BLM LIBRARY 88056824 FINAL WILDERNESS Management Plan BIcSTI WILDEQNE&S NEW MEXICO JULY 1986 Bureau of Land Managamant Dapartmant of tha Intarior BLM-NM-PT-86-010-4332 fop °'if IT)',2Ubk fC ^ WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ^ BISTI WILDERNESS y U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT OFFICE FARMINGTON RESOURCE AREA SAN JUAN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO Recommended by : \J£t^ xlI^IL^j/ William L. Overbaugh Outdoor Recreation Planner, Farmington Resource Area Recommended by: JUll < < < PROPOSED^* COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATION FOSSIL FOREST ^ AH-SHI-SLE-PAH // WILDERNESS STUDY AREA CHACO CULTURE NATIONAL HISTORI PARK MAP C REGIONAL LOCATION — PAVED ROAD - GRADED ROAD 0 12 3 4 5 Miles SCALE PART II WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Wilderness Management Philosophy The Bisti Wilderness is designated pri- marily for permanent long-term protection and preservation of its natural character and, secondly, for public enjoyment as wilder- ness. It is the position of the BLM, consis- tent with legislation and national guidance, to establish an overall philosophy or mission for the administration of the Bisti Wilder- ness in order to supplement national goals and policy. Overall BLM wilderness management philos- ophy is to allow the natural ecological cycles, interrelationships, functions, pro- cesses and environmental conditions of the wilderness resource to operate freely with as little human and technological influence as possible. It is recognized that legislatively acceptable uses such as primitive recreation, scientific and educational studies, histori- cal and conservation purposes, livestock grazing and mineral activities are legitimate uses, however, they will not be encouraged or stimulated by promotion or advertisement. Those uses requiring permits may be authoriz- ed on a case-by-case basis after analysis in an environmental assessment in order to miti- gate impacts to the wilderness resource. The minimum tool concept will be applied and the method selected will be the least degrading and disruptive to the wilderness resource. The Bisti Wilderness is not an island unto itself and may be affected by indirect human influences that can severely impact ecological energy flow. More direct human- caused impacts such as rangeland developments or removal of mineral resources expedite un- natural changes in the wilderness resource. It is recognized that some action will be needed to reclaim existing unnatural condi- tions caused by past human disturbance. This may allow the present wilderness resource to return to a condition that will encourage ecological processes to proceed in a dynamic natural state with human influence having minimal effects. Wilderness Management Goals Wilderness management goals have been established to obtain bureauwide consistency in the BLM wilderness management program. The following broadly stated goals apply to all BLM-administered wilderness areas (BLM Manual 8560): To provide for the long-term protection and preservation of the area's wilderness character under a principle of nondegrada- tion. The area's natural condition, opportu- nities for solitude, opportunities for primi- tive and unconfined types of recreation, and any ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or his- torical value present will be managed so that they will remain unimpaired; To manage the wilderness area for the use and enjoyment of visitors in a manner that will leave the area unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. The wilderness resource will be dominant in all management decisions where a choice must be made between preservation of wilderness character and human use; To manage the area using the minimum tool, equipment, or structure necessary to successfully, safely, and economically ac- complish the objective. The chosen tool, equipment, or structure should be the one 1 1-1 that least degrades wilderness values tempo- rarily or permanently. Management will seek to preserve spontaneity of use and as much freedom from regulation as possible; and To manage nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Wilderness Act and subse- quent laws in a manner that will prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the area's wilderness character. Nonconforming uses are the exception rather than the rule; therefore, emphasis is placed on maintaining wilderness character. Wilderness Management Objectives Written objectives are presented here to clearly identify the desired conditions that the BLM is striving to achieve in the Bisti Wilderness. The objectives comply with the goals stated in the previous section. Managerial Elements The ADMINISTRATION objective is to con- duct the necessary administrative activities to the extent consistent with wilderness phi- losophy, goals, objectives and this manage- ment plan in order to preserve, protect and restore the integrity of the wilderness resource. The FIRE management objectives are to allow fire to return to its natural role and exert its effects on the wilderness resource without endangering public health, safety or values; to use suppression techniques which result in the least possible evidence of human activity; and to develop a fire protec- tion strategy that achieves wilderness man- agement objectives at the least cost. The INFORMATION AND EDUCATION objective is to provide visitors with an understanding and appreciation of wilderness values and the proper use and care of natural resources in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future generations. The SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND DATA COLLECTION objective is to allow research to occur as long as it is conducted in such a manner to protect and preserve the wilderness character in its natural condition subject to natural ecological processes while complying with ap- plicable BLM policy and regulations. Environmental Elements The CULTURAL RESOURCES objective is to protect and preserve cultural resources in their natural condition subject to natural ecological processes provided these processes do not adversely threaten significant re- sources that must be managed in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and BLM policy. The LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS objective is to allow grazing use to continue subject to wil- derness regulations and to maintain or up- grade the existing vegetative condition and trend. The MINERAL RESOURCES management objec- tive is to prevent unnecessary and undue de- gradation of the area's wilderness character when mineral lessees exercise their valid existing rights and to allow no new mineral development after valid existing rights ex- pire. The NATURALNESS objective is to reclaim the effects of authorized and unauthorized uses that have occurred within the last 50 years, and maintain the area free from new structures and improvements (except for those necessary to protect the wilderness resource, public health and safety, and to recognize valid existing rights). The PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE objective is to protect and preserve paleontological re- sources in their natural condition subject to natural ecological processes provided these processes do not adversely threaten signifi- cant resources which must be managed in com- pliance with applicable Federal and State laws and BLM policy. The RECREATION AND SCENIC QUALITY objec- tives are to allow historical patterns of primitive recreation to continue in their traditional fashion unless they degrade wil- derness values and to provide for public rec- reation dependent upon a wilderness setting in a manner consistent with the preservation of an enduring resource of wilderness, 1 1-2 characterized by naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude and natural visual enjoyment of the Bisti Wilderness. The WILDLIFE management objectives are to preserve and protect habitats for wildlife (particularly nesting raptors) in their natural condition while providing minimal restriction to visitor use and access and to allow natural ecological succession of wild- life populations so long as they do not threaten resource and human values outside the Bisti Wilderness. 1 1-3 PART WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The major wilderness elements identified in this part represent the significant uses, resources and management concerns of the Bisti Wilderness. The elements are arranged under managerial and environmental headings. Each element repeats the applicable manage- ment objective and describes the current sit- uation, assumptions, management policies and prescribed actions. The current situation section describes the existing resource con- dition including problems, trends and uses. The assumption section explains the special- ists' future expectations based on the cur- rent situation. Management policies seek to provide guidance and administrative direction for the prescribed management actions. The policies do not attempt to encompass or ad- dress all possible future management ac- tions. If an unforeseen situation occurs, the management plan may need to be revised and the BLM Manual 8560 will guide the direc- tion for the proposed management action. Re- visions to the plan will be subject to public review and State Director approval. Wilder- ness Management Policy (1981) and regulations are not always restated here as specific pol- icy, however, they still apply. For the most part, only new and redefined policies to fit a particular situation are addressed. The management actions prescribed are the action steps to be taken once the plan is approved. They are the implementation steps. Manage- ment actions can be tracked back through the process by looking back to the current situa- tion which has called for some action. agement plan in order to preserve, protect and restore the integrity of the wilderness resource. Current Situation The Bisti Wilderness is directly adminis- tered by the BLM Farmington Resource Area under the responsibility of the Area Manager and the technical supervision of the wilder- ness coordinator. One BLM staff member has acted as wilderness coordinator since wilder- ness designation and approximately 12 volun- teers have monitored the Bisti Wilderness via patrol s. Administrative activities have included scheduled volunteer patrols, tours, a cadas- tral team survey and random field work by specialists. A cadastral team has surveyed and posted wilderness boundary signs on fence posts at most section corners, along rights- of-way and at access points where they inter- sect the Bisti Wilderness boundary. Vehicle radio communication from the Bisti Wilderness boundary to the FRA office is adequate. Radio shadows could make long- range handheld radio communication from within the Bisti Wilderness to the FRA office a problem in the case of search and rescue or other emergencies. To date, no request has been received for search and rescue opera- tions. MANAGERIAL ELEMENTS ADMINISTRATION Management Objectives The ADMINISTRATION objective is to con- duct the necessary administrative activities to the extent consistent with wilderness philosophy, goals, objectives and this man- The BLM and the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration have developed an Interagency Agree- ment (Instruction Bulletin No. 86-84) regard- ing the management and use of navigable air- space over designated wilderness. The agree- ment establishes a 2,000 feet above ground level clearance as the minimum altitude for private and commercial aircraft flying in airspace over wilderness areas. The agree- ment does not apply to military overflights. III-l No incidents involving visitor health and safety have been reported. Also no known hazards or dangerous natural or human-caused conditions occur that are not inherent to wilderness and this arid badl and/semi-desert environment. Law-enforcement problems have occurred in stopping trespass violations and halting repeat offenders. This is considered a ser- ious problem due to the lack of enforcement presence and attention to prevent unauthoriz- ed activities. An administrative closure of 1,360 acres within the Bisti Wilderness known as the Bisti Badlands (refer to Map D) was enacted in 1978. This closure prohibited motorized vehicle access and the collection of petri- fied wood (refer to the Federal Register June 5, 1978). The entire Bisti Wilderness is now closed to motorized vehicles as a result of wilderness designation. justification for fire suppression, search and rescue operations and in emergencies that require protecting the wilderness resource. Visitor risks associated with adverse weather conditions, isolation, physical envi- ronmental hazards, lack of rapid communica- tion, conveniences and motorized travel are an integral part of the wilderness and will not be eliminated or minimized. Violations that impair the wilderness resource or do not comply with BLM policy and this management plan will be aggressively in- vestigated. Appropriate actions will be pur- sued. Alternate sources of funding to implement this management plan will be pursued (e.g. gift catalog, donations, volunteer time and services) . Patrol and surveillance operations will be continued to preserve and protect wilder- ness resources. Assumptions Increased management attention and public awareness of this area have revealed various problems that might dictate the need for more intensive on-site management, including in- tensive patrol and monitoring. Personal con- tact by informed personnel and volunteers may be the most effective means of influencing user behavior. Challenge, natural hazards, personal risk, an element of danger and the lack of modern conveniences are integral parts of the wilderness experience. Unauthorized activities could continue if vehicle access is not restricted and other preventative measures are not taken. Management Policies Administrative use of motorized vehicles, mechanized equipment or facilities will not be permitted by the FRA Manager except upon Search and rescue operations will be as- sisted by the BLM with costs assessed to the requesting party. Acquisition of adjacent lands will be pursued if it will increase the manageability of the Bisti Wilderness. Administrative wilderness boundary signs will be monitored, maintained and replaced according to Albuquerque District Sign Plan. Any management or proposed action will be addressed in an environmental assessment. A permit must be carried by permittee while in the Bisti Wilderness for uses re- quiring authorization. In addition to National Environmental Policy Act requirements, each environmental assessment will include: -- analysis of specific effects of the proposed action on natural ecological processes, naturalness, solitude and primitive recreation; II 1-2 H ; i MAP D BISTI BADLANDS A BISTI BADLANDS CLOSURE 1978 1/2 l 1 Mile =1 SCALE v\ 16 H a ?'. / * /-' <" -s. 10 15 r < W < <« A in-3 -- analysis of the relationship of human influences and the wilderness resource; -- analysis of the spectrum of ways and means of each alternative, including those tools and equipment used before motor vehicles and modern techology were available; -- analysis of the cumulative impacts of all human influences occurring within and outside the Bisti Wilderness on the wilderness characteristics of naturalness, solitude, primitive rec- reation and other special or supple- mental values; -- analysis of compliance with law, regu- lations and the Wilderness Management Pol icy; -- analysis of proposed action and how it complies with wilderness management objectives; and -- analysis of nondegradation standard. Standard operating procedures will in- clude: -- a 30-day public review period and field tour in most cases, if requested by interested citizens; -- non-disclosure of sensitive wildlife, cultural and paleontological resource data; Management Actions The BLM-FRA chief of operations will pur- sue a cooperative agreement with the New Mexico State Police for search and rescue operations. A search and rescue plan will be completed (FY 88) and amended to this Plan. A patrol and monitoring record will be maintained by the wilderness specialist (FY 86). This will include documentation of all authorized and unauthorized activities as per Instruction Memorandum No. NM-85-185. Acquisition of State-owned Section 32, T.24N., R.13W., presently leased to Sunbelt Mining Company, will be pursued by a FRA realty specialist after reclamation require- ments are satisfied to facilitate wilderness management efforts. FIRE Management Objectives The FIRE management objectives are to allow fire to return to its natural role and to exert its effects on the wilderness re- source without endangering public health, safety or values; to use suppression tech- niques which result in the least possible evidence of human activity; and to develop a fire protection strategy that achieves wil- derness management objectives at the least cost. Current Situation a reclamation plan to include the Visual Impact Evaluation System as the management tool to measure the effect- iveness of rehabilitation; project clearances from cultural, paleontological, wildlife, wilderness, and recreation specialists for compli- ance with laws and policies with final written approval by the FRA Manager; and No historical record of fires within the Bisti Wilderness exists, mainly because most of the area is badlands with sparse vegeta- tion. Brushfires are unlikely except in the southern one-third of the Bisti Wilderness. Due to the exposed coal deposits within the Bisti Wilderness and on adjacent lands, a coal bed or spoil bank fire is possible, but unlikely. Assumption performance or surety bonds may be required to defray the costs of restoration and rehabilitation of lands affected by the permitted use. Because of the lack of past fire history within the Bisti Wilderness, the assumption is that fires will be of minimal occurrence in the future. III-4 Management Policies All fires will be controlled to prevent loss of human life or property within the Bisti Wilderness and to prevent the spread of fire to areas outside of the Bisti Wilderness where life, resources, or property may be threatened. Human-caused fires will be prevented and/or controlled unless the fire meets the wilderness fire management objectives. Suppression will be accomplished by the mini- mum means and with the least use of motorized equipment necessary to control the fire. Use of motorized vehicles and mechanized equipment for fire suppression must be approved by the FRA Manager. Management Action A fire management plan will be identified in the FY 87 Annual Work Plan and written by November 30, 1987 by the FRA chief of opera- tions to be consistent with this management plan and BLM Manuals 8560 and 9210. This plan will address situational conditions necessary for various levels of fire suppres- sion response, fire regimes and predicted fire behavior. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION (I4E) have disseminated information concerning the Bisti Wilderness location, special events, planning and management efforts and general information about the area. Technical pub- .lications have sought to share scientific .data and research with concerned special- ists. The Farmington Chamber of Commerce and other private concerns have actively promoted and advertised the Bisti Wilderness including bus tours. Public relation efforts have included speaking engagements at the request of sev- eral organizations in Farmington, field tours of the Bisti Wilderness and the use of volun- teers. Displays with pictures and narrative have been utilized to inform the public of the BLM wilderness program and to educate the public about wilderness values. Other public communication efforts have included color map and informational brochures, available blue line topographic maps and office telephone and personal conversations. Bureau I&E efforts include memos, news- letters, orientation programs, and circula- tion of contemporary research publications. Assumptions The public will continue to request information concerning the Bisti Wilderness. Management Objective The INFORMATION AND EDUCATION objective is to provide visitors with an understanding and appreciation of wilderness values and the proper use and care of natural resources in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future generations. Current Situation Effective and timely IAE will be a key management tool in directing user behavior which minimizes resource impacts and encourages compliance with this management plan. Materials and techniques for IAE will be placed outside the Bisti Wilderness except if they are needed within to protect the wilder- ness resource or provide for public safety. Presently, on-site I&E consists of a cul- tural antiquities sign that identifies the general vicinity of a historic site and wil- derness boundary signs that identify the Bisti Wilderness exterior boundaries. Media coverage has included television commercials and programs, films, radio cover- age, and newspaper and magazine articles that Management Policies The BLM will make general information available to the public without advertising or promoting the use of wilderness. The BLM will divert use not dependent on wilderness to other areas through I&E efforts. III-5 Voluntary visitor compliance with policy and this management plan will be sought through I4E as an initial and on-going pro- cess. A more direct method of regulating and restricting uses will be applied if all else fails. Regulatory or administrative signing, if needed within the Bisti Wilderness, will be the minimum necessary. All BLM generated wilderness publications and media presentations will describe the in- herent dangers of a wilderness area away from the conveniences of modern technology and any other known dangerous conditions. Visitor assumption of risk and no trace/minimum im- pact concept statements will also be incor- porated. I&E efforts (i.e. maps, brochures, dis- plays) will be periodically updated to keep them current. The BLM will educate and inform the gen- eral public and users of specific resource needs that require special consideration due to fragile or endangered resources, seasonal, ecological, life cycle and environmental changes. The BLM will initiate efforts to coor- dinate with organizations that provide infor- mation to the public about the Bisti Wilder- ness to accomplish wilderness management goal s and objectives. Management Actions The FRA wilderness specialist, with car- tographic and public relation support from the Albuquerque District Office, will update the 1981 Bisti map/brochure to reflect cur- rent information and conditions (FY 87). Additional text and other media efforts will include summaries of: wildlife - to divert users away from nesting areas, especially during the nesting season, without calling undue attention or pointing out exact nest locations; cultural resources - to outline prehistoric and historic use and statements of legislation protecting archaeological sites; paleontological resources - to iden- tify the scientific value of fossils, and the laws and penalties to protect them; geologi- cal resources - to mention that features such as hoodoos, spires, toadstools, and other formations are fragile because of constant erosional forces, so climbing or otherwise disturbing them will destroy this unique and irreplaceable resource; regulations concern- ing the restricted area closure and policy on rockhounding; wilderness management regula- tions as published in the Federal Register February 25, 1985, as amended; and dangers of badlands - piping, quicksand, unstable soils and flash flooding; and wise use of general public lands and natural resources. The wilderness specialist will conduct an all -employee orientation, and will prepare an orientation pamphlet for new employees, temporary employees and volunteers to famil- iarize them with wilderness philosophy, goals, objectives, policies, and this manage- ment plan (FY 87). The outdoor recreation planner will develop an I&E display to be located at the proposed parking facility. This display will include information to seek compliance with management objectives and policies of this Plan (FY 88). Specific information will be provided on cultural, paleontological, geo- logical, wildlife and wilderness resources. An entrance sign will be placed near Gateway Wash to identify the access point to the Bisti Wilderness (FY 86). SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND DATA COLLECTION Management Objective The SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND DATA COLLECTION objective is to allow research to occur as long as it is conducted in such a manner to protect and preserve the wilderness character in its natural condition subject to natural ecological processes while complying with applicable BLM policy and regulations. Current Situation The Bisti Wilderness contains opportuni- ties for scientific study and data collection in an outdoor laboratory setting for those projects requiring a dynamic natural environ- ment. There are a number of projects that are currently authorized within the Bisti III-6 Wilderness. The FRA wildlife biologist col- lects data annually on raptors and their hab- itat. The FRA outdoor recreation planner collects visitor use data. A University of New Mexico doctoral candidate is utilizing the "Limits of Acceptable Change" system for monitoring and evaluating visual impacts to the natural environment. Range conservation- ists are presently monitoring vegetative con- ditions. All requests for scientific study and data collection will be analyzed in an en- vironmental assessment. All proposals for scientific study will: — provide information on specific location, maps, timeframes, detailed description of proposed action and a reclamation plan; Paleontologists have studied plant and animal fossil material. Hydrologic studies have included streamflow, ground water and water quality investigations associated with strippable coal areas. ~ provide for detailed recordation, reports, care of specimens, and availability of information to the public, specialists, scientists and institutions; Of great concern to those undertaking some level of research is the disturbance that has occurred to resources under study. Site vandalism, removal of natural resource material, and other visitor influences have created problems. Assumptions Permit applications for scientific study in the Bisti Wilderness may continue to be received. The demand for basic research in the Bisti Wilderness may increase due to the op- portunities provided by a legislatively pro- tected natural area which is otherwise limit- ed in this region. Management Policies -- address the relative availability of the information or material outside of the wilderness; and ~ address similar information or mate- rial available for study in existing col- lections? Analysis criteria will be: ~ does it further the management of wil- derness and seek to explain the wilder- ness phenomena through studies of the natural environment, visitor use capaci- ties, social assessments, user impacts, use patterns, use levels and user beha- vi or ; ~ does it limit the experience of the wilderness visitor; and Scientific study and data collection will not include any collection of materials, ex- cavations, stabilization or interpretive ac- tivities except on a case-by-case basis with prior written authorization. All projects must be conducted without the use of motorized vehicles, mechanized equipment or facilities unless expressly authorized when no other alternative exists. If such use is approved it must be the mini- mum necessary and must not degrade the wil- derness resource. ~ does it conflict with wilderness phil- osophy, goals, objectives and this man- agement plan. Unauthorized material collection of wil- derness resources will be discouraged through information and education efforts, patrol, monitoring, and law enforcement activities. Permanent or temporary study plots or structures must exist in an inconspicuous manner and not be visually evident to the casual observer. III-7 Provide administrative aid (staff time and funding) when possible and process requests for projects within 90 days of receipt. Locality information will be kept confi- dential when possible. Management Action The wilderness specialist will contact a Geologic Survey representative to facilitate removal of hydrologic facilities that are no longer needed (FY 87). ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS CULTURAL RESOURCES Management Objective The CULTURAL RESOURCES objective is to protect and preserve cultural resources in their natural condition subject to natural ecological processes provided these processes do not adversely threaten significant re- sources that must be managed in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and BLM pol icy. Current Situation Three different surveys have been com- pleted identifying four cultural sites. A site was recorded around 1960 by the San Juan Archeological Society. Approximately 1,500 acres (37 percent) of the Bisti Wilderness were inventoried in the mid- to-late 1970s and no sites were identified. This inventory is not viewed as contributing reliable data to the cultural resource program. A later sur- vey (Vogler, et al. 1982) covered about 40 acres and identified three sites. Of the four recorded sites, two have been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. These eligible sites are lithic scatters that have not been assigned to a specific period of occupation. The remaining two sites were determined ineligible. One antiquity sign is located in T.24N., R.13W., Section 34 as a general location marker for educational purposes. Although few cultural sites have been id- entified within the Bisti Wilderness, numer- ous sites from the Archaic Period (approxi- mately 6000 B.C. to A.D. 100) have been id- entified in inventories conducted less than a mile from the Bisti Wilderness boundary. Site density in surrounding areas is about one site for every 20 to 25 acres. Although soils and topography may vary and result in a lower site density, evidence of prehistoric and historic use is still expected within the Bisti Wilderness. Predicted site types in- clude Archaic lithic scatters, sites contain- ing ceramics and chipped stone from later time periods, Navajo structures and features from the Historic Period, and Navajo grave- sites and other sacred places such as gather- ing areas and offering points. Sacred sites may include various features such as rock formations, buttes, mesas, and crevices; other man-made features such as cists, cairns, ceremonial hunting and trapping pits; and sites where curing and other religious ceremonies have been performed. No project- specific work has been done to identify either sacred, religious, spiritual or burial sites. However, a gathering area for a white clay-like mineral used as a ceremonial paint and as an ingredient in food made with wild wolf berries has been identified ( Condi e 1982). It should be noted that both grave- sites and sacred areas are sensitive aspects of Navajo culture, and informants are reluc- tant to discuss these issues. Inventory in the Bisti Wilderness has lower priority relative to established FRA cultural resource programs. The resource does not appear to be threatened by any im- mediate destructive forces any more than other sites in the San Juan Basin. The sites in the Bisti Wilderness are, in fact, more protected than the majority of sites in the San Juan Basin because of restrictions to vehicle access and energy development. Assumptions If visitor use increases, this may lead to increased vandalism, surface artifact col- lection or even illegal excavations. The ex- pected capacity of cultural properties to III-8 withstand impacts as a result of recreational use is moderate due to the fact that predict- ed site types have low visibility. Despite a general lack of features and structional re- mains, many of the cultural resource proper- ties may still be vulnerable to natural im- pacts such as erosion. Management Policies Cultural resources in most instances shall be subject to the forces of nature and study or management will not normally include excavation, stabilization, or interpretive activities except on a case-by-case basis with prior written authorization. Inventory will be permitted as necessary to record and evaluate cultural properties in the Bisti Wilderness. Specific site locations will not be mark- ed or identified for the public. Graves will be managed and protected as cultural resource sites. Gathering of renewable resources such as plants and fruits and nonrenewable colored sands for Native American ceremonial and med- icinal purposes will be allowed to continue. Vehicle access, however, will be prohibited. All information and education media will address the sensitivity issues of cultural resources. Management Actions The existing antiquity sign in T.24N., R.13W., Section 33 will be removed by a FRA archaeologist (FY 86). Vandalism and other user impacts to pre- historic and historic sites will be dis- couraged by posting antiquities signs along the Bisti Wilderness boundaries and at pop- ular entrance points (FY 87). Periodic patrol will be performed by the FRA archeologist and volunteer patrol lers to inspect conditions of known sites and monitor for pot hunting and other illegal activities (FY 86). LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS Management Objective The LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS objective is to allow grazing use to continue subject to wil- derness regulations and to maintain or up- grade the existing vegetative condition and trend. Current Situation Livestock grazing within the Bisti Wil- derness is permitted to occur within Range Units 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the Bisti Com- munity Allotment (No. 6008, refer to Map E). Livestock grazing is not authorized in those portions of sections 27, 28, 33, and 34 within the wilderness. The Bisti Community Allotment is administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs through a cooperative agree- ment with the BLM. Grazing privileges are leased to the Navajo Tribe under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315, 31 5h, 135n, 319a) and individuals are then leased specific use areas by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is common to see permit- tees on horseback throughout the year tending herds of sheep, goats or horses within or near the Bisti Wilderness. An Allotment Management Plan has not been developed. The Chaco Rangeland Inventory (1984) describes the range condition in the Bisti Wilderness permitted areas as fair to good and range trend as static based on the inventory of two range sites. Utilization and productivity evaluations will be made after additional monitoring is completed. At the time of wilderness designation, 302 animal unit months were authorized on this allotment, however, actual use is un- known. Administrative problems have made it difficult to track the exact amount and type of use. This problem is viewed as being sig- nificant in light of wilderness management. Accurate utilization figures are needed to assist in the analysis of vegetative evalua- tions which lead to adjustments in animal unit months. III-9 111-10 Currently, no proposed range improvements are scheduled to be constructed in the Bisti Wilderness. A windmill (Job Description Report No. 1685) and associated facilities are the only range improvements and are located in T.23N., R.13W., Section 10 NW/4 NE/4 NW/4. The routine types of mainten- ance include: replacing the leathers every other year, replacing the checks about every five years, and greasing the gear box once a year. A proposed boundary change (described in the Administrative Element section) would eliminate these improvements from the Bisti Wilderness. rent grazing levels will be examined through rangeland studies and an environmental assessment. Any use of motorized vehicles or mechan- ized equipment for range improvements or maintenance will be analyzed through an envi- ronmental assessment, with written permission required prior to vehicle or equipment use. Any change in the overall management sit- uation regarding rangeland operations will be assessed according to the BLM Manual 8560 and the Administrative Cooperative Agreement. Problems resulted because a permittee constructed an unauthorized corral in T.23N., R.13W., Section 3 SE/4 SW/4 SE/4, the corral has since been dismantled and removed. Assumptions A minimum of one range site per Range Unit will be monitored annually to assess the vegetative condition and trend, determine utilization, gather data on actual use and evaluate the limits of acceptable change ac- cording to rangeland management procedures. An Allotment Management Plan is not expected to be developed prior to the comple- tion of the Farmington RMP. Some maintenance of the windmill may be needed including access by motor vehicle and heavy machinery. No requests for new range improvements are expected. In order to better assess vegetation con- dition and trend in the Bisti Wilderness, continued monitoring of existing range sites and inventory of new range sites may be need- ed. Consolidation of administrative respon- sibility for rangeland management may be needed to adequately manage livestock opera- tions in the Bisti Wilderness. Management Policies New range improvements will be construct- ed with natural materials when possible, not require motorized vehicle access, and must benefit wilderness values. Management Actions The Cooperati ve Agreement for the "Land Administration of the Eastern Navajo Agency Administrative Area (Off-Navajo Reservation)" by the Navajo Tribe, the BLM, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs will be changed during the annual review (FY 88). The BLM will propose regaining full administrative responsibility for the Bisti Wilderness regarding rangeland management. A FRA range conservationist will develop a management/users guide for allottees that addresses: Livestock grazing shall be permitted to continue at its current level subject to reg- ulations necessary to meet the needs of the lessee and the livestock operations objec- tive (pending completion of the Farmington Resource Management Plan). No curtailment of grazing leases or pri- vileges shall occur simply because of wilder- ness designation. Any adjustment to the cur- — expected motor vehicle and mechanical equipment needs; -- expected emergency conditions (i.e., animal removal); — types of servicing and frequency of maintenance needs; -- range improvement developments; III-ll -- placement of supplemental feed; -- describe the types and frequency of maintenance and servicing of range im- provements in the past; -- animal damage control; and utilization and vegetative condition and trend. The guide will address the numerous ways and means to accomplish the above tasks including the way they were done before motor vehicles and modern technology were developed. A cost feasibility analysis will also be included and will be completed during FY 87. Additional range sites (minimum of one per Range Unit) will be selected and inven- toried during FY 86 to assist in monitoring vegetative condition and trend. The FRA wilderness specialist and a range conservationist will identify the rangeland limits of acceptable change indicators and standards (FY 87) and begin annual monitoring. Two sheep-proof fencelines with gates will be constructed to manage livestock uti- lization of the Range Units in the Bisti Wil- derness. Approximately one-half mile of fence will be constructed in the upland range portion along the east-west half section line of T.24N., R.13W., Section 29 and the old State Highway 371 right-of-way (FY 88). Ap- proximately three miles of fence will be con- structed along the southern exterior boundary between the east and west badland portions of the Bisti Wilderness (FY 89). MINERAL RESOURCES Management Objectives The MINERAL RESOURCES management objec- tive is to prevent unnecessary and undue de- gradation of the area's wilderness character when mineral lessees exercise their valid ex- isting rights and to allow no new mineral de- velopment after valid existing rights expire. Current Situation Approximately 1,160 acres of the Bisti Wilderness surface is under oil and gas lease (refer to Map F). No wel 1 s have been drilled and there are no known geologic structures. Of the three leases within the Bisti Wilder- ness, the last will expire on September 30, 1989 if oil or gas is not produced. The existing post-FLPMA leases and their expiration dates are: Lease NM-30588, issued August 1, 1977 and expires July 30, 1987 Lease NM-37759, issued October 1, 1979 and expires September 30, 1989 Lease NM-37761 » issued October 1, 1979 and expires September 30, 1989 There are no existing coal leases in the Bisti Wilderness since previous leases have been exchanged. Approximately 320 acres of one coal Preference Right Lease Application (PRLA, No. 11916) extends into the Bisti Wil- derness (refer to Map F). No decision has been made as to whether the lease will be is- sued or not according to existing regula- tions. The House of Representatives Report 98-834 which accompanies House Report 3766, the San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984, discusses the issues of PRLA's, coal leasing, reclamation and coal values. In brief, the Committee believes that mining in wilderness would not be economically viable [would fail to meet the "commercial quanti- ties" test of section 2(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended] after all costs of compliance with reclamation stipulations that would be required in association with fossil deposits, badland resources, and other wil- derness resources even in the absence of wil- derness designation. Existing coal mines occur to the west (Gateway Mine) and to the south (De-na-zin Mine) as well as adjacent coal leases. Sig- nificant occurrences of other minerals are not known to exist. All mining claims have been abandoned and invalidated and the Bisti Wilderness has been closed to claim location since October 30, 1984. There are no free use permits or sales of mineral materials existing in the Bisti Wilderness. The Master Title Plats have been updated to reflect the mineral withdrawal . 