Guadalupe Mountains An Administrative History

The Resource Management Plans developed for the park reflect the breadth and depth of issues and problems to be considered in the management of a park established to preserve natural values. During the first fifteen years of the operation of Guadalupe Mountains National Park the list of issues relating to natural resources grew and grew as more research was completed and resource managers obtained a better understanding of the ecology of the park. The discussion that follows focuses on issues that have received particular attention since the establishment of the park. Although the issues are approached individually, they are interrelated and management of one resource affects the management of many others.

Water Resources

Previous chapters on planning and development revealed the importance of water to Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Water to support extensive development never was immediately available, nor was it easy to locate, as experiences at Pine Springs and Dog Canyon showed. However, for centuries before the creation of a national park on the land, humans utilized the natural water sources found there. During the 1970s, researchers identified nine permanent springs on the park lands and 28 wells in or near the park. Archeological investigations in the park revealed the presence of temporary camps made by prehistoric peoples near the springs. As Americans moved westward, El Capitan served as a landmark for both a passage through the mountains and a source of water for desert travelers. Later, ranchers settled near the natural springs. As their operations grew, they sank shallow wells, installed windmills and stock tanks, and developed networks of pipelines to carry water to unwatered areas where their livestock grazed. For less pragmatic reasons, Wallace Pratt sank a well in McKittrick Canyon, to provide water for the stone cabin that served as his sanctuary. [1]

As described in Chapter VIII, the Park Service developed new wells to provide water for the park facilities. A well at Signal Peak provided water for the temporary residential area. The well at Pine Springs provided water for the residential and maintenance areas, the campground, the temporary visitor center and operations headquarters, and the Frijole ranch complex. New wells also were drilled for the developments in Dog Canyon and McKittrick Canyon.

While developing new water sources, park managers also continued use of several wells that existed at the time of acquisition of the park. In 1978, Red Well and PX Well, on the west side of the park, were cleaned out to provide water for wildlife and emergency water for hikers and park personnel. Red Well operated with a submersible pump, the PX Well by a windmill. A utility-purpose well existed at Salt Flat, on one of the sections detached from the park. In 1987, the wells at the Pratt Cabin and the Ship on the Desert continued to function. [2]

In accordance with the wilderness values of the park, one of the early goals of the park's resource managers was restoration of the natural conditions of the springs within the park. By 1987, except for a concrete retaining wall remaining at Manzanita Spring, all springs had been restored, as nearly as possible, to their natural conditions. In 1975, after removing an impoundment device and pipelines, work began to channel visitor use and protect the delicate plants associated with Smith Spring, located a short distance from the Frijole ranch site on a trail that received a considerable amount of traffic. Park personnel installed a flagstone walk, curbing, and wooden guardrail to prevent visitors from walking above the spring and polluting the water. At Upper Dog Canyon and Upper Guadalupe Springs, spring boxes were removed. Until 1986, Frijole Spring, which had been developed during the ranching era, provided water to the Frijole site. In 1986 connection of the ranch house complex to the Pine Springs water system permitted abandonment of use of Frijole Spring. [3]

Resource managers recognized that while restoration of the natural condition of the springs in the park was necessary to return the land to its natural state, the wildlife of the park might be adversely affected by the change. They speculated that removal of the system of pipelines and tanks built by ranchers might have a negative influence on the populations of deer and elk in the park, and, continuing the domino effect, might affect the numbers and activities of predators. The number of elk in the park had been declining steadily, however, for more than thirty years. In 1984 wildlife managers estimated that perhaps only 70 or 80 elk remained in the park, relatives of the herd of elk established by J.C. Hunter. During the 1950s the herd size was estimated to be 300; by 1978 it had been reduced to 125. Although other factors also contributed, wildlife managers suggested that water supply probably was the most important factor limiting the size of the elk herd. [4]

