State of the National Landscape Conservation System: A ...pdf.wri.org/wilderness_society_nlcs_data_appendix.pdf · El Malpais 2005 Part-time Kathy Walter jointly manages this unit

State of the National Landscape Conservation System: A First Assessment--Data Appendix

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

This version of the Data Appendix to the National Landscape Conservation System: A First Assessment was released on Oct 26, 2005. The data appendix is meant to provide further information about the indicators and measures we used to arrive at the conclusions presented in the body of the report. To find a copy of the main report, including authorship and acknowledgements, please go to: www.discoverNLCS.org

Category Leadership, Empowerment, and AccountabilityIndicator Managerial PresenceIndicator Background This indicator aims to capture whether the NLCS unit has a manager who is able to

allocate significant time and authority to the area's management challenges and opportunities. Data were collected through phone interviews with managers and through a BLM website search for unit-level reports during the period January-April 2005, with some updates in Fall 2005. The data were largely collected from the managers themselves and therefore enjoy a high level of confidence.

Methodology Question Does the NLCS unit have a full-time manager whose duties consist primarily of administering the NLCS unit?

Data Notes Data was collected through phone interviews with managers during the period Jan-April 2005; some updates were made in Fall 2005 as time permitted. In some cases, it was difficult to determine whether the manager, self-described as "full time," also has significant additional duties, such as serving as field manager or area manager. Where that is the case, a value of "part-time" may be more appropriate.

Scoring Approach Yes=100; Part-time =50; no=1Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Yes Clay TemplinCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes Lou Ann Jacobson (who also has some repsonsibility for

Anasazi Heritage Center)Carrizo Plain 2005 Yes Was Marlene Braun; Johna Hurl is acting manager (and full

time)Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Part-time John Gerritsma is the manager, but is also the field manager.

Howard Hunter is the full time assistant monument manager.El Malpais 2005 Part-time Kathy Walter jointly manages this unit and Kasha Katuwe/Tent

RocksGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Yes Dennis CurtisGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Yes Dave HunsakerGunnison Gorge 2005 Yes Karen TuckerHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Yes Daniel E. AverillLas Cienegas 2005 Part-time Steve Cohn also has responsbilities in field officeRed Rock Canyon 2005 Yes Markian RekshynskiSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Yes Danella GeorgeSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Yes John SullivanSteens CMPA 2005 Part-time Karla Bird has responsibilities for the Resource Area as well

as the CMPA. Carolyn Freeborn is tasked to Forest Service since original interview.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Yes Gary Slagel

Indicator Managerial EmpowermentIndicator Background Same as "Managerial Presence".

Methodology Question Does the manager have "line authority"?Data Notes Same as above.Scoring Approach Yes=100; Limited=50, no=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 NoCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes


Carrizo Plain 2005 YesCascade-Siskiyou 2005 NoEl Malpais 2005 NoGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 NoGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 NoLas Cienegas 2005 LimitedRed Rock Canyon 2005 YesSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 NoSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 YesSteens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No

Indicator Managerial StatureIndicator Background Same as "Managerial Presence".

Methodology Question Is the unit manager on the BLM state director's management team?Data Notes Same as above.Scoring Approach Yes = 100; no = 1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 NoCanyons of the Ancients 2005 NoCarrizo Plain 2005 NoCascade-Siskiyou 2005 NoEl Malpais 2005 NoGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 NoGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 NoLas Cienegas 2005 NoRed Rock Canyon 2005 NoSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 NoSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 NoSteens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No

Indicator Annual ReportingIndicator Background Specifying goals and taking stock of accomplishments and failures is an important part

of effective management. This indicator seeks to determine if the BLM is creating public accountability mechanisms that can help the agency learn more quickly how to succeed with the conservation mandate of the NLCS. Data were collected through phone interviews with managers and through a BLM website search for unit-level reports during the period January-April 2005.


Methodology Question Has the manager prepared, and provided, a publicly available annual report that includes narrative analysis and financial information on the unit from either of the past two fiscal years?

