft) near the 

mouth of Arroyo de las Calabacillas.

Oldest inset terrace 

deposits of the Rio 

Grande, 65–75 m 

(213–246 ft) above 

the present-day 

floodplain

Tertiary

Lowest 

Pleistocene 

(?) to 

Pliocene

2.6 million to 

5.3 million

Ceja Formation, 

upper sand and 

gravel member 

(Tcrg)

Pale brown to yellowish brown cobbly sand 

and gravel with scattered boulders. Thickness: 

20–260 (?) m (66–853 ft); generally less than 

100 m (328 ft) thick west of the Rio Grande 

valley.

Part of the Santa 

Fe Group; top 

defined by Llano de 

Albuquerque surface

Alluvium (map units Qa, Qay, Qca, Qam, and Qao)—stream-deposited sediment.

Basalt (Qbv and Qb1–Qb5)—a volcanic rock that is characteristically dark in color (gray to black), contains approximately 53% silica 

(silicon dioxide [SiO2

], an essential constituent of many minerals) or less, and is rich in iron and magnesium.

Boulder (Qa, Qay, and Tcrg)—a detached rock fragment, generally somewhat rounded or otherwise distinctively shaped by abrasion 

during transport, greater than 256 mm (10 in) in diameter; the largest rock fragment recognized by sedimentologists.

Carbonate (soils)—consisting of carbonate minerals (carbon and oxygen plus an element or elements), for example, CaCO3 (calcite) 

or CaMg(CO3)2

 (dolomite).

Chert (Qam)—an extremely hard sedimentary rock, consisting mostly of interlocking crystals of quartz. Chert has conchoidal 

fracturing, giving the rock a smoothly curved surface that resembles a conch shell.

Clay (Qa, Qrpm, Qam, Qrd, and Qao)—a detrital particle that is less than 0.004 (1/256) mm (0.00015 in) in diameter.

Cobble (Qay, Qrl, and Tcrg)—a rock fragment ranging from 64 to 256 mm (2.5 to 10 in) in diameter, thus larger than a pebble and 

smaller than a boulder; generally rounded by abrasion.

Colluvium (Qca)—a general term applied to a loose, heterogeneous accumulation of rocks, usually at the foot of a slope or cliff and 

brought there mainly by gravity.

Eolian (Qe and Qrd)—describes materials formed, eroded, or deposited by the wind.

Gravel (Qa, Qay, Qca, Qam, Qrd, Qao, Qrl, and Tcrg)—an unconsolidated, natural accumulation of rock fragments that are greater 

than 2 mm (0.08 in) in diameter; deposits may contain boulders, cobbles, and/or pebbles.

Mud (Qay)—a mixture of water with silt or clay.

Overbank levee (Qrpm)—a long, broad, low embankment of sand and coarse silt built by floodwater overflow along both banks of a 

stream channel.

Paleochannel (Qrpm)—a remnant of a stream channel cut in older rock or sediment and filled by younger rock or sediment; a buried 

stream channel.

Pebble (Qrpm, Qay, and Qrl)—a rock fragment ranging from approximately 4 to 64 mm (0.16 to 2.5 in) in diameter and generally 

rounded by abrasion.

Point bar (Qrpm)—a low ridge of sand and gravel deposited in a stream channel on the inside of a meander, where flow velocity 

slows.

Sand (Qa, Qrpm, Qay, Qe, Qca, Qam, Qrd, Qao, Qrl, and Tcrg)—a detrital particle ranging from 0.06 (1/16) to 2 mm (0.0025 to 0.08 

in) in diameter.

Silt (Qa, Qrpm, and Qam)—a detrital particle ranging from 0.004 (1/256) to 0.06 (1/16) mm (0.00015 and 0.0025 in) in diameter, 

thus smaller than sand.

Table 1, continued. Bedrock and surficial deposits at Petroglyph National Monument.
6

Figure 3. Map of major geologic features in New Mexico. Petroglyph National Monument is within the Albuquerque 

volcanic field. The field is one of a series of volcanic fields in the Albuquerque basin (ALB) of the Rio Grande rift. The 

Albuquerque basin and other basins—San Luis (SLB), Española (ESB), Socorro (SB), Palomas (PB), Tularosa (TB), Jornada 

(JB), Mesilla (MB), and Hueco (HB)—dropped down along normal faults (see figs. 5 and 7) as Earth’s crust pulled 

apart in the rift. Along the margins of the rift, uplift took place. The Sandia Mountains are a rift-flank uplift on the 

eastern side of the rift. Boundaries of NPS lands are shown in green. Graphic by Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado 

State University) after Connell et al. (2005, figure 1) and Price (2010, p. 13). Base map by Tom Patterson (National Park 

Service). GRI reports are available for all of the NPS areas (report for Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument 

should be complete late 2017) at the GRI publications page: http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.
7

Figure 4. Geologic time scale. The divisions of geologic time are organized stratigraphically, with the oldest divisions at 

the bottom and the youngest at the top. GRI map abbreviations for each time division are in parentheses. The oldest 

rocks in the monument are the lowest Pleistocene (?) to Pliocene Ceja Formation (map unit Tcrg). The Albuquerque 

volcanoes (Qb1–Qb5 and Qbv) erupted during the Middle Pleistocene Epoch (PE). Petroglyphs were etched into basaltic 

boulders, which are Middle Pleistocene in age. Starting in the Pleistocene Epoch, these boulders were eroded and 

transported down the West Mesa escarpment; they were mapped as colluvium and alluvium, undivided (Qca). Compass 

directions in parentheses indicate the regional locations of events. Boundary ages are millions of years ago (MYA). 

National Park Service graphic using dates from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (http://www.stratigraphy.

org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale; version 2017/02, accessed 25 September 2017).
8

Figure 5. Graphic of fault types. Movement occurs along a fault plane. Footwalls are below the fault plane, and 

hanging walls are above. In a normal fault, crustal extension (pulling apart) moves the hanging wall down relative 

to the footwall. In a reverse fault, crustal compression moves the hanging wall up relative to the footwall. A thrust 

fault is a type of reverse fault that has a dip angle of less than 45°. In a strike-slip fault, movement is horizontal. 

When movement across a strike-slip fault is to the right, it is a right-lateral strike-slip fault, as illustrated above. 

When movement is to the left, it is a left-lateral strike-slip fault. Faults in the monument are normal faults related to 

extension along the Rio Grande rift. Graphic by Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State University).

Figure 6. Photograph of the Sandia Mountains. The monument offers spectacular views of the Sandia Mountains. 

These east-tilted, rift-flank mountains on the eastern margin of the Albuquerque basin rise as much as 1,700 m (5,700 

ft) above the elevation of the Rio Grande, exposing Precambrian granitic and metamorphic rocks on the west side of 

the basin. Pennsylvanian limestone and shale cap the mountain block; these rocks are exposed along the eastern slopes 

of the mountain range. The Sandia Mountains are not part of the GRI GIS data but are clearly within the monument’s 

viewshed. NPS photograph courtesy of Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National Monument).
9

Figure 7. Cross sections of the Albuquerque basin. Normal faults (see fig. 5), which are characteristic of the Rio 

Grande rift, are a prominent feature in the Albuquerque basin. Faulting began at the margins of the rift and moved 

basinward. A rift-flank uplift—the Sandia Mountains—was elevated as the basin subsided. Today, the Rio Grande 

dominates the surface of the rift. Since about 1.2 million to 700,000 years ago, the river has episodically incised into 

the Santa Fe Group (basin-filling sediments), creating terraces (abandoned floodplains) mapped as the Lomatas 

Negras (Qrl), Los Duranes (Qrd), and Las Padillas (Qrpm) Formations. Tributaries deposited alluvium. Piedmont surfaces 

(gravel-covered erosional slopes) occur along the flank of the Sandia Mountains but not within the monument. The 

basaltic lava of the Albuquerque volcanoes (Qb1–Qb5 and Qbv) erupted about 156,000 years ago atop the Llano de 

Albuquerque; the Ceja Formation (e.g., Tcrg in the monument) marks the top of the Llano de Albuquerque surface 

and represents the end of basin filling by the Santa Fe Group. Graphic by Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State 

University) after cross sections by Connell (2006, B–B') and Bauer et al. (2003, p. 6).

(fig. 3). Four of these have National Park System 

units in them: Petroglyph National Monument in the 

Albuquerque basin, Bandelier National Monument (see 

GRI report by KellerLynn 2015a) and Valles Caldera 

National Preserve in the Española basin (north of 

the monument), White Sands National Monument in 

the Tularosa basin (south of the monument; see GRI 

report by KellerLynn 2012c), and Great Sand Dunes 

National Park and Preserve (see GRE report by Graham 

2006b) in the San Luis basin (north of the monument in 

Colorado).

Normal faults in the Albuquerque basin first developed 

along the margins of the Rio Grande rift during the 

Miocene Period and progressed basinward (Connell 

and Wells 1999). The faults are oriented north–south. 

They are steeply dipping (almost vertical), in some 

cases tilted more than 70° from horizontal. Eleven fault 

segments cut across the monument, including portions 

of the Zia, Star Heights, West Paradise, and East 

Paradise faults (see poster, in pocket). The vents on the 

western side of the monument are aligned along a fault, 

highlighting the connection between rift-related faulting 

and volcanism (see “Albuquerque Volcanic Field”). The 

County Dump fault parallels the western boundary, 

outside the monument.

As the Rio Grande rift began pulling apart and basins 

such as the Albuquerque basin dropped down relative 

to the adjacent mountains, sediments (and some 
10

lava flows) began filling the rift. In the vicinity of the 

monument, basin-fill sediments are as much as 2,700 

m (8,500 ft) thick (Bauer et al. 2003). Elsewhere in the 

eastern Albuquerque basin, they are as much as 4,900 m 

(16,000 ft) thick. These rift-filling sediments, regionally 

known as the Santa Fe Group, include material 

deposited by the ancestral Rio Grande, as well as two 

other ancestral drainages—the Rio San Juan from the 

west and the Rio Puerco from the northwest. These 

rivers were broad, braided systems, quite different from 

the narrow, meandering rivers of today (Bauer et al. 

2003).

The ancestral river sediments, together with debris 

shed from the surrounding uplands, constitute the 

upper Santa Fe Group. The oldest rocks within the 

monument, the Ceja Formation (Tcrg), represent the last 

sediments to have been deposited as part of the Santa 

Fe Group (table 1). Shroba et al. (2003)—the source 

map for GRI GIS data that covers the southwestern 

corner of the monument—mapped these rocks as the 

Pliocene and upper Miocene (fig. 4) Upper Santa Fe 

Group, undivided (Ts). Mapping by Connell (2006)—

the source map for GRI GIS data that covers the 

entire monument—divided the Santa Fe Group into 

formations, including the Ceja Formation, which is the 

youngest “member” of the group. According to Connell 

(2006), the formation was deposited during the Pliocene 

Epoch (5.3 million–2.6 million years ago) and possibly 

into the “lowest Pleistocene” Epoch (?). Uncertainty is 

indicated by a “?” in the GRI GIS data and in the text of 

this report. Based on the fossils it contains, deposition 

of the Ceja Formation in the vicinity of the monument 

ended sometime between 3.6 million and 2.2 million 

years ago (Morgan and Lucas 2003; Connell 2006).

The Llano de Albuquerque—the surface upon which 

the monument’s volcanic activity took place—is 

associated with the Santa Fe Group. It marks the top 

of the Ceja Formation and the maximum level of basin 

filling by the Santa Fe Group. Modern alluvium and 

terrace deposits are not included in Santa Fe Group 

(Spiegel and Baldwin 1963). The Llano de Albuquerque 

is between 2.5 million and 700,000 years old (Connell 

and Smith 2005; Shari Kelley, New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, geophysicist/field 

geologist, written communication, 31 August 2017) and 

represents a period of landscape stability. The surface 

is about 110–215 m (360–705 ft) above the modern 

Rio Grande floodplain. It serves as a drainage divide, 

separating the Rio Grande on the east and the Rio 

Puerco on the west.

Rio Grande

The ancestral Rio Grande developed into the modern 

Rio Grande as the Albuquerque basin’s drainage pattern 

changed from internal to through-flowing, causing the 

accumulation of basin-fill sediments (Santa Fe Group) 

to dramatically decrease and then cease. The first major 

incision of the Rio Grande valley, which began about 

1.2 million to 700,000 years ago (Kelley 2010), marks the 

end of Santa Fe Group deposition (Lozinsky 1989).

Incision by the Rio Grande and downcutting through 

the fill was not a continuous process. As the river 

episodically dissected older fill, it left a distinct record 

of landforms that represents valley incision; these 

landforms are called “terraces.” Terraces represent 

former floodplains left “high and dry” as the river cut 

downward. Four terrace levels occur along the Rio 

Grande in the Albuquerque area. The western edge of 

the Rio Grande terraces runs along the eastern edge of 

the monument; this feature was mapped as a “geologic 

line feature” in the GRI GIS data (see poster, in pocket). 

Deposits of three of these four terrace levels are within 

the monument (table 1). Connell (2006) applied the 

following terminology to these deposits:

Lomatas Negras Formation (Qrl), oldest and highest 

terrace. Developed during the Middle Pleistocene 

Epoch (781,000–126,000 years ago). Volcanic ash 

from the Yellowstone caldera allowed the Lomatas 

Negras Formation to be dated to younger than 640,000 

years old (Connell et al. 2007). The Lomatas Negras 

Formation is geochemically indistinguishable from the 

Lava Creek B ash of Yellowstone. This ash places the 

youngest age limit on the initiation of incision of the Rio 

Grande valley in the Albuquerque area.

Los Duranes Formation (Qrd), middle terrace. 

Developed during the Middle Pleistocene Epoch 

(781,000–126,000 years ago).

Las Padillas Formation, youngest and lowest terrace. 

Specifically, the intermediate channel and floodplain 

deposits (Qrpm) of the Las Padillas Formation are in 

the monument. The Las Padillas Formation underlies 

the modern Rio Grande valley and floodplain. The 

base of the Los Padillas Formation was probably cut 

during the last glacial maximum, which is constrained 

at approximately 22,000–15,000 years ago in the 
11

neighboring Estañcia basin, just east of the Manzano 

Mountains (Allen and Anderson 2000; see GRI report 

about Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument by 

KellerLynn in preparation).

Following terrace-forming episodes, tributaries to 

the main river deposited stream-valley alluvium (e.g., 

Qoa, Qam, and Qay) along the margin of each extant 

floodplain. Modern stream-valley alluvium (Qa) 

represents present-day aggradation in tributaries (table 

1).

Albuquerque Volcanic Field

Another consequence of rifting is volcanism. During 

extension, Earth’s crust becomes thinner, allowing 

higher heat flow from the mantle, which induces 

melting and the formation of magma. The weakened, 

fractured rocks associated with rift-related faults act as 

pathways for magma ascent, allowing the molten rock to 

reach the surface where it erupts as lava.

In New Mexico, crustal extension produced many 

volcanic fields in the Rio Grande rift, including the 

Albuquerque volcanic field in the Albuquerque basin, 

as well as the Taos Plateau, Jemez, Cerros del Rio, 

Santa Ana (San Felipe), Jornada del Muerto, Carrizozo, 

Elephant Butte, Hillsboro, Potrillo, and Palomas 

volcanic fields (fig. 3). Some geologists consider 

the Cerros del Rio and Santa Ana volcanic fields a 

peripheral part of the Jemez volcanic field (Baldridge 

2004; see also the GRI report about Bandelier National 

Monument by KellerLynn 2015a). As evidenced by lava 

flows episodically interbedded with the Santa Fe Group 

strata, volcanism took place throughout much of the 

history of the Rio Grande rift.

Figure 8. Photograph of Vulcan, Bond, and Butte Volcanoes. The Volcanoes area of the monument offers both 

panoramic and close-up views of distinctive geologic features. A lava pond with columnar jointing (see fig. 12) lies 

inside the crater of Vulcan Volcano (middle ground in the photograph). A trail loops through and around the volcano’s 

rim. Bond and Butte Volcanoes are off in the distance to the north. NPS photograph by Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph 

National Monument).
12

The chain of volcanoes in the monument is part of the 

Albuquerque volcanic field, which is also referred to 

as the “Albuquerque volcanoes” or “The Volcanoes.” 

The volcanic field covers an area of 62 km2 (24 mi2). 

The lava erupted from a linear fissure that parallels 

the orientation (approximately N 2° E) of the general 

western margin of the Albuquerque basin of the Rio 

Grande rift. The “fissure line” of the Albuquerque 

volcanoes is very near the center of the Rio Grande 

rift. Measured from the farthest north vent (outside the 

monument) to the farthest south vent, as mapped by 

Connell (2006), the fissure is approximately 6.5 km (4 

mi) long and, in the monument, is marked by the five 

named volcanoes, from north to south, Butte, Bond (fig. 

8) , Vulcan (also known as J), Black, and JA (fig. 9).

Mapping outlined the basic stratigraphic relationships 

of the volcanic field: the oldest flows are the most 

widespread and formed the eastern margin of the field. 