Besides the natural springs and seeps supporting the flora and fauna of the park, there is also one perennial stream in the park, McKittrick Creek. The mere existence of the stream in an arid region is significant. In addition, the aquatic fauna associated with the stream are typical of more northerly streams, lending support to the theory that McKittrick represents an isolated relict of a montane climate. Because of the fragility of the surface water resources and their exposure to contamination from increased human use of the parklands, resource managers sought a way to preserve the quality and quantity of water flowing in the park. To that end, in 1979, researchers from Texas Tech designed a water sampling scheme and established sampling locations at five places in McKittrick Canyon and at five major springs--Smith, Manzanita, Choza, Frijole, and Upper Pine--thus initiating long-term monitoring of certain parameters of water quality. [5]

Fire Management

The Park Service recognizes the role of natural fire in maintaining ecological balances. Total suppression of fire allows unnatural fuel loads to accumulate, creating the potential for very hot, destructive fires. However, allowing all fires occurring in a park to burn is inconsistent with Park Service policies, in violation of state regulations, and would threaten human safety, as well as park structures, cultural and natural resources. Therefore, agency guidelines require parks to develop plans to manage naturally occurring and human-caused fires, and to establish fire prescriptions that would allow park managers to use fire as a tool to reduce unnatural fuel loads.

The first Fire Management Plan for the park, approved in 1975, designated a natural burning unit on the west side of the park, in the low desert land. The policy for the remainder of the park was full suppression of all fires, whether naturally-occurring or caused by humans. Although interim policy statements appeared in 1979 and 1982, full suppression remained in effect for the park until 1985, when a new Fire Management Plan was approved. The plan allowed natural fires to burn without suppression unless they threatened human safety, developed areas, cultural or natural resources, or neighboring lands. It also provided for the use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads, to restore native biotic communities, to manage fuel near developed areas, to restore habitat for endangered species, and to conduct fire research. The Backcountry Management Plan for the park outlined policy concerning use of fire in the campgrounds. To protect vegetation and reduce the chance of human-caused wildfires, only containerized fuels were permitted in the backcountry and Pine Springs campgrounds. Charcoal or wood fires, for which visitors provided their own fuel, were permitted in the Dog Canyon campground. [6]

In 1973, Gary Ahlstrand, a Park Service research ecologist stationed at a Cooperative Park Studies Unit at Texas Tech University, began a study of the ecology of fire in the southern Guadalupe Mountains. His research, which continued into the early 1980s, provided the basis for the management plan adopted in 1985. Some of the methods Ahlstrand employed included identifying former burn zones and establishing monitoring transects there to document the recovery rates of various plants; using dendrochronology to document occurrences of major fires in the park and to detect climatic changes; interviewing long-time residents of the area to learn of the effects of livestock, climate, and fire on the vegetative associations in the park; and using photographs and written sources to identify changes in vegetation. [7]

Tree-ring evidence from the Bowl area revealed that from 1696 to 1966 major fires occurred on an average of every 17 years. However, since 1910, no major fires had occurred in the parklands, because of heavy grazing by livestock that reduced the fine fuel load. When the park was created and grazing effects were removed, grasses and white pine grew up in the lower and middle stories of the forest. By 1987 resource managers considered the fuel load in the forest in the Bowl to be unnaturally high. Chief Ranger Phil Koepp estimated the deadfall in that area to be about 12 tons per acre. While the potential for a catastrophic fire existed, Koepp did not believe one would occur unless winds were unusually high. He suggested that enough of the natural vegetative mosaic of the land existed to effectively stop a wildfire before it destroyed a large portion of the park. The resident expert on fire prescriptions, Koepp expected the first prescriptive experiments in the high country to be extremely cautious and low-key, probably on a shrubby south-facing slope adjacent to a snow-covered north-facing slope, and started by a match, not a helicopter. [8]

Park managers also targeted other areas of the park for fire research. During 1976 and 1979 park personnel attempted prescribed burns on the desert lands of the west side of the park, to determine the effects of fire on the shrubby plants there, particularly Larrea tridentata, or creosote bush. Testimony from long-time residents and written accounts from the nineteenth century indicated that until the 1930s the decertified land between the western escarpment and the salt basin had been good grazing land. Researchers postulated that fire would reduce the shrubby plants that had replaced the grasses and permit the grasses to return. However, they found that the shrubby growth would not sustain a burn. [9]