111-12 111-13 Assumption Potential future oil and gas drilling activities are possible, but are considered unlikely. The PRLA (No. 11916) will be processed, according to regulations. Management Policies In the event that a right to coal is determined for PRLA (No. 11916), every attempt to exchange for an area outside the Bisti Wilderness will be pursued. No new mineral leases will be issued. Lessees will operate under valid existing rights as contained in the post-FLPMA lease including wilderness stipulations and the non-impairment standard. Mineral rights will be acquired when possible. Operators with valid existing rights will abide by reasonable stipulations to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of wilder- ness character. Operators will be allowed reasonable ingress and egress. An environmental assessment will address each action and a 30-day public review period will apply in most cases. The following will be used as mitigating measures to be incor- porated as stipulations in applications for a permit to drill : — automatic shut off controls will be installed on tanks and pipelines; ~ in order to avoid rutting of the terrain, drilling operations will not take place during periods of high pre- cipitation; — trash and fluids produced during drilling and workover operations will be hauled out; — all production pits will be lined and have a leak-detection system; — fluids will be hauled out of the Bisti Wilderness when pits are full; — sites will be returned to as natural a contour as possible; — topsoil will be retained, if present, and re vegetation with native seeds will be accomplished; — well sites will not cause accelerated erosion or hazards to visitors; — no wells will be drilled in raptor nesting areas between March 1 and July 1; — the wilderness specialist will be contacted to attend the on-site pre- drill inspection; all vehicle use will receive prior written approval from the FRA Manager; site-specific stipulations may be added at that time; any road will be the minimum necessary for ingress and egress; slant drilling and no surface occu- pancy will be considered; - all structures will receive prior approval and be designed to have the least impact on visitor wilderness experi ence; - low-form tanks will be painted in colors that blend with the environment; - wells located close to the exterior Bisti Wilderness boundary will use re- mote facilities located outside of the Bisti Wilderness; — monitoring will be performed by petroleum engineering technicians; and — use of inspection and enforcement standards will apply, as will the approved stipulations. Management Action Because no oil and gas or coal activity is ongoing, no management action will be pre- scribed. If a valid existing right is rea- 111-14 1 i zed in the future, the policies above will guide implementation of the proposed action. NATURALNESS Management Objective The NATURALNESS objective is to reclaim the effects of authorized and unauthorized uses that have occurred within the last 50 years, and maintain the area free from new structures and improvements (except for those necessary to protect the wilderness resource, public health and safety and to recognize valid existing rights). Current Situation There are a number of unauthorized uses in the Bisti Wilderness (refer to Map G). A dumpsite located in T.24N., R.13W., Sections 27, 28 and 29 along and below the bluffs con- tains scattered household trash, scrap metal and two car bodies. Scattered trash also ex- ists along the southern boundary road in T.23N., R.13W., Sections 9 N/2 and 10 N/2. An unauthorized occupancy exists in T.23N., R.13W., Section 3 SW/4 SE/4 SE/4 consisting of a home and a corral belonging to George Simpson. There have also been numerous reports of vehicular trespass near Gateway Wash T.23N., R.13W., Section 5 N/2. An over- head powerline that cut through the Bisti Wilderness for about one-quarter mile in T.24N., R.13W., Sections 29 N/2 NW/4 SW/4 and 30 N/2 NE/4 SE/4, was removed in December 1985. An unauthorized route also cuts through the area in the general vicinity of the pow- erline and leads to an abandoned Navajo structure outside of the Bisti Wilderness. Assumptions Future unauthorized uses will need to be prevented and existing unauthorized uses will be reclaimed to restore the area's primitive character. Trash dumps may continue to be used un- less access is restricted. Management Policies All current and past unauthorized uses and their effects will be rehabilitated and restored to a natural condition. Preventa- tive measures will be taken to prevent re- currence. Fences or other barriers will be erected to control vehicular intrusion into the Bisti Wilderness at locations that are easily ac- cessible. Denuded areas resulting from human acti- vity which cannot rehabilitate naturally in a reasonable period of time will be reclaimed, recontoured to natural slope, and reseeded with native plant species to establish satis- factory ground cover as existed prior to dis- turbance. Management Actions The FRA wilderness specialist will pre- pare a plan of action to block access route with fill dirt along old State Highway 371 and reclaim the route associated with the powerline removed in December 1985 (FY 87). Trash will be picked up and removed by hand with the aid of volunteers. The cars will also be removed with supervision from the FRA wilderness specialist (FY 86). The FRA Manager will initiate actions to resolve the unauthorized occupancy through a life-estate lease, relocating the occupant or boundary adjustment (FY 86). All structures will be removed upon termination of the life- estate lease or upon relocation of the occu- pant if this is the method of resolution. Until the situation is resolved, the occupant is authorized to use motorized vehicles on the vehicular route immediately south of the dwelling as depicted on Map G. A boundary adjustment will be the first choice of reso- lution. Vehicular trespass will continue without sufficient barriers to restrict access to the interior of the Bisti Wilderness. A fenceline will be constructed along the powerline right-of-way adjoining a topo- graphic buffer near the Gateway Mine fence II 1-15 1 1 z 1 — < 'ce UJ oo Uj" cr ii < ii i i i i i \ / V 1 f ;0 / R.13W. 21 22 / / * ■ 2 8 27 / T ^ T T T T T '< A ( > 7\ i y 32 33 34 T.24N. 5 6 \ 1 ^^5 4 3 • • • ^-'~~ T.23N. ^ \ \ \ \ ^^ ■A ^^ s 10 ^ ^1 ^\ ■ - ■ / 1 \ MAP G INTRUSIONS AND IMPACTS ^— PAVED HIGHWAY • • PIPELINE — — GRADED ROAD -• — POWER LINE UNIMPROVED ROUTE ■ BUILDING UNAUTHORIZED ROUTE X WINDMILL VEHICLE TRESPASS T TRASH WAY ^ CAR BODY o UNAUTHORIZED 0 OCCUPANCY WMItK wtLL -^FENCELINE* ^ ™ITY REGISTRATION BOX " ^ 0 1/2 1 Mile 4 / \ s- / ."-' lie 15 / ] / / 1 / / SCALE ■ \ 1 ' y 111-16 just east of the powerllne on the T.24N. and T.23N. line and following the powerline south approximately three-quarters of a mile to another topographic buffer. This project will be completed in the summer (FY 86) under the supervision of the FRA wilderness speci- alist. A built-in break in the fence will serve as a pedestrian entrance point to the Bisti Wilderness and will be located near the parking facility. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Management Objecti ve The PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE objective is to protect and preserve paleontological resources in their natural condition subject to natural ecological processes provided these processes do not adversely threaten significant resources which must be managed in compliance with applicable Federal and State laws and BLM policy. ati vely impacts the resource. It is suspected that amateur fossil collecting does occur. Another concern is the restriction to vehicle access and mechanized equipment im- posed by the Wilderness Act of 1964. This concern is partially mitigated by the fact that similar geological formations occur out- side of designated wilderness where vehicle access is not prohibited. There are no cur- rent permits for paleontological study in the Bisti Wilderness. Assumptions Amateurs may continue to indiscriminately remove fossil materials. Most scientific study of paleontological resources will require collection of fossils. Without stabilization and/or collection, exposed paleontological materials will con- tinue to weather and erode. Current Situation Past inventories in the Bisti Wilderness have identified hundreds of fossil locali- ties. Perhaps the best known and most impor- tant inventory was completed in 1977 by Kues et al . Because of natural erosion much of the site-specific inventory data may no long- er be accurate. Geological formations that have been shown to be productive, however, may continue to be important as they do not rely on isolated occurences of a particular specimen or specimens. Past studies by the Universities of Kan- sas, Arizona and California at Berkeley have included excavations and collection of a dinosaur skull, turtle, and crocodile mate- rial. Other fossil material that has been identified include mammals, pelecypods, gas- tropods, petrified wood, carbonized plants, and other reptiles. Of great concern to professionals is the negative impacts to the paleontological resource from natural elements and human influences. Natural erosional forces disturb the structural integrity of fossils destroy- ing potential important scientific data. Human influences such as vandalism and indis- criminate collection of materials also neg- Specific administrative guidance for management of paleontological resources in wilderness may be issued in the future. Management Policies To the extent not inconsistent with the concept of wilderness preservation and the intent of the Wilderness Act, paleontological resources are available for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conserva- tion, and historical uses. Paleontological resources, in most in- stances, will be subject to the forces of nature in the same manner as other wilderness resources. Study or management will not nor- mally include any excavation, stabilization, or interpretation activities. Salvage of paleontological sites, excava- tion, and collection of artifacts may be per- mitted on a case-by-case basis where the pro- ject will not degrade the overall wilderness character of the area and such activity is needed to preserve the particular resource. Each permit application will be analyzed through an environmental assessment which will include a 30-day public review period in most cases. 111-17 Information and education efforts will discuss the sensitivity issues of paleontolo- gical resources. Unauthorized collection of paleontolo- gical resources will be discouraged through public education efforts, citation of viola- tors and patrol and monitoring by BLM specia- lists and volunteers. Management policies identified in the Scientific Study and Data Collection section in Part III of this document will be applied to scientific study of paleontological re- sources. Inventory will be permitted as necessary to record, evaluate, and document site con- ditions. Management Actions The FRA paleontologist will prepare a Federal Register Notice to close the Bisti Wilderness to collection of paleontological resources, including petrified wood, without a permit (FY 86). RECREATION AND SCENIC QUALITY Management Objectives The RECREATION AND SCENIC QUALITY objec- tives are to allow historical patterns of primitive recreation to continue in their traditional fashion unless they degrade wil- derness values and to provide for public rec- reation dependent upon a wilderness setting in a manner consistent with the preservation of an enduring resource of wilderness, char- acterized by naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude and natural visual enjoyment of the Bisti Wilderness. Current Situation The historical patterns of primitive rec- reation have been hiking and concentrated day use occurring along Gateway Wash according to reports by BLM staff and special interest groups. There are no established trails due to constant erosional forces erasing most visible signs of foot travel. Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive rec- reation are available throughout the Bisti Wilderness. Adjacent stripmining impacts, assessed to be temporary, affect those oppor- tunities during some portions of each day and wi.ll likely continue for the life of the Gateway Coal Mine (estimated 10 year life). Solitude and visibility are also impacted to some degree along old State Highway 371 where heavy and frequent use occurs from coal -haul- ing trucks and other vehicles. Other poten- tial impacts to recreation, visual and wil- derness qualities within the Bisti Wilderness are documented in the November 1983 Environ- mental Impact Statement on the proposed New Mexico Generating Station (currently known as the Dineh Generating Station). Since wilder- ness designation there have been numerous reports of off-road vehicle use in the Bisti Wilderness and there has been one citation issued resulting in a fifty dollar fine. Recreation potential is derived primarily from the unusual nature of the topography and scenery associated with the concentrations of erosional formations. The major washes and tributaries offer a unique and intriguing visual experience. Vistas of the surrounding landscapes from the higher elevation areas in the northwest portion of the Bisti Wilderness for the most part are unobstructed. Excep- tions in the foreground near the boundaries include powerlines and scattered buildings. The types of recreation activities that occur include hiking, sightseeing and photography. The potential for observing fossils and pet- rified wood while exploring the Bisti Wilder- ness provides an outstanding opportunity for recreationists. Approximately one-quarter mile of fence made of wooden posts and wire (constructed in October 1979 as part of the Bisti Badlands closure to keep vehicular traffic from pen- etrating the area) and a box for visitor registration are located in T.24N., R.13W., Section 33 SW/4. Although accurate visitor use statistics are considered incomplete, no primitive recreation user conflicts or prob- lems are known to exist. According to a vis- itor registration book, visitor use is con- centrated from April through September, al- though some use occurs year-round. Records show that use has declined from an average of 53 visits per month in 1982 to 22 visits per 111-18 month in 1983 to 15 visits per month in 1984. Thirty-five visits per month were re- corded in 1985. No recent Special Recreation Permits have been issued. No demand or inquiries have been docu- mented concerning commercial recreational livestock use (i.e. horses, mules, burros, 1 1 amas) . A Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory suggests that three types of recre- ation opportunities are available in the wil- derness; roaded natural, semi-primitive motorized and semi-primi ti ve nonmotori zed. The opportunity to experience a roaded natural type of recreation is available along the extreme western and southern boundaries of the wilderness. This zone consists of nearly flat terrain with some badlands which is subject to the sights and sounds of motor- ized vehicles, nearby coal mining operations and structures such as powerlines, fences, buildings and roads. The frequency of human contact is moderate to high. The opportunity to experience a semi-pri- mitive motorized type of recreation is avail- able from the west and south towards the interior of the wilderness. This zone is characterized by rolling terrain with inter- mittent pockets of badlands. It represents a transition zone from the evidence of a human- built environment to one that is dominated by nature. The sights and sounds of human acti- vity on the ground are noticeable to some degree but less than in the roaded natural zone. The frequency of human contact is moderate to low. The opportunity to experience a semi-pri- mitive non-motorized type of recreation is available in the wilderness in almost one- half of the total area. This zone is charac- terized by a badlands environment. The many washes and finger-like tributaries between towering erosional formations provide an out- standing opportunity to experience isolation from the evidence of human activity. There are no known structures or facilities in this zone and the frequency of human contact is low. Assumptions The opportunity to experience solitude may be diminished by the concentration of visitors at specific boundary locations, in the areas of high scenic value, and in areas of audible and visual outside influences. Visitor use in 1986 is expected to return to 1983/84 levels. High level media atten- tion and organized trips to the Bisti Wilder- ness after designation may have caused the increase in use in 1985. The primary season of use may continue to be April through September. The Gateway Wash area is expected to continue to be the primary access point. The visitor must assume the risks of en- tering the Bisti Wilderness as a consequence of isolation from the conveniences of a tech- nological world. Management Policies Developments for recreation and visitor use will be the minimum amount necessary for protection of the wilderness resource, public health and safety, and will be located out- side the Bisti Wilderness. There will be no restrooms, or developments for potable water. Recreation developments must be analyzed through an environmental assessment and in- clude stipulations that require facility con- struction and materials which harmonize with the natural surroundings. Site-specific plans will be prepared. Visual Resource Management Class I ob- jectives and Federal Class II and State air quality standards will be maintained to es- tablish the limits of acceptable change. Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, semi- primitive non-motorized zone will be the man- agement objective for administering recrea- tion opportunities. Valid and reliable visitor use and impact data will be gathered to further the plan- ning and management efforts for the Bisti Wilderness, including but not limited to resource impacts, use patterns, visitor beha- 111-19 vi or, expectations, perceptions, and personal data such as age, occupation and education. This information will be used to establish social indicators for measuring the limits of acceptable change. The regulations associated with the Bisti Badlands closure to motorized vehicles and collection of petrified wood will remain in effect. Recreational or hobby gathering of non-fossil nonrenewable mineral specimens will be discouraged, and limited to methods that cause minimal surface disturbance. Information and education media will in- clude the regulations in effect for the Bisti Wilderness. The FRA wilderness specialist and outdoor recreation planner will establish social indicators of limits of acceptable change and begin monitoring (FY 87). WILDLIFE Management Objectives The WILDLIFE management objectives are to preserve and protect habitats for wildlife (particularly nesting raptors) in their natural condition while providing minimal restriction to visitor use and access and to allow natural ecological succession of wild- life populations so long as they do not threaten resource and human values outside the Bisti Wilderness. Current Situation Management Actions A parking facility will be established outside the Bisti Wilderness. A project plan and an environmental assessment will be pre- pared by the outdoor recreation planner to analyze the level and type of construction. Funding for this project will be requested in the FY 88 Annual Wortc Plan. The existing one-quarter mile of fence and the registration box will be removed by the wilderness specialist when construction of the fence along the powerline right-of-way near Gateway Wash is complete (FY 87). A self-issued registration system will be designed and implemented by the Farmington Resource Area outdoor recreation planner to assist in the collection of visitor use data (FY 88). Relatively few wildlife species are found in the Bisti Wilderness. The badlands and the Indian ricegrass - snakeweed dunes habi- tat sites are the two standard wildlife habi- tat sites occurring in the Bisti Wilderness. Appendix G contains a list of the common spe- cies of wildlife. Annual monitoring of rap- tor nests has been conducted since 1981 to aid with program compliance. A helicopter was used in 1981 and 1985. Three key raptor nesting territories (two for ferruginous hawks and one for golden eagles) occur in the Bisti Wilderness. Two of the territories have been active for one or more nesting sea- sons since 1981. One pair of ferruginous hawks has nested three of the last five years, and one pair of golden eagles has nested twice during the same period. It appears that human disturbance by visitors may have caused abandonment in at least one of the three years the birds did not nest. A registration box and book will be main- tained by the outdoor recreation planner to assist in collecting visitor use data (FY 86). The Farmington Resource Area outdoor recreation planner will collect available data from existing sources on air quality (FY 87). Limits of acceptable change indicators and standards will be selected and monitored annual ly. These species are intolerant of human disturbance early in the nesting season. Suter and Joness (1981) recommend individuals be kept at least 500 meters from active nest sites. There is no estimate of how many or what type of visitors can use the Bisti Wil- derness before causing abandonment of the nesting areas. The ferruginous hawk is listed as a category 2 candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 111-20 An inventory for sclerocactus mesaeverdae was conducted in the Bisti Region (including the Bisti Wilderness) in 1984 and 1985. No Mesa Verde cactus were found and the investi- gators felt that the area should no longer be considered potential habitat for the species (Ecosphere Environmental Services 1985). Assuaption If visitor use increases above FY 82 levels, it may result in individuals wander- ing farther away from the more popular scenic areas, and will increase the chances they will observe and approach nesting raptors. Nest abandonment may occur if nesting raptors are disturbed. Management Policies Management will seek to maintain a nat- ural distribution, number, and interaction of indigenous species of wildlife. Natural ec- ological processes will be allowed to occur in the wilderness resource as far as possible without human influences. The preservation of sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species dependent on wilderness conditions will be favored. Habitats of sensitive animals (including candidate species) will be managed and/or conserved to minimize the need for listing those animals by either Federal or State gov- ernments in the future (BLM Manual 6840). All studying and monitoring of wildlife and their habitat will be accomplished by nonmotori zed/nonmechanical means. Annual monitoring of raptor nesting territories will continue with the only acceptable objective being no nest loss due to human disturbance. Data will be gathered on the relationship of visitor use and nesting raptors, and limits of acceptable change indicators and standards will be established. Public information and education efforts will be the first course of action before measures are taken to restrict access to buf- fer zones around active nests. Such efforts will include a concept similar to the Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl campaigns where informa- tion is provided on how nest disturbance can affect raptors which appeals to the sensitive side of visitors rather than restrictive lan- guage in the form of regulations that some- times tends to provide a challenge or dis- regard for values. If visitors are not voluntarily avoiding nesting raptors, the next step will be to re- strict access to buffer zones around active nests. All information and education media will address the sensitivity issues of nesting raptors. Management Actions Biweekly visits to raptor territories by the FRA wildlife biologist will occur begin- ning March 1 each year (FY 86). If territo- ries are active, monitoring will be continued through July. Visitors will also be observed to determine if they are approaching active nests. The FRA wilderness specialist and wildlife biologist will establish wildlife indicators and limits of acceptable change standards and begin annual monitoring (FY 86). 