Subsequent flows spread both east and west of the main 

fissure, but became progressively more restricted. The 

final erupted material was localized around central 

vents (fig. 10). Connell (2006) mapped 17 vents in total; 

16 of these lie along the north–east-oriented fissure 

zone; one lies 1,030 m (3,380 ft) to the east (see poster, 

in pocket). As magma cooled and solidified along the 

fissure, only a few points continued to erupt. Small 

cones of cinders, ash, and spatter built up around these 

centralized points of eruption.

Based on surface morphology and stratigraphic 

position, Connell (2006) divided the Albuquerque 

volcanic field into five flows (Qb1–Qb5) and five vent 

deposits (Qbv) (see poster, in pocket). Shroba et al. 

(2003) provided a slightly different mapping scheme and 

interpretation of lava flows and vents at the monument 

(table 2; see also GRI GIS data set mnse_geology.mxd).

The Albuquerque volcanic field was active about 

156,000 years ago, based on a whole-rock, uranium/

thorium (238U/230Th), isotopic dating (Peate et al. 1996). 

Connell (2006) reported this age by Peate et al. (1996), 

so that is the age used in this report. A range of ages—

between 211,000 and 155,000 years ago—commonly 

have been reported, however (see Kelley 2010). In 

2016, the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources conducted high-precision, argon/argon 

(40Ar/39Ar) isotopic dating of lava-flow samples that 

yielded ages of 195,000 ± 15,000 and 131,000 ± 11,000 

years old (Chan et al. 2016). Additional work to further 

refine the timing of volcanism in the monument is in 

progress (Matt Zimmerer, New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, field geologist, written 

communication, 29 August 2017). The monument has 

served as a site for testing various methods useful in 

dating young lava flows (National Park Service 2006), 

including 238U/230Th, potassium/argon (40K/40Ar), and 

now 40Ar/39Ar.

For comparison, the youngest lava flow in New 

Mexico is the McCartys flow in El Malpais National 

Monument (see GRI report by KellerLynn 2012a). 

Based on cosmogenic chlorine-36 (36Cl) dating, the 

McCartys flow is 3,900 years old (Dunbar and Phillips 

(2004). Capulin Volcano erupted 55,000 ± 2,000 years 

ago and was precisely dated using the 40Ar/39Ar method 

(Zimmerer et al. 2014; see GRI report by KellerLynn 

2015b).

Figure 9 (facing page). Panoramic photograph of spatter cones. The three southernmost volcanoes in the monument 

are known as the “Sisters,” shown from left to right: Vulcan Volcano (1,839 m [6,033 ft] above sea level), Black Volcano 

(2,434 m [7,986 ft] above sea level), and JA Volcano (1,812 m [5,944 ft] above sea level). These volcanoes rise between 

150 m (500 ft) and 180 m (600 ft) above the surrounding mesa top. Their formation along an eruptive fissure parallels 

the north–south-oriented faults in the area. The Sisters make up Albuquerque’s distinctive western skyline. Photograph 

by Matt Zimmerer (New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources).

Connell (2006) Shroba et al. (2003)

Qbv (vents)

Qby2c (cinder deposits on lava flow 

unit 2), Qby5c (cinder deposits on 

lava flow unit 5)

Qb5 (flow 5) Qby5 (lava flow unit 5)

Qb4 (flow 4) Qby4 (lava flow unit 4)

Qb3 (flow 3) Qby2 (lava flow unit 2),

Qby3 (lava flow unit 3)

Qb2 (flow 2) Qby1 (lava flow unit 1),

Qbo (old lava flows)

Qb1 (flow 1) Qbo (old lava flows)

Table 2. Comparison of volcanic map units in the GRI GIS 

data.

Note: Both Connell (2006) and Shroba et al. (2003) mapped 

these units as Middle Pleistocene in age.
13

Figure 10. Graphic of the sequence of lava flows and eruptions at the monument and vicinity. Connell (2006) mapped 

six eruptive phases in the Albuquerque volcanic field. The earliest eruptions (Qb1 and Qb2) were low viscosity and 

spread to the east from a fissure, which is marked by a vertical line of vents (*) on the figure. Subsequent flows 

covered earlier flows; lava would have covered the landscape between the vents (line of yellow asterisks) and the 

edges of flows. During the third eruptive phase (Qb3), lava spread from the fissure to both the east and the west. 

Later eruptions (Qb4 and Qb5) were thicker and less expansive and became more and more restricted to central vents; 

they culminated with the formation of cones (Qbv). Graphic by Michael Barthelmes (NPS Geologic Resources Division) 

using GRI GIS data (petr_geology.mxd) compiled from the source map by Connell (2006).
14

Dating of the lava flows in the Albuquerque volcanic 

field by any one study (e.g., Bachman and Mehnert 

1978; Champion et al. 1988; Geissman et al. 1990; 

Peate et al. 1996; Singer et al. 2008) and examination 

of physical features (e.g., overlapping deposits from 

various vents) indicate that all of the vents were active 

simultaneously. Furthermore, all of the flows were 

erupted within a relatively short period of time—on the 

scale of months to a few years—as evidenced by the lack 

of paleosols (buried soil layers) or windblown deposits 

between consecutive flows.

Volcanic Features and Terminology

Connell (2006) identified the rock that makes up the 

Albuquerque volcanic field as basaltic lava, specifically 

vesicular olivine tholeiite (fig. 11). Almost all the 

volcanic features in the monument are composed of 

this rock. The abundant vesicles in the rock are the 

remnants of volcanic gases (mostly carbon dioxide and 

water vapor) that are inherent in magma and ultimately 

cause eruptions. Tholeiite is one of two principal types 

of basaltic lava in the US Southwest; the other is alkali 

basalt. These basaltic lavas are defined on the basis of 

the relative abundance of sodium and potassium. The 

Albuquerque volcanoes are made of tholeiite, which is 

low in sodium and especially low in potassium.

White caliche (a layer of cemented calcium carbonate) 

and green, yellow, or orange lichen (a composite 

organism made up of a fungus and alga) create crusts 

on the surfaces of the basaltic boulders. A black, 

metallic-looking patina called “desert varnish” coats the 

boulders (see “Petroglyphs”).

Because small-scale volcanic features are generally 

of interest to visitors, and an understanding of 

them is useful for interpretation as well as resource 

management, descriptions of these features are 

commonly included in GRI reports. Connell (2006), 

however, only provided basic information about 

the age, composition, and dimensions of the lava 

flows in the monument. Thereby, the following list 

of features was compiled using terms mentioned 

Figure 11 (left). Photographs of basalt. The upper 

photograph is a hand sample collected from the 

monument for research purposes by the New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. It is 

approximately 10 cm (4 in) wide. The lower photograph 

shows native rock near Vulcan Volcano. The volcanic 

rock in the monument is basaltic lava, specifically 

vesicular olivine tholeiite. “Vesicular” describes the 

texture of the rock, which is characterized by abundant 

vesicles (cavities) formed by the expansion of gases 

during the solidification of the rock. “Olivine,” which 

is commonly olive-green, is a silicate (silicon + oxygen) 

mineral of magnesium and iron, (Mg,Fe)2

SiO4; it is 

an essential mineral in igneous rocks such as basalt. 

“Tholeiite” is a type of basalt whose classification is 

based on the amount of sodium (Na) and its oxidation 

state (which is reduced). New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources photograph courtesy 

of Matt Zimmerer. NPS photograph by Chanteil Walter 

(Petroglyph National Monument).
15

by Crumpler (1999), Bauer et al. (2003), Shroba 

et al. (2003), and Kelley (2010) as occurring in the 

Albuquerque volcanic field. No compiled database 

or map of these small-scale features within the 

monument is known, however (see “Volcanic Resource 

Inventory, Assessment, and Protection”). Where 

available, descriptions of the following features were 

adapted from the aforementioned publications, but 

in many cases, no description was provided and the 

following descriptions were written using the USGS 

Volcano Hazard Program’s online glossary (https://

volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/glossary/) and GRI reports for 

other volcanic parks, including El Malpais National 

Monument (KellerLynn 2012a), Capulin Volcano 

National Monument (KellerLynn 2015b), and Craters 

of the Moon National Monument (KellerLynn in 

review).

● A‘a is a Hawaiian word used to describe the 

physical appearance of the surface of a basaltic 

lava flow that is rough, jagged, or clinker-like (see 

“pahoehoe” below).

● Agglutinate is a welded pyroclastic deposit. The 

term is commonly used for deposits of bombs fused 

while hot and viscous. Agglutinate typically occurs 

in spatter cones (see associated definitions).

● Agglomerate consists of consolidated pyroclastic 

rock made primarily of bombs. 

● Ash consists of fine fragments (less than 2–4 mm 

[0.08–0.16 in] in diameter) of volcanic rock formed 

by a volcanic explosion or ejection from a volcanic 

vent.

● Bombs form when globs of molten rock are ejected 

into the air and shaped while in flight.

● Break-outs occur where continued feeding of 

channeled lava forces new lobes to develop and 

flow laterally around the preceding flow fronts.

● Channels, also called “gutters,” are open-topped 

conduits for flowing lava. A channel is commonly 

lined by lava levees, which serve as a retaining wall 

of hardened lava along the sides. Accumulation of 

layers in the upper walls of the channel may evolve 

into a closed lava tube as an eruption progresses 

and the walls build up and solidify into a roof.

● Cinders are volcanic fragments, commonly glassy 

and containing vesicles (cavities formed by volcanic 

gases), ranging in size from 4 to 32 mm (0.16 to 

1.3 in) in diameter that fall to the ground as solid 

material. Young lava flow unit 5 (Qby5) of Shroba et 

al. (2003) has cinders associated with fire fountain 

eruptions from Vulcan (J) and Black Volcanoes.

● Kipukas are areas of older rock surrounded by 

younger lava flows. The term “kipuka” is Hawaiian 

meaning “opening.” These features also are 

referred to as “geologic windows,” and indeed, 

the Northern Geologic Window and Southern 

Geologic Window areas in the monument were 

mapped as older rock (i.e., Ceja Formation [Tcrg]) 

surrounded by younger lava flows (i.e., Qb2 and 

Qb3) (see poster, in pocket). In reality, the Ceja 

Formation is poorly exposed in the windows, but 

pebbles and cobbles of granite, quartzite, and chert 

are evidence of its occurrence.

● Lapilli are pyroclastic materials ranging between 2 

and 64 mm (0.08 and 2.5 in) in diameter with no 

characteristic shape. They may be either solidified 

or viscous upon landing.

● Lava flows are masses of molten rock that pour 

onto Earth’s surface during an effusive eruption. 

Both moving lava and the resulting solidified 

deposit are referred to as “lava flows.” Flows at the 

monument are relatively thin, ranging in thickness 

between 1 and 7 m (3 and 23 ft) (Shroba et al. 2003). 

Total thickness of flows is generally less than 15 m 

(50 ft) (Connell 2006).

● Lava ponds are ponded areas of lava with little 

surface relief. They form where basaltic magma 

wells up in a pit or crater, and may also form on 

pahoehoe surfaces when flows are ponded by 

an obstacle. A solidified lava pond that consists 

of massive gray basalt with weakly developed 

columnar jointing (parallel, prismatic columns, 

polygonal in cross section, that form as a result of 

contraction during cooling) occupies the crater of 

Vulcan Volcano (fig. 12).

● Lava tubes are the principal means by which 

pahoehoe lava spreads widely and thinly during 

an eruption. Lava tubes form by the crusting 

over of lava channels (fig. 13). The lava tubes in 

the monument are relatively small in diameter, 

between about 20–50 cm (8–20 in) across, and 

discontinuous.

● Pahoehoe is a Hawaiian word used to describe the 

physical appearance of the surface of a basaltic lava 

flow that is smooth, ropy, or billowy (fig. 14). Young 

lava flow units 1 (Qby1) and 2 (Qby2) of Shroba et 

al. (2003) are characterized by transitional surface 

forms from pahoehoe to a‘a.
16

Figure 12. Photograph of columnar jointing. The 

relatively smooth surface of a lava pond occurs in the 

crater of Vulcan Volcano in the monument. As the lava 

cooled, columnar joints formed in the ponded lava. NPS 

photograph by Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National 

Monument).

Figure 13. Graphic of lava-tube formation. The graphic shows the progression of lava-tube formation. In step 4, a crust 

may develop along the edges of a channel and merge like a zipper in the center, or separate crustal plates may form, 

tear loose, and drift along until they fuse to one another and the channel sides. In a turbulent lava flow, splashing and 

overflow along the channel create levees that may arch over the channel and join. A crust may thicken via repeated 

overflows onto its surface and/or accretion of cooled lava on its underside. Lava also can erode downward, deepening 

the tube and leaving empty space above the flowing lava. Graphic by Trista Thornberry-Ehrlich (Colorado State 

University) after USGS graphic by Bruce Rogers.

Figure 14. Photograph of pahoehoe. Pahoehoe is a 

type of lava commonly found in effusive, basaltic lava 

flows. The Hawaiian term, “pahoehoe,” describes the 

ropy appearance of the lava. As shown here, the lava 

flows around Vulcan Volcano contain pahoehoe. NPS 

photograph by Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National 

Monument).
17

● Push-ups. Shroba et al. (2003) identified pushups as occurring in young lava flow unit 3 (Qby3) 

and unit 5 (Qby5). The term “push-up” is atypical 

in reference to volcanic features, however, and 

is listed in neither the USGS Volcano Hazard 

Program’s online glossary nor the Glossary of 

Geology (Neuendorf et al. 2005). Whether Shroba 

et al. (2003) were referring to lava that pushed up 

an overlying, solidified crust (see “tumuli” below) 

or features referred to as “squeeze-ups” (lava that 

squeezes out onto the solidified surface of a lava 

flow) is unknown.

● Pyroclast is a general term applied to volcanic 

products that resulted from explosive ejection 

and fragmentation of erupting material. The term 

literally means “fire broken.”

● Rafted is a term typically used to describe pieces 

of a crater wall that were carried off like icebergs 

by a lava flow. Shroba et al. (2003) noted “rafted 

pyroclastic deposits” in young lava flow unit 3 

(Qby3) but did not describe the “pre-rafted” 

location.

● Ramps. Shroba et al. (2003) identified “ramp 

structures” as occurring on young lava flow unit 

5 (Qby5). Presumably, these are inclined surfaces 

on a lava flow, but the use of the term is atypical 

in reference to volcanic features, and whether the 

structures were built upward by the accumulation 

of pyroclastic material or the pushing upward by a 

lava flow or underlying lava below a solidified crust 

is unknown. The aprons of lava at the bases of the 

cones may also be referred to as “ramps.”

● Scoria is vesicular volcanic ejecta, essentially magma 

that has been frothed up by escaping gases. Young 

lava flow unit 5 (Qby5) of Shroba et al. (2003) 

has scoria associated with fire fountain eruptions 

(fountains of glowing lava and ash that may have 

reached heights of 9 m [30 ft] or more) from Vulcan 

(J) and Black Volcanoes.

● Spatter consists of fluid globs of lava welded 

together. Spatter (and cinders) on the cones in the 

monument are among the last volcanic material to 

have erupted from the fissure.

● Spatter cones. The volcanoes in the monument are 

small spatter cones, measuring between 30 and 150 

m (100 and 490 ft) at the base and 6 to 50 m (20 to 

160 ft) high. At 1,838 m (6,030 ft) above sea level, 

Vulcan Volcano is the largest. It formed primarily 

by fire fountains that were active in a centralized 

vent and in smaller vents on the flanks of the cone. 

Spatter accumulated around the vent and welded 

together. The spatter material is thickest on the 

southeastern side of Vulcan Volcano, indicating that 

it was blown by the wind toward the south and east 

during the fountaining eruption. Young lava flow 

unit 5 (Qby5) of Shroba et al. (2003) has spatter 

associated with fire fountain eruptions from Vulcan 

(J) and Black Volcanoes.

● Tumuli are created when the upward pressure of 

slow-moving, still-molten lava within a flow swells 

or pushes the overlying solidified crust upward.

West Mesa

The monument is located in an area locally known 

as West Mesa, which stretches across Albuquerque’s 

western landscape (fig. 1). The West Mesa landscape 

is extremely significant to a diverse assemblage of 

ethnographic communities that maintain association 

with the monument and West Mesa. The location of 

the mesa allowed people to observe the entire region 

from one point, and it is connected in many stories 

with the much higher Sandia Mountains to the east. 

The ethnographic landscape report by Anschuetz et 

al. (2002) identified many ties between the living, the 

physical, and the spiritual world of West Mesa.

The mesa consists of basaltic lava resting on the basinfilling sediments of the Santa Fe Group, namely the 

Ceja Formation (Tcrg). The first two lava flows (Qb1 and 

Qb2) that erupted in the Albuquerque volcanic field 

traveled the farthest east and are exposed along the 

eastern margin of the mesa (fig. 10).