Besides the obvious reasons for attempting prescribed burns only after cautious research and observation, park managers had another reason to approach prescribed burns with care: they had to deal with public opinion about fire. The years of public education carried out under the aegis of Smokey the Bear were not without effect. In the latter-1980s the problem for park managers was to provide public information about how fire could be employed positively to manage parklands. Superintendent Richard Smith spoke of this problem and his intention to make the public fully aware of any prescribed burn project before it began. Koepp also worried about the effect of public opinion on prescribed burning Servicewide; he knew that one disastrous mistake could terminate a potentially beneficial program. [10]

Backcountry Use

At Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the term backcountry refers to virtually all of the park, the primary exceptions being the developed areas around Pine Springs and the Frijole ranch site. In accordance with wilderness designation and existing management plans, the uses of the backcountry were limited to hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, and research conducted by approved individuals, organizations, or institutions. The primary concern of resource managers has been channeling visitor use and mitigating the effects of that use on the natural resources of the park. The hierarchy of personnel established to manage the backcountry included the area manager; a chief ranger; two district rangers, one for the Frijole district, and one for the Dog Canyon district; and one resource management specialist. In 1987 the staff of the Frijole district included two other permanent rangers and both districts added seasonal help during spring and summer. A two-person roads-and-trails crew, also augmented with seasonal employees, performed maintenance on the trails in the park. [11]

Until 1978 visitors used trails that were vestiges of the ranching era and existed when the park was established. However, by 1984, the managers of Guadalupe Mountains could boast of having one of the few professionally designed and constructed trail systems in the Park Service (see Chapters VI and VIII). In 1987, only the final phase of trail-building remained unfinished, the phase that would connect the already established primary routes, delete unmaintainable or unnecessary trails, and complete hardening of the backcountry campsites.

The planners designed the trails to have the least possible impact on the natural resources of the park while providing interesting and challenging hikes for backcountry visitors. Though well-planned and well-built, the new trails required regular maintenance to keep them in optimal condition. As early as 1981, Jack Dollan, one of the trail planners, voiced his concern that management was not allocating enough money for trail maintenance. He emphasized that in the first five years after construction trails required extra maintenance until they became hardened. He suggested that five percent of the capital investment was an adequate amount to budget annually for trail maintenance. In 1981, the park budget contained $15,000 for trail maintenance; five percent of the capital investment would have been approximately $75,000. Heavy rains and flash floods also played havoc with the trails and the maintenance budget. The damage incurred during a deluge in 1984 required emergency funding of $17,000 to repair the backcountry trails. [12]

In April 1983, a group of Sierra Club members from Houston, Texas, and their families worked for a week, providing extra labor for trail maintenance. This was only one example among many of the benefits of voluntarism to Guadalupe Mountains National Park in a time of decreased funding to the national parks. [13]

In addition to trails, the backcountry contained designated campgrounds to channel visitor impact on the natural resources of the park. Park policy limited the number of persons camping at any campground. In 1972 park personnel marked and signed seven campgrounds. Additional campgrounds established in 1974, 1981, and 1982 brought the total to ten. Pine Top Campground always received the heaviest use, followed by McKittrick Ridge Campground. Since the establishment of the park, park managers have used monitoring systems to keep track of campground and trail usage. The checkout system used for backpackers from 1972 to 1974 required only minor revision to conform to the agency-wide backcountry permit system adopted in 1975. Beginning in 1976, trail registers located at the major trailheads provided a way to measure trail use. Erosion transects, read on a regular basis, provided one other means of measuring the impact of visitor use on the backcountry. [14]