Data Notes Data was collected through phone interviews with managers during the period Jan-April 2005; some updates were made in Fall 2005 as time permitted. As the data were collected from managers directly, we have a high level of conficence in these data.

Scoring Approach Yes=100; partial=50, no=1.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No Can provide technical information from the BLM database

information, but not narrative/financial reportCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Partial There is a FY2004 annual report on cultural resources which

includes budget/financial infoCarrizo Plain 2005 No Per Braun, there are some data available for internal use only

(not public)Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 NoEl Malpais 2005 No Due to staff reductions, and budget reductions, an annual

report has not been produced for more than three yearsGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No Only internal database, not a publicly available reportGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No An annual report is currently in development, and may be

available in fall 2005Gunnison Gorge 2005 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Partial Reserve does provide publicly available yearly reports on

visitor info/rec, workload, project summary - though some of this information is more forward-looking than retrospective

Las Cienegas 2005 NoRed Rock Canyon 2005 No Internal database is available.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No Internal database only, no publicly available annual reportSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 No No annual report is prepared; there is a database of the unit's

accomplishmentsSteens CMPA 2005 No A report is planned for future productionUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No Unit prepares a recreation management report on BLM land,

but nothing specifically for a public audience.


Category Planning for Resource ConservationIndicator Age of Resource Management Plan (RMP)Indicator Background This indicator was not scored for this assessment, as many new units in the NLCS are

still in the process of creating a RMP.Methodology Question Is there a current (less than 15 years old) RMP for this unit? (Provide year that the

current RMP was finalized).Data Notes Information in this section was collected in the period Spring-Summer 2005; some RMPs

may have been finalized with a Record of Decision when the State of the NLCS report was in final stages of editing and publication.

Scoring Approach We did not score this indicator. However, a suggested scoring approach might be: <15=100, linear progression: 15=100, 20=1.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 RMP in progressCanyons of the Ancients 2005 RMP in progressCarrizo Plain 2005 RMP in progressCascade-Siskiyou 2005 RMP in progress ROD (Record of Decision) expected Fall 2005El Malpais 2005 yes, RMP dated

2001Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 RMP in progressGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 yes, RMP dated

1999Gunnison Gorge 2005 yes, RMP dated

2004Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 yes, RMP dated

2004Las Cienegas 2005 yes, RMP dated

2003Red Rock Canyon 2005 yes, RMP dated

2005Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 yes, RMP dated

2003Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 RMP in progress ROD expected 2006Steens CMPA 2005 yes, RMP dated

2005Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 RMP in progress ROD expected 2006

Indicator Transportation Plan (TP) QualityIndicator Background This proposed indicator--which includes four questions regarding the details of

transportation plans and process of creating them--was not scored for this assessment, as many new units in the NLCS are still in the process of creating a RMP and transportation plan.


Methodology Question Does the NLCS unit have a transportation plan or guidance (for example, in the unit-level RMP or interim guidance) that delineates routes for ORV and mechanized travel and specifies where nonmechanized travel is permitted?

Data Notes Data was collected by looking at RMPs, calling units and asking for transportation plans, and asking managers and others for information. Because this indicator is not scored in the NLCS First Assessment, we did not take steps to verify the accuracy of the data; it is presented only for discussion purposes. Note that this and other questions about transportation plan quality are surprisingly difficult to answer for some units with a simple "yes/no" suggesting it would be worthwhile to have a dialogue with BLM and others about ideal indicators of good transportation management/planning.

Scoring Approach Not scored in this First Assessment.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No There are no specific route designations or specifications of

where nonmechanized travel is permitted. Public maps (2003) restrain bikes and other nonmotorized vehicles to routes, but prior IG contained them to roads and in some cases trails or two tracks.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes, but out of date The current transportation plan is part of the 1985 San Miguel RMP, and thus simply has a map identifying all the the legal routes in the monument; it is outdated and being updated through the current planning process. There are also two sets of interim guidance that address cross country travel in the monument. A new TP is in preparation and will be included in the new RMP as required by the proclamation.

Carrizo Plain 2005 See IG. TP forthcoming in RMP.