In the time since the eruption of the volcanic field, the 

erosive power of the wind and water, including lateral 

erosion by the Rio Grande, abraded and carried away 

the softer underlying sedimentary rocks of the Santa Fe 

Group. With the loss of underlying support, the basalt 

cap rock broke and collapsed at the edge of the mesa, 

creating today’s West Mesa escarpment. The cliffs that 

make up the escarpment range in height from about 9 

m (30 ft) at the northern end to about 90 m (300 ft) at 

the southern end. Connell (2006) mapped the material 

that has accumulated on the slope and at the base of 

the escarpment as colluvium and alluvium, undivided 

(Qca). Mapping the material as both colluvium and 

alluvium is indicative of the gravity-driven (colluvium) 

and stream-deposited (alluvium) processes responsible 

for its formation.
18

Widespread layers of eolian sand and silt, too thin to 

be mapped, cover the mesa. At the southern end of the 

monument and southward, Connell (2006) mapped 

active and inactive sand sheets and discontinuous 

dunes. These features were mapped as modern 

windblown sand (Qe).

Petroglyphs

Colluvium and alluvium, undivided (Qca), occur 

along the entire length of the escarpment (see poster, 

in pocket). This is the place where American Indians 

and settlers of Spanish, Mexican, and American 

Indian descent chose to carve petroglyphs. The 

petroglyphs lend cultural significance to geologic 

features such as colluvial boulders, lava flows, and the 

escarpment. Many of the petroglyphs clearly illustrate 

the connection of the people who created them to the 

monument’s landscape and its underlying geologic 

foundation (see Anschuetz et al. 2002).

Most of the petroglyphs are on large basaltic boulders, 

for example, along trails in Rinconada Canyon south of 

the visitor center and Boca Negra Canyon north of the 

visitor center (fig. 15), as well as in Piedras Marcadas 

Canyon. The boulders are coated with desert varnish, 

also called “rock varnish.” This very dark-brown to 

black stain occurs on rock surfaces in arid regions 

throughout the world. It commonly forms “water 

stripes” on steep rock faces where storm runoff flows 

down the face of a cliff (fig. 16). It is also noted on 

gravel surfaces called “desert pavement” or blackened 

boulders lying on sloped surfaces such as alluvial fans.

Desert varnish is a natural rock coating composed of 

clays, organic compounds, and manganese and iron 

oxides. About 70% of the total mass of a desert varnish 

deposit is composed of clay minerals. Notably, this 

clay component is an eolian deposit, not an alteration 

product of the surface of the stained rock. Many 

researchers have proposed that microbial activity is 

critical to the formation of desert varnish; others have 

invoked an inorganic origin, in particular, silica coatings 

composed of opal. Despite the extensive literature 

related to desert varnish, many uncertainties and 

controversies regarding its composition and formation 

remain (Dickerson 2011). The GRI report about 

Petrified Forest National Park discusses desert varnish 

in depth (see KellerLynn 2010).

The petroglyphs within the monument were created 

by pecking into or chipping away at desert varnish to 

expose the lighter colored rock beneath. The final rock 

carvings display a stunning gray-on-black contrast. 

With the ongoing growth of desert varnish, many older 

petroglyphs have begun to darken over the centuries 

(National Park Service 2012).

Figure 15. Photograph of the trail in Boca Negra Canyon. 

The most heavily visited and easily accessible petroglyphs in 

the monument are found in Boca Negra Canyon. The Boca 

Negra unit of the monument was originally established 

in 1973 as Indian Petroglyph State Park. Paved trails in 

Boca Negra Canyon provide opportunities for viewing 

petroglyphs, along with wayside signs that interpret 

images and their context. Photograph by user khlnmusa 

available at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boca_

Negra_Canyon_in_the_Petroglyp_National_Monument.jpg

(Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 [CC BY-SA 

3.0] Unported License).

Figure 16. Photograph of desert varnish. Streaks of 

desert varnish coat a sandstone cliff face in Capitol 

Reef National Park, south central Utah (see GRE report 

by Graham 2006a). Photograph by Katie KellerLynn 

(Colorado State University).
19

Geologic Resource Management Issues

Some geologic features, processes, or human activities may require management for human safety, 

protection of infrastructure, and preservation of natural and cultural resources. The NPS Geologic 

Resources Division provides technical and policy assistance for these issues.

During the 2006 scoping meeting and 2017 conference 

call, participants (see Appendix A) identified geologic 

resource management issues, which are summarized in 

table 3. The issues are ordered based on management 

priority. A discussion of potential resource management 

actions for each issue follows table 3.

The Geologic Resources Division can provide technical 

and policy support for each of these issues (see http://

go.nps.gov/geology). GRD programs and staff focus on 

three areas of emphasis: (1) geologic heritage, including 

cave and paleontological resources; (2) active processes 

and hazards, including erosion; and (3) energy and 

minerals management, including abandoned mineral 

lands (AML). Monument managers are encouraged to 

contact the NPS Geologic Resources Division

(https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1088/contactus.htm). 

Monument staff can formally request assistance via 

https://irma.nps.gov/Star/.

In addition, the NPS Geologic Resources Division 

administers the Geoscientists-In-the-Parks (GIP) 

and Mosaics in Science programs. These internship 

programs place scientists (typically undergraduate 

students) in parks to complete geoscience-related 

projects. Some potential projects are highlighted in the 

following discussion of issues. More information is 

available at the programs’ websites (http://go.nps.gov/

gip and http://go.nps.gov/mosaics).

Resource managers may find Geological Monitoring

(Young and Norby 2009; http://go.nps.gov/

geomonitoring) useful for addressing geologic resource 

management issues. The manual provides guidance for 

monitoring vital signs (measurable parameters of the 

overall condition of natural resources). Each chapter 

of Geological Monitoring covers a different geologic 

resource and includes detailed recommendations for 

resource managers, suggested methods of monitoring, 

and case studies. Where applicable, those chapters are 

highlighted in the following discussion.

Issue Summary Potential Needs Associated Map Unit/

Geologic Feature

Erosion

Erosion is caused chiefly by storm-water 

runoff but is exacerbated by adjacent 

development and past disturbances (e.g., 

roads and social trails; see “Disturbed 

Lands”). 

Inventory and monitor previously 

established gully observation 

sites (see “Monitoring Erosion”) 

in order to assess whether 

changes in management 

practices are needed to preserve 

petroglyphs or maintain natural 

rates of erosion. Prepare for 

land exchange with the City of 

Albuquerque.

Quaternary alluvium, colluvium, 

and eolian sand (Qa, Qrpm, 

Qay, Qam, Qrd, Qca, Qe) of 

Connell (2006)

Sheetwash deposits (Qsw) of 

Shroba et al. (2003)

Surficial deposits atop lava flows 

(too thin to have been mapped)

Disturbed Lands

Disturbed lands at the monument include 

old roads (some of which are currently used 

as “administrative roads” by NPS staff and 

some of which will be part of a future, 

established trail network), two abandoned 

motor-cross tracks, and an estimated 240 

km (150 mi) of social trails. 

Assessment of these 

disturbances in order to 

determine which require 

restoration and which can be 

used as part of a designated trail 

system.

Quaternary alluvium, colluvium, 

and eolian sand (Qa, Qrpm, 

Qay, Qam, Qrd, Qca, Qe) of 

Connell (2006)

Sheetwash deposits (Qsw) of 

Shroba et al. (2003)

Surficial deposits atop lava flows 

(too thin to have been mapped)

Table 3. Geologic resource management issues at Petroglyph National Monument. Table continues on next page.
20

Issue Summary Potential Needs Associated Map Unit/

Geologic Feature

Wind Erosion, 

Transport, and 

Deposition

Windblown dust is accumulating on the 

ground surface along the West Mesa, 

changing the color of the landscape 

from black to tan. Where dust buildup is 

substantial, it has the potential to obscure 

petroglyphs. The wind is also causing mass 

accumulations of tumbleweeds, which 

are likely covering petroglyphs as they can 

get very deep within the canyons of the 

escarpment. 

Identifying sources of dust. 

Potential mitigation includes 

techniques associated with oil 

and gas operations.

Eolian sand (Qe)

Sheetwash deposits (Qsw) 

Colluvium and alluvium, 

undivided (Qca)

Rockfall

Unstable tumbling boulders along the West 

Mesa escarpment and rockfall off the mesa 

have the potential to destroy petroglyphs 

or create safety hazards for visitors. 

Inventory and monitor rockfall 

areas. Minimize visitor use 

infrastructure in rockfall areas 

as part of the visitor use 

management plan.

Colluvium and alluvium, 

undivided (Qca)

Volcanic 

Resource 

Inventory, 

Assessment, 

and Protection

Geologic mapping has not occurred at 

a scale that identifies individual volcanic 

features, which are at risk from human 

activities (e.g., trampling, vandalism, and 

theft). 

Field-based inventory of 

individual features, including 

GPS locations and photographs, 

and a condition assessment of 

individual features.

Albuquerque volcanoes, vents 

(Qbv)

Albuquerque volcanoes, flows 

1–5 (Qb1–Qb5)

Earthquakes

Twenty-seven Quaternary-age faults have 

been identified within 20 km (12 mi) of 

downtown Albuquerque (Personius et al. 

1999). The faults are associated with the 

Rio Grande rift and are responsible for 10 

earthquakes of MMI (Modified Mercalli 

Intensity) V (“moderate” shaking) or 

greater since 1849. Earthquakes capable of 

MMI VIII (“severe” shaking) have occurred 

in the past tens of thousands of years. 

Segments of 11 faults cross the monument. 

Earthquake hazard assessment, 

including areas with the 

potential for earthquakeinduced rockfall, and a response 

plan.

Faults (see poster, in pocket; and 

GRI GIS data)

Abandoned 

Mineral Lands

The NPS AML database and Burghardt et 

al. (2014) identified three AML features at 

three sites within the monument. Two of 

these sites have been reclaimed. 

Reclamation of remaining site.

Albuquerque volcanoes, vents 

(Qbv)

Albuquerque volcanoes, flow 5 

(Qb5)

Cave Resource 

Management

Caves formed in welded spatter at the 

monument. Commonly lava tubes are 

cave resources, but the lava tubes in 

the monument are too small to enter. 

Lava tubes may contain archeological 

and paleontological resources in need of 

protection, however. 

Cave management plan that 

addresses visitor use and the 

potential for vandalism, as well 

as the location of trails and 

roads with respect lava tubes for 

the purpose of visitor safety (i.e., 

lava-tube collapse) and resource 

protection.

Albuquerque volcanoes, vents 

(Qbv)

Albuquerque volcanoes, flows 

1–5 (Qb1–Qb5)

Paleontological 

Resource 

Inventory, 

Monitoring, 

and Protection

In situ fossils are not common in the 

rocks at the monument. “Reworked” 

petrified wood has been found in the 

Ceja Formation. The monument’s museum 

collections contain fossil specimens. 

Elsewhere in central New Mexico, 

Quaternary deposits have yielded fossils 

(e.g., “Ice Age” mammals), and lava tubes 

may contain packrat middens. 

Field-based paleontological 

survey to identify in situ 

paleontological resources and 

document fossils in the museum 

collection.

Ceja Formation, upper sand and 

gravel member (Tcrg)

Potential for fossil discovery 

in Quaternary alluvium, 

terrace deposits, and eolian 

sand (Qrpm, Qay, Qe, Qca, 

Qam, Qrd, Qao, and Qrl) 

Potential for fossil discovery and 

packrat middens in lava tubes 

(Qb1–Qb5)

Volcano 

Hazards

The vents at the monument are unlikely 

to erupt again, but a future eruption 

within the Rio Grande rift, including the 

Albuquerque basin, is likely. 

Volcanic hazard assessment and 

response plan.

Albuquerque volcanoes, vents 

(Qbv)

Albuquerque volcanoes, flows 

1–5 (Qb1–Qb5)

Table 3, continued. Geologic resource management issues at Petroglyph National Monument.
21

Erosion

Erosion is a major resource management challenge 

at the monument. It has the potential to impact the 

monument’s petroglyphs and landscape, including 

volcanic features (see “Inventory of Volcanic Features”). 

Storm-water runoff is the primary agent of erosion, 

but wind erosion, transport, and deposition of dust 

is another management concern with respect to the 

preservation of petroglyphs (see “Wind Erosion, 

Transport, and Deposition”).

Map Units Indicative of Erosion

Showing areas of erosion was not the purpose of 

mapping by Connell (2006; scale 1:50,000) and Shroba 

et al. (2003; scale 1:24,000). However, certain map 

units such as modern stream-valley alluvium (Qa) 

and eolian sand (Qe) are indicative of and have the 

potential for erosion. Also, sheetwash deposits (Qsw) 

(sand and silt chiefly deposited by non-channelized 

surface-water flow, referred to as “sheet flow”) are 

indicative of erosion. Shroba et al. (2003) mapped 

sheetwash deposits in the southwestern part of the 

monument. Sheet flow can grade into channelized flow 

as water flow becomes progressively more concentrated 

in particular downslope routes. Low-lying areas of 

sheetwash deposits (Qsw) are susceptible to sheet 

and stream flooding and to gullying. Disturbed areas 

of Qsw probably are susceptible to wind erosion and 

deposition.

Gullying

High-intensity storms and the development of gullies 

during summer 1991 prompted the first study of gully 

formation within the monument (Gellis 1995, 1996). 

Findings of that study indicated that gullying took place 

during moderate storms having a recurrence interval 

of two years or less. Thus, unusually high intensity 

rainfall or high runoff events are not required for 

gullying to take place. In addition, the study found that 

disturbed lands such as roads and trails appeared to be 

a significant factor in gullying. Most of the 50 gullies 

identified by Gellis (1995) were along the northern part 

of the West Mesa escarpment. At the time of that study, 

the northern part of the mesa was more developed 

than the southern part and contained many dirt roads 

and unpaved foot and bicycle paths. Thirty of the 50 

identified gullies were connected to runoff from dirt 

roads. In short, human-created dirt roads and paths 

channeled surface runoff and increased erosion (fig. 

17).

Figure 17. Photograph of gullying. Because of its 

erodible soils and scant vegetative cover, the monument 

is sensitive to natural and human activities that may 

accelerate erosion. Disturbances such as roads and social 

trails, which channel surface-water flow, exacerbate 

gullying. This figure shows photographs of a road 

near Badger Pass in the monument. NPS photographs 

courtesy of Chanteil Walter (Petroglyph National 

Monument).
22

Another interesting finding by Gellis (1995) was that the 

erosion caused by the gullies may not be a direct threat 

to the petroglyphs. Most of the petroglyphs occur 

on basaltic outcroppings or loose boulders, whereas 

most of the gullies are in areas of loamy-sandy soils. 

Gellis (1995) did not correlate petroglyphs sites with 

gullies, but suggested that this would be a worthwhile 

project because a gully could undercut the soil below a 

boulder and cause it to roll and damage petroglyphs. A 

GIP or Mosaics in Science intern could conduct such 

a project. Additionally, increases in surface runoff over 

petroglyphs could increase erosion on the boulder 

surface and deteriorate the petroglyphs. Gellis (1995), 

however, did not test or determine the relationship 

between surface runoff and boulder erosion. This is 

another potential study by a GIP or Mosaics in Science 

intern. Methods by Bass Rivera and Meyer (2006, 2009) 

in studies of cavate deterioration in the Bandelier Tuff at 

Bandelier National Monument may be applicable (see 

GRI report about Bandelier National Monument by 

KellerLynn 2015a).

Arroyos

The monument is cut by five primary arroyo systems, 

from north to south: (1) Piedras Marcadas, (2) Boca 

Negra, (3) San Antonio, (4) Rinconada, and (5) Ladera 

(see poster, in pocket). The arroyos in the monument 

span a total of 34.6 km (21.5 mi) (National Park 

Service 2017c). These arroyos drain eastward from the 

Albuquerque volcanic field to the Rio Grande, carrying 

ephemeral surface-water flow across the top of West 

Mesa and down the escarpment.

Arroyos tend to respond quickly to precipitation 

and have flashy flows (streamflow that rises to flood 

stage and wanes quickly). Because of their denuded 

appearance, arroyos commonly evoke negative 

reactions and are seen as a symptom that something is 

wrong. The natural function of arroyos is complicated, 

however, and ongoing phases alternating between 

aggradation and degradation may represent normal 

behavior of this type of fluvial system.

Resource management at the monument requires an 

appreciation of arroyos along with an awareness of 

the complexity of these drainages and their response 

to change. An article by Love and Gellis (2001), “What 

Decision Makers Should Know about Arroyos in New 

Mexico,” may be useful. Also, consideration of the 

long history of erosion control efforts of Chaco Arroyo 

at Chaco Culture National Historical Park (see GRI 

report by KellerLynn 2015c), for example, may provide 

perspective on management of these features. A variety 

of papers about arroyos are available (see “Resources”), 

and various NPS management policies provide 

guidance (see Appendix B).

Monitoring Erosion

Gellis (1995) initiated a qualitative monitoring 

protocol for more than 100 gully “observation sites” 

in the monument. The data collected by Gellis (1995) 

and this protocol provide an obvious starting place 

in the development of a monitoring program at the 

monument. Also, the NPS Soil Resources Inventory 

suggested the use of Upland Soil Erosion Monitoring 

and Assessment: An Overview by Ypsilantis (2011).