1 1 1-21 PART IV WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY This part represents an activity planning level for management of the Bisti Wilder- ness. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System (Stankey, et al . 1985) will be the strategic approach to wilderness management planning. A management planning strategy is incorporated into this document for two spec- ific reasons. First, the BLM Manual 8560 states that the limits of acceptable change will be defined for each wilderness area. And second, the BLM Manual 8561 states that the evaluation of the limits of acceptable change will be required prior to establishing any wilderness use regulations or restric- tions including quota or permit systems. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) The LAC system is a nine- step process de- signed to alert managers to unacceptable changes and possible degradation of the wil- derness before it's too late to correct the situation, thus, escaping the reactionary syndrome that seeks to direct management. A detailed explanation of this nine-step pro- cess is described by Stankey et al . 1985 and is outlined below: -- Step 1: Identify area concerns and issues. -- Step 2: Define and describe opportunity classes. -- Step 3: Select indicators of resource and social conditions. — Step 4: Inventory resource and social conditions. — Step 5: Specify standards for resource and social conditions. — Step 6: Identify alternative opportunity class allocations. -- Step 7: Identify management actions for each alternative. — Step 8: Evaluation and selection of an alternati ve. — Step 9: Implement actions and monitor conditions. The concept driving the LAC process cen- ters on proactive management for desired quality conditions of the wilderness resource and experience. Recognizing that at least some impact occurs to natural ecological pro- cesses and environmental perceptions as a result of human influences, the question focuses on the type and amount of change that is acceptable. This level or limit of acceptable change signals the point of degra- dation or below par quality conditions. The LAC process allows managers to predict unac- ceptable changes and apply corrective manage- ment actions to prevent degradation before the conditions deteriorate to unacceptable level s. Application of the nine-step LAC process has been modified to the Bisti Wilderness management situation. Part III of this docu- ment, the Wilderness Management Program, has already identified the need to identify limits of acceptable change for range condi- tions, raptors, air quality and the social environment. Other physical, social, and biological indicators may also be selected to further reflect the integrity of the wilder- ness resource. However, before the LAC process can be completely implemented, data will need to be collected in order to form a baseline for which to set the limits of ac- ceptable change. These limits, when set, will define the quality of desired conditions in order to perpetuate the stability of the wilderness resource. As an initial step towards LAC process implementation, the Bisti IV-1 Wilderness has a system in place and operat- ing for evaluating visual impacts to the natural environment. The system is called the Visual Impact Evaluation System (Tannery, et al. 1985). The Visual Impact Evaluation System (VIES) The heart of the VIES is the identifica- tion of unnatural visual impacts to the wil- derness. Visitor dissatisfaction is one re- sult of unnatural visual impacts in a wilder- ness environment. Another result is a strong indication of degradation of the biophysical elements of the ecosystem and disruption of natural ecological processes. To provide readers with an example of how the VIES is applied, the following hypothet- ical case is presented. The Area Manager is interested in measuring the "limits of ac- ceptable change" (LAC) for the visual impact indicator - Vehicle Routes near Hunter Wash. The wilderness specialist selects a specific site near the wash where vehicle access is possible due to the flat terrain and lack of barriers. The VIES worksheet is then com- pleted. The vehicle track is reclaimed by utilizing a horse drawn rake to fill in rills and loosen compacted soils in the badlands. A fence is then constructed to prevent vehicle penetra- tion and the affected area is left to the natural elements of wind and rain. Three months pass and the site is rated again. This time a rating of "1" is recorded, mean- ing that some evidence of the vehicle track remains. Even though the rating still exceeds the indicator standard it is deter- mined that the improved conditions would con- tinue, thus, no further management action is prescribed. Six months pass and the site is rated again. The rating now shows a "0" which complies with the established indicator standard, thus, preventing possible degrada- tion of the wilderness. End of hypothetical case. It should be noted that VEHICLE ROUTES is just one of twelve visual impact indicators in the VIES. Exceeding the indicator stand- ard of one indicator does not necessarily mean that wilderness conditions have been degraded, but it does signal that there is an unacceptable change in wilderness condi- tions. This gives the Manager a chance to Visual Impact Indicator Criteria 1 Baseline Rating Indicator Standard Vehicle Routes No Evidence Some Evidence of Two Track Travel Mechanically Improved Route The baseline rating equals "2" which is compared to the indicator standard which equals "0". This standard exists because vehicles are prohibited in this area. Since the baseline rating exceeds the indicator standard, possible degradation of the wilder- ness may occur. In this case, the Manager prescribes immediate rehabilitation measures. implement corrective actions before wilder- ness conditions deteriorate to a point of degradation. A VIES users guide and full documentation will be available for review at the Farming- ton Resource Area Office. IV-2 PART V PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Budget funding and manpower constraints notwithstanding, the management actions detailed in Part IV will be implemented according to the schedule below. Implementation Target Date Responsibility Management Action refer to text for detail s - page Working Document Reference Section FY 86 Wilderness Specialist Patrol and Moni- toring Record - III -4 FY 86 Archeologist Removal of Antiquity Sign From Interior - III-9 FY 86 Range Conservationist Inventory Additional Range Sites - II 1-12 FY 86 Wilderness Specialist Remove car bodies and trash - 111-15 FY 86 Area Manager Resolve unauthorized occupancy - 1 11-15 FY 86 Outdoor Recrea- tion Planner Maintain registration box and book - I II -19 FY 86 Archeologi st Periodic patrol and monitoring - III —9 FY 86 Wilderness Specialist Erect Entrance Sign - III-6 FY 86 Paleontologist Federal Register Notice - 111-18 FY 86 Wilderness Specialist Construct Fence- line - 111-15 10 FY 86 Wildlife Biologist Monitor raptor territories - 1 1 1-21 11 FY 87 Archeologi st Posting Antiquity Signs at Boundary Locations - III -8 12 FY 87 Wilderness Specialist Update 1981 Map/ Brochure - II I -6 13 V-l Implementation Target Date FY 87 Responsibility Wilderness Specialist Management Action refer to text for detail s - page All -Employee Orientation - II I -6 Working Document Reference Section 14 FY 87 Range Conservationist Establish Range LAC Indicators - 111-12 15 FY 87 Wilderness Specialist Reclaim Route - 111-15 16 FY 87 Wilderness Specialist Removal of Hydrology Facilities - 1 1 1-8 17 FY 87 Wilderness Specialist Remove Bisti Badlands Fenceline - 111-20 18 FY 87 Wildlife Biologist Establish Wildlife LAC Indicators and Standards - 1 1 1 -21 19 FY 87 Outdoor Recrea- tion Planner Establish Social LAC Indicators and Standards - 111-20 20 FY 87 Outdoor Recrea- tion Planner Collect Air Quality Data and Establish LAC Indicators - 111-20 21 FY 87 Range Conservationist Develop Range Management/Users Guide - 1 11-11 22 FY 87 Chief of Operations Fire Management Plan - III -5 23 FY 88 Chief of Operations Search and Rescue Plan - III-4 24 FY 88 Outdoor Recrea- tion Planner Construction of I&E Display - 1 1 1 -6 25 FY 88 Range Conservationist Construct Fence- line - 111-12 26 FY 88 Outdoor Recrea- tion Planner Construct Parking Facility - III -20 27 FY 88 Area Manager Revise Cooperative Agreement - I II -11 28 V-2 Management Action Working Document Implementation refer to text for Reference Target Date Responsibility detail s - page Section FY 88 Outdoor Recrea- Design and Implement tion Planner Self-Issued Registration 29 System - 1 1 1-20 FY 89 Range Construct Fenceline - Conservationist 1 1 1-12 30 Unknown Realty Acquisition of State Specialist Section 32, T.24N., R.13W. - III-4 31 V-3 APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM THE SAN JUAN WILDERNESS PROTECTION ACT 1984 Title I - San Juan Basin Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the "San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984". Sec. 102. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), the following lands are hereby designated as wilderness, and, therefore, as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System- CD certain lands in the Albuquerque District Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico, which comprise approximately three thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Bisti Wilderness—Proposed", dated June 1983, and which shall be known as the Bisti Wilderness; and (2) certain lands in the Albuquerque District of the Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico, which comprise approximately twenty-three thousand eight hundred and seventy-two acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "De-na-zin Wilderness— Proposed" , dated June 1983, and which shall be known as the De-na-zin Wilderness. (b) Subject to valid existing rights each wilderness area designated by this Act shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, except that any reference in such provisions to the effective date of the Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall be deemed to be a reference to the effective date of this Act, and any reference to the Secretary of Agriculture shall be deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of the Interior. (c) As soon as practicable after enactment of this Act, a map and a legal description of each wilderness area designated by this Act shall be filed by the Secretary of the Interior with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives. Each such map and description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this Act, except that correction of clerical and typographical errors in each such legal description and map may be made by the Secretary subsequent to such filings. Each such map and legal description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. (d) Within the wilderness areas designated by this Act, the grazing of livestock, where established prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary, as long as such regulations, policies, and practices fully conform with and implement the intent of Congress regarding grazing in such areas as such intent is expressed in the Wilderness Act and this Act. Sec. 104. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall exchange such public lands or interest in such lands, mineral or nonmineral, as are of approximately equal value and selected by the State of New Mexico, acting through its commissioner of public lands, for any State lands or interest therein, mineral or nonmineral, located within the boundaries of any of the tracts designated as wilderness under section 2. For the purpose of this section, the term public lands shall have the same meaning as defined in section 103(c) of the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976. (b) Within one hundred and twenty days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall give notice to the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands of the tracts to be designated as wilderness pursuant to section 102 of this Act and of the Secretary's duty to A-l exchange public lands selected by the State for any State land contained within the boundaries of the designated wilderness area. Such notice shall contain a listing of all public lands which are located within the boundaries of the State, which have not been withdrawan from entry and which the Secretary identifies as being available to the State in exchange for such State lands as may be within the designated wilderness areas. (c) The value of the State and public lands to be exchanged under this section shall be determined as of the date of enactment of this Act. (d) After the receipt of the list of available public lands, if the commissioner of public lands gives notice to the Secretary of the State's selection of lands, the Secretary shall notify the State in writing as to whether the Department of the Interior consideres the State and Federal lands to be of approximately equal value. In case of disagreement between the Secretary and the commissioner as to relative value of the acquired and selected lands, the Secretary and the commissioner shall agree on the appointment of a disinterested independent appraiser who will review valuation data presented by both parties and determine the amount of selected land which best represents approximate equal value. Such determination will be binding on the Secretary and the commissioner. The transfer of title to lands or interests therein to the State of New Mexico shall be completed within two years of the date of enactment of this Act. Sec. 105. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall exchange any lands held in trust for an Indian whose lands are located within the boundary of the De-na-zin area referred to in section 102(a)(2) at the request of the Indian for whom such land is held in trust. Such lands shall be exchanged for lands approximately equal in value selected by the Indian allottee concerned and such lands so selected and exchanged shall thereafter be held in trust by the Secretary in the same manner as the lands for which they were exchanged. (b) Except as provided herein, nothing in this Act shall affect the transfer to the Navajo Tribe of any lands selected by the Navajo Tribe pursuant to Public Law 93-531 and Public Law 96-305. (c) Title to such in lieu selections shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe as a part of the Navajo Reservation, and shall be subject only to valid existing rights as of December 1, 1983. Sec. 106. Section 11 (a) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-10) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1) by striking out the last sentence, which begins "Such lands"; (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following. "Subject to the provisions of the following sentences of this subsection, all rights, title and interests of the United States in the lands described in paragraph (1), including such interests the United States as lessor has in such lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, will, subject to existing leasehold interests, be transferred without cost to the Navajo Tribe and title thereto shall be taken by the United States in trust for the benefit of the Navajo Tribe as a part of the Navajo Reservation. So long as selected lands coincide with pending noncompetitive coal lease applications under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Secretary may not transfer any United States interests in such lands until the noncompetitive coal lease applications have been fully adjudicated. If such adjudication results in issuance of Federal coal leases to the applicants, such transfer shall be subject to such leases. The leaseholders rights and interests in such coal leases will in no way be diminished by the transfer of the rights, title and interests of the United States in such lands to the Navajo Tribe. If any selected lands are subject to valid claims located under the Mining Law of 1872 the transfer of the selected lands may be made subject to those claims."; and (3) by inserting the following new paragraph: "(2) Those interests in lands acquired in the State of New Mexico by the Navajo Tribe pursuant to subsection 2 of this section shall be subject to the right of the State of New Mexico to receive A-2 the same value from any sales, bonuses, rentals, royalties and interest charges from the conveyance, sale, lease, development, and production of coal as would have been received had the subsurface interest in such lands remained with the United States and been leased pursuant to the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, or any successor Act; or otherwise developed. The State's interest shall be accounted for in the same manner as it would have been if a lease had issued pursuant to the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920, as amended.". A-3 APPENDIX B BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Boundary Description of the Bisti' Wilderness Area The Bisti Wilderness Area is located in the San Juan Basin, San Juan County, New Mexico, in Townships 23 and 24 North, Range 13 West, New Mexico Prinicpal Meridian, New Mexico. Commencing at Angle Point (A. P.) 1, on the E-W centerline of sec. 30, T. 24 N., R. 13 W. , NMPM, NM. thence S. 3° 08' W., on line 1-2, 15.23 chs., to A. P. 2; thence S. 35° 14' W. , on line 2-3, 8.69 chs., to A. P. 3; thence S. 6° 30' E., on line 3-4, 5.62 chs., to A. P. 4; thence S. 0° 04'E., on line 4-5, 7.49 chs., to A. P. 5; thence S. 21° 11' E., on line 5-6, 4.72 chs., to A. P. 6; thence S. 37° 23' E., on line 6-7, 4.14 chs., to A. P. 7; thence S. 53° 14' E., on line 7-8, 7.93 chs., to A. P. 8; thence N. 0° 04' W., identical with a portion of the line between sections 31 and 32, 7.85 chs., to the corner of sections 29, 30, 31 and 32; thence N. 89° 56' E., identical with the line between sections 29 and 32, 39.90 chs., to the 1/4 section corner of sections 29 and 32. thence S. 89° 52' E., identical with the line between sections 29 and 32, 39.85 chs., to the corner of sections 28, 29, 32 and 33; thence S. 0° 07' E., identical with the line between sections 32 and 33, 79.82 chs., to the corner of sections 4, 5, 32 and 33, on the Township line between Townships 23 and 24 North; thence S. 89° 59.5' W., identical with the line between Townships 23 and 24 N., and sections 5 and 32, 63.80 chs., to A. P. 9; thence S. 6° 32' E., on line 9-10, 8.80 chs., to A. P. 10; thence S. 31° E., on line 10-11, 71.19 chs., to A. P. 11 ; thence S. 61° 13 E., on line 11-12, 15.60 chs., to A. P. 12; thence N. 87° 40' E., identical with a portion