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
<MOu^-
Recommended by
John 9r. McKee
Acting\A/ea Manager, Farmington Resource Area
L. Paul Applegate ' f /
Approved by:
Appleg<
District Manager, Albuquerque District
s W. Luscher -^ /
Charles
State Director, New Mexico
June 1986
June 1986
June 1986
June 1986
^N%SRO^0O,NT£R
Co
80225
&
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I.
INTRODUCTION
Page
1-1
Purpose of the Plan
Organization of the Plan
Wilderness Area Overview
Background
Location
Access
Size and Boundary Description
Unique Attributes
General Management Situation .
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-5
Part II.
WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT DIRECTION II -1
Wilderness Management Philosophy
Wilderness Management Goals . . ,
Wilderness Management Objectives
Managerial Elements . . . .
Environmental Elements . . .
Part III. WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Managerial Elements .....
Administration
Fire
Information and Education
Scientific Study and Data Collection
Environmental Elements
Cultural Resources
Livestock Operations
Mineral Resources
Naturalness
Paleontological Resources
Recreation and Scenic Quality . . .
Wildlife
Part IV.
WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Limits of Acceptable Change . .
The Visual Impact Evaluation System
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-8
1-8
1-9
1-12
1-15
1-17
1-18
1-20
V-l
V-l
V-2
Part V.
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
V-l
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
Excerpts from the San Juan Basin Wilderness Protection Act . . A-l
Boundary Description B-l
Public Involvement Process C-l
Environmental Assessment D-l
Plan Monitoring and Revision Procedures E-l
List of Plan Participants F-l
Common Species of Wildlife G-l
GLOSSARY GL-1
REFERENCES RE-1
MAPS
MAP A
MAP B
MAP C
MAP D
MAP E
MAP F
MAP G
General Location 1-3
Bisti Wilderness 1-4
Regional Location 1-6
Bisti Badlands III-3
Range Units 111-10
Minerals 111-13
Intrusions and Impacts 111-16
PART
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Plan
This wilderness management plan serves a
threefold purpose. First, it serves to ful-
fill the BLM Manual 8561 requirement that a
management plan be prepared for all BLM ad-
ministered wilderness areas. Second, it em-
phasizes the administration of the Bisti Wil-
derness by establishing clearly written man-
agement objectives and policies that function
as a road map to guide compatible management
actions. And third, it identifies a sequence
for implementing prescribed management ac-
tions in order to achieve goals and objec-
tives and comply with the intentions of the
governing legislation.
This wilderness management plan is area
specific and directed toward the administra-
tion of resources and uses in the Bisti Wil-
derness. Resource programs actively operat-
ing in the Bisti Wilderness must update their
management efforts and adjust those portions
of program implementation that are no longer
applicable in order to comply with this
plan. It is a technical document intended
primarily for the Bureau of Land Management,
Farmington Resource Area staff, however, it
will be available for public review.
The wilderness management emphasis pro-
vided in this document is the result of a
one-year planning effort involving document
preparation, review and public input. This
plan is designed to cover a 10-year manage-
ment period. It will be evaluated and re-
vised as necessary at least every five years
or as dictated by significant changes in
resource conditions or national direction.
Organization of the Plan
This plan is arranged in a five-part doc-
ument. Wilderness management information is
presented in a logical progression from the
general to the specific. Part I introduces
the reader to the Bisti Wilderness and the
wilderness management plan. Basic management
guidance is provided in Part II in the form
of wilderness philosophy, broad national
goals and specific management objectives.
The wilderness management program is pre-
sented in Part III and includes descriptions
of the objectives, current situation, assump-
tions, management policies and prescribed
management actions for each of the major wil-
derness elements identified for the Bisti
Wilderness. Part IV discusses the management
strategy that focuses on a more specific
level of wilderness management planning,
namely the limits of acceptable change pro-
cess as applied to the Bisti Wilderness.
Part V outlines the schedule for implementing
this management plan. The appendices supple-
ment portions of the plan and include an
assessment of the environmental impacts of
plan implementation and alternatives.