The draft natural resource condition assessment 

for the monument (National Park Service 2016b) 

suggested a variety of monitoring options including 

photogrammetry. In 2014, the Geologic Resources 

Division produced quantitative photogrammetry images 

at the eastern boundary of the monument, along Lava 

Bluff Drive Northwest, where “erosion trenches” have 

developed between a storm-water retention basin and 

the West Mesa escarpment. These high-resolution 

images (visualization at the centimeter scale) and 

resultant 3D digital elevation model can be used to 

help resource managers assess whether documented 

changes are within a normal range of variation, or if 

the observed changes dictate a corrective action in 

management practices. The NPS Geologic Resources 

Division Photogrammetry website (http://go.nps.gov/

grd_photogrammetry) provides more information.

Lord et al. (2009), the Geological Monitoring chapter 

about fluvial geomorphology, described methods 

for inventorying and monitoring geomorphologyrelated vital signs, including (1) watershed landscape 

(vegetation, land use, surficial geology, slopes, and 

hydrology), (2) hydrology (frequency, magnitude, and 

duration of streamflow rates), (3) sediment transport 

(rates, modes, sources, and types of sediment), (4) 

channel cross section, (5) channel planform, and (6) 

channel longitudinal profile. That chapter provides 

an overview of river and stream dynamics, describes 

possible stressors that may lead to channel instability, 

and provides guidelines and methods for monitoring 

(from low-budget methods where minimal expertise 

in fluvial geomorphology is required to higher-level 
23

methodologies requiring greater expertise, a larger 

budget, and more time). Consideration of these vital 

signs and methods may be useful in the development of 

a monitoring program at the monument.

The draft foundation document for the monument 

(National Park Service 2016a) suggested partnering with 

the Albuquerque Arroyo Flood Control Authority and 

the City of Albuquerque on hydrologic monitoring, and 

continuing to cooperate with the Southern Colorado 

Plateau Network on photogrammetry and arroyo 

profiling. The network is currently photo-monitoring 

points at Lava Bluffs and Boca Negra (Chanteil Walter, 

Petroglyph National Monument, environmental 

protection specialist, written communication, 1 

September 2017).

Interpretation and Outreach

Erosion is a topic ripe for interpretation at the 

monument, as well as for public education and 

outreach, because local users are likely familiar with 

its effects, particularly in light of the 2013 storms 

and flooding in Albuquerque. The draft foundation 

document for the monument (National Park Service 

2016a) suggested many opportunities for public 

engagement with respect to recreation, which also are 

applicable to the prevention of erosion.

The GRD report by Bilderback (2013) provided many 

examples of how human modifications to surfacewater flow can exacerbate erosional processes. These 

examples, which could be used in presentations or 

on field trips, could help to engage the public on how 

to prevent impacts. Bilderback (2013) also provided 

recommendations regarding the Santa Fe Village 

neighborhood (fig. 18), which is adjacent to the 

monument and located at the mouth of the San Antonio 

Arroyo drainage system.

Park Planning

Park planning with respect to erosion is ongoing. 

As discussed by Bilderback (2013), Santa Fe Village, 

an adjacent suburban development/neighborhood, 

is an area of concern. The National Park Service in 

collaboration with the City of Albuquerque proposed 

to exchange 2 ha (5 ac) of NPS-owned lands behind 

homes in Santa Fe Village for 4 ha (9 ac) of lands 

currently owned by the City of Albuquerque adjacent 

to the Volcanoes Day Use Area. In addition, the City 

of Albuquerque proposed to construct a permanent 

Figure 18. Photograph of the Santa Fe Village. The Santa Fe Village neighborhood is located between Middle San 

Antonio Arroyo and South San Antonio Arroyo adjacent to (immediately east of) the monument. The neighborhood 

abuts the West Mesa escarpment. The National Park Service and the City of Albuquerque are preparing for a land 

exchange of 2 ha (5 ac) of NPS-owned lands behind the homes in Santa Fe Village for 4 ha (9 ac) of city–owned lands 

currently adjacent to the Volcanoes Day Use Area. The land exchange will allow the City of Albuquerque to manage 

runoff between the West Mesa escarpment and the Santa Fe Village neighborhood. NPS photograph courtesy of Dale 

Kissner (Petroglyph National Monument).
24

erosion control concrete storm channel on the 2 ha (5 

ac) of exchanged land in Santa Fe Village. The City of 

Albuquerque anticipates the project to happen in the 

next one to four years (Chanteil Walter, Petroglyph 

National Monument, environmental protection 

specialist, written communication, 31 August 2017).

Originally, an environmental assessment (EA) for the 

land exchange and construction of concrete storm 

channel was to have been prepared in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 

order to (1) analyze a reasonable range of alternatives 

to meet project objectives, (2) evaluate potential issues 

and impacts to park resources and values, and (3) 

identify mitigation measures to lessen the degree or 

extent of these impacts (National Park Service 2017a). 

However, after further consideration—including 

analysis of the proposed action and associated 

impacts and consideration of public scoping and tribal 

comments—monument managers determined that the 

proposed action fits within a categorical exclusion, and 

no extraordinary circumstances apply; therefore, an 

EA is no longer required. The National Park Service 

prepared a categorical exclusion, which was signed by 

the superintendent on 20 April 2017.

Another area of concern is the “Painted Pony” or 

Staghorn Drive area of the monument (near Boca 

Negra). A scoping meeting is scheduled for the end of 

September 2017 (Chanteil Walter, Petroglyph National 

Monument, environmental protection specialist, 

written communication, 1 September 2017).

Disturbed Lands

In the GRI GIS data, artificial fill (af) indicates some 

areas of disturbed lands (see poster, in pocket). 

Disturbed lands at the monument (not mapped in 

GRI GIS data) include old roads, two abandoned 

motor-cross tracks, and an estimated 240 km (150 mi) 

of social trails. Such disturbances create preferred 

pathways for storm-water runoff, exacerbating erosion 

(see “Gullying”). Old roads (some of which are part 

of the NPS administrative road system), social trails, 

and accompanying evidence of illegal access and use 

are especially evident along the monument’s western 

border in the Volcanoes area of the monument. The 

proliferation of social trails is due to the lack of defined 

trails and specific trailheads (National Park Service 

2016a). 

The National Park Service is developing a visitor 

use management plan for the monument in order to 

formalize a trail system and manage public use. Planning 

will include an assessment of old roads and social trails 

to determine which require restoration and which could 

be incorporated into a system of about 60–80 km (40–50 

mi) of designated trails (GRI conference call, 25 April 

2017). The plan will identify the primary administrative 

roads and address the management and maintenance of 

a trail system, access points, associated infrastructure, 

and allowable uses. It will include expectations for 

long-term monitoring and analysis of visitor capacity 

(National Park Service 2017b).

In 2015, Suzanna Doak, a Mosaics in Science intern, 

examined the sustainability of the existing trails within 

the monument with respect to NPS standards (Doak 

2015). These findings will be useful in determining 

which access points and trails to close to the public 

in order to limit human-induced erosion. The project 

developed a digital elevation model (DEM) from 2010 

LiDAR and a surface–water flow model, showing 

direction and accumulation, which may be useful for 

park planning.

With respect to restoration of social trails, monument 

managers may find strategies at other parks worthy 

of consideration. For example, researchers have 

commended managers at Little Bighorn Battlefield 

National Monument in southeastern Montana for 

“the re-working of visitor movement patterns and 

the excellent trail relocation, along with appropriate 

enforcement to keep visitors on the trails” (Bock and 

Bock 2006, p. 28; see GRI report about Little Bighorn 

Battlefield National Monument by KellerLynn 2011). 

Recent improvements to the trail system at Deep 

Ravine in Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 

indicate a correlation between improved trails and a 

decrease in the formation of social trails. Since the new 

trail system at Deep Ravine opened, the proliferation 

of social trails has “decreased dramatically” (National 

Park Service 2007). Short of improving all trail systems, 

however, park managers at Little Bighorn Battlefield 

National Monument are addressing the problem 

by developing revegetation projects to reintroduce 

native “prickly” species such as yucca and cactus, in 

accordance with the national monument’s resources 

management plan. These methods will help to 

minimize both shortcutting and the continued use 

of unauthorized trails (National Park Service 2007). 
25

Monument managers are encouraged to contact the 

NPS Geologic Resources Division for assistance. The 

NPS Geologic Resources Division Disturbed Land 

Restoration website, http://go.nps.gov/grd_dlr, provides 

more information.

Wind Erosion, Transport, and Deposition

Along the West Mesa escarpment in areas that are 

adjacent to disturbed lands or developments, the 

naturally black, basaltic boulders and the ground 

surface surrounding these boulders now appear tan as 

a result of windblown-dust accumulation (fig. 19). The 

accumulation of windblown dust is, thereby, changing 

the landscape visually. Moreover, dust accumulation 

has the potential to mask petroglyphs in areas of 

substantial dust buildup. The wind is also causing 

mass accumulations of tumbleweeds, which are likely 

covering petroglyphs deep within the canyons of the 

escarpment.

Dust is primarily attributed to wind erosion of 

disturbed lands within the monument and developed 

areas adjacent to the monument. However, no studies 

specific to the monument have characterized actual 

sources of dust or means of transporting fugitive dust 

(particulate matter suspended in the air by wind action 

and human activities but not from a point source such 

as a smokestack). 

A project by a GIP or Mosaics in Science intern may 

be able to study and identify particular source areas 

and means of transport. Sources of information for 

identifying and quantifying dust emissions include work 

conducted in the eastern Mojave Desert (Sweeney et 

al. 2011), along the Interstate 8 corridor of southern 

California and Arizona (Sweeney and McDonald 2017), 

and along Interstate 10 between Phoenix and Tucson, 

which is one of the most dangerous sections of highway 

in the United States due to the loss of driver visibility 

as a result of blowing dust (McDonald and Sweeney 

2017). Use of the portable in situ wind erosion lab 

(PI-SWERL) helped these investigations identify and 

measure the dust emission potential of landforms in 

both natural and disturbed settings. 

Figure 19. Photograph of dust accumulation. In areas along the West Mesa escarpment that are adjacent to disturbed 

lands or developments, dust accumulation is visibly altering the naturally dark-brown or black color of the landscape. 

NPS photograph courtesy of Dale Kissner (Petroglyph National Monument).
26

If the sources and transport mechanisms of the 

windblown dust in the monument can be identified, 

mitigation may be possible. Techniques to mitigate 

windblown dust associated with oil and gas operations, 

for example at Lake Meredith National Recreation 

Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument 

in the Texas Panhandle (see GRI report by KellerLynn 

2015d), may be applicable to the monument. Moreover, 

preservation techniques applied to the “signatures” at 

El Morro National Monument may be applicable (see 

GRI report by KellerLynn 2012b).

Lancaster (2009), the Geological Monitoring chapter 

about eolian (spelled “aeolian” in Lancaster 2009) 

features and processes, described the following 

methods and vital signs: (1) frequency and magnitude of 

dust storms, (2) rate of dust deposition, (3) rate of sand 

transport, (4) wind erosion rate, (5) changes in total 

area occupied by sand dunes, (6) areas of stabilized and 

active dunes, (7) dune morphology and morphometry, 

(8) dune field sediment state (supply, availability, and 

mobility), (9) rates of dune migration, and (10) erosion 

and deposition patterns on dunes. Many of these 

vital signs are applicable to the windblown processes 

operating at the monument.

Rockfall

Unstable tumbling boulders along the West Mesa 

escarpment and rockfall (free falling of a newly 

detached segment of bedrock) from the mesa have 

the potential to destroy petroglyphs or create safety 

hazards for visitors (National Park Service 2016a) 

(fig. 20). A map unit closely associated with rockfall 

is colluvium. Connell (2006) mapped colluvium and 

alluvium, undivided (Qca), along the length of the 

escarpment, adjacent to spatter cones and vents, and 

as deposits of sand and gravel from nearby hill slopes 

within the lava flows (see poster, in pocket). According 

to Shroba et al. (2003), “colluvium” refers to surficial 

material transported on slopes chiefly by mass-wasting 

(gravity-driven) processes—such as creep, debris flow, 

and rockfall—aided by running water not confined to 

channels (sheetwash). At the southwest corner of the 

monument, Shroba et al. (2003) mapped alluvium and 

colluvium, undivided (Qac).

Figure 20. Photograph of rockfall. Rockfalls occurs naturally along the West Mesa escarpment and have the potential 

to destroy petroglyphs or create safety hazards for visitors. In early 2005, a visitor mishap in the Boca Negra area of 

the monument caused the large boulder shown in the photograph to tumble down onto the steps. A pickup truck 

was stranded about 8 m (25 ft) up the escarpment; the boulder was dislodged when the truck was removed. NPS 

photograph courtesy of Dale Kissner (Petroglyph National Monument).
27

Rockfall is a type of slope movement that may require 

monitoring for the protection of resources and visitor 

safety. In the Geological Monitoring chapter about slope 

movements, Wieczorek and Snyder (2009) described 

five vital signs for understanding and monitoring 

slope movements: (1) types of landslide, (2) landslide 

causes and triggers, (3) geologic materials in landslides, 

(4) measurement of landslide movement, and (5) 

assessment of landslide hazards and risks. In addition, 

Highland and Bobrowsky (2008), the US Geological 

Survey Landslides website (http://landslides.usgs.gov/), 

and the NPS Geologic Resources Division Geohazards 

(http://go.nps.gov/geohazards) and Slope Movement 

Monitoring (http://go.nps.gov/monitor_slopes) 

websites provide detailed information regarding slope 

movements, monitoring, and mitigation options.

Volcanic Resource Inventory, Assessment,

and Protection i

The GRI GIS data show the locations of larger scale 

volcanic features such as lava flows and cinder deposits 

surrounding vents. Connell (2006; scale 1:50,000) 

divided the basaltic lavas of the Albuquerque volcanoes 

into vents (Qbv) and five flows (Qb1–Qb5). In the 

southwestern part of the monument, Shroba et al. 

(2003; scale 1:24,000) mapped flows (Qby1–Qby5) 

and cinder deposits (Qby2c and Qby5c). Individual 

volcanic features such as those listed in “Volcanic 

Features and Terminology,” however, have not 

been mapped or otherwise inventoried within the 

monument. GRI report reviewers suggested a possible 

partnership between the New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources (NMBGMR) and the 

monument where NMBGMR staff (in particular, Matt 

Zimmerer, who is a field geologist and accomplished 

photographer) could go out with monument staff to 

identify and photograph small-scale, individual features 

(Shari Kelley, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources, geophysicist/field geologist, written 

communication, 31 August 2017). Features could be 

recorded with GPS at the same time as photographing. 

These photographs could be used as part of a condition 

assessment.

According to the draft natural resource condition 

assessment for the monument, “additional surveys 

of geologic features should be conducted at finer 

scales than prior surveys in an effort to obtain current 

conditions of individual features” (National Park 

Service 2016b, section 4.4.6, “Data Gaps/Research 

Needs/Management Recommendations”). Mapping by 

Richman (2010; scale 1:24,000), a GIP intern at Capulin 

Volcano National Monument, may serve as a model 

for detailed mapping of the volcanic features at the 

monument. The map by Richman (2010) included the 

following volcanic features: two boca ramparts, 16 lava 

cascades, 19 lava lakes, 15 lava levees, 18 lava ridges, 

one pooled lava flow, one push-up, two rafted cinder 

cones, 24 spatter deposits, one spatter flow, 23 squeezeups, and 18 tumuli (see GRI GIS report by KellerLynn 

2015b). A similar project by a GIP or Mosaics in Science 

intern at Petroglyph National Monument may be 

possible. The list of volcanic features provided in this 

report could serve as a guide for individual features to 

be mapped (see “Volcanic Features and Terminology”). 

Also, a forthcoming map by the US Geological Survey, 

with dating by the New Mexico Bureau of Geology 

and Mineral Resources, will likely provide useful 

nformation and potentially an updated base map (see 

“Future Geologic Map”).

According to the draft natural resource condition 

assessment for the monument, “nearly all of the 

park has been surveyed so the location of nearly all 

volcanic features is known, but confidence in the 

current conditions of most features is only moderate” 

(National Park Service 2016b, section 4.4.5, “Level of 

Confidence”). The draft natural resource condition 

assessment for the monument also states that 

“various maps and sources of information regarding 

the volcanic landscape are available, but need to be 

gathered, analyzed and annotated for use by park 

management” (National Park Service 2016b, section 

4.4.6, “Data Gaps/Research Needs/Management 

Recommendations”). This research and data need 

could be accomplished as part of the aforementioned 

mapping project by a GIP or Mosaics in Science intern.

According to the draft natural resource condition 

assessment (National Park Service 2016b), volcanic 

resources are largely protected from landscape or 

climate-level (e.g., increasing intensity of storms due 

to climate change) impacts, however, they are at risk at 

very local scales from human impacts (e.g., trampling, 

vandalism, and theft). Along these same lines, the draft 

foundation document (National Park Service 2016a) 

noted that social trails and off-trail hiking have created 

visual impacts and damage to the volcanoes in the 

monument. Thus, similar to erosion (see “Erosion” 

and “Disturbed Lands”), the proliferation of social 
28

trails also is a concern for the preservation of volcanic 

features. Consequently, the visitor use management plan 

should consider volcanic features with respect to the 

placement of designated trails, either leading visitors to 

interesting features worthy of interpretation or avoiding 

sensitive features.