Mountain Lions

As discussed in Chapter VII, the most controversial natural resource issue with which the managers of Guadalupe Mountains have dealt is the mountain lion population of the park. William Dunmire, who was Superintendent of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains during the height of public controversy about the lions, believed that although records show the problem started first on ranches near Dog Canyon, it really belonged more to Carlsbad Caverns than to Guadalupe Mountains. In any case, management decisions necessarily affected both parks. [15] Although mountain lions inhabited the park, they were not confined to it; rather, they ranged widely from both parks through the Lincoln National Forest, southward into the Delaware Mountains, and northward into the Brokeoff and Sacramento Mountains. More importantly, the ranges of the mountain lions also extended to private lands. The primary point of controversy was the loss of livestock to lions by ranchers adjacent to the public lands. The ranchers believed the mountain lion population had increased since the park was established. They also asserted that the park provided a refuge from which the lions made forays against their livestock.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations outlined the responsibilities of national parks for preserving natural resources and protecting wildlife. The regulation made it illegal to possess, destroy, or disturb wildlife, and prohibited hunting and trapping within a national park unless mandated by federal law. Therefore, federal law required the managers of Guadalupe Mountains to protect mountain lions. However, adjacent to the park, in New Mexico, mountains lions on private, state, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands were managed by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish as a game species. [16]

From 1973 to 1979, ranchers whose land bordered the northern side of the park complained increasingly about losses of sheep to mountain lions. By 1977, park managers received correspondence from members of Congress about the problem. In 1978 rangers found evidence of trapping of mountain lions within the park, west of Dog Canyon. The following year they found boundary fences had been manipulated to direct predators into traps near the boundary, but outside the park. Rumors also began to circulate that the Park Service was bringing mountain lions from other locations and releasing them in the park. In September 1979, in an effort to find a mutually agreeable solution to the problem, local and regional Park Service representatives, including the Field Solicitor, met with neighboring rancher Milton (Marion) Hughes and his lawyer, and a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Park Service agreed to allow a professional trapper, recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to trap and relocate problem lions. During 1980 and 1981 several relocations took place, but the ranchers north of the park continued to lose sheep. [17]

Early in 1982 local sheep ranchers requested that when trappers from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish were in hot pursuit of a specific problem lion they be permitted to enter parklands to capture it. The Department of the Interior granted permission for this program, which included destroying any animals that could not conveniently be relocated. Before this proposal could be instituted, however, the Park Service had to go through the standard process of developing a management plan and assessing the environmental impact of the proposal. As a result, the plan came to the attention of the national news media. Individuals and groups from around the country filed letters of protest; in the Federal District Court of New Mexico the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife filed a suit seeking an injunction against the plan. Early in 1983 the State of New Mexico withdrew its request to enter the parklands and the conservation groups apparently withdrew their suit. [18]

When resource managers began work on the Mountain Lion Management Plan, they realized how little biological data they had upon which to base management assessments and strategies. Subsequently, in 1982, the Park Service initiated a three-year research project to collect data relating to the mountain lion population of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains, including population densities, population characteristics, home ranges and movements, and food habits. Harvey and Stanley Associates of Alviso, California, contracted to do the work; Thomas Smith was the principal investigator. [19]

The investigators estimated that over the three years of the study, the maximum mountain lion population density within the 400-square-mile study area was approximately 24 adults, 12 juveniles, and 22 kittens. To determine home range and movement the researchers radio-collared and monitored 22 lions. Radio-monitoring revealed the extent of the animals' ranges: the average home range of adult males was 80 square miles; of adult females, the average range was 23 square miles. Monitoring also revealed how far individual cats traveled within a day, distances that varied according to sex and age, and in what direction the animals moved. The investigators found north-south movements most common, movement that often brought lions in contact with the neighboring sheep ranches. The study also revealed that when a lion was destroyed or left the area, a new lion moved into the vacated range. Scat analysis revealed food habits of the mountain lions. Mule deer remains occurred in 82 percent of the scats analyzed, followed by porcupine (15 percent), rabbit (7 percent), and domestic sheep (6 percent). Rodent, cattle, and goat remains occurred in less than five percent of the scats. [20]

Chapter VII contains a discussion of the Mountain Lion Management Plan approved in 1986 and developed from data obtained in the study. The plan provided for continued protection and monitoring of the mountain lions, and "preclude[d] the NPS from engaging in any program involving the destruction of mountain lions within the parks as part of livestock depredation control efforts implemented on lands adjoining the park." [21] The plan also proposed to monitor deer and elk populations in the park, since a marked decrease in those populations could cause an increase in livestock depredations. Additionally, the plan proposed the development of an inter-agency task force for mountain lion management. The task force proposal was dropped, however, because of negative responses received from the Forest Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Representatives of both agencies expressed the opinion that a framework for cooperation already existed and a new organization was superfluous. [22]