IG from the Carrizo Plain Natural Area Mgmt Plan, Nov 1996. It states that off road vehicle travel is not allowed and that access will be provided to make use of recreational opportunities as consistent with the mission. It leaves open the possibility of new roads. The RMP (forthcoming) will include a TP.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Yes Proposed (2005) RMP states that "OHVs/mechanized vehicles are allowed on all open BLM-designated roads." (p. 93. map 23)

El Malpais 2005 Yes The RMP designates routes as open, closed or limited, no lands remain "open" or "undesignated. (There is no other "transportation plan")

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 From 1992 RMP There is no current transportation plan. The 1992 RMP does contain area designations for travel management; it closes the entire monument to cross-country travel; vehicle travel is limited to designated routes, but there are no restrictions on nonmechanized travel. The IMP does not include individual route designations.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Yes Transportation plan specifies that cross country travel is prohibited for OHVs and bikes, closes all roads not shown on map

Gunnison Gorge 2005 Yes Recreation planning decisions specify an open area, and then designate the rest of the routes as open or closed, but also says that the designated routes will be further fine tuned and refined with a work group

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2004 Yes Transportation plan specifies that the entire reserve is closed to OHVs, motorized vehicles, and bikes except on first 3 miles of Elk River trail and existing R/Ws within the Reserve

Las Cienegas 2005 Yes RMP includes a transportation plan that makes route designations for both motorized and mechanized vehicles, including administrative routes and describes maintenance levels.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 Partial Plan does have guidance regarding ORV use.


Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Yes/partial See Figure 8, see pp.74-77--plan bans all mechanized travel, and wilderness of course prohibits bikes, but the plan did not address nonmechanized - it deferred this to the multi-species plan.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 No There is no existing transportation plan, the unit is managed under 3 RMPs and 2 MFPs. Although the land use plans show the NCA as a designated management area, route designations have never been done, so vehicles are required to stay on existing roads and trails until the route designation process is complete. Rte designation will occur following completion of the NCA/RMP.

Steens CMPA 2005 Partial RMP does specifically address some routes by name, but also delays a complete TP until an EA based on specific field inventories and determination of all other routes in the CMPA (by December 2005)

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No Appear to be only lenient standards in existence, with RMP in developmental stage, no transportation plan or IG specific to the monument

Methodology Question Does the transportation plan, interim guidance, or other document identify specific roads and routes for closure?

Data Notes See above.Scoring Approach Not scored in this First Assessment.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No Draft RMP due May 2005. Nothing from prior/other guidanceCanyons of the Ancients 2005 No Neither the existing transportation plan or IG identifies specific

roads and routes for closure, though both sets of IG provide for emergency closure of routes if significant resource damage is occurring. However, the transportation plan in preparation currently for the RMP will identify specific roads for closure.

Carrizo Plain 2005 As above, unsure RMP (in progress) will identify specific roads for closure. Not clear whether IG does or does not.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Difficult to determine Although the IG does identify specific roads and routes for closure, the language used doesn't commit to closing them ("they may be considered for reduction")

El Malpais 2005 Yes P.2-70 of RMP specifies roads to be closed in the NCA; per p. 2-71 AFO will prepare a transportation management plan for the unit with actions to be implemented (2001)

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 NoGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Yes P.48 of RMP (1999): "the BLM's strategy for restoring roads

that will no longer be used will be phased over a period of years, as funding permits, could take as many as 10 years. "Each year a percent of the monument's base budget will be used to restore roads in areas that are easily accessible to the public and that involve sensitive resources in immediate danger; routes in frontcountry and passage zones first"

Gunnison Gorge 2005 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2004 Yes 2004 Headwaters worksheet/workplan sets forth goal of

decommissioning 45 miles of roadsLas Cienegas 2005 Yes BLM is working with Sky Island Alliance on road closuresRed Rock Canyon 2005 Yes Plan identifies dirt roads in each area, notes RS2477 issues;

also includes construction of a 2.65 mile road (p.55)Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No, but see

additional infoThere were only 17 miles of roads in the very large monument at the time the RMP was completed, some critical for access, making road closures improbable to impassable.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 No This will be determined in RMP, will include areas proposed for vehicle closures

Steens CMPA 2005 Yes 7 miles within the CMPAUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No


Methodology Question Does the transportation plan or other guidance provide a schedule for closure for those roads identified for closure?