of the line between sections 5 and 3, 11.60 chs., to the corner of sections 4, 5, 8 and 9; thence S. 0° 31' E., identical with a portion of the line between sections 8 and 9, 6.87 chs., to A. P. 13; thence S. 61° 13' E., on line 13-14, 5.74 chs., to A. P. 14; B-l thence S. 61° 10' E., on line 14-15, 47.10 chs., to A. P. 15; thence N. 72° 52' E., on line 15-16, 28.60 chs., to A. P. 16; thence N. 76° 18' E., on line 16-17, 12.46 chs., to A. P. 17; thence N. 55° 51 ' E., on line 17-18, 3.85 chs., to A. P. 18; thence N. 62° 46' E., on line 18-19, 7.17 chs., to A. P. 19; thence N. 47° 55.5' E., on line 19-20, 5.06 chs., to A. P. 20; thence S. 81° 48' E., on line 20-21, 6.87 chs., to A. P. 21; thence S. 71° 28' E., on line 21-22, 4.33 chs., to A. P. 22; thence N. 75° 22' E., on line 22-23, 10.07 chs., to A. P. 23; thence N. 64° 07' E., on line 23-24, 9.11 chs., to A. P. 24; thence N. 72° 01' E., on line 24-25, 5.88 chs., to A. P. 25; thence N. 62° 23' E., on line 25-26, 6.12 chs., to A. P. 26; thence East, identical with a portion of the line between sections 3 and 10, 21.63 chs., to the corner of sections 2, 3, 10 and 11; thence North, identical with the line between section 2 and 3, 80.04 chs., to the corner of section 2, 3, 34 and 35, between townships 23 and 24 north; thence N. 0° 01' W., identical with a portion of the line between sections 34 and 35, 39.86 chs., to the 1/4 section corner of sections 34 and 35; thence N. 0° 02' E., identical with a portion of the line between sections 34 and 35, 39.97 chs., to the corners of section 26, 27, 34 and 35; thence N. 89° 51' W., identical with a portion of the line between sections 27 and 34, 39.99 chs., to the 1/4 section corner of sections 27 and 34; thence N. o° 01' E., identical with the N-S centerline of section 27, 39.82 chs., to the center 1/4 section corner of section 27; thence N. 89° 59' W., identical with the E-W centerline of section 27, 40.02 chs., to the 1/4 section corner or section 27 and 28; thence N. 89° 55' W., identical with the E-W centerline of section 28, 79.98 chs., to the 1/4 section corner of sections 28 and 29; thence S. 89° 55' W. , identical with the E-W centerline of section 29, 79.80 chs., to the 1/4 section corner of sections 29 and 30; thence S. 89° 39' W. , identical with the E-W centerline of section 30, 5.31 chs., to A. P. 1, the point of beginning, containing 3,946.3 acres more or less. B-2 APPENDIX C PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS In December 1984, approximately one month after wilderness designation, nine representatives of the public were asked to serve as Volunteer Specialists in the wilderness management planning process. The nine volunteers represented organizations that had shown interest in such a group. The first meeting was held on February 9, 1985 to help identify issues for the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan. A field trip to the wilderness area helped to acquaint them with on-the-ground management problems. Twelve proposed issues were identified and later included in the Preplanning Analysis (April 1985). Following the release of the Preplanning Analysis, the nine Volunteer Specialists convened on May 18, 1985 to review and discuss the proposed management issues. Discussions helped to clearly define the issues and management direction the BLM should pursue. A public Open House was held April 2-5, 1985 to answer questions about the planning process and to gain additional input regarding wilderness management. After extensive preparation and internal BLM review of the preliminary draft management plan, copies were mailed to the Volunteer Specialists. In order to facilitate maximum participation, two meetings were conducted, one in Farmington and the other in Albuquerque on October 21st and 22nd, 1985, respectively. The purpose of the meetings was to review the preliminary draft and to discuss the format and content of a public summary version of this document. The Draft Bisti Wilderness Management Plan became available to the public in February 1986 and a forty-five day public comment period began. A continuous "open house" format was conducted during the comment period at the Farmington Resource Area Headquarters. Two public meetings were held to receive verbal comments. The first meeting was in Farmington, New Mexico, March 11, 1986 and the second in Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 17, 1986. The formal comment period on the Draft Plan ended on April 7, 1986. After preparation, approval and printing of this Final Plan, a notice of availability will be published in the Federal Register. Consultation and Coordination Over 3,300 persons on the San Juan Basin Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement mailing list were mailed a copy of the document, SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT BISTI WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN. This summary publication was designed as a non-technical version of the Draft Plan intended for gen- eral public review. Three hundred copies of the Draft Plan were mailed to persons on the Bisti Wilderness mailing list. Informal consultation with the public and special interest groups has taken place throughout the planning process via personal contacts, phone calls and letters. The following local organizations and their representatives have received a copy of the Draft Plan. U.S. Congress The Honorable Pete Domenici The Honorable Manuel Lujan Jr. The Honorable Bill Richardson Business Paragon Resources, Inc. Public Service Company of New Mexico Sunbelt Mining Company, Inc. C-l State of New Mexico Federal Agencies New Mexico, Governor Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Department of Game and Fish Energy and Minerals Department Environmental Improvement Division Land Commi ssi on Museum of Natural History Natural Resource Department State Historic Preservation Officer Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Fish and Wildlife Service Forest Service Geological Survey National Park Service Soil Conservation Service Educational Institutions Local Governments City of Farmington, Mayor Farmington Chamber of Commerce Farmington Convention 4 Visitors Bureau Navajo Nation Organizations American Museum of Natural History New Mexico Mountain Club New Mexico Recreation & Park Association New Mexico Wilderness Coalition New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee The Paleontological Society Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter The Wilderness Society Volunteers for the Outdoors Auburn Uni versity Brigham Young University Eastern New Mexico University Harvard Uni versity New Mexico Highlands University New Mexico State University Princeton University San Juan Col lege Southern Illinois University University of Arizona University of California, Berkely University of California, Los Angeles Uni versity of Idaho University of New Mexico University of Michigan University of Wyoming Western New Mexico University Comment Analysis In addition to verbal comments received at public meetings, the BLM received 28 written letters expressing concerns and questions. The number of letters received from various entities that required BLM response to substantive comments 1s as follows: Federal agencies (3), State government (3), local government (1), business (1), organizations (4), educational institutions (6) and individuals (3). Comments were categorized, summarized and responses were prepared. In general, commentors seemed to be familar with the Bisti Wilderness and reacted favorably to the Management Plan. Suggestions were made to add information to the text, make editorial changes and to re-evaluate proposed decisions. Changes made to the text did not change the environmen- tal consequences of implementing this Management Plan. Therefore, a second draft will not be necessary for public review. Comment Summaries and Responses Sixty- two summarized comments and the responses to those comments are presented here. A com- plete set of comment letters and meeting notes are available to the public at the Farmington Resource Area Headquarters. The remainder of this appendix displays public comments, in the lefthand column and BLM respon- ses to those comments, in the righthand column. Each comment is identified by number and is listed as a statement and/or question. In most cases, the comment is a summary of a number of similar comments from various individuals. In parenthesis beneath each summarized comment is the total number of commentors concerned with that topic. C-2 COMMENT RESPONSE Will this document represent a model for the management of other wilderness areas? If so, the guidelines must not only be relevant to the Bisti Wilderness but for all wilderness areas. (2 commentors) Part I, Introduction, Purpose of the Plan section states that the Bisti Wilderness Man- agement Plan is area specific and directed toward the administration of the resources and* uses in the Bisti Wilderness. The Wil- derness Management Policy (1981) and the 43 CFR Part 8560 are the documents that direct administration of BLM wilderness areas. Individual management plans must be consis- tent with the policy document and are allowed some management discretion to address unique situations that are not specifically provided for. However, new policy formulation in man- agement plans must not be contrary to the Wilderness Management Policy. The policy document and regulations continue to provide the overall wilderness management guidance and in most cases, the policies outlined are not repeated in the management plan itself. Are the Wilderness Management Goals appropriate standards for managing uses pursuant to the Wilderness Act and San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act? (1 commentor) The four wilderness management goals identified in this Plan are the national goals for managing all BLM-admi ni stered wil- derness. There is no management discretion to revise these goal statements as identified in the BLM Manual 8560. The stated goals are not standards. They are statements that seek to steer the empha- sis of wilderness management. Wilderness management objectives are more clearly and concisely written to be consistent with the goals and to help achieve the goals. The objectives are stated so as to be realistic, measurable and achievable for they represent the desired wilderness condition standards which when evaluated, will show its success or failure. In other words, the standards for managing uses in the wilderness are rep- resented by the objectives stated in this Plan and in the Wilderness Management Policy ( 1 981 ) . 3. What are the specific implementation plans and procedures in this Plan? (3 commentors) This Management Plan sets forth the management practices and actions which will be used to maintain the area's wilderness character. The Wilderness Management Plan preceeds the specific project plan which will provide detailed project parameters which guide the development of planned actions. A C-3 4. What rationale was utilized in selecting the target dates for implementing the proposed management actions? (1 commentor) Will the BLM have sufficient resources and adequate funding to accomplish the wilderness goals, enforce wilderness reg- ulations and implement this plan? Staff- ing seems to be inadequate with only one wilderness specialist and there is no call for increased staff and volunteers. What contingency plan does BLM have for wilderness protection in the event that budgets are cut lower than current levels? (4 commentors) wilderness project plan represents a more precise "when, how, and by whom" level of detail in wilderness management planning. The project plans will be developed with implementation of the final management plan. Refer to Part V of the Final Bisti Wilderness Management Plan for implementation schedules. Priority was placed on those actions that were designed to prevent and deter violations and protect the wilderness resource. Other considerations included available personnel, funding, and time limitations. Economic realities may affect future target dates as well as volunteer help and donations. The Department of the Interior's policy is to manage wilderness areas under the ad- ministration of the BLM so as to preserve wilderness character, and to manage them for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Our level of management will be subject to the appropriation of funds by Congress. If budget cuts occur, implementation of various management actions may have to be postponed and implementation will have to look at top priority actions and those that are of an immediate necessity. With reduced budgets, the BLM will have to look at alternate sources of funding such as soliciting the help of volunteers and seeking donations of supplies and materials from individuals and businesses. The BLM is woefully short of enforcement agents with only two special agents in New Mexico. How will the BLM catch and cite violators? What are the detailed enforcement activities to prevent and deter trespass, motorized vehicle use and vandalism? (4 commentors) The BLM Albuquerque District will be ac- quiring a law enforcement agent, who will be able to cite visitors as per 43 CFR Part 8560.1-2, Prohibited Acts in Designated Wilderness Areas, or other laws and regulations pertinent to public lands. Routine patrols of the Bisti Wilderness by volunteers and BLM personnel will be our primary means of identifying and citing violators. Within the management actions of the wilderness elements, various indirect and direct methods to prevent trespass, motorized vehicle use and deter vandalism are presented including fencing, patrolling and public education. C-4 There is a recommendation to work with the Farmington Chamber of Commerce to direct information efforts in order to realize the goals of wilderness manage- ment. How will the BLM utilize public education to implement the plan? Are there BLM bus tours to the Bisti Wilderness? (1 commentor) The Information and Education, Management Policy section has been revised to include a policy on coordinating information efforts with other organizations. The BLM will refrain from promoting the Bisti by carefully limiting the types and amounts of publicity released. Further studies on the appropriate material will be required. The type of mate- rial developed would promote the "no-trace" visitation concept, the pack-it-in, pack-it- out concept and similar backcountry etiquette advice. BLM has conducted guided informational tours in the past prior to designation, but will not promote large group tours because of the fragile nature of the Bisti Wilderness. The BLM will not be conducting guided tours as a regular service or interpretive program. 8. Do volunteers have the authority to rep- rimand and fine violators? Are the vol- unteers the only people who patrol the Bisti Wilderness? (1 commentor) Volunteers do not have authority to rep- rimand and fine violators. Any violations of 43 CFR Part 8560.1-2, Prohibited Acts in Designated Wilderness Areas or any other laws or regulations must be handled by the appro- priate State, county, or Federal agency pos- sessing Federal law enforcement authority. Within the State of New Mexico, BLM has two special agents with citation authority and a ranger position. The Bisti is patrolled by not only volun- teers, but by BLM personnel from the Farming- ton Resource Area and occassional ly by the BLM law enforcement agents. Adjacent land uses are not fully address- ed in the plan and the jurisdictional re- sponsibilities over adjacent lands and their effects. What will be the impacts of the proposed Generating Station on the wilderness in terms of air quality, water seepage and pipeline location? (3 commentors) General Management Situation section of Part I describes the adjacent land uses. BLM policy limits the scope of wilderness plan- ning (including analyses of impacts) to the management of resources within the wilderness boundary with few exceptions. The narrative in the Draft Plan has been revised to more fully identify adjacent land uses. Impacts of the proposed Generating Station are detailed in the 1983 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Public Service Company of New Mexico's Proposed New Mexico Generating Station. C-5 10. In reference to outside influences on the wilderness such as visual and audible impacts, should it be noted that wilder- ness areas have long since been desig- nated in those areas that are within the sights and sounds of civilization? (2 commentors) This is true as noted with the Sandia Wilderness towering above the City of Albuquerque. Wilderness areas located in close proximity to large population centers provides an experience that would otherwise be out of reach of many because of the prohi- bitive costs associated with traveling great distances. While sights and sounds of civi- lization are not criteria for excluding areas from being considered for wilderness designa- tion, the impacts are documentable. This plan merely attempts to identify those exist- ing and potential impacts to wilderness char- acter. 11. Hasn't Sunbelt Mining Company halted sur- face coal mining operations? Hasn't an exchange for State-owned Section 32 been consummated with the BLM? The BLM is not involved in the permitting or the operation of the Gateway Mine, but as far as we know Sunbelt intends to continue mining for the foreseeable future. (1 commentor) Prior to the permit for the Gateway Mine being approved, the BLM had approached the State of New Mexico concerning an exchange of public land for Section 32. An exchange was not consummated. 12. Why was section 32 left wilderness and how will increase manageability? (2 commentors) out of the Section 32, T.24N., R.13W., is not BLM- acquisition administered land. Approximatley 600 acres belongs to the State of New Mexico and the remaining 40 acres are under private owner- ship. Within the State portion of Section 32, there is also an ongoing surface coal mining operation. 13. Has the Wilderness Area boundary been surveyed, fenced and signed? (1 commentor) Acquisition of Section 32 would benefit manageability through greater control on out- side influences on the wilderness resource and the ability to provide additional access and portal facilities for visitors if nec- essary to mitigate use impacts in other areas or provide better distribution of users. The Bisti Wilderness boundary was sur- veyed by the BLM Cadastral Survey Team in May and June, 1985. An official boundary description is available in Appendix B. Signs have been posted at boundary corners at quarter section intervals between corners, and at access points leading into the wilder- ness. Fencing projects will be completed along the western and southern boundaries where vehicular intrusions have been a prob- lem. C-6 14. Is is appropriate to propose a wilderness boundary change when the problem is caused by an illegal occupant? Shouldn't the illegal occupant be removed from the wilderness? Why wasn't the problem iden- tified during the legislative process? (1 commentor) The BLM did not intend for the unauthor- ized occupancy to be included in the wilder- ness. The original maps submitted to Con- gress had excluded the area around the dwelling, but during the legislative process and finalizing the wilderness boundary, the area was inadvertently reinstated as part of the wilderness. 15. When will the boundary of Bisti be ad- justed to eliminate the unauthorized occupant? (5 commentors) Nonetheless, all parties agree that this problem must be resolved. Resolution is very complicated. Relocation of occupants that have settled on public lands is a complex issue which will not be described in detail here. The congressional record and public law have resulted in some confusion over whether this situation is indeed a trespass or otherwise illegal. Whether resolution of this issue will be removal of the occupant from the wilderness, boundary adjustment or otherwise is out of the hands of the Resource Area and the deci- sion will most likely be made through Con- gressional action. The recommendation in the Management Plan to resolve the issue through a boundary adjustment was made for a number of reasons. First it resembles the boundary initially submitted to Congress. The deletion of about 170 acres from the existing wilderness would not adversely impact wilderness characteris- tics. It would resolve the unauthorized occupancy in the wilderness in an efficient and effective manner for an extremely contro- versial issue. The BLM New Mexico has initiated a formal request for a boundary adjustment. Due to the amount of acreage involved, Congressional action will be required. 16. Are the windmill and other range facili- ties in trespass? (1 commentor) The windmill and associated water storage and drinking tanks (Job Description Report. No. 1685) have grandfathered rights and are not in trespass. The BLM drilled the well in 1963 and it was equipped in 1964 to provide water for livestock and wildlife. C-7 17. Will a parking facility contribute to problems of man-made intrusions into the wilderness? (4 commentors) The parking facility is not viewed as a detriment to wilderness characteristics. By providing for visitor parking the facility can be used as a management tool: to avoid off-the-road travel by vehicles on adjacent lands; identify a distinct entrance point to the wilderness; decrease chances of vandalism of isolated vehicles (more security in numbers concept); attract visitor's to one focal point for dissemination of information, public education and law enforcement efforts; collection of visitor use data; and surveillance and maintenance purposes. If use increases and carrying capacity of the parking facility is realized, the BLM would seek to redistribute visitor use by providing additional access points to avoid degrading wilderness characteristics of visitor experience. 