GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS An Administrative History

CHAPTER VII: PLANNING IN THE 1980S (continued)

Resources Management Planning--1980s (continued)

Cultural Resources Management Program

The Cultural Resources Management Plan also was a major addition to the Resources Management Plan approved in 1984. By that time, surveys of the archeological resources of most of the park were complete. The archeological surveys conducted in 1970, 1973, and 1976 identified seven periods of cultural history in the park, beginning around 8,000 B.C., but archeologists found no permanent prehistoric settlements. Researchers found archeological sites associated with every road and trail in the park, as well as in less-accessible locations. Twenty-nine of the 299 archeological sites that had been identified during the surveys were considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Artifacts most commonly found in the park included projectile points, stone tools, and pottery sherds. Although the surveys established a baseline for management of the archeological resources of the park, planners noted that site excavations were still needed. [22]

The inventory of historic resources of the park also had been completed and actions to protect the most significant structures had either been completed or were in process. The Pratt Stone Cabin and the Pinery Stage Station already had been accepted for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but park managers still awaited decisions about listings of the Pratt "Ship on the Desert" Residence and the Emigrant Trail. A listing of classified structures within the park included those associated with the resources eligible for listing in the National Register as well as those associated with the Williams Ranch. Researchers classified other historic structures in the park as "discovery" sites that would be allowed to molder away naturally. [23]

The management plan contained a priority listing of projects related to the cultural resources of the park. The first five priorities were: compilation of cultural resource data, establishment of a professionally curated museum collection, archeological reassessments of high impact areas, preparation of Historic Structure Reports for the classified structures, and preparation of Historic Structure Preservation Guides for the classified structures. [24]

Fire Management Plan

Approval came in 1985 for the park's first comprehensive plan for fire management. Until approval of this plan all fires occurring in the park had been suppressed. Under the provisions of the management plan, naturally occurring fires would be allowed to burn without suppression unless they threatened park facilities, visitor safety, major resources, or park boundaries. Human-caused fires occurring during the natural fire season also would be permitted to burn within the above conditions. The plan proposed to continue research concerning prescribed burning as a management tool. [25]

Resources Management Plan Revisions, 1987

During 1987 park managers revised the Resources Management Plan. Priorities for management of cultural resources remained unchanged from those established in 1984. However, while some of the natural resource issues that were important in 1984 continued to be top priority items in 1987, some new issues dominated the list. In order of importance, the priorities established in 1987 were: fencing of the park boundary; implementing a prescribed burning program; funding of and equipment support for a new resource management position; implementing the earlier recommendations for backcountry management, such as hardening of campsites, removal of fences, and establishment of monitoring transects; and monitoring of predator populations in both Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns. [26]

Except for new priorities, the Resources Management Plan recommended in 1987 was little changed from the version written five years earlier. The list of endangered species found in the park contained a new addition: a hedgehog cactus found at lower elevations on the west side of the park, Echinocereus lloydii. A new emphasis of the plan was the need to construct or replace fences around the 63.25-mile boundary of the park. Only 18.25 miles of existing fence were adequate, 22.75 miles were unfenced, 8.0 miles of existing fence was in bad repair, and 14.5 miles of the boundary was fenced by old drift fences, which were not on park property. Trespass grazing by cattle and horses was a continuing problem between the Big Canyon and Bell Canyon drainages below the eastern escarpment as well as in the Guadalupe Canyon area, where boundary fencing in the area of Middle and Lower Guadalupe Springs was either nonexistent or in poor repair. [27]

Another new natural resource project recommended in the revised plan was monitoring and eradicating exotic plants growing within the park. While only a few plants of salt cedar (Tamarisk sp.) were found in the park, it was identified as an exotic species to be eradicated before it became well established. Salt cedar threatened the water resources of the park; plants growing near springs or in low places would dry up water sources with low flow rates. [28]

By 1987, completion of an extensive study of the mountain lion population in Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns National Parks allowed resource managers to revise some of the natural resource priorities established in 1982. In 1986 resource managers completed a plan for management of the mountain lion population in the two parks. The plan was based on the results of a three-year study, begun in 1982, to document the number, range, and feeding habits of mountain lions in the parks. The study included monitoring of a number of radio-collared lions to determine movement and dispersal of the animals, and scat analysis to determine food habits. The plan proposed four actions: (1) maintenance of existing protection of mountain lions within the two parks, (2) continuation of monitoring of mountain lion populations, (3) establishment of a program to monitor deer and elk populations, and (4) development of an inter-agency mountain lion task force. [29]

While the mountain lion issue was under better control, park planners recognized a new wildlife concern. Between July 1985 and June 1986, four black bears had been killed immediately outside the northern boundaries of the park, apparently the victims of the ongoing predator control program supervised by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. In January 1987, the Texas Park and Wildlife Department placed the black bear on its state list of endangered and threatened species. Concerned that the black bear issue could become as sensitive as the mountain lion issue, park planners recommended the initiation of a monitoring program for the bears so that park officials could make well-informed responses to expressions of public concern. The planners also suggested positive action on the part of the park service that might foster better inter-agency cooperation in management of the bear population. [30]

CONTINUE >>>