Wilderness Area Overview
Background
The Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) of 1976 incorporated the BLM as a
full participant in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. This law directed the
BLM to review all public lands and identify
those that met the definition of wilderness
established by Congress in the Wilderness Act
of 1964. During the inventory phase of the
review process, a wilderness inventory unit
was identified. This unit was formally des-
ignated as the Bisti Wilderness Study Area
(WSA) on November 28, 1979. The study phase
of the review process determined the Bisti
WSA to be suitable for wilderness designation
and this determination was recommended in the
1983 Bisti De-na-zin Ah-shi-sle-pah Proposed
Wilderness Areas Environmental Impact State-
ment.
The general area had received high level
public, private and news media attention even
before it was identified as a WSA. The
1-1
entire WSA had been identified for coal leas-
ing in previous planning documents and
intense interest had been shown in the devel-
opment of energy resources. According to a
registration book, visitor use peaked in 1982
after the Secretary of the Interior removed
WSA status from the Bisti due to a legal
interpretation of FLPMA. Public outcry
helped to re-establish the area as a WSA.
The Bisti WSA was formally designated wilder-
ness as part of the San Juan Basin Wilderness
Protection Act of 1984 (refer to Appendix A),
signed into law on October 30, 1984. This
Act has the distinction of being the first
wilderness bill exclusively for BLM lands and
the Bisti and De-na-zin Wilderness Areas are
the first for BLM in New Mexico. The Act
also designated approximately 3,968 acres as
wilderness. A cadastral survey has since
been completed and the most accurate figure
to date for the Bisti Wilderness is 3,946
acres.
Location
The Bisti Wilderness is located in north-
western New Mexico, San Juan County, in an
area commonly referred to as the San Juan
Basin (refer to Map A). The designated
boundaries of the Bisti Wilderness are com-
pletely within Townships 23 and 24 North,
Range 13 West, New Mexico Principal Merid-
ian. The city of Farmington, New Mexico,
with a population of approximately 37,000 is
the nearest major population center and lies
about 30 air miles to the north.
Size and Boundary Description
The Bisti Wilderness consists of 3,946
acres of Federal land administered by the
BLM. The eastern boundary from its most
northern point follows a section line south
until it intersects the southern boundary.
The southern boundary follows a section line
west for about one-quarter mile and then a
road right-of-way (100 feet offset from
centerline) for about a mile intersecting a
powerline right-of-way. The boundary contin-
ues west northwest along the powerline
right-of-way (30 feet offset from centerline)
for about one mile interrupted by a brief ex-
cursion along the northeast section line of
T.23N., R.13W., Section 8. Then it jogs
northwest for one mile until it intersects
the southern section line of T.24N., R.13W.,
Section 32. The boundary continues east,
north, and west around Section 32 until it
intersects the old State Highway 371 right-
of-way (100 feet offset from centerline). It
continues north to the half section line of
Section 30, T.24N., R.13W., which is the
northwest corner of the Bisti Wilderness.
The boundary continues east for about two and
one-half miles to the center of Section 27.
The boundary turns south for one quarter mile
and then east for the same distance along
section lines until joining the eastern
boundary completing the description. Refer
to Appendix B for a complete boundary de-
scription of the Bisti Wilderness (refer to
Map B).
Access
The Bisti Wilderness is most readily
accessible from Farmington, New Mexico, by
traveling south on State Highway 371 for
about 36 miles or from Crownpoint, New Mexi-
co, by traveling north on State Highway 371
for about 46 miles. An unsigned gravel road,
known as the old State Highway 371 forks from
State Highway 371 just to the north and south
of the Bisti Wilderness. This road is
aligned from north to south intersecting the
Gateway Wash, the most popular entrance point
into the area.
Unique Attributes
One of the primary attractions of the
Bisti Wilderness is the high scenic values
resulting from the unusual erosional remnants
(toadstools, hoodoos and spires; refer to
cover photo). These have been created by the
weathering of interbedded shales, sandstone
and coal with occasional caps of shale, sand-
stone or ironstone concretions. These forma-
tions occur in uncommon concentrations. The
badlands also contain dinosaur, plant,
mammal, and reptilian fossils and petrified
logs.
1-2
;
a
J
I ii.