18. Why isn't the parking facility clearly marked on a map? (1 commentor) A project plan for the parking facility will contain the level of detail such as location, construction parameters and type of materials. The ideal location for such a facility is just outside of the wilderness near the Gateway Wash which is the tradi- tional access point just off Old State High- way 371. A number of reasons exist for not pin pointing a location in this plan. First, the pending selection of public lands adja- cent to the wilderness through the Navajo- Hopi Relocation Settlement Act would negate possibilities of a facility on public lands adjacent to the wilderness near Gateway Wash. Second, a possible land exchange involving a portion of State owned Section 32 near Gateway Wash would lend itself to locat- ing a parking facility on lands outside of the wilderness on lands currently being used for surface mining. Third, the possibility exists for a cooperative management agreement on Navajo selected lands or State-owned lands near Gateway Wash. 19. Should the BLM reconsider providing on-site facilities such as a potable water station, shelters, restrooms, and fire pits to protect wilderness characteristics and to benefit the public? (2 commentors) The Bisti Wilderness is considered a day use area with little overnight use known to exist. Available data shows an overall reduction in visitor use trend in an already low use area. Coupled with the area's long distance from the Farmington Resource Area Headquarters and the low levels of funding and personnel for construction and mainte- nance such facilities indicate an unwise C-8 expenditure of a limited wilderness manage- ment budget. The mechanism is available to provide public facilities if necessary to protect the wilderness character, however, at this time they are not planned for. 20. Shouldn't the parking area and other developments be located out of the wil- derness viewshed and not within views from the wilderness? (1 commentor) The aesthetics of facilities is an impor- tant consideration in the location as well as their utility. In the case of parking faci- lity location, extraneous circumstances as described in Comment/response #18 prevents pinpointing a specific location at this time. The BLM favors the facility location near Gateway Wash just outside of the wilder- ness even though visible from within portions of the wilderness. The historical pattern of visitor use shows that access to the wilder- ness has been via Old State Highway 371 just north of the Wash. It is assumed that visi- tors will continue to use the popular access point to the area. Since the parking faci- lity will double as a focus for information dissemination, wilderness education, visitor use data collection and law enforcement efforts, it is important for the facility to be used by a majority of the visitors. Rec- reation behavioral research has shown that traditional use patterns often meet resis- tance to forced institutional change. In perspective, the Gateway Wash area favorable to a parking facility will only be visible from the wilderness for a short way when con- struction designs are considered. Facility development will be minimal. 21. Why was the fence and registration box which is located inside the wilderness, now proposed for removal? (1 commentor) As stated in the Recreation and Scenic Quality, Current Situation section, the fence and registration box were installed in 1979 (five years prior to wilderness designation) to control vehicular penetration into the Bisti Badlands and collect visitor use data. Since the area has been designated as wilder- ness the fence and registration box are intrusions and will be removed. 22. Shouldn't the Management Plan include more data on visitation such as peak day visitation, peak hours, and frequency of group use? (1 commentor) The Recreation and Scenic Quality, Cur- rent Situation section has been updated to show current visitation figures to reflect the 1985 calendar year. These use figures were gathered through voluntary visitor registration and should not be considered as highly reliable regarding the amount of use, frequency of use and amount of time spent in C-9 the area. Planned actions identified in the plan are an attempt to acquire accurate and reliable use data. 23. How much visitor pressure does the BLM anticipate and will it be an increase over past use? (1 commentor) The Recreation and Scenic Quality, Assumptions section discusses visitor pressure. As it was explained, visitor use was expected to increase during this time period after designation, but then use levels were assumed to drop again. Since the Bureau does not have accurate past visitor use figures for the Bisti along with many other variables that may be involved, it is difficult to make projections. 24. What will be the impacts associated with increased visitor use? (3 commentors) Overuse by visitors could result in the loss or degradation of the wilderness re- source. However, visitor management tech- niques will be utilized in the Bisti to pre- serve both the wilderness resource and the visitor's wilderness experience and opportu- nities. 25. How will the BLM respond to possible in- creased visitor use if the proposed gen- erating station is built? (3 commentors) The BLM will continue to monitor visita- tion of the area, provide information and education, and take action when necessary to maintain acceptable levels of use that are within the capacity of the Bisti Wilderness. 26. How will the BLM document visitor use and keep records to analyze long-range impacts? (1 commentor) The Recreation and Scenic Quality, Man- agement Policy section establishes guidance for gathering visitor use data. A self- issued registration system mented to complement data personnel and volunteers patrol s. will be imple- recorded by BLM during routine 27. How does the BLM propose to eliminate off-road vehicle use in the wilderness which is against the law? (5 commentors) The BLM will be fencing portions of the exterior boundary, signing, patrolling and, if necessary issuing citations. Fencing will help provide better boundary identification and restrict vehicle access along the western boundary where previous violations have occurred. Patrol and monitoring efforts have resulted in the citation of one vehicle tres- pass in the Bisti Wilderness. The continued patrol, educating the public and increased efforts through law enforcement personnel should help eliminate violations from off-road vehicle use. C-10 28. Could vehicle use by medicine men for herb gathering be allowed through special permit since it occurs on a seldom basis? (1 commentor) Herb gathering by medicine men will still be allowed, but the Wilderness Management Policy does not authorize the use of motor vehicles for this type of activity. Travel within BLM administered wilderness will nor- mally be by non-motorized, non-mechanical means consistent with the preservation of the wilderness character. 29. Shouldn't a cultural inventory for the entire wilderness be completed? (2 commentors) Because the projected site density is low and the predicted site types are common, this Plan doesn't call for an inventory. Future inventory is possible as has been considered by the Farmington Cultural Resource Program. The sites in the wilderness are considered to be more protected than other areas in the region because of the restrictions to vehi- cles and energy development. 30. Have there been any surveys for the threatened and endangered species - Mesa Verde cactus? (1 commentor) A contractor completed a survey for this species in 1985. The Wildlife, Current Situ- ation section has been revised to reflect this additional information. The survey did not locate this species and specifically recommended that the area no longer be con- sidered potential habitat. 31. Will sheep - proof fences restrict wild- life movement? (1 commentor) There is the potential for sheep - proof fences to restrict wildlife movement. Prior to construction of these fences a project plan and environmental assessment will be prepared. Design of the fence will be con- sider impacts to wildlife while still main- taining its intended function. 32. Shouldn't buffer zones around raptor nests be established immediately because nest abandonment has already expected to have occurred? (1 commentor) Research has shown that there is a high correlation between human disturbance and nest abandonment. There is no proof that this has occurred in the wilderness. Inten- sive on-site public information dissemination and education efforts will be the first course of action regarding restrictions to visitor use in the wilderness. If these efforts prove to be ineffective, the neces- sary restrictive measures utilizing wildlife management techniques will be implemented. 33. Why does the plan fail to address botani- cal resources and the need to protect them? (1 commentor) The Bisti Wilderness is mainly character- ized by an arid badlands environment, ^ery few species exist and vegetation is almost nonexistent with the exception of common grasses. C-ll 34. Two opposing views were expressed in re- gard to livestock grazing. One view commends the BLM for continuing current levels of grazing use while the other calls for the elimination of grazing. The BLM should also eliminate the use of vehicles and mechanized equipment for livestock management in order to be consistent with the management of recreation, wildlife, and cultural resources. (6 commentors) The Congressional record is very clear in regards to this issue. It is BLM policy that livestock grazing in wilderness shall be per- mitted to continue at the levels that existed at the time of wilderness designation. Any adjustment to use levels will be made through rangeland studies and not because of wilder- ness designation. Grazing is considered a nonconforming but accepted use in wilder- ness. This means that Congress has recog- nized that livestock grazing is inconsistent with wilderness preservation. However, due to compromises in drafting the legislation, grazing is authorized with certain grand- fathered rights which are reflected in policy statements. Any request for use of motorized vehicles or mechanized equipment will be ana- lyzed on a case-by-case basis through an environmental assessment. 35. Is grazing currently causing damage to natural and cultural resources from trampling? (1 commentor) 36. The current cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs appears to be failing to properly manage livestock in the wilderness. If this is the case, shouldn't the BLM cancel the agreement and immediately prepare an Allotment Man- agement Plan? (1 commentor) Damage to natural and cultural resources from grazing is possible, but there is no evidence of this occurring in the Bisti Wil- derness. The grazing cooperative agreement has authorized the Bureau of Indian Affairs to directly administer the rangeland now desig- nated as wilderness since the late 1960s. The agreement was drafted in response to the difficulty facing the BLM to effectively administer a grazing program in this region. Coordination between the two Federal agencies assures that the public rangelands are managed according to the law and the objectives established for administration. Due to wilderness designation, a more active management position will be taken by the BLM to administer rangeland in the wilderness as called for in the Livestock Operations, Man- agement Action section. An Allotment Management Plan has not been completed and is not a planned action. The BLM is currently in the process of preparing a Grazing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in conjunction with the Farmington Resource Management Plan (RMP) which is expected to be completed in 1988. At a mini- mum, a prescription for grazing management will be addressed in the RMP and the EIS will determine if an Allotment Management Plan will be prepared. C-12 37. Should BLM undertake inmediate rangeland studies, ascertain exact grazing levels and incorporate the appropriate livestock adjustments in the Final Plan? (3 commentors) 38. Doesn't the range condition of "fair to good" with range trend "static" violate the requirements of the Federal Land Pol- icy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Public Range Improvement Act? (1 commentor) The problems associated with livestock management in the Bisti Wilderness are iden- tified in the Current Situation section of Livestock Operations, Part III. As called for by management actions, rangeland studies will be initiated in 1986 to inventory each Range Unit for vegetation condition and trend, utilization, actual use and the limits of acceptable change. Unfortunately, the Final Plan must be approved before undertak- ing the intensive rangeland studies as pro- posed, thereby negating any reasonable attempt at adjusting livestock numbers at this time. Revisions of the plan will incor- porate the requested data. There are no known violations of any law concerning management of livestock on range- land in the Bisti Wilderness. FLPMA requires that the public lands be managed so as to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. The assessment of current range condition and trend does not violate this standard. 39. Isn't the Mineral Resources objective inconsistent with the legal requirements of the Wilderness Act? Nondegradation should be the standard for administering uses in wilderness. (1 commentor) The range conditions are consistent with the objectives for the allotment and are not atypical of the range sites throughout the Bisti Community Allotment. Congress specially provided for certain activities and existing uses which otherwise would have been prohibited in wilderness. In the case of these nonconforming uses, the condition of the wilderness resource may be degraded as a result of an allowed use. The principle of nondegradation and the limits of acceptable change will be used as an analysis tool for the reasonable mitigation of impacts and as a standard for determining the condi- tion to which the area will be returned where and when rehabilitation is appropriate. How- ever, if lessees exercise their valid exist- ing rights, the wilderness will be managed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the area's wilderness character. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) directs that all uses of the pub- lic lands be conducted so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. In wilder- ness areas, this means that the BLM must man- age the nonconforming but accepted use so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the area's wilderness character as a min- C-13 imum standard for administering such use. As on nonwi lderness public lands, some of the nonconforming but accepted uses may be restricted or entirely excluded where parti- cularly sensitive values occur or where the public interest would be better served by restricting or excluding them. 40. What is the authority for issuing coal There are no current coal leases in the leases involving Preference Right Lease Bisti Wilderness. One application for a min- Applications (PRLA) in wilderness? eral lease, called a PRLA (No. 11916), com- prises 320 acres in the wilderness. This (1 commentor) PRLA was drilled under a prospecting permit issued on December 1, 1970 pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. The 43 Code of Federal Regulations 3430 outlines the steps for processing PRLA's. Holders of PRLA's have no valid existing rights, but do have the right to application adjudication or completion of the PRLA process. The BLM is currently appraising the value of coal under- lying the PRLA. If commercial quantities are determined to exist, the PRLA holder would normally be issued a lease which will contain rights to coal. However, the Wilderness Man- agement Policy is very clear in withdrawing all forms of appropriations under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws per- taining to mineral leasing as of January 1, 1984. Therefore, there is no legal authority for issuing coal leases in the wilderness. Every attempt to exchange the value of coal in the PRLA for coal outside of wilderness will be made. The valid existing right provision of the wilderness Management Policy (1981) clearly applies to only valid rights outstanding ("existing") as of the date of wilderness designation, October 30, 1984. If the claim- ant can show evidence to the BLM that a valid discovery was made prior to wilderness desig- nation, valid existing rights will be recog- nized and defined in the lease. 41. The topic of valid existing rights is Presently, only the existing oil and gas very confusing. What are these rights in leases contain rights to minerals in the wil- regards to mineral development in the derness. The only leases where wilderness Bisti Wilderness? impairing activities could occur would be leases which were issued prior to the passage (1 commentor) of the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Manage- ment Act. There are no pre-FLPMA leases in the Bisti Wilderness. Because of the "non- impairment" stipulation in the three existing C-14 post-FLPMA leases, it is assumed, for the purposes of analysis, that such leases would be voluntarily terminated or allowed to expire. No actions that would impair wilder- ness values will be allowed. 42. How will the BLM determine whether a sci- entific permit application will be issued or denied? (1 commentor) Permit applications for scientific uses in the wilderness will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The overriding criteria is that no degradation of wilderness charac- ter will be allowed to occur. Evaluation of each permit application will consider the specifics of the proposal and analysis will be on a project-by-project or case-by-case basis. 43. Would you interprete the paleontological resource objective? There is no logical line of reasoning to abandon an exposed fossil in the field to be destroyed by erosional processes for the purpose of preserving wilderness. (5 commentors) The subject area was designated as wil- derness by Public Law 98-603 as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- tem. All BLM wilderness areas are managed according to guidance provided in the Wilder- ness Management Policy (1981). Management objectives are established for each wilder- ness resource to be consistent with applic- able laws, policies and national goals for wilderness management. An interpretation of the paleontological resource objective is as follows. Natural conditions and ecological processes will be allowed to operate freely with as little human influence or disturbance as possible. The intrinsic nature of wilderness is the allowance of natural processes to occur without human interference. Natural erosion of paleontological resources will be allowed to occur as is the case with any other resource in the wilderness. Study or manage- ment including stabilization or collection of resources will be considered on a case-by- case basis to protect or preserve a particu- lar paleontological value, but not to the detriment of the wilderness. The disturbance to natural ecological conditions by paleontological studies is not so much the issue because most disturbance can be mitigated to prevent degradation of the wilderness. The issue involves the removal of finite resources from the wilder- ness which to some degree degrades wilderness characteristics. Since scientific investiga- tion is a legitimate use in wilderness, the C-15 check to prevent degradation is on a case-by- case analysis. Extraction of fossils with known scientific value may be allowed. 