While the mountain lion issue received little press during the mid-1980s, it was far from dead. In February 1985, more than a year before the adoption of the Park Service's lion management plan, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish instituted a new program for control of mountain lions. The program, scheduled to run until March 1987, allowed destruction of a maximum of 14 lions each year in areas where ranchers were experiencing unusual losses of livestock. In order to qualify for the program, ranchers had to provide evidence of four or more mountain lion kills on their ranch between January 1983 and January 1985. [23]

In April 1987 the ranchers in Dog Canyon, organized as the Dog Canyon Wool Growers, petitioned the Game and Fish Department to increase the control operation to include Forest Service land as well as private ranch land. While Park Superintendent Smith realized at that time the continuing volatility of the mountain lion issue, he believed that the availability of hard data compiled from the monitoring programs puts park managers in a better position to respond to criticism of the park's policy. [24]

Reintroduction of Native Species

Park Service policy encourages the reintroduction of native species into parks when adequate habitat exists to support them, when they do not pose a threat to the safety of visitors, and when the species disappeared because of a human-induced change in the ecosystem. At Guadalupe Mountains, one native species, the Montezuma quail, was successfully reintroduced. Last known to be in the parklands in the 1960s, the species probably was extirpated by loss of cover caused by heavy grazing by livestock. In 1983 the Park Service approved the reintroduction program. The first 24 birds, transported from Arizona under an approved state permit, were released in Dog Canyon in December 1984. Over the next six months the trappers from Arizona brought 36 more birds to Dog Canyon. After release of the first batch, subsequent batches spent several weeks in an acclimatization pen to reduce the effects of stress created by capture and transportation. When the birds appeared to be healthy and adjusted, the ranger caring for them just left the door to the pen open. Phil Koepp recalled the reintroduction with some amusement. Wildlife specialists agreed that the environment in Upper Dog Canyon was as nearly perfect for Montezuma quail as could be provided. Apparently the quail were less than appreciative--they headed for the Hughes ranch! However, the loss was only temporary. In October 1986 a reliable sighting reported a covey of 20 Montezuma quail, including a number of chicks, on the road near the Dog Canyon campground. [25]

For a number of years park managers also have considered reintroduction of the desert bighorn sheep. The last reliable sighting of this species in the parklands was in 1938, when 15 to 19 sheep were reported in and around McKittrick Canyon. Historically, desert bighorns also utilized Dog Canyon. In 1979 and 1980, reliable sightings of desert bighorns were reported on the western rim of the Guadalupe Mountains in New Mexico, some 25 to 40 miles north of the park. Wildlife specialists did not know whether those sheep were a remnant of the original population, or whether they migrated from a group released in 1973 in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, south of the Guadalupes. [26]

Several obstacles prevented reintroducing the desert bighorn as easily as the Montezuma quail. The west side of the park and the McKittrick drainage provided suitable habitat, but the amount and distribution of water limited the potential range for the animals and would force them to compete with mule deer, elk, exotic Barbary sheep, feral goats, and domestic sheep and cattle. Contact with domestic stock also would expose the bighorns to fatal diseases and parasites. Another contingency, a proposed trail from the top of the escarpment to the lowlands on the west side, would alter the habitat enough so that the Park Service could not directly reintroduce the sheep into the park. In 1987 resource managers chose to wait and see, but to cooperate with efforts by state game departments to re-establish the desert bighorn on nearby non-park lands and to seek their cooperation in reintroducing the animals into the park. [27]

Trespass Grazing

Trespass grazing has been a problem in the park because of the impact it has on vegetation and water sources, and because it created unnatural competition for the wildlife in the park. Trespass grazers included domestic livestock such as cattle, horses, and sheep, and exotic animals such as Barbary sheep. They entered the park easily because most of the boundary was unfenced. As discussed in Chapter VIII, portions of the boundary most susceptible to trespass grazing have been fenced in recent years, and in 1987, completion of the boundary fence was the number one priority for natural resource management for the park.