Data Notes See above.Scoring Approach

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 NoCanyons of the Ancients 2005 No plan yet Forthcoming plan may include a schedule for closureCarrizo Plain 2005 No plan yet Forthcoming plan may include a schedule for closureCascade-Siskiyou 2005 No Dependent on fundingEl Malpais 2005 NoGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 NoGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 NoGunnison Gorge 2005 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 NoLas Cienegas 2005 No The RMP does not commit to a schedule for closure, but the

manager is working on a 5 year program that will support at least attempts at closure in the first five years of plan implementation

Red Rock Canyon 2005 No See p. 29, p. 67, RMPSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 N/A Plan does not call for any roads to be closedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 N/A-no plan yet No plan yetSteens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No

Methodology Question Do the maps presented for public comment during the planning process include only roads that meet a given definition, and valid existing rights of way, and trails that were designated in previous planning documents? (so as not to legitimize unplanned and/or illegally created routes).

Data Notes See above.Scoring Approach Not scored in this First Assessment.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No The maps presented for public comment during the planning

process for scoping and prelim draft alts are the ROUTE inventories, which show everything on the ground, including trails and nondesignated routes, and illegally created tracks

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes To date, transportation maps have only been presented at public scoping meetings. At these meetings, only legal routes, or those identified in the San Juan/San Miguel RMP, were displayed. A concious effort was made not to present to the public every route inventoried in the Monument

Carrizo Plain 2005 YesCascade-Siskiyou 2005 No (?)El Malpais 2005 No The maps included inventoried roads, information on roads

provided to the public in draft plan, per the managerGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No The maps presented for public comment during the planning

process for scoping and prelim draft alts are the ROUTE inventories, which show everything on the ground, including trails and nondesignated routes, and illegally created tracks

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 Unclear, possibly noHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Yes The planning documents DID identify the old skid/logging

roads and existing valid rights of ways


Las Cienegas 2005 Yes There was not a previous plan or baseline, as the property was private until secured by land exchange in the 1980s. BLM, Sky Island Alliance, and others did surveys to assess the current transportation network and excluded what were clearly wildcat routes.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 ??Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 YesSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 TBD Unit has GPSd all two track and better roads in the NCA as

part of the initial inventory for the RMP, and collected legal and resource information for each route segment. Unit plans to allow the public to comment on the existing route segments, as well as the data collected for each segment to ensure adequate portayal of each route and the enviro, legal, andsocial apects. Unit has developed criteria that will be used to evaluate each route segment, and on which they will be soliciting public comment.

Steens CMPA 2005 No All routes known to exist were presentedUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 N/A BLM had maps for the monument available for the public to

consider at open houses two years ago, but not specifically about transportation

Indicator Implementation Plan QualityIndicator Background We did not collect data on this indicator, or give a score for this indicator, in this

assessment as many units are still in the process of completing a RMP.Methodology Question Is there an implementation plan that allows the BLM and the public to measure annual

progress toward RMP objectives?Data Notes No data collected for this assessment, no scores given, as too many of the units

examined have not yet completed a RMP.Scoring Approach

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No Data Gathered

Indicator Wild and Scenic River (WSR) AssessmentIndicator Background We collected data for this indicator, which is presented below, but did not score this

indicator.Methodology Question What percentage of rivers and streams in the unit have been evaluated for Wild and

Scenic River eligibility?Data Notes Data sources include Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS), BLM's Recreation Management

Information System (RMIS) and the latest RMP or draft RMP available for each unit; sometimes managers provided additional detail/more nuanced information.

Scoring ApproachUnit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 100% 3 rivers evaluated, 3 eligible, 3 suitableCanyons of the Ancients 2005 100% Evaluation is ongoing with RMP. unit doesn't have any rivers,

just three perennial streams.Carrizo Plain 2005 Possibly not

applicable/relevant. See addtl info.