Implementation of the visitor use management plan 

could include a stay-on-the-trail program, using various 

methods to keep people on trails. Managers at the 

monument currently use post-and-cable fencing to 

delineate the edges of trails. Other methods include 

posting signs that inform monument visitors, building 

cairns with posts and reflective tape to mark trails across 

rocky areas, and providing literature that reminds 

visitors to tread lightly and informs them of the damage 

they can do to the surrounding rocks by going off trail 

(see GRI report for Craters of the Moon National 

Monument and Preserve by KellerLynn in review). 

Additionally, rangers could give resource protection 

messages during ranger-led walks and talks, and all 

visitors at the visitor center could receive a handout 

about staying on the trails. A stay-on-the-trail program 

would also be useful for erosion control (see “Erosion” 

and “Disturbed Lands”).

Earthquakes and Faults

An earthquake is a sudden motion or trembling in 

the earth caused by the abrupt release of slowly 

accumulated strain. Earthquakes take place where rocks 

suddenly move along a fault. The US Geological Survey 

monitors earthquake activity in Albuquerque.

The Richter scale is commonly used to measure 

earthquake magnitude (strength of an earthquake/

the strain energy released by it). Using seismograph 

oscillations, the scale provides a numeric expression. 

Destructive earthquakes typically have magnitudes 

between about 5.5 and 8.9. The scale is logarithmic 

and a difference of one represents an approximate 

thirtyfold difference in magnitude. Earthquake intensity 

is measured using the Modified Mercalli Intensity 

(MMI) scale—from MMI I (not felt/imperceptible by 

humans) to MMI XII (total damage/total destruction 

of developed areas and alteration of the landscape). 

The intensities are further described on the US 

Geological Survey website: https://earthquake.usgs.

gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php. Earthquakes can directly 

damage park infrastructure or trigger other hazards 

such as rockfall, which may impact park resources, 

infrastructure, or visitor safety (see “Rockfall”). 

Earthquakes also may be a precursor to volcanic activity 

(see “Volcanic Hazards”).

The rate of earthquake activity in New Mexico is 

characterized as moderate (Wong 2009). For example, 

15 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and larger have 

occurred in the state since 1980 when seismographic 

coverage of the southwestern United States became 

uniform. This compares with 25 and 47 earthquakes in 

the neighboring states of Arizona and Utah, respectively. 

In contrast, 950 magnitude 4.0 and larger earthquakes 

have occurred in southern California since 1980 (Wong 

2009).

An examination of the distribution of active faults in 

New Mexico shows them concentrated within the Rio 

Grande rift, particularly along its boundaries. According 

to Wong (2009), because of the large number of active 

faults in the Rio Grande rift, the probability of a future 

large earthquake (magnitude 6.5 or greater; capable 

of creating surface rupture and significant shaking 

and damage) in the rift is significant. Such events have 

occurred repeatedly over the past ~1 million years in the 

Albuquerque basin. 

The GRI GIS data show 11 mapped fault segments 

within the monument (see poster, in pocket). These 

faults correspond to the USGS Quaternary fault and 

fold database (US Geological Survey 2017). The Zia 

fault zone crosses the northwestern corner of the 

monument. That fault zone and the County Dump 

fault, and East Paradise faults are the youngest in 

the monument with movement less than 128,000 

years ago. All other fault segments in the monument 

are interpreted as having moved during the Middle 

Pleistocene Epoch, less than 750,000 years ago (Connell 

2006). Because all of these faults moved during the 

Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years), they are 

considered likely sources of future earthquakes. All the 

faults in the monument and vicinity are normal faults 

that are oriented generally north–south.

Given that both the hazard (large earthquakes 

are possible) and risk (highly populated area) for 

earthquakes are relatively high in the Albuquerque 

area, the County Dump and East Paradise faults have 

been field studied and detailed reports were prepared 

(McCalpin et al. 2006; Personius and Mahan 2000). The 

most recent three earthquakes along the County Dump 

fault occurred about 30,000 years ago, between 40,000 
29

and 45,000 years ago, and between 75,000 and 80,000 

years ago (McCalpin et al. 2006). Vertical displacement 

during those earthquakes measured between 0.35 m 

(1.1 ft) and <3.5 m (11.5 ft) (McCalpin et al. 2006). 

There have been as many as 14 earthquakes in the past 

~800,000 to 1.5 million years with average displacement 

of 1.2 m (3.9 ft) and estimated magnitudes are between 

6.5 and 6.9 (McCalpin et al. 2006). Of the three most 

recent significant earthquakes on the East Paradise fault, 

two occurred within the past 75,000 years and the third 

quake about 200,000 years ago (Personius and Mahan 

2000). Surface ruptures during those quakes measured 

between 0.5 m and 1.25 m (1.6 ft and 4.1 ft) with 

estimated magnitudes between 6.8 and 7.0 (Personius 

and Mahan 2000).

Earthquake hazards can be classified into two 

categories: (1) primary hazards include ground shaking, 

surface fault rupture (movement on a fault deep within 

the earth breaks through to the surface), and uplift or 

subsidence; (2) secondary hazards include liquefaction 

(a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness 

of sediment or soil is reduced by earthquake shaking; 

liquefaction occurs in loosely packed, water-logged 

sediments at or near the ground surface), landslides 

(downslope movement of soil and rock material), and 

water waves such as tsunamis; these are either caused 

by strong ground shaking or, in the case of tsunamis, 

sudden uplift or subsidence.

In New Mexico, ground shaking, surface fault rupture, 

liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landslides are the 

most important hazards. Wong (2009) provided much 

of the following information:

● Ground Shaking. Strong ground shaking can take 

place throughout the state but will be concentrated 

within the Rio Grande rift because of the proximity 

to active faults and because of the amplifying 

effects of the alluvial sediments in the basins (e.g., 

Albuquerque basin) that make up the rift. Ground 

shaking from any large earthquake within the rift 

could be quite severe because of the presence of 

alluvial sediments that blanket the Rio Grande 

valley. These sediments can amplify the ground 

motions to very damaging levels. A large earthquake 

in the Rio Grande valley could result in significant 

damage and casualties, particularly as a result 

of the extensive use of unreinforced masonry 

(adobe) construction and the existence of many 

older structures. Movement along any fault in the 

Albuquerque basin would shake the monument. 

Projected shaking from a magnitude 6.9 on the 

County Dump fault (or other similar faults) would 

produce MMI VIII intensity within the monument 

and Albuquerque (fig. 21). This corresponds to 

“severe” shaking with the following description 

of damage: “Damage slight in specially designed 

structures; considerable damage in ordinary 

substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage 

great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, 

factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy 

furniture overturned.” 

● Surface Fault Rupture. Surface faulting occurs 

when an earthquake ruptures the fault to Earth’s 

surface. As a result, movement generated at depth 

along the fault is propagated upward, resulting in 

displacement of the ground surface. Any structure 

situated along an active fault is subject to damage 

not just from regional shaking but from direct 

rupture and movement of the ground upon 

which the structure is situated. Infrastructure on 

the eastern side of the monument, including the 

monument’s visitor center, headquarters building, 

maintenance building, and entrance station, does 

not appear to have been built on faults (see poster, 

in pocket). The restroom at the Volcanoes area on 

the western side of the monument is in proximity of 

the County Dump and Zia faults; its exact location 

and the potential of an impact from surface rupture 

would need to be verified by a geologist in the 

field. With respect to the Star Heights fault zone, 

as mapped by Connell (2006) and shown in the 

GRI GIS data, it appears that the fault does not 

extend into the monument. However, based on US 

National Map Accuracy Standards and the source 

map scale of 1:50,000, geologic features represented 

in the GRI GIS data are expected to be horizontally 

within 25 m (82 ft) of their true locations. Thus, 

field verification by a geologist is recommended 

prior to significant infrastructure development. 

As noted above, surface ruptures have occurred 

repeatedly in the past along faults mapped near the 

monument. Displacements on the County Dump 

and East Paradise faults ranged from 0.35 m (1.1 ft) 

to <3.5 m (11.5 ft) (McCalpin et al. 2006; Personius 

and Mahan 2000). 

● Liquefaction. The areas of most concern in 

New Mexico with respect to liquefaction are 

concentrated along the Rio Grande (river) due to 

the presence of a high water table and liquefiable 

soils.
30

Figure 21. National earthquake 

probability map and local 

intensity map. The top map 

provides national context for 

the relative probability of 

earthquakes in the Rio Grande 

rift area of New Mexico. The 

yellow area, which surrounds 

Albuquerque corresponds to an 

expected 10 to 20 earthquakes 

with “damaging shaking” (MMI 

VI) over a 10,000 year period. 

This corresponds to between 

“1 in a thousand” and “1 in 

500” probability of a damaging 

earthquake in any year. The 

bottom map shows projected 

shaking intensity using the 

Modified Mercalli Index (MMI) 

for a magnitude 6.9 earthquake 

on the County Dump fault. 

MMI values for Albuquerque 

and the monument could reach 

MMI VIII, or “severe” shaking. 

Earthquakes of those magnitude 

have occurred in the past along 

the County Dump and other 

local faults. National Seismic 

Hazard Map produced by the 

US Geological Survey in 2014, 

available at https://earthquake.

usgs.gov/hazards/learn/. Local 

map is a screenshot of shaking 

intensity scenario map produced 

by the US Geological Survey, 

available at https://earthquake.

usgs.gov/scenarios/eventpage/

bssc20142038_m6p89_

se#executive. 
31

● Earthquake-Induced Landslides. Earthquakeinduced landslides are triggered by strong 

ground shaking. The rugged topography with 

steep mountain slopes and canyon walls in the 

Rio Grande rift are conducive to landslides and 

rockfalls as evidenced by the non-earthquakerelated failures documented throughout the state.

In the Geological Monitoring chapter about earthquakes 

and seismic activity, Braile (2009) described the 

following methods and vital signs: (1) monitoring 

earthquakes, (2) analysis and statistics of earthquake 

activity, (3) analysis of historical and prehistoric 

earthquake activity, (4) earthquake risk estimation, 

(5) geodetic monitoring and ground deformation, 

and (6) geomorphic and geologic indications of active 

tectonics. Refer to the USGS Earthquake Hazards 

website for information and planning tools (https://

earthquake.usgs.gov/). Also contact the New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources for local 

concerns. With respect to earthquake-induced 

landslides, Wieczorek and Snyder (2009), Highland 

and Bobrowsky (2008), the USGS Landslide Hazard 

Program website (http://landslides.usgs.gov/), and 

the NPS Geologic Resources Division Geohazards 

(http://go.nps.gov/geohazards) and Slope Movement 

Monitoring (http://go.nps.gov/monitor_slopes) 

websites provide detailed information regarding slope 

movements, monitoring, and mitigation options.

Abandoned Mineral Lands

Abandoned mineral lands (AML) are lands, waters, 

and surrounding watersheds that contain facilities, 

structures, improvements, and disturbances associated 

with past mineral exploration, extraction, processing, 

and transportation, including oil and gas features and 

operations, for which the National Park Service takes 

action under various authorities to mitigate, reclaim, 

or restore in order to reduce hazards and impacts to 

resources.

Before establishment in 1990, mining took place in 

what is now Petroglyph National Monument. One of 

the cones, named Cinder Volcano, which was south 

of JA Volcano and had been part of the prominent 

“Sisters” segment of cones, was mined out of existence. 

Cinders from this cone and three other quarries in the 

monument—one on the flank of Vulcan Volcano, one of 

the flank of Black Volcano, and one in a lava flow south 

of JA Volcano—were mined for railroad bed material, 

cinder blocks, and landscaping material (Kelley 2010). 

The three abandoned cinder quarries visually impacted 

the cultural landscape of the monument and presented 

visitor safety hazards (Greco 2004). These quarries were 

mined as recently as the mid-1980s.

The NPS Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) database 

and Burghardt et al. (2014) list the three quarries in the 

monument. The AML database includes data points 

and a location map of these quarries. Two of these 

sites were mitigated in 2002 by the US Army Corps of 

Engineers Rapid Response Group in collaboration with 

the National Park Service, using funding provided by 

the NPS AML Program. According to Greco (2004), one 

of the reclaimed sites is on the southeastern corner of 

Vulcan Volcano; the other is immediately south of the 

volcano (on the flank of Black Volcano, as described 

above). The larger of the two quarries (the one on the 

flank of Black Volcano), which contained a 18-m- (60-

ft-) high headwall, posed the greatest safety hazard, 

and was the most aesthetically displeasing; it received 

the bulk of the efforts during the week-long “rapid 

response” reclamation period.

One, high-priority site still requires mitigation 

(Burghardt et al. 2014). This site is in a lava flow south 

of JA Volcano. Monument managers are encouraged 

to contact the Geologic Resources Division for further 

assistance. The NPS AML website, http://go.nps.

gov/aml, provides information for understanding 

AML, reclamation, and restoration. An online AML 

handbook is available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/

abandonedminerallands/aml-handbook.htm.

Cave Resource Management

The nature of volcanism at the monument was not 

conducive for the creation of large lava tubes like those 

at Lava Beds National Monument (see GRI report by 

KellerLynn 2014b) or Craters of the Moon National 

Monument (see GRI report by KellerLynn in review), 

but small ones (too small to enter; see Kelley 2010) are 

known to occur within the monument’s boundaries. 

The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 

defines a cave as “any naturally occurring void, cavity, 

recess, or system of interconnected passageways 

beneath the surface of the earth...and which is large 

enough to permit an individual to enter.”

Although the lava tubes in the monument are too 

small to fit the definition of a cave, other caves, for 

example some formed in welded spatter, do occur 
32

within the monument. The Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988 (FCRPA) and its subsequent 

regulations published in 1991 provides guidance 

for the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 

concerning the identification and planning efforts for 

“significant caves.” For the National Park Service, the 

regulations stipulate that all caves on NPS properties 

are “significant.” This act requires that caves be 

considered in any land management planning and their 

use be regulated or restricted as needed to protect cave 

resources. The act also imposes penalties for harming a 

cave or cave resources and exempts park managers from 

releasing specific location information for significant 

caves in response to a FOIA request (see also Appendix 

B). Other laws, such as the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, also provide managers with tools to 

protect specific resources found within caves (and on 

the surface) by exempting their nature and location 

from FOIA requests.

Managers have documentation, including physical 

surveys and maps and an inventory of in-cave 

resources, on all the caves in the monument. 

Additionally, an archeological inventory has been 

completed for approximately 95% of the monument. 

During that inventory, no new caves were discovered. 

With this information available, monument managers 

feel that they have all the information they need to 

adequately manage the monument’s caves. However, 

monument managers could use some assistance with 

planning the locations of roads and trails with respect to 

cave resources. Monument managers need information 

identifying areas of potential collapse or areas that 

need to be avoided in order to protect cave resources 

(National Park Service 2006). 

The NPS Cave and Karst Program provides assistance 

with (1) protection for natural processes in cave 

ecosystems and karst landscapes, (2) scientific studies 

and research in or about cave and karst resources 

and systems, (3) cartographic surveys and inventories 

of cave systems, (4) educational and recreational 

opportunities, (5) development of guidelines to 

maximize cave protection and management, (6) 

monitoring of natural environmental conditions and 

visitor use impact, and (7) methods for sustainable use 

of cave resources. In addition, consideration of the vital 

signs outlined in the Geological Monitoring chapter 

about caves and associated landscapes (Toomey 2009) 

may be useful for monument managers in developing a 

cave management plan.

Paleontological Resource Inventory, 

Monitoring, and Protection

Elsewhere in New Mexico, the Santa Fe Group has 

yielded a remarkable faunal assemblage of terrestrial 

vertebrate fossils, including camels, horses, antelopes, 

rhinoceroses, elephants, and rodents (Bauer et al. 2003). 

Fossils specific to the Ceja Formation include petrified 

wood, invertebrate trace fossils (such as tracks, trails, or 

burrows that preserves evidence of an organism’s life, 

rather than the organism itself), turtles, birds, rodents, 

rabbits, equids, camelids, and deer.

Within the monument, pieces of Triassic petrified 

wood have been discovered within the Ceja Formation 

(Tcrg). The discovery of these much-older fossils in 

Pliocene–Pleistocene river deposits suggests that the 

pieces of petrified wood were “reworked,” meaning 

they were eroded out of Triassic sediments by Pliocene–

Pleistocene streams, transported, and subsequently 

deposited along with the Ceja Formation sediments 

(Tweet et al. 2009).

Fossils have yet to be documented from the following 

rock units within the monument, but they are known 

to preserve fossils elsewhere. Thus, future field 

investigations within the monument may recover fossils 

from one or more of these units.

● Lomatas Negras Formation (Qrl), Middle 

Pleistocene, may yield mammal fossils younger than 

about 640,000 years old, including ground sloths, 

equids, camels, and llamas.

● Lava tubes may contain Quaternary flora (e.g., 

twigs, charcoal, and wood) and fauna (e.g., bones 

of bats, bighorn sheep, and deer), as well as packrat 

middens (“dens” containing collections of plant 

material, food waste, coprolites [dung], bones, 

and other biological materials) that document the 

environment within the builder’s foraging range. 

Middens can be well-preserved in arid, protected 

settings such as caves, rock shelters, and lava tubes. 