44. Two views were expressed concerning the The attempt to discriminate between sig- definition of a significant fossil. One nificant and common fossils was to facilitate view suggested the revision of the stated understanding of the Wilderness Management criteria. The other suggested deleting Policy (1981). The policy states that pale- the definition because of the level of ontological resources will be available for a significance cannot be determined in the variety of uses in wilderness including rec- field. reational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical. Two conflicting (9 commentors) uses center around the issue of removing fos- sil material from the wilderness. The Policy does not provide guidance on what fossils or how much material will be allowed to be removed but, it does permit BLM Management to formulate management plan direction to guide case-by-case analysis. Management used this discretion authority to further define the intent of the Policy and to strike a compro- mise between two competing uses. Scientific uses of fossils involving removal of resources conflicts with recrea- tional and scenic uses of fossils. Removal of fossil material is often necessary for scientific study and the opportunity to observe and study paleontological values in wilderness is dependent on fossils remaining in the wilderness which are fundamental pur- poses of natural area preservation. Since scientific research often involves the study of significant fossils and recrea- tional opportunities are not necessarily dependent on level of scientific signifi- cance, some delineation can be made. By adopting a policy that significant fossils will be available for scientific uses in the wilderness, a solution to the dilemma seemed inevitable. This would result in a compro- mise between competing uses and would facili- tate public and professional understanding of the Wilderness Management Policy (1981) and regulations. However, due to technical dif- ficulties in the wilderness planning process, guidance will be issued at a later time. All reference to fossil significance is deleted from the text. C-16 45. To prevent the entire wilderness from be- ing dug up over time by paleontological excavations or otherwise depleted of fos- sil resources, shouldn't the BLM consider other criteria for allowing paleontologi- cal research such as; the relative avail- ability of fossils elsewhere, whether similar fossils are available outside the wilderness, whether similar fossils are available for study in an existing insti- tution, and whether the fossils removed will be readily available to other scien- tists? These criteria are available in the Wil- derness Management Policy, paleontological permit stipulations, or in the Scientific Study and Data Collection, Management Policy section. To further clarify the situation, these criteria are added to the above section. (1 commentor) 46. Why is there a proposal to establish a committee to technically assist the BLM with review of permit applications for paleontological research? One view sup- ported the committee with ideas to expand the membership to include other technical specialists and the public. The other view recommended that a committee not be established because of increased paper- work and the possibility to work through an existing group affiliated with the New Mexico State/BLM Memorandum of Under- standing concerning paleontological resources. The proposal to establish a committee to review paleontological permits was in response to a request to provide technical assistance to the BLM on the permitting pro- cess. After analysis of public comments and a study of its feasibility, the proposal has been dropped from further consideration in this planning effort. The reason is the inability to keep the committee small enough to ensure timely review while allowing for full participation of the many technical spe- cialists and the public who wish to partici- pate. (4 commentors) 47. Any policy that requires fossils removed from the Bisti Wilderness be reposited within the State of New Mexico: may be non-defensible on legal grounds; violate the very essence of scientific inquiry; would discourage out-of-state institu- tions that have funds and appropriate credentials; promote geographical provin- cialism of a National resource; would not allow established reputable collections to be close to where the technical research is carried out; and may be a tax burden to the people of New Mexico with unwanted expenses of maintaining perma- nent repositories. (7 commentors) The statement as described in the Paleon- tological Resources, Management Policy sec- tion has been revised. The policy was initi- ally formulated to help assure that New Mexico institutions would have adequate fos- sil material for scientific study, education and public display. Both New Mexican and State institutions have expressed concerns that current low budgets and priorities for research, curation, storage and display might affect future museum collections for public display and educational values in New Mexico. Collections of fossils removed from the wilderness will normally be curated at the facility named in the approved permit. How- ever, all fossils remain the property of the United States Government. Preliminary and final reports submitted to the BLM New Mexico State Director will provide a catalog and accession numbers of all fossils removed from C-17 48. Does it logically follow to allow free collection of rocks and minerals by ama- teurs while restricting professional sci- entists from collecting paleontological resources for bonafide purposes of research? (1 commentor) 49. Why state the policy that the BLM will keep locality information confidential when it really cannot for legal reasons? (1 commentor) 50. Shouldn't BLM place more emphasis on the fragility of the paleontological, cul- tural, and unique formations? (1 commentor) the wilderness. Interested researchers may obtain copies of these reports from the BLM State Director. Specimens may be borrowed for display through cooperative agreement with the original institution and the BLM New Mexico State Director. The Wilderness Management Policy (1981) states that "recreational or hobby collecting of mineral specimens will be allowed in wil- derness." There is no management discretion to prohibit recreational or hobby collection of mineral specimens. This management plan further defines this policy allowing collec- tion of non-fossil mineral specimens only. Any collection of paleontological materials will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis through the permitting process. In perspec- tive, there is actually very little non-fos- sil material available in the wilderness and collection of fossil material including pet- rified wood without a permit is prohibited. It is the position of the BLM not to vol- untarily release locality information con- cerning sensitive resource values for public information. However, sensitive information may be released for the purposes of bonafide scientific or educational purposes for which appropriate credentials are presented. Refer to the Information and Education, Management Action section which explains the special attention that will be given to sen- sitive resources via off-site media and on- site education efforts. Exact wording and emphasis of these efforts will depend on the medium selected. Please submit any sugges- tions on additional protective measures to the Resource Area Office. 51. Why isn't there an Air Quality objective? (1 commentor) Air quality was not chosen as a wilder- ness element by BLM professionals or public Volunteer Specialists working on this Plan because it is a non-issue. However, air quality is considered an important element in wilderness management and is discussed in the Recreation and Scenic Quality, Management Policy section. The policy is that Federal Class II and State air quality standards will be maintained. C-18 52. Why is work on the air quality limits of acceptable change indicators and stand- ards postponed until 1987? (1 commentor) The 1983 Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Bisti, De-na-zin, and Ah-shi -sle-pah Proposed Wilderness Areas con- cluded that Federal and State air quality standards were being met. Conditions have remained fairly constant in terms of regional emmissions since completion of the EIS, air quality in believed to be relatively the same. Therefore, this workload did not receive as high priority as actions deemed necessary to immediately protect the wilder- ness resource. In addition, LAC indicators and standards are actually set by the 1972 Clean Air Act, as amended, and applicable State law which will be adopted by the BLM. Actual monitor- ing of air quality is not proposed by BLM. Data gathered by nearby Chaco Canyon National Historical Park and other monitoring stations associated with mineral development in the San Juan Basin will be utilized to evaluate the limits of acceptable change. 53. What is the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process? (3 commentors) A brief description of the LAC process is described in Part IV, Wilderness Management Strategy. Refer to the document LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE SYSTEM by Stankey, et al . 1985 for a more complete description. There appears to be extreme misconcep- tions about the LAC process from the public comments received. Unfortunately, public education about the LAC has been a slow pro- cess partially due to the limited number of implemented systems. However, many social scientists and wilderness professionals con- sider the LAC concept superior to the carry- ing capacity concept which has not lived up to its billing in natural area preservation. 54. Visitor use and wilderness preservation may conflict in the future. How does this dilemma relate to the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process? Would it be helpful to list the criteria, resource indicators and the frequency of monitoring needed to implement this process? (2 commentors) The LAC process is described in Part IV and is designed to be a proactive management tool that seeks to identify, record and eval- uate wilderness resource conditions. It allows for a better understanding of the relationships between human use impacts and wilderness values, a communication medium to facilitate understanding for certain actions, and a set of procedures which improves man- agement effectiveness and efficiency among other things. The LAC process will signal the need for some management action to cor- C-19 rect a decrease in wilderness quality which might not be noticed through another medium in order to prevent degradation. The LAC process represents activity level planning or project planning which occurs after approval of the Final Wilderness Man- agement Plan. A LAC project plan is called for by this Plan and will be available for public review. The indicators identified include visual, range, wildlife, social environment, and air quality. The criteria are dependent on the indicator. For example, the criteria for air quality would be selected from the Clean Air Act of 1972, as amended which outlines the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The frequency of monitoring each indicator also depends on the indicator. Visual indicators could be moni- tored on a quarterly basis whereas monitoring golden eagles could take place before and after the nesting season. 55. The management plan doesn't call for com- plete implementation of the LAC System until 1988 including collection of base- line data and selection of indicators and standards. Shouldn't this be completed prior to wilderness designation? (1 commentor) A fully implemented LAC system at the time of wilderness designation would be ideal and sounds very good in theory. However, economic realities including the investment of time and personnel required to implement such a complex and detailed system must be considered in the BLM budgeting process. The support needed to implement the LAC system would usually come through approval of a plan of action such as the Wilderness Management Plan. 56. If the BLM Manual 8561 requires an evalu- ation of the limits of acceptable change before wilderness use restrictions can be established, how can the BLM prevent overuse of the wilderness prior to LAC system completion? (1 commentor) The authority to prevent degradation of wilderness is provided in the 43 Code of Fed- eral Regulations 8560. The BLM will take the necessary actions as planned for in the Wil- derness Management Plan or as directed by the Wilderness Management Policy (1981) to pro- tect the wilderness resource. The BLM Manual 8561 seeks to prevent the establishment of visitor use restrictions such as quota or reservation systems based on unfounded information and analyses that the LAC system would provide. C-20 57. How can the Draft Environmental Assess- ment for the Bisti Wilderness Plan comply with the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of a fully implemented LAC System? (1 commentor) A review of the proposed actions in the Management Plan has led to the determination that significant impacts would not be caused by selecting the preferred alternative. The National Environmental Policy Act requires an assessment of the environmental consequences of the preferred alternative. In fact, the cumulative impacts of the preferred alterna- tive are positive in the sense of NEPA. The proposed action of implementing a LAC system in the preferred alternative or the absence of the system would have practically no effect on the finding of no significant impact. Thus, the preferred alternative of the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan complies fully with NEPA. 58. Isn't a fully implemented LAC system needed to properly manage and protect wilderness? (1 commentor) The Wilderness Management Policy and 43 Code of Federal Regulations 8560 guide the conduct of wilderness management activity for compliance with applicable law. The BLM fur- ther requires the completion of an individual management plan for each wilderness area (BLM Manual 8561). The mission of the plan is to describe the actions that will be necessary to preserve the wilderness resource in order to comply with policy and regulations. A fully implemented LAC system is not needed to protect wilderness in light of regulations but is regarded as being extremely helpful in wilderness management. Implementation of the LAC system is described in a number of the management actions called for by the Management Plan. It not only represents the strategy that will be utilized in wilderness management, it is actually one of the project plans or activity plans proposed by the Management Plan. It is lower level or site-specific planning that is achieved after the completion and approval of the Management Plan. 59. Isn't the entire Wilderness Management Plan dependent on the LAC system? (1 commentor) Two approaches are prevalent in wilder- ness management planning, the goal -objecti ve approach and the limits of acceptable change approach. Either planning approach can be used effectively in wilderness management. Both approaches are used in the Bisti Wilder- ness Management Plan. C-21 The goal -objecti ve approach is described in Parts II and III. The objectives repre- sent the desired condition that management hopes to achieve. The management actions are the implementation steps to help achieve the desired condition. The LAC approach is described in Part IV. The LAC resource indicators act as the objectives or desired wilderness conditions. The LAC standard represents the limit of change that must not be exceeded or the desired wilderness condition will not be met. Management actions are then prescribed to bring the undesired condition back into conformance with the objective or standard. The goal -objecti ve approach is based on existing circumstances which are known and can be planned for by outlining a distinct management action to correct or prevent an existing or potential problem. The planned actions as described in Part V are the end product of the Wilderness Management Plan which is supported by the planning effort. The Plan is not dependent on the LAC system but rather on the goal -objecti ve approach which utilizes the LAC process as a planned action to meet the objectives of the plan. The main point is that either approach can be used independently in wilderness man- agement planning to form the basis of an effective Management Plan. This Plan incor- porates both approaches. 60. Since nonconforming but accepted uses in wilderness present the greatest potential for degrading wilderness values, why are these uses omitted from the LAC system? (1 commentor) Simply, the nonconforming uses such as livestock grazing or mineral development are not indicators that measure change in the ecological or social environment. Most all human use, whether on site or off can influ- ence or impact the wilderness. The LAC sys- tem incorporates the resource indicators that measure change in the ecological and social environment of the wilderness regardless of the use. Examples of indicators for live- stock grazing might include range condition, trend, and actual use for a specified period of time. C-22 61. Has the BLM called for public involvement in the implementation of the LAC system? (1 commentor) Not only has the BLM employed an inten- sive public involvement campaign in this planning effort, considerable interest has been shown from various individuals and organizations in LAC system development and review. To this point, some form of public input has been incorporated in every step. The Volunteer Specialists (refer to Appendix F) helped to select the issues that are pre- valent in the Bisti Wilderness which will be used in LAC system development and in choos- ing resource indicators. A doctorate candi- date and a Wilderness Experience Class from the University of New Mexico began a pilot program in 1985 for evaluating the visual resource indicators by implementing the Visual Impact Evaluation System. This has been the extent of the LAC system thus far and future steps are dependent on Management Plan budget appropriations. Anyone inter- ested in development and review of the LAC system is welcome to participate. 62. Will the public comment period of 30 days apply to all actions in the Bisti? (2 commentors) It is our policy to try to notify various individuals and interest groups 30 days prior to implementation of authorized activities. There will be circumstances such as emergen- cies or urgent situations when a 30-day notice can not be provided. C-23 APPENDIX D U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Albuquerque District Office Farmington Resource Area Farmington, New Mexico ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BISTI WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PLAN May 1986 ABSTRACT In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) and the BLM Manual 8561 - Wilderness Management Plans, an assessment has been made of the environmental consequences of implementing the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan. The result of this assessment was that the preferred alternative would not induce significant environmental impacts. I. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment satisfies the Council on Environmental Quality regulations of implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) requirements of identifying a preferred alternative in order to adequately consider and document the environmental consequences. Background The 1983 Final Bisti, De-na-zin, Ah-shi-sle-pah Proposed Wilderness Areas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzed the environmental consequences of wilderness designation. This EIS concluded with the finding of no significant impact for the designation of the Bisti Wilderness Study Area as Wilderness. This Environmental Assessment addresses the environmental consequences of implementing the preferred alternative of the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan. Purpose for and Need of the Proposed Action The purpose for the proposed action is to fulfill the BLM Manual 8561 requirement that a management plan be completed for BLM-administered wilderness areas within two years after designation. The need of the proposed action is to comply with the legislation and national policy and to adequately manage the area as wilderness. 0-1 Compatibility With Existing Land Use Plans Due to the passage of the San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act (1984), there is no valid land use plan for the Bisti Wilderness Area. The 1981 Chaco Management Framework Plan provided administrative direction for the Wilderness Study Area before wilderness designation. The Farmington Resource Management Plan which will address the Bisti Wilderness Area is not scheduled to be completed until 1988. II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Four alternatives are analyzed in this environmental assessment. The preferred alternative represents the proposed action which is described below. Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, the management actions prescribed in the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan would be implemented. A detailed description of the proposed action is located in Part III. Wilderness Management Program, Management Action section for each element. A descriptive summary of the management actions the BLM would implement include: fencing portions of the exterior boundaries; constructing a parking facility; reclaiming affects of unauthorized activities; collecting management data; developing fire management and search and rescue plans; providing information and education materials; and retaining administrative responsibility of the area. No Action Alternative (Amend the Existing Plan) Under this alternative, the Bisti Wilderness Management Plan would not be implemented and the area would continue to be managed under the policy guidance of the 1981 Wilderness Management Policy (BLM Manual 8560). The 1981 Chaco Management Framework Plan which is the existing land use plan for the area would be amended. Human Use Enhancement Alternative Under this alternative, the BLM would allow human use and manipulation of the wilderness resource within the framework permissable in the Wilderness Act (1964) and the San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act (1984). A descriptive summary of the management actions the BLM would implement include: facilitate and encourage human use of the area through promotion and public relation efforts; provide vehicle access to several boundary locations; construct parking facilities with modern conveniences (i.e., restrooms, running water); construct trailheads and trails with displays and signing activities to aid in environmental interpretation; and allow motorized vehicle access with minimum restrictions to collection of fossils, artifacts and petri f ied wood. Human Use Exclusion Alternative Under this alternative, the BLM would seek to exclude human use and manipulation of the wilderness resource within the framework permissable in the Wilderness Act (1964) and the San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act (1984). A descriptive summary of the management actions the BLM D-2 would implement include: restrict and heavily stipulate all human uses of the area in order to allow natural ecological processes to function with minimum human influence; fence the entire boundary; allow no removal of fossils, artifacts, petrified wood or other natural materials; increase boundary and interior patrols; and implement a reservation system to control the amount of recreational use that will be allowed to occur. III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment is described in detail in Part III. Wilderness Management Program in the Current Situation section of each wilderness element. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The preferred alternative (proposed action) would not have significant impacts on the wilderness resource. The proposed action complies exclusively with the finding of no significant impact as per the 1983 Environmental Impact Statement for the Bisti, De-na-zin, Ah-shi-sle-pah Proposed Wilderness Areas. There would be minor impacts to some of the environmental factors as described below: Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) Economic Environment Some commercial or business opportunities would be restricted. This impact is considered to be minute due to the lack of current demand. Managerial Environment The opportunities to resume the type and level of management, monitoring and development would be restricted. This impact restricts administrative actions but does not prohibit them. The impacts of restricting actions will occur in terms of funding and work efficiency and not effectiveness and thus, is not considered a significant impact. Social Environment Visitors to the area will be without the modern conveniences of civilization and therefore, may be exposed to personal danger and risks. This impact is considered small due to the inherent dangers of wilderness and the information and education efforts warning of these dangers. There would be impacts to paleontologists and others requesting motorized vehicle access due to the exclusion of this type of use on other than a case-by -case basis. Physical and Biological Environment The proposed action is viewed as having positive impacts on wilderness values by reducing, reclaiming and preventing the effects of unauthorized uses. There would be natural impacts to resources through erosional forces which is considered to be acceptable in wilderness. Impacts to the Ferruginous Hawk (Federal Candidate species) is possible, but mitigating measures will facilitate compliance with the Endangered Species Act. No Action Alternative (Amend the Existing Plan) The environmental impacts would be very similar to the ones descibed in the preferred alternative. The impacts to the social and the physical and biological environments would be increased due to the current level of unauthorized uses and their effects on naturalness, solitude and primitive recreation. Without a plan of action to prevent and reclaim the effects of unauthorized uses such as the ones described in the preferred alternative, the impacts are considered to negatively impact the wilderness character of the area. D-3 Human Use Enhancement Alternative Economic Environment Commercial and business opportunities would be less restrictive. Due to the current lack of demand, this is not considered to be a significant impact. Managerial Environment The opportunities to resume the type and level of management, monitoring and development would be less restrictive. Motorized vehicle use would be allowed for resource management within the framework permissable in applicable laws and regulations, as well as stabilization, improve- ments and interpretive activities. The impacts from these activities would degrade wilderness val- ues below present levels and potentially to unacceptable levels. Social Environment Increased developments and modern conveniences would most likely reduce personal danger and individual risk. These improvements may increase the number and types of users which may act to degade wilderness values below the present levels. Crowding and increased regulations may degrade the outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Physical and Biological Environment Increased levels and different types of human use may act to degrade the wilderness value of naturalness below the present level through the removal of fossils, artifacts, petrified wood and other natural resources, and the cumulative impacts of visitors on the fragile badlands environment along trails and at popular scenic areas. Impacts to the Ferruginous Hawk (Federal Candidate species) would be increased. Human Use Exclusion Alternative The impacts under this alternative are considered positive in relation to the wilderness resource. By virtually eliminating human use of the area, natural ecological processes would function with as little human influence as possible. There could be impacts to the managerial environment because of the increased need for funding and personnel required to implement this alternative and effectively assure compliance with the plan. There would be impacts to those requesting motorized vehicle access within the wilderness. V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The following organizations and their representatives have been sent a copy of this document which will also be made available to over 3000 individuals on the wilderness mailing list. U.S. Congress The Honorable Pete Domenici The Honorable Manuel Lujan Jr. The Honorable Bill Richardson Busi ness Paragon Resources, Inc. Public Service Company of New Mexico Sunbelt Mining Company, Inc. D-4 State of New Mexico Federal Agencies New Mexico, Governor Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Department of Game and Fish Energy and Minerals Department Environmental Improvement Division Land Commission Museum of Natural History Natural Resource Department State Historic Preservation Officer Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Reclamation Fish and Wildlife Service Forest Service Geological Survey National Park Service Soil Conservation Service Educational Institutions Local Governments City of Farmington, Mayor Farmington Chamber of Commerce Farmington Convention & Visitors Bureau Navajo Nation Organizations American Museum of Natural History New Mexico Mountain Club New Mexico Recreation & Park Association New Mexico Wilderness Coalition New Mexico Wilderness Study Committee The Paleontological Society Sierra Club, Rio Grande Chapter The Wilderness Society Volunteers for the Outdoors Auburn University Brigham Young University Eastern New Mexico University Harvard Uni versity New Mexico Highlands University New Mexico State University Princeton University San Juan College Southern Illinois University University of Arizona University of California, Berkely University of California, Los Angeles Uni versity of Idaho University of New Mexico University of Michigan University of Wyoming Western New Mexico University D-5 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE We have reviewed Environmental Assessment NM-Ol 6--86-25 and have determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment in the sense of the National Environmental Policy Act, 102(2)(C) and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Prepared by Special i st Date: C J /L f &£, Concurred by: Approved by: am Supervisor iA§> l^c^ojl. ■SL. liu- c\OU— Acting Area Manager Date: Date: 6///?(*> REVIEW/DECISION Revi ew I have reviewed Environmental Assessment NM-01 6-86-25 and have found that both the document and recommendations are technically adequate and that consideration has been given to all applicable resource values. Therefore, I recommend the proposed action be approved. Reviewed by: ;ftto Supervisor m T Date: Ulb/tiie Deci sion I have reviewed Environmental Assessment NM-01 6-86-25 and approve the above recommendation as the decision of the Bureau. Approved by: ^fc-6^ Date: /yr^ D-6 APPENDIX E PLAN MONITORING AND REVISION PROCEDURES Monitoring the Bisti Wilderness will include three procedures. First, general monitoring will be accomplished through patrols by BLM personnel*, law enforcement agents and volunteers as described in Part III. Wilderness Management Program, in the Administrative element section of this document. Second, resource-specific monitoring will be accomplished according to established guidelines of each program. Third, the limits of acceptable change system will monitor site-spe- cific resource indicators throughout the area. Monitoring procedures and records will most likely indicate the need for plan revision. Revision of this plan will be accomplished on two levels. This plan has been prepared for a ten year planning period with evaluations at five year intervals. The first level of revision will involve plan revision based on: a massive increase in visitation, a major environmental change in the wilderness resource, or a cumulative increase in user-caused resource impacts that call for more restrictive measures for resource protection. A second level of revisions include information updates or minor revisions which will be written into the working document, dated and initialed. E-l PLAN PREPARATION APPENDIX F LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Name /Title Barbara Anne am Ende Geologist LouAnn Jacobson Ball Archeologist Danny S. Charlie Navajo Coordinator/ Range Conservationist Myrna Finke Visual Information Specialist Primary Responsibil ity Paleontolgical Resources Cultural Resources Livestock Operations Education BS Geology University of Iowa MA Anthropology University of New Mexico High School Diploma Ignacio, Colorado Printing Coordinator, Certificate - Graphic Arts Cartographies University of New Mexico Rel ated Experience 1 year Paleontologist 9 years Archeologist 19 years Range Management 2 years Visual Informa- tion Specialist 4 years Cartographic Technician Word Processing Connie Howell Clerk-Typist Robert Moore Supv. Realty Specialist Section Naturalness Kathy I. 01 lorn Word Processing Supv. Clerical Assistant F.M. O'Neill Supv. Natural Resource Specialist William L. Overbaugh Outdoor Recreation Planner Paleontological Resources Team Leader High School Diploma Rollins, Wyoming BS Range-Forest Management Colorado State University High School Diploma CI o vis, New Mexico MA Biological Anthropology University of New Mexico MA Outdoor Recreation University of New Mexico 6 years Clerk-Typist 4 years Natural Resource Specialist 4 years Supv. Natural Resource Specialist 4 years Supv. Realty Specialist 3 years Supv. Clerical Assistant 5 years Paleontologist 1 year Recreation Tech. 3 years Outdoor Recreation Planner Marcia Petta Mineral Resources, Wilderness Coordinator Fire MS Geosciences University of Arizona 3 years Geologist 4 years Environmental Scientist 1 year Wilderness Coordinator F-l Jim Ramakka Wildlife Biologist Maril u Waybourn Writer-Editor Wildlife Biologist Format Editor MS Wildlife Ecology Uni versity of Maine AA Radio Communication Stephens College, Missouri 13 years Wildlife Biologist 13 years Newspaper Production 2 years Public Relations PLAN REVIEW - VOLUNTEERS Name Judy Bishop Dr. Steve Clark David Glowka Fred Greyeyes Ivan K. Hoi li day Robert A. Jackson Dr. Spencer Lucas Margie Ranc Clyde Underwood Organization State Department of Natural Resources Santa Fe, New Mexico Chamber of Commerce Farmington, New Mexico Sierra Club Albuquerque, New Mexico KNDN Radio Farmington, New Mexico Public Representative Farmington, New Mexico Sunbelt Mining Co. Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico Visitors and Convention Bureau Farmington, New Mexico Paragon Resources Inc. Albuquerque, New Mexico F-2 APPENDIX G COMMON SPECIES OF WILDLIFE Colorado side-blotched lizard Yellow-headed collared lizard Prairie rattlesnake Bull snake Scaled quail Mourning dove Horned lark Says phoebe Black-throated sparrow Great-horned owl Ferruginous hawk Golden eagle Rock wren House finch Coyote Black-tailed jack rabbit Red Fox Cottontail rabbit Pocket mouse Deer mouse Pocket gopher Kangaroo rat Northern grasshopper mouse Antelope ground squirrel G-l GLOSSARY ALLOTMENT. An area of land designated and managed for grazing of livestock. ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP). A docu- mented program which applies to rangeland operations on public land, which is prepared in consultation with the permittee(s) or les- see(s) involved, and which: (1) prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained-yield, economic, and other needs and objectives as determined for public land through land use planning; (2) describes the type, location, ownership, and general specifications for the rangeland developments to be installed and maintained on public land to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and (3) contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives as may be prescribed by the authorized officer consistent with applicable law. ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The amount of for- age required to sustain the equivalent of one cow, one horse, two elk, three Barba ry sheep, five domestic sheep, five goats, five deer, or ten antelope for one month. CATEGORY 2 CANDIDATE SPECIES. A species which is being considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as threat- ened or endangered but for which sufficient biological data for proposed listing is not yet avail able. CUMULATIVE IMPACT. The aggregate impact of existing and proposed activities. Individual intrusions when considered by themselves may not impair the wilderness; however, when combined with other existing and proposed substantially unnoticeable impacts, the total effect may be sufficient to impair the wi Iderness. IMPACT. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint of a human activity. IMPAIR. To diminish in value or excellence. KNOWN GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE (KGS). A trap in which an accumulation of oil and gas has been discovered by drilling and which is deter- mined to be productive. Its limits include all acreage that is presumptively productive [43 CFR 3100.0-5(a)]. Lands underlain by a KGS may be leased only through a competitive system. LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC). The amount of human-caused change to biophysical or social components which are tolerable without the loss of wilderness character. MANAGEMENT ACTION. An action carried out by BLM. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. Use of hand or power machinery or tool s. PREFERENCE RIGHT LEASE APPLICATION (PRLA). A formal request made to the BLM for a non-com- petitive coal lease. Holders of prospecting permits in the San Juan Basin filed PRLA's with the BLM New Mexico State Office between 1971 and 1973. These individuals or com- panies were required to demonstrate that, during the period of the permit, they had discovered commercial quantities of coal. PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED RECREATION. Non- motorized and nondeveloped types of outdoor recreational activities. RAPTORS. Any predatory bird such as a fal- con, hawk, eagle, or owl that has feet with sharp talons or claws adapted for seizing prey and a hooked beak for tearing flesh. GL-1 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation opportunity environments. RIGHT-OF-WAY. An easement or permit which authorizes public land to be used for a spe- cific purpose that generally requires a long narrow strip of land; examples are roads, powerlines, pipelines, etc. SAN JUAN BASIN. A large structural depres- sion in the Colorado Plateau province. SOLITUDE. Outstanding opportunities for sol- itude or primitive and unconfined recreation are wilderness characteristics examined in the intensive wilderness inventory. Factors contributing to opportunities for solitude are vegetative screening, topographic relief, vistas, and physiographic variety. 1. The state of being alone or remote from habita- tions; isolation. 2. A lonely, unfre- quented, or secluded place. UNNECESSARY OR UNDUE DEGRADATION. Impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and reg- ulations and based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonably avail- able technology. VISUAL IMPACT EVALUATION SYSTEM (VIES) VIES The is a management tool designed for the longitudinal collection of information con- cerned with monitoring and evaluating the visual "limits of acceptable change." VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASS I. Natural ecological changes and very limited management activity are allowed. Any contrast created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. WILDERNESS. The definition contained in sec- tion 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). A roadless area or island that has been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics as des- cribed in section 603 of FLPMA and section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). WILDERNESS AREA. An area formally designated by Congress as part of the National Wilder- ness Preservation System. WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS. The definition contained in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891 ). GL-2 REFERENCES Condie, Carol J. (Editor) 1982 "Draft New Mexico Generating Station Third Party Environmental Impact Statement: Cultural Resources in San Juan, McKinley and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico." Qui vera Research Center Publication 39. Albuquerque, NM: Prepared for BLM and Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Ecosphere Environmental Services 1985 Endangered and Threatened Plant Inventory: scleroeactus mesae-verdae Distribution and Habitat. BLM contract report NM-010-CT4-0010. 27 pp. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 1976 Public Law 94-579. Washington, D.C. Kues, B.S.; Froelich, J.W.; Schiebout, J. A.; and Lucas, S.G. 1977 "Paleontological Survey, Resource Assessment and Mitigation Plan for the Bisti-Star Lake Area, Northwestern New Mexico." Albuquerque, NM: BLM Albuquerque District Office. National Environmental Policy Act 1970 Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat 852, 42 USC 4321 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News. Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Register 1985 43 CFR 8560. Vol. 50 F.R., pp. 7704-7712, February 25, 1985. (FR Doc. 85-4488 Filed 2-22-85; 8:45 a.m.) Washington, D.C. 1978 Vol. 43 F.R., p. 24385, June 5, 1978. (FR Doc. 78-15464 Filed 6-2-78; 8:45 a.m.) Washington, D.C. San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984 1984 Public Law 98-603, 98 Stat 3155. Washington, D.C. Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C; Petersen, Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S. 1985 The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 37 p. Suter, G.W. and Joness, J.L. 1981 "Criteria for Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and Prairie Falcon Nest Site Protection." Raptor Research 15(1):12-18. Tannery, T.A.; and Overbaugh, W.L. 1985 "Development and Evaluation of the Visual Impact Evaluation System." Farmington, NM: BLM Farmington Resource Area Office. RE-1 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1985 Preplan Analysi s for the Bisti and De-na-zin Wilderness Areas. (Unpublished.) Farmington, NM: Farmington Resource Area Office. 1985 Manual Section 9210, Fire Control. Washington, D.C. 1985 Instruction Memorandum No. NM-85-185. Santa Fe, NM: BLM New Mexico State Office. 1984 Manual Section 8561, Wilderness Management Plans. Washington, D.C. 1983 Manual Section 8560, Management of Designated Wilderness Areas. Washington, D.C. 1983 Final Environmental Impact Statement on Public Service Company fo New Mexico's 1983 Prop Dsed New Mexico Generating Station and Other Possible End Uses of the Ute Mountain Land Exchange BLM NM 83- -005- ■5000. Prop Dsed Bisti, De -na -zin Ah-shi-sl e-pc h wr derness Areas E i vi ronmental Impact Statement. Albuquerque, NM: Albuquerque BLM District Office. 1976 Manual Section 6840, Rare and Endangered Species. Washington, D.C. Vogler, Lawrence E.; Gilpin, Dennis; and Anderson, Joseph K. 1982 "Gal legos Mesa Settlement and Subsistence: A Set of Explanatory Models for Cultural Resources on Blocks VIII, IX, X and XI, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project." Navajo Nation Papers in Anthropology No. 12. Farmington, NM: Navajo Nation Cultural Resource Management Program. Wi lderness Act 1964 Public Law 88-577, 78 Stat 890, 16 USC H 31, U.S. Code and Congressional and Administrative News 4776. Washington, D.C. RE-2 .'. U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985—672-262/45012 REGION NO 8 Q W W z <£ Q H W K *> i; : c o -o u 3 C C 0 u W U b u. 0 N4 W67 4 i ■derness management p for the Bisti Wilderness BLM LIBRARY ^