Per BLM, there are only intermittent streams and riparian areas. According to a long time local conservationist, there may not have been a comprehensive effort to evaluate WSR eligibility.


Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 See additional information.

Unit has not inventoried free flowing streams, including Jenny Creek. Per the unit manager, all the rivers were assessed in the '95 RMP, none found suitable. However, they are not reassessing any for the current RMP in progress. Also, there's no record of that old assessment, and much has changed - in terms of private land ownership, etc.

El Malpais 2005 0% vs. Not Applicable-unclear

Some sources suggest 0%, while the RMP states: "There are no eligible W&S rivers in the NCA"

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Not Applicable No streams/rivers are present in unitGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 100% Evaluated all, found 34 eligible and 33 suitableGunnison Gorge 2005 100% Identified (2004) 26 segments that met free-flowing criteria

and contained outstanding natural values, then identified 4 as eligible

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 100% Evaluated all (4). ultimately 7 miles of little south fork and 5 miles of salmon creek recd WSR designation, South Fork Elk River did not due to its proximity to corporate timber land

Las Cienegas 2005 100% Evaluated all (2), found 2 eligible and 2 suitableRed Rock Canyon 2005 0%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 See additional info. Evaluation is ongoing with FS planSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 See additional info. Evaluation ongoing with RMP process.Steens CMPA 2005 100% All evaluated in 1997, none found suitable in RMP; open

question as to whether the rivers were properly evaluated then, and/or whether private ownership has changed, suggesting a need for further (re) evaluation.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 100% Evaluation of additional segments is ongoing as part of RMP process


Category Protecting Wild and Primitive CharacterIndicator Planned Road ClosuresIndicator Background We chose this indicator because roads--and road closures and restoration--are critical

to wild and primitive quality. However, for future assessments (when more plans are complete and data available) an ideal indicator would focus on miles of roads actually closed and restored, not merely “planned” for closure.

Methodology Question What percent of the travel routes identified in the unit (either at the time of designation or during an ensuing round of transportation planning or RMP development) have been slated for closure and restoration to natural condition in the management planning documents?

Data Notes Mileage data is of mixed quality; "route" is not consistently defined and could refer to anything from an illegal, user created two track to an established and maintained dirt road. Accordingly, percent of roads to be closed is sometimes a "best-estimate".

Scoring Approach If unit plans to close >50% of roads=100; if less than 50, scored as follows: 0-5%=1; 6-15%=25; 16-35%=50; 36-50=75.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 N/A-no plan yet There are 170 miles of secondary and tertiary roads in the

AFNM; per the manager: "the draft LUP will be the first opportunity to consider a variety of options concerning route designation and potential closures"

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 N/A - no plan yet There are 375.5 miles of legal and illegal routes in the monument, per a 2002 GPS inventory of ALL routes--legal and illegal - in the monument. 352.4 miles of routes are motorized, and 23.1 are nonmotorized (single track). A 1985 survey identified 43 miles, total, but did not include legal routes established for the development of fluid minerals following compeltion of that 1985 RMP. Proclamation specifies no motorized/mechanized off road, and at present 14 miles of single track are being used by mtn bikes; there is a debate ongoing about whether mtn bike use on single track trails is allowed.

Carrizo Plain 2005 N/A - no plan yet There are 584 miles of total road/routes in the monument at present if you count all types of roads/routes; total BLM miles--367, county roads--90, private--112, CA fish and game--15. Of the total BLM miles (367m), 7 miles have already been closed; 19 more will be closed when RMP is final.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 11% There are approx. 463 miles total in the monument. The RMP proposes to decommision 53 miles. (There are approximately 266 miles on BLM land, but that includes closed and open roads, and BLM says that estimate is probably low by 20-40 percent.)