They are important tools for reconstructing the 

paleoecology and climate of the Late Pleistocene 

and Holocene Epochs of western North America 

(Santucci et al. 2001).

● Los Duranes Formation (Qrd), Middle 

Pleistocene, may yield mammal fossils between 

about 156,000 and 98,000 years old, including 

ground sloths, bears, equids, camels, llamas, bison, 

and mastodons.
33

● Quaternary sedimentary rocks and deposits

(Qam, Qca, Qe, Qay, and Qrpm), Middle 

Pleistocene–Holocene, may yield similar, though 

younger, fossils to the Lomatas Negras and Los 

Duranes Formations.

The monument’s museum collections also contain 

fossils, primarily petrified wood. Prehistoric people 

probably brought these pieces from elsewhere, though 

petrified wood is commonly found in the arroyos in the 

area. Artifacts may also be paleontological resources, for 

example, those consisting of petrified wood, chert, and 

chalcedony. Kenworthy and Santucci (2006) presented 

an overview and cited selected examples of NPS fossils 

found in cultural resource contexts.

A paleontological resource inventory and monitoring 

report for the Southern Colorado Plateau Network 

(Tweet et al. 2009) provided recommendations for 

resource management of paleontological resources at 

the monument. In the Geological Monitoring chapter 

about paleontological resources, Santucci et al. (2009) 

described five methods and vital signs for monitoring 

in situ paleontological resources: (1) erosion (geologic 

factors), (2) erosion (climatic factors), (3) catastrophic 

geohazards, (4) hydrology/bathymetry, and (5) human 

access/public use.

Volcanic Hazards

Limburg (1990) estimated that New Mexico has had 

more than 700 volcanic events (single eruption or a 

series of associated eruptions from a vent) during 

the past 5 million years. The eruptive styles ranged 

from dangerously explosive (e.g., Valles Caldera) to 

passive (e.g., Albuquerque volcanoes). Many National 

Park System units (and associated GRI reports) in 

New Mexico highlight volcanic eruptions, from 

most to least explosive: Gila Cliff Dwellings National 

Monument (KellerLynn 2014a), Bandelier National 

Monument (KellerLynn 2015a), Capulin Volcano 

National Monument (KellerLynn 2015b), and El 

Malpais National Monument (KellerLynn 2012a). 

Based on the past occurrence of volcanism, Limburg 

(1990) estimated a roughly 1% chance that some type 

of volcanic eruption could occur somewhere in New 

Mexico in the next 100 years, and a 10% chance that an 

eruption will occur in the next 1,000 years.

The area around Albuquerque has the potential for 

future volcanic activity because of its location in the 

Rio Grande rift. Small volcanoes (e.g., cinder cones 

and spatter cones), such as those in the Albuquerque 

volcanic field, do not typically reactivate like big 

volcanoes (e.g., stratovolcanoes), so renewed activity 

in the Albuquerque volcanic field would likely take 

place at a new vent somewhere in the Rio Grande rift 

(New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 

2017). Determining the exact location of a future vent 

is virtually impossible, however (Matt Zimmerer, New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 

field geologist, written communication, 30 August 

2017).

A draft NPS volcanic resources/hazard inventory by 

Walkup (2013) identified the following volcanic hazards 

for the monument:

● Ash and Tephra Fall. Small, basaltic eruptions 

are likely to have relatively small amounts of ash 

associated with them, but even minor volumes 

of airborne ash can create hazards with respect 

to air quality and air travel. If a future eruption 

were to produce ash, it would likely cause major 

disruptions to air traffic in the immediate area 

and possibly for larger regions throughout the 

southwestern United States. The weight of ash may 

cause buildings and power lines to collapse. Ash 

is abrasive; also, it is very slippery when wet. Fine 

ash can cause respiratory issues and is extremely 

irritating to the eyes. Tephra (a collective term used 

for all pyroclastic material, regardless of size, shape, 

or origin, ejected into the air during a volcanic 

eruption) fall is a significant threat to human safety 

and infrastructure adjacent to an erupting vent (see 

Volcanic Projectiles [bullet point] below).

● Earthquakes. In the event of an eruption, localized 

earthquakes would be expected to take place as a 

result of magma moving through the subsurface. 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and 

Science (2017) noted that one of the larger 

earthquake swarms in New Mexico occurred in 

1972 beneath the Albuquerque volcanoes; however, 

evidence does not indicate that new magma was 

moving upward. Instead, the earthquake swarm 

may have been caused by readjustment of dikes 

(former sites of magma intrusion) and faults at great 

depth as the deeper portions of the dikes continued 

to cool and contract.

● Gas. Magmatic events are often preempted by 

outgassing, as a result of a decrease in confining 

pressure when rising magma nears the surface. 

Volatiles (substances given off as gas when heated) 
34

are lighter than the magma and can travel through 

porous rocks and thus reach the surface prior to 

eruption. Because carbon dioxide (CO2) is heavier 

than air, it can pool in surface depressions, which 

can kill animals or humans in the area. Excess 

CO2 gas in soils can kill trees and other plants, 

producing dead zones. Other gases, such as sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and water 

vapor, also may be present and can affect air quality.

● Lava Eruptions. The Albuquerque volcanic field 

has erupted basaltic lava in the past and could do so 

again. Lava flows will threaten roads, buildings, and 

other infrastructure in their path. Also, lava could 

ignite structural fires and wildfires. Because basalt 

is fluid and gas-poor, basalt flows are commonly 

considered to be “slow moving” (i.e., humans can 

outrun them); however, some flows, especially 

where they are channelized, can reach speeds of 

100 kph (60 mph).

● Volcanic Projectiles. Volcanic projectiles ranging 

from lapilli to large volcanic bombs (up to several 

meters in diameters) would be a significant hazard 

in areas adjacent to a vent. They are a localized 

hazard, but very large rocks can be thrown out if 

the eruption has sufficient power. Even small rock 

fragments can be lethal and cause injury within 

about 5 km (3 mi) of the erupting vent.

Resource managers many find the following 

Geological Monitoring vital signs of interest and use 

at the monument: (1) earthquake activity, (2) ground 

deformation, (3) gas emission at ground level, (4) 

emission of gas plumes and ash clouds, (5) hydrologic 

activity, and (6) slope instability (Smith et al. 2009). See 

also the “Resources” at the end of this report. No active 

volcano monitoring is occurring within the monument, 

but seismometers are in the vicinity. The Yellowstone 

Volcano Observatory monitors volcanic activity in New 

Mexico (see https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/observatories/

yvo/).
35

Geologic Map Data

A geologic map in GIS format is the principal deliverable of the GRI. GRI GIS data produced for the 

monument follows the source maps listed here and includes components described in this chapter. 

A poster (in pocket) displays the 1:50,000-scale data (from the source map by Connell 2006) over 

imagery of the monument and surrounding area. Complete GIS data are available at the GRI 

publications website: http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

Geologic Maps

A geologic map is the fundamental tool for depicting the 

geology of an area. Geologic maps are two-dimensional 

representations of the three-dimensional geometry 

of rock and sediment at or beneath the land surface 

(Evans 2016). Colors and symbols on geologic maps 

correspond to geologic map units. Map unit symbols 

consist of an uppercase letter indicating the age (fig. 

4) and lowercase letters indicating the formation’s

name. Other map symbols depict structures such

as faults or folds, locations of past geologic hazards

that may be susceptible to future activity, and other

geologic features. Anthropogenic features such as

mines or quarries, as well as observation or collection

locations, may be indicated on geologic maps. The

American Geosciences Institute website, http://www.

americangeosciences.org/environment/publications/

mapping, provides more information about geologic

maps and their uses.

Geologic maps are generally one of two types: surficial 

or bedrock. Surficial geologic maps typically depict 

deposits that are unconsolidated and formed during 

the past 2.6 million years (Quaternary Period). Surficial 

map units are differentiated by geologic process or 

depositional environment. Bedrock geologic maps 

show older, typically more consolidated sedimentary, 

metamorphic, and/or igneous rocks. Bedrock map units 

are differentiated based on age and/or rock type. The 

GRI GIS data for the monument consist of two data 

sets, both of which contain surficial and bedrock map 

units.

Source Maps

The GRI team does not conduct original geologic 

mapping. The team digitizes paper maps and compiles 

and converts digital data to conform to the GRI GIS 

data model. GRI GIS data include essential elements 

of the source maps such as map unit descriptions, a 

correlation chart of units, a map legend, map notes,

cross sections, figures, and references. These items are 

included in the petr_geology.hlp file.

The GRI team used two source maps to produce the 

GRI GIS data for the monument:

● Connell (2006; scale 1:50,000) was compiled into

the GRI GIS data set petr_geology.mxd. This data

set includes the Volcano Ranch, Los Griegos,

Albuquerque West, and La Mesita Negra SE

quadrangles, and covers the entire monument.

● Shroba et al. (2003; scale 1:24,000) was compiled

into the GRI GIS data set mnse_geology.mxd. This

data set covers the southwest area of the monument

within the La Mesita Negra SE quadrangle.

These source maps provided information for this 

report. Because it covers the entire monument, the 

primary source map used in writing this report was 

Connell (2006).

GRI GIS Data

The GRI team standardizes map deliverables by using 

a data model. The GRI GIS data for the monument 

was compiled using data model version 1.4, which is 

available at http://go.nps.gov/gridatamodel. This data 

model dictates GIS data structure, including layer 

architecture, feature attribution, and relationships 

within ESRI ArcGIS software. The GRI Geologic Maps 

website, http://go.nps.gov/geomaps, provides more 

information about the program’s map products.

GRI GIS data are available on the GRI publications 

website http://go.nps.gov/gripubs and through the NPS 

Integrated Resource Management Applications (IRMA) 

portal https://irma.nps.gov/App/Portal/Home. Enter 

“GRI” as the search text and select a park from the unit 

list.
36

The following components are part of the GRI data for 

the monument:

● A GIS readme file (readme.txt) that describes 

the GRI data formats, naming conventions, 

extraction instructions, use constraints, and contact 

information;

● Data in ESRI geodatabase GIS format;

● Layer files with feature symbology (tables 4 and 5);

● Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)–

compliant metadata;

● An ancillary map information document (petr_

geology.hlp) that contains information captured 

from source maps such as map unit descriptions, 

geologic unit correlation tables, legends, cross 

sections, and figures; and

● ESRI map documents (petr_geology.mxd and 

mnse_geology.mxd) that display the GRI GIS data.

GRI Map Posters

PA poster of the GRI GIS data set (petr_geology.mxd) 

draped over a shaded relief image of the monument and 

surrounding area is included with this report. Not all 

GIS feature classes are included on the poster (see table 

4). Geographic information and selected park features 

have been added to the poster. Digital elevation data 

and added geographic information are not included in 

the GRI GIS data but are available online from a variety 

of sources. Monument managers may contact the GRI 

team for assistance locating these data.

Use Constraints

Graphic and written information provided in this 

report is not a substitute for site-specific investigations. 

Ground-disturbing activities should neither be 

permitted nor denied based on the information 

provided here. Please contact the GRI team with any 

questions.

Minor inaccuracies may exist with respect to the 

locations of geologic features relative to other geologic 

or geographic features in the GRI GIS data and on the 

poster. Based on US National Map Accuracy Standards 

and the source map scales of 1:50,000 (petr_geology.

mxd) and 1:24,000 (mnse_geology.mxd), geologic 

features represented in the geologic map data and 

poster are expected to be horizontally within 25 m (82 

ft) or 12 m (40 ft) of their true locations, respectively.

Data Layer On Poster?

Cross Section Lines No

Geologic Attitude and 

Observation Points No

Geologic Sample Localities No

Mine Point Features No

Volcanic Point Features Yes

Geologic Line Features Yes

Fault and Fold Symbology Yes

Folds Yes

Faults Yes

Buried Igneous Body 

Boundaries No

Buried Igneous Bodies No

Surficial Contacts No

Surficial Geologic Units No

Geologic Contacts Yes

Geologic Units Yes

Table 4. GRI GIS data layers for petr_geology.mxd (Connell 

2006; scale 1:50,000).

Data Layer On Poster?

Geologic Attitude and 

Observation Points No

Geologic Measurement 

Localities No

Mine Point Features No

Fault Symbology No

Faults No

Surficial Contacts No

Surficial Units No

Geologic Contacts No

Geologic Units No

Table 5. GRI GIS data layers for mnse_geology.mxd 

(Shroba et al. 2003; scale 1:24,000).
37

Future Geologic Map

The US Geological Survey is working on a new geologic 

map that will cover the monument boundary plus a 

buffer zone that includes all of the volcanic deposits and 

possibly as far east as the Rio Grande. The New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology conducted isotopic dating of the lava 

flows for this forthcoming map. A preliminary version 

of the map was presented at the Geological Society 

of America’s Annual Meeting in 2016 (see Chan et al. 

2016). The map will probably be produced at a scale 

of 1:24,000, thus providing greater detail than Connell 

(2006; scale 1:50,000). The map is based on new LiDAR 

data, so the geologic line work has been significantly 

revised from previous maps. The intention is that the 

map will serve as a planning tool for monument staff. 

The map unit descriptions will be intentionally brief, 

however (Ren Thompson, US Geological Survey, 

geologist, email communication to Tim Connors, NPS 

Geologic Resources Division, 25 April 2017). Contact 

GRI to submit this map as a potential "inventories 2.0" 

project. 

39

Literature Cited

These references are cited in this report. Contact the Geologic Resources Division for assistance in 

obtaining them.

Allen, B. D., and R. Y. Anderson. 2000. A continuous, high-resolution record of late Pleistocene climate variability from the Estancia 

basin, New Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112(9):1444–1458.

Anschuetz, K. F., T. J. Ferguson, H. Francis, K. B. Kelley, and C. L. Scheick. 2002. “That place people talk about”: the Petroglyph 

National Monument ethnographic landscape report. Prepared for the National Park Service, Petroglyph National Monument, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, by Río Grande Foundation for Communities and Cultural Landscapes, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

https://www.nps.gov/petr/learn/index.htm.

Bachman, G. O., and H. H. Mehnert. 1978. New K-Ar dates and the late Pliocene to Holocene geomorphic history of the central Rio 

Grande region, New Mexico. Geological Society of America Bulletin 89(2):283–292.

Baldridge, W. S. 2004. Pliocene–Quaternary volcanism in New Mexico and a model for genesis of magmas in continental extension. 

Pages 313–330 in G. H. Mack and K. A. Giles, editors. The geology of New Mexico: a geologic history. Special Publication 11. 

New Mexico Geological Society, Socorro, New Mexico.

Bass Rivera, A., and L. Meyer. 2006. Documenting and conserving the cavates in Frijoles Canyon, Bandelier National Monument. 

Pages 7–9 in V. Salazar-Halfmoon, executive editor. Vanishing Treasures, Antiquities Act: 1906–2006 commemorative issue, year 

end report fiscal year 2006 and proposed activities 2007. National Park Service, Archeology Program, Washington, DC.

http://www.nps.gov/archeology/vt/2006yr.pdf.

Bass Rivera, A., and L. Meyer. 2009. Conserving the cavate pueblos in the volcanic landscape of Bandelier National Monument. 

Draft submitted for publication in Proceedings of the First World Conference on Volcanoes, Landscapes and Cultures, 11–14 

November 2009, Catania, Italy. http://www.conservationassociates.net/pdf/abr/Bass-Rivera_Meyer_BandelierCavates.pdf.

Bauer, P. W., R. P. Lozinsky, C. J. Condie, and L. G. Price. 2003. Albuquerque: a guide to its geology and culture. New Mexico Bureau 

of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

Bock, J. H., and C. E. Bock. 2006. A survey of the vascular plants and birds of Little Bighorn Battlefield. Final report. Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) task agreement CA-1200-99-007. University of Colorado, Department of Ecology and 

Evolutionary Biology, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Bilderback, E. 2013. September 10–15, 2013 flooding at Santa Fe Village adjacent to Petroglyph National Monument. Internal NPS 

report. NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Geologic Resources Division, Lakewood, Colorado.

Braile, L.W. 2009. Seismic monitoring. Pages 229–244 in R. Young and L. Norby, editors. Geological monitoring. Geological Society 

of America, Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/seismic_monitoring.

Burghardt, J. E., E. S. Norby, and H. S. Pranger II. 2014. Abandoned mineral lands in the National Park System: comprehensive 

inventory and assessment. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR—2014/906. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/aml_publications.

Champion, D. E., M. A. Lanphere, and M. A. Kuntz. 1988. Evidence for a new geomagnetic reversal from lava flows in Idaho: 

discussion of short polarity reversals in the Brunhes and late Matuyama polarity chrons. Journal of Geophysical Research 

93(B10):11,667–11,680.

Chan, C. F., R. A. Thompson, M. J. Zimmerer, W. R. Premo, and R. R. Shroba. 2016. Insight into small-volume volcanic fields in 

central Rio Grande rift—Albuquerque volcanoes, New Mexico. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 48(7). 

doi:10.1130/abs/2016AM-286572. https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2016AM/webprogram/Paper286572.html.