In the interest of maintaining friendly relations with neighboring ranchers, domestic livestock found in the park simply were herded off the parklands. However, Park Service and park policies provided for more stringent measures to be taken with exotics. Until 1987, the only exotic animal species threatening the park was the Barbary sheep, or aoudad. Barbary sheep moved into the vicinity from the north, relatives of escapees from a ranch in the Hondo Valley, some 90 miles away. After the escape, around 1950, the animals slowly dispersed southward, reaching the southern Guadalupe Mountains in the late 1970s. Agency policy provided for control or eradication of exotic species that threaten ecological communities and native species. The diets of Barbary sheep overlap with those of mule deer and also would compete with desert bighorn sheep, if they were reintroduced in the park. At Guadalupe Mountains, a management program for Barbary sheep, adopted in 1979, called for direct reduction of the species, through shooting by qualified park personnel. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish agreed to cooperate with the plan for direct reduction. [28]

Pesticide Control

At Guadalupe Mountains, pesticide control was an issue of concern to resource managers because of the effect of DDT on the peregrine falcons that nest in the park. Because the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) was recognized as an endangered species, park managers were not alone in their concern. Scientists attributed the decline of the species since the 1950s to increased use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT. The falcons feed on insectivorous birds and bats, which may be contaminated with high levels of pesticides. DDE, the chemical resulting from the digestive breakdown of DDT, affects the reproductive system of the falcon, causing weak eggshells that break during incubation. Although the U.S. banned DDT in 1972, farmers in Central and South America, areas where the falcons winter, continued to use the pesticide. [29]

Between 1975 and 1978, falcons nesting in the Peregrine Palace eyrie, above McKittrick Canyon, produced fourteen young. This was one of the most productive eyries recorded in the United States. However, the pair that returned in 1979 produced no offspring, and in 1980 and 1981 only a lone male was observed in the canyon. A pair returned to the canyon eyrie each year from 1983 to 1986, and in 1986 fledged one young bird. In 1987 the pair fledged four offspring. [30]

In 1977 the park cooperated with the Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute and the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife in a study of peregrine falcons. Analysis of eggshells collected from falcon nests in the area showed them to be 18 percent thinner than was considered normal prior to 1947. Lipids from the egg showed 1,000 ppm of DDE. Eggshells collected in 1984, however, were not unduly thin. [31]

The Endangered Species Act mandated federal agencies to manage their lands affirmatively to preserve or to allow the recovery of endangered species. In 1987, resource managers of Guadalupe Mountains proposed studies to ascertain levels and sources of DDT contamination in local prey species, asserting that failure to address the problem of pesticide contamination could make attempts to manage the peregrine futile. [32]

Endangered Species

Besides the peregrine falcon, resource managers have identified two other endangered species in the park: Sneed's pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii), which grows on limestone ledges at lower elevations; and Lloyd's hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus lloydii), which grows only at low elevations on the west side of the park. A threatened species, McKittrick penny royal (Hedeoma apiculatum), which grows on limestone ledges at higher elevations, has also been found in the park. Field surveys have been made to identify the distribution of these plants within the park and newly found locations are recorded as they are reported. The Fish and Wildlife Service provided recovery plans for each of these species and park managers have been working to implement the recommendations. Before any construction took place in the park, particularly trail construction, resource managers made certain that these species would not be affected, either directly or indirectly, by human-caused disturbances. A monitoring program for known populations also has been established. [33]

Oil and Gas Development

Before Guadalupe Mountains National Park was created, Congress and the Department of the Interior haggled with the owners of the park's mineral rights about their value and potential. Lying at the edge of the Permian Basin, the possibility existed that the Guadalupe Mountains contained untapped oil and gas reserves. Ultimately, the owners of the mineral rights donated them to the federal government, but the legislation that was passed contained reversionary clauses protecting the interests of the former owners (see Chapter IV). Since national park policy prohibits exploration for or development of mineral resources within a park, managers at Guadalupe Mountains are not concerned about oil and gas development within the park per se. They are concerned, however, about development of those resources taking place on nearby lands that might affect the wilderness values and water resources of the park, as well as the mineral resources that may lie beneath it.