^
^ 2
UJ
o
£ 5
1 -'
UJ
z z
1 -
_i
I K
' 1 =
2
J ~\ '
i 3
■ Z
0|
1-3
1-4
General Management Situation
The Bis ti Wilderness is managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque Dis-
trict, Farmington Resource Area, New Mexico.
Planning and management efforts have received
widespread interest and input from BLM
specialists, volunteers, special interest
groups and the general public. This wil-
derness management plan will be referenced in
the Resource Management Plan which is a com-
prehensive land use plan for the entire Farm-
ington Resource Area, scheduled for com-
pletion in 1988.
The Bi sti Wilderness is relatively small
(3,946 acres) compared to most in the Na-
tional Wilderness Preservation System.
Therefore, a general concern is the level of
cumulative impacts from inside and outside
influences. The combined impacts from human
and technological influences may act to
degrade and impair the area's wilderness
character. Inside influences such as devel-
opments or removal of resources would degrade
the resource characteristics that exist.
Outside influences include visual and audible
impacts from aircraft, noise and dust from
strip mining operations and from coal -hauling
trucks and other vehicles utilizing old State
Highway 371. Combined with recreational,
scientific and non-conforming but acceptable
uses (i.e. grazing), cumulative impacts to
the Bi sti Wilderness are of great concern.
Adjacent surface land uses include: the
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project to the north
which supports grazing operations; private
lands lie to the northeast and east which
consist of mostly badlands and some grazing;
State Section 2 to the southeast has experi-
enced some oil and gas exploration; BLM lands
lie to the south and west and support grazing
operations; and State Section 32 to the west
is undergoing strip mining operations.
Adjacent subsurface ownership and related
valid existing rights regarding mineral acti-
vity might affect the surface land use and
result in potential outside impacts to the
wilderness. Mineral development of State
Section 2 to the southwest is possible as is
the current status with State Section 32 to
the west. Strip mining of coal leases to the
south and northwest is possible. Preference
Right Lease Applications to the north could
be leased for coal production.
The proposed D1neh (formerly, New Mexico)
Generating Station Site is located within a
couple of miles south of the Bisti Wilderness
Area (refer to Map C). A detailed account of
the potential impacts of the Generating Sta-
tion on the wilderness is addressed in the
November 1983 Final Environmental Impact
Statement on Public Service Company of New
Mexico's proposed New Mexico Generating Sta-
tion and other possible end uses of the Ute
Mountain Land Exchange. Some of the impacts
include: contrast ratings that exceed BLM
visual resource management objectives,
degrading the quality of primitive recreation
experiences, increased visitor use, and
potential increases in Utter, vandalism of
cultural resources, fire, and removal of
paleontological material.
Another factor that could affect adjacent
lands, both the surface and subsurface, is
the Navajo Hopi Relocation Settlement Act,
Public Law 93-531, as amended. Preliminary
indications are that the Navajo Tribe will
select public lands abutting the wilderness
on the western and southern boundaries. This
action could affect access and facility loca-
tion associated with the Bisti Wilderness.
Nearby areas under special management by
the Federal Government include the De-na-zin
Wilderness, Chaco Culture National Historical
Park, the Fossil Forest Research Natural Area
and the Ah-shi-sle-pah Wilderness Study Area
(refer to Map C).
Within the Bisti Wilderness there exists
unauthorized uses such as motorized vehicle
entry and trash dumping that require preven-
tative and reclamation efforts. Current
authorized uses include livestock grazing,
recreation and scientific study.
An effort is also under way to adjust the
Bisti Wilderness boundary to exclude a vehi-
cle route, a windmill and an unauthorized
occupancy. Congress may have to determine
the feasibility of this boundary adjustment,
which would exclude approximately 170 acres
along the Bisti Wilderness southern boundary.
1-5
DE-NA-ZIN WILDERNESS
BISTI
'jWILDERNESS
I
<
>
<
<
<
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
</
/
f -
ii
,'
/
ii
<
-V
.-- L
ii
\
N;
°o
— i
<
>
<
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//</sfe
(.//*>/?(*>
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
^<WER CO 80225
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11