Connell, S. D. 2006. Preliminary geologic map of the Albuquerque–Rio Rancho metropolitan area and vicinity, Bernalillo and 

Sandoval Counties, New Mexico (scale 1:50,000). Open-File Report OFR-496. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, Socorro, New Mexico. https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=496.

Connell, S. D., J. W. Hawley, and D. W. Love. 2005. Late Cenozoic drainage development in the southeastern Basin and Range 

of New Mexico, southeasternmost Arizona, and western Texas. Pages 125–150 in S. G. Lucas, G. S. Morgan, and K. E. Zeigler, 

editors. New Mexico’s ice ages. Bulletin 28. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
40

Connell, S. D., D. W. Love, and N. W. Dunbar. 2007. Geomorphology and stratigraphy of inset fluvial deposits along the Rio Grande 

Valley in the central Albuquerque basin, New Mexico. New Mexico Geology 29(1):13–31.

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/home.cfml. 

Connell, S. D., and G. A. Smith. 2005. Post-Miocene stratigraphy of the Albuquerque basin, Rio Grande rift, New Mexico: 

implications for geomorphic and hydrogeologic development of extensional basins. Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs 37(7):496. https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94316.htm.

Connell, S. D., and S. G. Wells. 1999. Pliocene and Quaternary stratigraphy, soils, and tectonic geomorphology of the northern flank 

of the Sandia Mountains, New Mexico: implications for the tectonic evolution of the Albuquerque basin. Pages 379–391 in F. J. 

Pazzaglia, and S. G. Lucas, editors. Albuquerque geology. Fall Field Conference Guidebook 50. New Mexico Geological Society, 

Socorro, New Mexico. https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/50/.

Crumpler, L. S. 1999. Ascent and eruption at the Albuquerque volcanoes: a physical volcanology perspective. Pages. 221–233 in F. J. 

Pazzaglia and S. G. Lucas, editors. Albuquerque geology. Fall Field Conference Guidebook 50, New Mexico Geological Society, 

Socorro, New Mexico. https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/50/.

Dickerson, R. 2011. Desert varnish—nature’s smallest sedimentary formation. Geology Today 27(6):216–219.

Doak, S. 2015. Trail design at Petroglyph. Online PowerPoint presentation. NPS Mosaics in Science in partnership with the NPS 

Geologic Resources Division, Lakewood, Colorado. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/youthprograms/mosaics-2015-products.htm.

Dunbar, N. W., and F. M. Phillips. 2004. Cosmogenic 36Cl ages of lava flows in the Zuni–Bandera volcanic field, north-central New 

Mexico, USA. Pages 51–59 in S. M. Cather, W. C. McIntosh, and S. A. Kelley, editors. Tectonics, geochronology, and volcanism 

in the Southern Rocky Mountains and Rio Grande rift. Bulletin 160. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, 

Socorro, New Mexico.

Evans, T. J. 2016. General standards for geologic maps. Section 3.1 in M. B. Carpenter and C. M. Keane, compilers. The geoscience 

handbook 2016. AGI data sheets, 5th edition. American Geosciences Institute, Alexandria, Virginia.

Geissman, J. W., L. Brown, B. D. Turrin, L. D. McFadden, and S. S. Harlan. 1990. Brunhes chron excursion/polarity episode recorded 

during the Late Pleistocene, Albuquerque volcanoes, New Mexico, USA. Geophysical Journal International 102(1):73–88.

Gellis, A. C. 1995. Erosion assessment at the Petroglyph National Monument area, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 94-4205. US Geological Survey prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944205.

Gellis, A. C. 1996. Gullying at the Petroglyph National Monument, New Mexico. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 

51(2):155–159.

Graham, J. 2006a. Capitol Reef National Park: geologic resource evaluation report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/

NRR—2006/005. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

Graham, J. 2006b. Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve: geologic resource evaluation report. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2006/011 National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

Greco, D. 2004. Restoration of three cinder quarries at Petroglyph National Monument. Unpublished report. National Park Service, 

Geologic Resources Division, Denver, Colorado.

Highland, L. M., and P. Bobrowsky. 2008. The landslide handbook—a guide to understanding landslides. Circular 1325. US 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1325/.

KellerLynn, K. 2010. Petrified Forest National Park: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2010/218. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2011. Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2011/407. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2012a. El Malpais National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2012/578. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2012b. El Morro National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural resource report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2012/588. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.
41

KellerLynn, K. 2012c. White Sands National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural resource report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2012/585. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2014a. Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2014/849. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2014b. Lava Beds National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2014/804. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2015a. Bandelier National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/

GRD/NRR—2015/1036. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs. 

KellerLynn, K. 2015b. Capulin Volcano National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/1031. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2015c. Chaco Culture National Historical Park: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/1045. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. 2015d. Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument: geologic resources 

inventory report. Natural resource report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRR—2015/1046. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

KellerLynn, K. In preparation. Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument: geologic resources inventory report. Natural Resource 

Report. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

KellerLynn, K. In review. Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve: geologic resources inventory report. Natural 

Resource Report. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Kelley, S. 2010. Petroglyph National Monument, National Park Service. Pages 209–216 in L. G. Prince, editor. The geology of 

northern New Mexico’s parks, monuments, and public lands. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, 

New Mexico.

Kenworthy, J. P., and V. L. Santucci. 2006. A preliminary investigation of National Park Service paleontological resources in cultural 

context: Part 1, general overview. Pages 70–76 in S. G. Lucas, J. A. Spielmann, P. M. Hester, J. P. Kenworthy, and V. L. Santucci, 

editors. America’s antiquities: 100 years of managing fossils on federal lands. Bulletin 34. New Mexico Museum of Natural 

History and Science, Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/search/collection/bulletins. 

Lancaster, N. 2009. Aeolian features and processes. Pages 1–25 in R. Young and L. Norby, editors. Geological monitoring. 

Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/monitor_aeolian.

Limburg, E. M. 1990. Recent and potential volcanism of New Mexico: a preliminary study. Thesis. New Mexico Institute of Mining 

and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico.

Lord, M. L., D. Germanoski, and N. E. Allmendinger. 2009. Fluvial geomorphology: monitoring stream systems in response to a 

changing environment. Pages 69–103 in R. Young and L. Norby, editors. Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, 

Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/fluvial_monitoring.

Love, D. W., and A. Gellis. 2001. What decision makers should know about arroyos in New Mexico. Pages 81–83 in P. S. Johnson, 

editor. New Mexico Decision-Makers Field Guide 1. Water, watersheds, and land use in New Mexico: impacts of population 

growth on natural resources, Santa Fe region. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico. 

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/guides/decisionmakers/home.cfml.

Lozinsky, R. P. 1989. Cenozoic basin-fill stratigraphy and depositional history of the Albuquerque basin, central New Mexico. 

Pages 269–272 in O. J. Anderson, S. G. Lucas, D. W. Love, and S. M. Cather, editors. Southeastern Colorado Plateau. Fall Field 

Conference Guidebook 40. New Mexico Geological Society, Socorro, New Mexico.

https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/40/.

Machette, M. N., S. F. Personius, K. I. Kelson, K. M. Haller, and R. L. Dart. 1998. Map and data for Quaternary faults and folds in 

New Mexico. Open-File Report 98-521. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr98521. 

McCalpin, J. P., S. S. Olig, J. B. J. Harrison, and G. W. Berger. 2006. Quaternary faulting and soil formation on the County Dump 

fault, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Circular 212. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.
42

McDonald, E. V., and M. R. Sweeney. Blowing dust and a dangerous highway: evaluating the sources of dust along Interstate 

10 between Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 49(6). doi: 10.1130/

abs/2017AM-304507. https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2017AM/webprogram/Paper304507.html.

Morgan, G. S., and S. G. Lucas. 2003. Mammalian biochronology of Blancan and Irvingtonian (Pliocene and Early Pleistocene) 

faunas from New Mexico. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 13(279):269–320.

National Park Service. 2006. Geologic resource evaluation scoping summary, Petroglyph National Monument, New Mexico. NPS 

Geologic Resources Division, Denver, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

National Park Service. 2007. Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument resources management plan (9 July 2007). Little Bighorn 

Battlefield National Monument, Crow Agency, Montana. http://www.nps.gov/libi/parkmgmt/planning.htm.

National Park Service. 2012. Boca Negra Canyon. Park brochure. Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

https://www.nps.gov/petr/planyourvisit/brochures.htm.

National Park Service. 2016a. Draft foundation document: Petroglyph National Monument, New Mexico (March 2016). Petroglyph 

National Monument, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

National Park Service. 2016b. Draft natural resource condition assessment for Petroglyph National Monument, New Mexico (April 

2016). Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

National Park Service. 2017a [access date]. PEPC Planning, Environment & Public Comment: land exchange and construction of 

Santa Fe Village storm drain channel. Online information. Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=66586.

National Park Service. 2017b [access date]. PEPC Planning, Environment & Public Comment: visitor use management plan / 

environmental assessment. Online information. Petroglyph National Monument, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkID=89&projectID=66887.

National Park Service. 2017c. Water resources: hydrographic & impairments statistics. Online database. National Park Service, 

Water Resources Division, Denver, Colorado. https://nature.nps.gov/water/his/.

Neuendorf, K. K. E., J. P. Mehl Jr., and J. A. Jackson. 2005. Glossary of geology. Fifth edition. American Geological Institute, 

Alexandria, Virginia.

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 2017 [access date]. Volcanoes: Albuquerque basin volcanic field. Online 

information. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://www.nmnaturalhistory.

org/volcanoes/albuquerque-basin-volcanic-field.

Peate, D. W., J. H . Chen, G. J.Wasserburg, D. A. Papanastassiou, and J. W. Geissman. 1996. 238U-230Th dating of a geomagnetic 

excursion in Quaternary basalts of the Albuquerque volcanoes field, New Mexico (USA). Geophysical Research Letters 

23(17):2271–2274.

Personius, S. F., M. N. Machette, and K. I. Kelson. 1999. Quaternary faults in the Albuquerque area—an update. Pages 189–200 in 

F. J. Pazzaglia and S. G. Lucas, editors. Albuquerque geology. Annual Field Conference Guidebook 50. New Mexico Geological 

Society, Socorro, New Mexico. https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/50/.

Personius, S. F. and S. Mahan. 2000. Paleoearthquake recurrence on the East Paradise fault zone, metropolitan Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90(2): 357–369.

Price, L. G. 2010. The geology of northern New Mexico’s parks, monuments, and public lands. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

Richman, R. 2010. Digital volcanic geology of Capulin Volcano National Monument and vicinity (scale 1:24,000), including report 

on the creation of a geologic inventory map for Capulin Volcano National Monument. Prepared by Student Conservation 

Association (SCA) geology and interpretation intern for Capulin Volcano National Monument, Capulin, New Mexico.

Santucci, V. L., J. P. Kenworthy, and R. Kerbo. 2001. An inventory of paleontological resources associated with National Park Service 

caves. NPS Technical Information Center (TIC) number D-2231. National Park Service, Geologic Resources Division, Lakewood, 

Colorado.

Santucci, V. L., J. P. Kenworthy, and A. L. Mims. 2009. Monitoring in situ paleontological resources. Pages 189–204 in R. Young and 

L. Norby, editors. Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/paleo_monitoring.
43

Shroba, R. R., R. A. Thompson, D. L. Schmidt, S. F. Personius, F. Maldonado, and T. R. Brand. 2003. Geologic map of the La 

Mesita Negra SE quadrangle, Bernalillo County, New Mexico (scale 1:24,000). Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2416. US 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/mf2416.

Singer, B. S., B. R. Jicha, B. T. Kirby, J. W. Geissman, and E. Herrero-Bervera. 2008. 40Ar/39Ar dating links Albuquerque volcanoes to 

the Pringle Falls excursion and the geomagnetic instability time scale. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 267(3):584–595.

Smith, J. G., J. Dehn, R. P. Hoblitt, R. G. LaHusen, J. B. Lowenstern, S. C. Moran, L. McClelland, K. A. McGee, M. Nathenson, P. G. 

Okubo, J. S. Pallister, M. P. Poland, J. A. Power, D. J. Schneider, and T. W. Sisson. 2009. Volcano monitoring. Pages 273–305 in R. 

Young and L. Norby, editors. Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

http://go.nps.gov/monitor_volcanic

Spiegel, Z., and B. Baldwin. 1963. Geology and water resources of the Santa Fe area, New Mexico. Water-Supply Paper 1525. 

Prepared by the US Geological Survey, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, and Geophysics Laboratory of the 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, in cooperation with the State Engineer of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp1525. 

Sweeney, M. R., and E. V. McDonald. 2017. Dust emission potential along the Interstate 8 corridor, southern California and Arizona. 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 49(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2017AM-298753.

https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2017AM/webprogram/Paper298753.html.

Sweeney, M. R., E. V. McDonald, V. Etyemezian. 2011. Quantifying dust emissions from desert landforms, eastern Mojave Desert, 

USA. Geomorphology 135:21–34.

Toomey, R. S. III. 2009. Geological monitoring of caves and associated landscapes. Pages 27–46 in R. Young and L. Norby, editors. 

Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/monitor_cavekarst.

Tweet, J. S., V. L. Santucci, J. P. Kenworthy, and A. L. Mims. 2009. Paleontological resource inventory and monitoring—Southern 

Colorado Plateau Network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRPC/NRTR—2009/245. National Park Service, Fort 

Collins, Colorado.

US Geological Survey. 2017. Faults: Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States. Online interactive fault map. US 

Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, Washington, DC. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/ (accessed 21 

September 2017).

Walkup, L. 2013. NPS volcanic resources/hazard inventory: Petroglyph National Monument. Draft report by GSA GeoCorps 

America guest scientist. National Park Service, Geologic Resources Division, Lakewood, Colorado.

Wieczorek, G. F., and J. B. Snyder. 2009. Monitoring slope movements. Pages 245–271 in R. Young and L. Norby, editors. Geological 

monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. http://go.nps.gov/monitor_slopes.

Wong, I. G. 2009. Earthquakes in New Mexico. Earth Matters 9(1):1–4.

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/earthmatters/home.cfml. 

Young, R., and L. Norby, editors. 2009. Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

http://go.nps.gov/geomonitoring.

Ypsilantis, W. G. 2011. Upland soil erosion monitoring and assessment: an overview. Technical Note 438. Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. https://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN438.pdf.

Zimmerer, M. J., W. C. McIntosh, M. T. Heizler, N. W. Dunbar, and J. Lafferty. 2014. A high-precision 40Ar/39Ar chronology of late 

Quaternary volcanism in the Raton-Clayton volcanic field. Abstract. New Mexico Geological Society Annual Spring Meeting, 11 

April 2014, New Mexico Tech campus, Macey Center, Socorro, New Mexico.

https://nmgs.nmt.edu/meeting/abstracts/view.cfm?aid=296.

45

Resources

These books, papers, and websites may be of use to resource managers. Refer to Appendix B for laws, 

regulations, and policies that apply to NPS geologic resources. 

Arroyos in New Mexico

“What Decision Makers Should Know about Arroyos in New Mexico”:

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/geoscience/hazards/erosion/home.html.

Cooke, R. U., and R. W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and environmental change in the American Southwest. Oxford University Press, New 

York.

Gellis, A. C., W. W. Emmett, and L. B. Leopold. 2005. Channel and hillslope processes revisited in the Arroyo de Los Frijoles 

watershed near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Professional Paper 1704. Prepared in cooperation with the New Mexico Environment 

Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1704.

Graf, W. L. 1983. The arroyo problem: paleohydrology and paleohydraulics in the short term. Pages 279–302 in K. G. Gregory, 

editor. Background to paleohydrology. John Wiley, New York.

Leopold, L. B., W. E. Emmett, and R. M. Myrick. 1966. Channel and hillslope processes in a semiarid area, New Mexico. 

Professional Paper 352-G. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp352G.

Love, D. W. 1997. Historic incision of the middle Rio Puerco of the East—implications for models of arroyo entrenchment and 

distribution of archaeological sites. Pages 69–84 in M. S. Duran and D. T. Kirkpatrick, editors. Layers of time, papers in honor of 

Robert H. Weber. Archaeological Society of New Mexico 23:69–84.

Love, D. W., and A. Gellis. 2001. What decision makers should know about arroyos in New Mexico. Pages 81–83 in P. S. Johnson, 

editor. New Mexico Decision-Makers Field Guide 1. Water, watersheds, and land use in New Mexico: impacts of population 

growth on natural resources, Santa Fe region. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico. 

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/guides/decisionmakers/home.cfml.

Meyer, D. F. 1989. The significance of sediment transport in arroyo development. Water Supply Paper 2349. US Geological Survey, 

Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2349.

Schumm, S. A., and R. F. Hadley. 1957. Arroyos and the semi-arid cycle of erosion. American Journal of Science 255:161–174.

Tuan, Y. 1966. New Mexican gullies—a critical review and some recent observations. Association of American Geographers Annals 

56:573–97.

Warren, A. H. 1984. Arroyos and archaeology in New Mexico. New Mexico Archaeology and History 2(2):20–43.