El Malpais 2005 23% Based on a 1996 inventory, there are 362.8 miles of roads and routes in the unit; 75 miles of the total roads in the area are slated for closure in the RMP or perhaps a little less. See p.2-70 of 2001 RMP.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 N/A - no plan yet At present best estimate, there are 1,837 miles of roads/routes in the monument, per BLM. About 1,809 are motorized, and about 25 are non motorized, plus 3 miles of designated trail. The 1992 RMP closed temporary mining roads, and specific routes were also closed inside designated wilderness after the AZ Wilderness Act of 1984, but nothing since. The RMP will close some roads.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 58% The 1999 RMP closed about 1,259 miles, to end up with about 908 miles of roads


Gunnison Gorge 2005 27% The current 130 miles in the NCA will become 70 miles of motorized routes, and 25 miles of nonmotorized routes through plan implementation.

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 80-90% About 45 miles of roads/routes in the Reserve are to be closed - most of the existing roads are slated for removal - except about 10 miles still used as trails

Las Cienegas 2005 10% Of the 142 miles in the unit, about 10% is the estimated amount slated to be closed and rehabbed (or about 15 miles) -- see p. 16 of the 2003 RMP - , another 6.6 miles will be converted to non motorized trail by foot, horseback, mechanized (non motorized) vehicles, including bikes. Significant problem is new illegally created routes.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 53% At the time of the RMP (2000) there were about 150-160 miles of roads. Now there are about 70 miles, due to ensuing road closures. Of the dirt roads, the plan species that about 74 miles will remain open, and about 85 miles will be closed

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 0%, but not really applicable

There are only 17 miles total, and these are really limited and critical access; they include 12 miles of Santa Rosa Mtn road and 5 miles of Saw Mill Road.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 N/A -- no plan yet There are about 1,800 miles in the NCA; many could be closed during the route designation process.

Steens CMPA 2005 1% Steens has about 700 miles of roads in the CMPA, and 2,328 miles in the planning area. Plan proposed to close 6 miles (see RMP p. 2-95) or about 1% of road network. This is in addition to the 104 miles to be closed per the legislation that created Steens Wilderness within Steens CMPA.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 N/A- no plan yet BLM currently recognizes 564 miles of "transportation features" in the unit.

Methodology Question What percentage of motorized travel routes designated for closure have been closed, restored, and/or enforced for closure within 3 years of the date the plan/directive calling for their closure was completed? (Not just closed on paper, but closed on the ground and taken out of use.)

Data Notes NOT SCORED as part of this indicator in this assessment; data was difficult to get, and possibly premature. Included here only for additional information.

Scoring Approach NOT SCORED as part of this indicator.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 N/A--no plan yet "It is premature at this point to identify roads that are closed,

restored, etc. This issue will be addressed in the land use plan."

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 N/A - no plan yet CANM has closed 2 miles in Risley Canyon (in 2003) to rock crawlers, to protect a riparian area, using signs and thru meetings with a local OHV club

Carrizo Plain 2005 7 miles--all The original 7 miles of closed roads have been closed on the ground

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 N/A - plan not yet final

El Malpais 2005 5%Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No #; mining roads

after 1992 RMPMajority of temporary mining roads identified for closure during the 1992 RMP have been closed, and some spur roads used to facilitate restoration in the Mt. Trumbull area.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Very few Have closed several routes into WSAs and most of those have remained closed

Gunnison Gorge 2005 3 miles Cosed a three mile stretch of road up to wilderness, have worked with user groups, thenm mapped with USGS to determine what to close in RMP. Will close routes/trails as much as can given limited budget. No actual closures yet, since RMP just in effect, but have started naming trails, preparing, and identifying which ones will be closed


Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 20% of the 45 miles Most of the problematic roads have been decommissioned successfully and skillfully by BLM, inclg the one in the virgin grove put in by Pacific Lumber

Las Cienegas 2005 25-35% Working with local groups, the unit has rehabbed 1/3-1/4 of the roads slated for closure. Unit rec'd a community cooperative grant for the last 2 years for road closure work, w/Sky Island Alliance; most of what can be closed the unit hopes to complete by the end of 2005

Red Rock Canyon 2005 No data Sounds like most of the dirt roads slated for closure have been closed since 2000.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Not ApplicableSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Not Applicable- no

plan yetSteens CMPA 2005 Not Applicable-no

ROD yetThe 110 miles in the CMPA leg have been closed with carsonite signs. No action can be taken on the 6 miles until after the ROD.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Not Applicable--no plan yet