Park managers must work through established channels to protect the resources of the park. Most nearby oil and gas leases are on either Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service lands. Both agencies must comply with the Environmental Protection Act before allowing exploration and development to occur. They must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment describing the proposed development and its possible impacts and confer with other governmental agencies that may be affected by the proposal, as well as submit the document to public review. During the conference and review process the Park Service has the opportunity to express opinions about the proposal and to suggest potential impacts the development might have on parklands. The proposing agency must then respond to criticisms or alternative proposals. Two such exchanges have taken place during the 1980s.

In 1980 the U.S. Forest Service proposed to permit drilling of oil and gas wells on Wilderness Ridge, Forest Service land adjoining North McKittrick Canyon. To facilitate the proposal the Forest Service removed the area from its Guadalupe Escarpment Wilderness Study Area. As a result of Congressional debate about the study area, the Forest Service agreed to retain wilderness study status for Wilderness Ridge until 1986. Until then, existing roads could be used for oil and gas exploration, but no new ones could be built. Approximately 200 acres of the Wilderness Study Area contained existing oil and gas leases scheduled to expire in 1987. Sixteen other leases, which would cover most of the Wilderness Study Area, were pending. In October 1986 the Forest Service completed the environmental assessment for the Wilderness Study Area. The agency recommended non-wilderness status for the area, but indicated its intent to protect the wilderness values until Congress made a decision. In 1986, when oil prices began to drop, drilling activity in the area decreased. Managers of Guadalupe Mountains continued to monitor the situation on Wilderness Ridge and review proposals submitted for oil and gas development. [34]

During 1984 the Bureau of Land Management presented a proposal for a pipeline project to park managers. The proposed route for the pipeline was adjacent to the southeastern corner of the park. Resource managers believed that construction activity would leave a scar on the landscape near the park approximately four miles long and would be obvious to persons traveling on Highway 62/180 or to persons using the roadside park in Guadalupe Pass. They asked that the pipeline be rerouted south and east of the highway. Bureau of Land Management officials agreed with the assessment of the Park Service and realigned the pipeline to avoid the Guadalupe Pass area. [35]

Collecting of Plant Material by Native Americans

The Guadalupe Mountains were traditional hunting and gathering grounds for the Mescalero Apaches well into the twentieth century. In 1987, members of the tribe continued to live on the Mescalero reservation northwest of the park in New Mexico. During the early years of operation of the park, rangers observed Mescaleros within the park boundaries gathering sotol fruit, which they used for religious ceremonies. Roger Reisch also recalled that on two occasions in the early 1970s some members of the tribe performed religious ceremonies at Pine Springs and Guadalupe Spring. Since that time, however, park managers and rangers have not been aware of anyone from the Mescalero tribe entering the park except to use Park Service facilities. The unwritten policy of park managers has been to permit in-park gathering of plant material by the Mescaleros if it is to be used for religious purposes. [36]

The primary theme of management of the natural resources of Guadalupe Mountains National Park has been the restoration of the land to its natural state. Managers have sought to do that by mitigating the impact of human use in the backcountry, by restoring water sources to their natural state, by reintroducing native species, by protecting endangered species, and by adopting policies that would protect the predator population of the park. During the first fifteen years of natural resource management, research was the keynote. Managers worked to establish baselines from which changes could be measured.

While each was Superintendent, William Dunmire and Richard Smith faced public controversy over natural resource issues. Dunmire's educational and professional background in wildlife management undoubtedly influenced the approach he took to the mountain lion problem. He recognized the need for solid data on which to base management decisions and advocated an in-depth study of the lion population of Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains. Smith displayed a similar attitude toward the issues of mountain lions, protection of black bears (see Chapter VII), and prescriptive burning, advocating research and planned educational programs to head off potential public controversy. Both men recognized that managing a wilderness in the midst of civilization required knowledge based on scientific research and an ongoing program of public education to establish and maintain good relations with the park's neighbors.