Wells, S. G., D. W. Love, and T. W. Gardner, editors. Chaco Canyon country: a field guide to the geomorphology, Quaternary 

geology, paleoecology, and environmental geology of northwestern New Mexico. 1983 Field Trip Guidebook. American 

Geomorphological Field Group, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Climate Change

NPS Climate Change Response Program: http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/resources.htm

US Global Change Research Program: http://www.globalchange.gov/home

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Earthquakes in New Mexico

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, earthquake education and resources: http://tremor.nmt.edu

US Geological Survey, earthquake information about New Mexico: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/byregion/newmexico.

php
Machette, M. N., S. F. Personius, K. I. Kelson, R. L. Dart, and K. M. Haller. 1998. Map and data for Quaternary faults and folds 

in New Mexico. Open-File Report 98-521. Version 1.0. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/

ofr-98-0521/.

McCalpin, J. P., S. S. Olig, J. B. J. Harrison, and G. W. Berger. 2006. Quaternary faulting and soil formation on the County Dump 

fault, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Circular 212. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. 2002. Lite Geology, number 24.

http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/litegeology/24/lg_v24.pdf.

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. 2009. New Mexico Earth Matters (winter 2009), volume 9, number 1. 

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/earthmatters/9/n1/em_v9_n1.pdf.

Personius, S. F., M. N. Machette, and K. I. Kelson. 1999. Quaternary faults in the Albuquerque area—an update. Pages 189–200 in 

F. J. Pazzaglia and S. G. Lucas, editors. Albuquerque geology. Annual Field Conference Guidebook 50. New Mexico Geological 

Society, Socorro, New Mexico. https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/50/.

Sanford, A. R., K. W. Lin, I. C. Tsai, and L. H. Jaksha. 2002. Earthquake catalogs for New Mexico and bordering areas: 1869–1998. 

Circular 210. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

Sanford, A. R., T. M. Mayeau, J. W. Schlue, R. C. Aster, and L. H. Jaksha. 2006. Earthquake catalogs for New Mexico and bordering 

area II: 1999–2004. New Mexico Geology 28(4):99–109. https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/home.cfml.

Wong, I., S. Olig, M. Dober, W. Silva, D. Wright, P. Thomas, N. Gregor, A. Sanford, K. Lin, and D. Love. 2004. Earthquake scenario 

and probabilistic ground-shaking hazard maps for the Albuquerque–Belen–Santa Fe, New Mexico, corridor. New Mexico 

Geology 26(1):3–33. https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/periodicals/nmg/26/n1/nmg_v26_n1_p3.pdf.

Erosion Control and Monitoring

International Erosion Control Association (IECA), including storm-water best management practices and educational resources: 

http://ieca.org/IECA/

Ypsilantis, W. G. 2011. Upland soil erosion monitoring and assessment: an overview. Technical Note 438. Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. https://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN438.pdf.

Geology of National Park Service Areas

NPS Geologic Resources Division—Energy and Minerals, Active Processes and Hazards, and Geologic Heritage:

http://go.nps.gov/geology

NPS Geologic Resources Division Education website: http://go.nps.gov/geoeducation

NPS Geologic Resources Inventory: http://go.nps.gov/gri

NPS Geoscientists-In-the-Parks (GIP) internship and guest scientist program: http://go.nps.gov/gip

NPS Views (geology-themed modules for Geologic Time, Paleontology, Glaciers, Caves and Karst, Coastal Geology, Volcanoes, and 

a variety of geologic parks): http://go.nps.gov/views

USGS geology online books index (categorized by park name):

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/geology/books-geology.htm

Bauer, P. W., R. P. Lozinsky, C. J. Condie, and L. G. Price. 2003. Albuquerque: a guide to its geology and culture. New Mexico 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico. (Includes descriptions and trip logs for Petroglyph National 

Monument.)

Lillie, R. J. 2005. Parks and plates: the geology of our national parks, monuments, and seashores. W. W. Norton and Company, New 

York, New York.

National Park Service and American Geosciences Institute. 2015. America’s geologic heritage: an invitation to leadership. NPS 

999/129325. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. http://go.nps/gov/AmericasGeoheritage.
47

Price, L. G. 2010. The geology of northern New Mexico’s parks, monuments, and public lands. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

Geological Surveys and Societies

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources: https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/

New Mexico Geological Society, Fall Field Conference Guidebooks:

https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/home.cfml?ListBy=Number

US Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov/

Geological Society of America: http://www.geosociety.org/

American Geophysical Union: http://sites.agu.org/

American Geosciences Institute: http://www.americangeosciences.org/

Association of American State Geologists: http://www.stategeologists.org/

NPS Resource Management Guidance and Documents

Management Policies 2006 (Chapter 4: natural resource management): http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html

1998 National Parks Omnibus Management Act: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ391/pdf/PLAW-105publ391.pdf

NPS-75 (natural resource inventory and monitoring guideline): http://www.nature.nps.gov/nps75/nps75.pdf

NPS natural resource management reference manual #77: http://www.nature.nps.gov/Rm77/

NPS Technical Information Center (TIC) (Denver, Colorado; repository for technical documents):

http://etic.nps.gov/ 

Young, R., and L. Norby, editors. 2009. Geological monitoring. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

http://go.nps.gov/geomonitoring.

USGS Reference Tools

National geologic map database (NGMDB): http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmdb/ngmdb_home.html

Geologic names lexicon (GEOLEX; geologic unit nomenclature and summary): http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/search

Geographic names information system (GNIS; official listing of place names and geographic features): http://gnis.usgs.gov/

GeoPDFs (downloadable PDFs of any topographic map in the United States): http://store.usgs.gov (click on “Find Map”)

Publications Warehouse (many publications available online): http://pubs.er.usgs.gov

Tapestry of Time and Terrain (descriptions of physiographic provinces): http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2720/

Volcanic Hazards in New Mexico

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, FAQ page about volcanism:

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/faq/volcanoes/home.html.

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, information about the Albuquerque Volcanoes:

http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/volcanoes/albuquerque-basin-volcanic-field.

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, online exhibits about the volcanoes of New Mexico:

http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/online-exhibits-geoscience/volcanoes-new-mexico.

49

Appendix A: Scoping Participants

The following people attended the GRI scoping meeting, held on 29 March 2006, or participated in a 

follow-up conference call, held on 25 April 2017. Discussions during this meeting and call supplied a 

foundation for this GRI report. The scoping summary document is available on the GRI publications 

website: http://go.nps.gov/gripubs.

2006 Scoping Meeting Participants

Name Affiliation Position

Tim Connors NPS Geologic Resources Division Geologist

Bruce Heise NPS Geologic Resources Division Geologist

Katie KellerLynn Colorado State University Geologist/research associate

Ron Kerbo NPS Geologic Resources Division Cave specialist

Marc LeFrançois Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Exhibit specialist

Mike Medrano Petroglyph National Monument Natural resource specialist

Michael Quijano Petroglyph National Monument Chief ranger

Tobin Roop Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Archeologist

Ren Thompson US Geological Survey Geologist

Mike Timmons New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Geologist

Andrew Waggener Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument GIS specialist

Gretchen Ward Petroglyph National Monument Archeologist

2017 Conference Call Participants

Name Affiliation Position

Tim Connors NPS Geologic Resources Division Geologist

Katie KellerLynn Colorado State University Geologist/research associate

Shari Kelley New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Geologist

Jason Kenworthy NPS Geologic Resources Division Geologist/GRI reports coordinator

Dale Kissner Petroglyph National Monument Chief ranger/chief of resources

Dale Pate NPS Geologic Resources Division Cave and Karst Program lead

Chanteil Walter Petroglyph National Monument Environmental protection specialist

Matt Zimmerer New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources Geologist

51

Appendix B: Geologic Resource Laws, Regulations, and Policies

The NPS Geologic Resources Division developed this table to summarize laws, regulations, and 

policies that specifically apply to NPS minerals and geologic resources. The table does not include 

laws of general application (e.g., Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Wilderness Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, or National Historic Preservation Act). The table does include the NPS 

Organic Act when it serves as the main authority for protection of a particular resource or when other, 

more specific laws are not available. Information is current as of July 2017. Contact the NPS Geologic 

Resources Division for detailed guidance.

Resource Resource-specific Laws Resource-specific Regulations 2006 Management Policies Paleontology

National Parks Omnibus Management 

Act of 1998, 16 USC § 5937 protects the 

confidentiality of the nature and specific 

location of paleontological resources and 

objects.

Paleontological Resources Preservation 

Act of 2009, 16 USC § 470aaa et 

seq. provides for the management and 

protection of paleontological resources on 

federal lands.

36 CFR § 2.1(a)(1)(iii) prohibits destroying, 

injuring, defacing, removing, digging or 

disturbing paleontological specimens or 

parts thereof.

Prohibition in 36 CFR § 13.35 applies 

even in Alaska parks, where the surface 

collection of other geologic resources is 

permitted.

DOI regulations in association with 2009 

PRPA are being finalized (July 2017).

Section 4.8.2 requires NPS to protect 

geologic features from adverse effects of 

human activity.

Section 4.8.2.1 emphasizes Inventory and 

Monitoring, encourages scientific research, 

directs parks to maintain confidentiality of 

paleontological information, and allows 

parks to buy fossils only in accordance with 

certain criteria.

Rocks and Minerals

NPS Organic Act, 16 USC § 1 et seq.

directs the NPS to conserve all resources 

in parks (including rock and mineral 

resources), unless otherwise authorized by 

law.

36 CFR § 2.1 prohibits possessing, 

destroying, disturbing mineral resources...

in park units.

Exception: 36 CFR § 13.35 allows some 

surface collection of rocks and minerals 

in some Alaska parks (not Klondike 

Gold Rush, Sitka, Denali, Glacier Bay, 

or Katmai) by non-disturbing methods 

(e.g., no pickaxes), which can be stopped 

by superintendent if collection causes 

significant adverse effects on park 

resources and visitor enjoyment.

Section 4.8.2 requires NPS to protect 

geologic features from adverse effects of 

human activity.

Park Use of Sand and Gravel

Materials Act of 1947, 30 USC § 601

does not authorize the NPS to dispose of 

mineral materials outside of park units.

None applicable.

Section 9.1.3.3 clarifies that only the 

NPS or its agent can extract park-owned 

common variety minerals (e.g., sand and 

gravel), and:

-only for park administrative uses;

-after compliance with NEPA and other 

federal, state, and local laws, and a 

finding of non-impairment;

-after finding the use is park’s most 

reasonable alternative based on 

environment and economics;

-parks should use existing pits and create 

new pits only in accordance with parkwide borrow management plan;

-spoil areas must comply with Part 6 

standards; and

-NPS must evaluate use of external 

quarries.

Any deviation from this policy requires a 

written waiver from the Secretary, Assistant 

Secretary, or Director.
52

Resource Resource-specific Laws Resource-specific Regulations 2006 Management Policies Upland and Fluvial Processes

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation 

Act of 1899, 33 USC § 403 prohibits the 

construction of any obstruction on the 

waters of the United States not authorized 

by Congress or approved by the USACE.

Clean Water Act 33 USC § 1342 requires 

a permit from the USACE prior to any 

discharge of dredged or fill material 

into navigable waters (waters of the US 

[including streams]). 

Executive Order 11988 requires federal 

agencies to avoid adverse impacts to 

floodplains. (see also D.O. 77-2)

Executive Order 11990 requires plans for 

potentially affected wetlands (including 

riparian wetlands). (see also D.O. 77-1)

None applicable.

Section 4.1 requires NPS to manage 

natural resources to preserve fundamental 

physical and biological processes, as well 

as individual species, features, and plant 

and animal communities; maintain all 

components and processes of naturally 

evolving park ecosystems.

Section 4.1.5 directs the NPS to reestablish natural functions and processes 

in human-disturbed components of natural 

systems in parks, unless directed otherwise 

by Congress.

Section 4.4.2.4 directs the NPS to allow 

natural recovery of landscapes disturbed by 

natural phenomena, unless manipulation of 

the landscape is necessary to protect park 

development or human safety. 

Section 4.6.4 directs the NPS to (1) 

manage for the preservation of floodplain 

values; [and] (2) minimize potentially 

hazardous conditions associated with 

flooding.

Section 4.6.6 directs the NPS to manage 

watersheds as complete hydrologic systems 

and minimize human-caused disturbance 

to the natural upland processes that deliver 

water, sediment, and woody debris to 

streams.

Section 4.8.1 directs the NPS to allow 

natural geologic processes to proceed 

unimpeded. Geologic processes...include...

erosion and sedimentation...processes. 

Section 4.8.2 directs the NPS to protect 

geologic features from the unacceptable 

impacts of human activity while allowing 

natural processes to continue.
53

Resource Resource-specific Laws Resource-specific Regulations 2006 Management Policies Soils

Soil and Water Resources Conservation 

Act, 16 USC §§ 2011–2009 provides for 

the collection and analysis of soil and 

related resource data and the appraisal of 

the status, condition, and trends for these 

resources.

Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 USC 

§ 4201 et. seq. requires NPS to identify 

and take into account the adverse effects 

of Federal programs on the preservation 

of farmland; consider alternative actions, 

and assure that such Federal programs 

are compatible with State, unit of local 

government, and private programs and 

policies to protect farmland. NPS actions 

are subject to the FPPA if they may 

irreversibly convert farmland (directly 

or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and 

are completed by a Federal agency or 

with assistance from a Federal agency. 

Applicable projects require coordination 

with the Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS).

7 CFR Parts 610 and 611 are the US 

Department of Agriculture regulations 

for the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. Part 610 governs the NRCS 

technical assistance program, soil erosion 

predictions, and the conservation of private 

grazing land. Part 611 governs soil surveys 

and cartographic operations. The NRCS 

works with the NPS through cooperative 

arrangements.

Section 4.8.2.4 requires NPS to

-prevent unnatural erosion, removal, and 

contamination;

-conduct soil surveys;

-minimize unavoidable excavation; and

-develop/follow written prescriptions 

(instructions).

Nonfederal minerals other than oil and gas

NPS Organic Act, 54 USC §§ 100101 and 

100751

Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 USC § 

1201 et. seq. prohibits surface coal 

mining operations on any lands within the 

boundaries of a NPS unit, subject to valid 

existing rights.

NPS regulations at 36 CFR Parts 1, 5, 

and 6 require the owners/operators of 

other types of mineral rights to obtain 

a special use permit from the NPS as a 

§ 5.3 business operation, and § 5.7 – 

Construction of buildings or other facilities, 

and to comply with the solid waste 

regulations at Part 6.

SMCRA Regulations at 30 CFR Chapter 

VII govern surface mining operations on 

Federal lands and Indian lands by requiring 

permits, bonding, insurance, reclamation, 

and employee protection. Part 7 of the 

regulations states that National Park System 

lands are unsuitable for surface mining.

Section 8.7.3 states that operators 

exercising rights in a park unit must comply 

with 36 CFR Parts 1 and 5.
Resource Resource-specific Laws Resource-specific Regulations 2006 Management Policies Caves and Karst Systems

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act 

of 1988, 16 USC §§ 4301 – 4309 requires 

Interior/Agriculture to identify “significant 

caves” on Federal lands, regulate/

restrict use of those caves as appropriate, 

and include significant caves in land 

management planning efforts. Imposes 

civil and criminal penalties for harming 

a cave or cave resources. Authorizes 

Secretaries to withhold information about 

specific location of a significant cave from 

a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requester. 

National Parks Omnibus Management 

Act of 1998, 54 USC § 100701 protects 

the confidentiality of the nature and 

specific location of cave and karst 

resources.

Lechuguilla Cave Protection Act of 

1993, Public Law 103-169 created a cave 

protection zone (CPZ) around Lechuguilla 

Cave in Carlsbad Caverns National Park. 

Within the CPZ, access and the removal 

of cave resources may be limited or 

prohibited; existing leases may be cancelled 

with appropriate compensation; and lands 

are withdrawn from mineral entry.

36 CFR § 2.1 prohibits possessing/ 

destroying/disturbing...cave resources...in 

park units.

43 CFR Part 37 states that all NPS caves 

are “significant” and sets forth procedures 

for determining/releasing confidential 

information about specific cave locations to 

a FOIA requester.

Section 4.8.1.2 requires NPS to maintain 

karst integrity, minimize impacts.

Section 4.8.2 requires NPS to protect 

geologic features from adverse effects of 

human activity.

Section 4.8.2.2 requires NPS to protect 

caves, allow new development in or on 

caves if it will not impact cave environment, 

and to remove existing developments if 

they impair caves.

Section 6.3.11.2 explains how to manage 

caves in/adjacent to wilderness.
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities.

NPS 354/140570, November 2017
EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior
This map displays geologic map data compiled by the 

National Park Service Geologic Resources Inventory. It is not 

a substitute for site-specific investigations.

Source Map: S.D. Connell. 2006. Preliminary geologic map of 

the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho metropolitan area and vicinity, 

Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico (scale 

1:50,000). OFR-496, 2 plates, version 2. New Mexico Bureau 

of Geology and Mineral Resources, Socorro, New Mexico.

Source Scale: 1:50,000

According to US National Map accuracy standards, features 

are within 25 m (83 ft) of their true location.

Poster Layout by Dalton Meyer (Colorado State University)

Poster Date: September 2017

Source Map Date: 2006

GRI Data Date: 2007

All Geologic Resources Inventory geologic map data and 

publications are available at http://go.nps.gov/gripubs