Indicator Visual Resource Management (VRM)Indicator Background

Methodology Question What percent of the unit is designated as Class 1 and Class 2 VRM combined?Data Notes Data is generally taken from most recent RMP.Scoring Approach Linear equation: 100%=100; 1%=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 N/A- no plan yetCanyons of the Ancients 2005 N/A- no plan yetCarrizo Plain 2005 N/A- no plan yetCascade-Siskiyou 2005 100% 68.6 percent is Class I.El Malpais 2005 99% 40 percent is Class 1.Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 N/A- no plan yetGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 100% 68 percent is class I.Gunnison Gorge 2005 72.7% 42 percent is Class I.Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 63% 42 percent is Class I.Las Cienegas 2005 100% 0 percent is Class 1.Red Rock Canyon 2005 60% (?) hard to estimate total Class I and II combined; see map on

RMP p. 148.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 100%Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 N/A- no plan yet currently 7 percent of unit is class I and II combined (and 2

percent is just Class I), but this amount is likely to grow significantly the RMP is completed.

Steens CMPA 2005 64.1% 51.66 percent is Class I.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 N/A- no plan yet

Indicator Visitor InfrastructureIndicator Background


Methodology Question Does the RMP direct visitor centers and related or additional future infrastructure to locations outside the unit, and/or specifically into communities?

Data Notes Answers are based on language in RMPs; we used a strict definition of whether the RMP specifies that visitor centers, etc. should be outside the unit, as opposed to merely encouraging their location outside the unit.

Scoring Approach Yes=100, partial=50, no=1Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 TBD-no RMP yetCanyons of the Ancients 2005 TBD-no RMP yetCarrizo Plain 2005 TBD-no RMP yetCascade-Siskiyou 2005 Partial "Facilities could be developed within the surrounding

communities for use as visitor contact stations"El Malpais 2001 Partial RMP includes statement that there will be few facilities in this

predominantly natural enviroment, but p. 2-11 also suggests expanded infrastructure (note that this unit pre-existed NLCS, and had infrastructure long before the NLCS).

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 TBD-no RMP yetGrand Staircase-Escalante 1999 Yes See Ch2 p. 37 - visitor facilities are directed into gateway

communitiesGunnison Gorge 2004 NoHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2003 Partial RMP includes this statement: "recreation activities in the

Reserve must be supportable with minimal facilities"; a visitor center may be developed in Fortuna to facilitate southern access;" the RMP also encourages kiosks, and some restrooms

Las Cienegas 2003 NoRed Rock Canyon 2000 NA It's important to consider the context for this answer-- Red

Rock Canyon NCA is a high traffic NCA near Las Vegas, with significant existing infrastructure built before designation of the NLCS

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 Partial Mentions prioritizing facility location in already disturbed areas; the plan describes where info centers are, and notes some out of monument areas where info distribution could take place, but doesn't direct development there

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 TBD-no RMP yetSteens CMPA 2004 No TBD by a future planUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 TBD-no RMP yet

Methodology Question Does this unit have a visitor center, and if so, is it located onsite (inside the unit boundaries) or offsite (outside the unit)? Note the date built of any visitor center inside the unit.

Data Notes Data is presented for additional information only, not for scoring purposes.Scoring Approach This question was not scored.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No visitor center -

but has plans for a new 1

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Offsite Anasazi Heritage center--major facility off the highwayCarrizo Plain 2005 Offsite Goodwin Education Center onsite - opened in 1993

(constructed 1992)Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Offsite Very small facility on private land, managed by the Friends of

CSNM as a small self-service visitor information center, located on Highway 66

El Malpais 2005 Onsite One NPS VC, one BLM VC and one joint agency facility and various other information sites--northwest NM VC is multiagency, per the manager


Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Offsite VC for the AZ Strip, including GCPN in St. George UtahGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Offsite 4 centers off site and other information in field officesGunnison Gorge 2005 No visitor centerHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 No visitor centerKasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks 2005 No visitor centerLas Cienegas 2005 No visitor centerRed Rock Canyon 2005 Offsite One of the oldest centers. Is working on designs for a new

facilitySanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Offsite VC is just outside of the monument. Kiosk alsoSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 No visitor centerSteens CMPA 2005 No visitor centerUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Offsite Breaks VC is in Fort Benton. Also building a major new facility

to serve the Lewis and Clark Trail


Category Visitor Management and Law EnforcementIndicator Law Enforcement/Field PresenceIndicator Background This indicator uses the number of visitors per BLM law enforcement ranger, and the

number of acres per BLM law enforcement ranger, the data that is most readily available for each unit (data is mostly from BLM's Lawnet database and BLM's RMIS database). We considered trying to determine the additional field presence provided by outdoor recreation specialists, but such data is not as readily available via Lawnet, and such staff are not empowered to enforce rules/make arrests, etc. as rangers are. We also provide information related to rangers per miles of roads, but did not base the grade on that data.

Methodology Question Number of visitors per ranger (2004)Data Notes The available data for measuring field presence/ranger capacity is of poor quality. BLM

provided data on the number of law enforcement ranger staff; however, this data does not include the additional (though likely small) field presence provided by reciprocal agreements with other federal and county agencies or from other BLM staff (i.e. special agents, rec technicians, and interpretation specialists.) BLM's visitor data is also of varying/poor quality.

Scoring Approach <75000 visitors/ ranger=100; 75-125,000=75; 125-175000=50; 175-225000=25; >225000=1 (National Park Service averages 161,000 visitors per ranger: accordingly, we made this figure equal to a "C" for BLM)

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2004 77,113 The unit has 1 FTE ranger, and received approx. 77,113

visitors in FY04. There are also site stewards monitoring resources in the field. The BLM Phoenix F.O. has a total of 5 law enforcement offices; their priority is addressing the illegal immigrant problem for a majority of their time in the field, with an emphasis on the southern/border portion, which includes Sonoran Desert NM. The Yavapai County Sheriffs office responds to some calls from within AFNM.

Canyons of the Ancients 2004 No ranger employed Unit has 1 FTE for about 45,000 visitors annually, though that position has been vacant for significant time.

Carrizo Plain 2004 106,000 Per BLM's Lawnet database, there's 1 FTE ranger for Carrizo, but the manager notes that the ranger actually covers the monument and adjacent BLM lands. Accordingly, we considered this a .5FTE, and with 53,492 annual visitors, this is the equivalent of 1 FTE for 106,000 annual visitors.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2004 140,000 BLM's lawnet database reports 1 FTE. Manager reports there is an additional person in the field, but it is unclear whether this individual has enforcement authority.

El Malpais 2004 285,000 Unit has, officially, .5FTE ranger for 142,545 annual visitors - the equivalent of 1 FTE for 285,000 visitors. Note that this FTE ranger is based out of a district or field office, and monitors the unit about half his/her time. The unit may benefit, however, from some additional presence from park rangers (the unit has a NPS managed portion).

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2004 22,116 There are 3 BLM law enforcement rangers for the entire AZ Strip, which we equated to approximately 2 FTEs for GCP specifically. (This corresponds with lawnet information, which said 1FTE and 2 Parttime in GCP). With a total of 44,233 visitors annually, that's approximately 22,000 visitors per ranger.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2004 162,300 Unit has 4FTE law enforcement rangers, and about 649,000 visitors per year, for about 148,000 visitors per ranger.


Gunnison Gorge 2004 55,570 Unit as 1FTE ranger; visitor numbers reported are 55,570Headwaters Forest Reserve 2004 7,331 1FTE/7,331Las Cienegas 2004 10,921 1.5FTE/16,382Red Rock Canyon 2004 225,000-250,000 Lawnet reports 7 FTE for Red Rock and Sloan combined;

BLM individuals and RMP suggest 4 FTE are in Red Rock, with about 900,000-1million visitors per year.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 250,000 1 full time BLM ranger for 250,000 acres.Snake River Birds of Prey 2004 282,000 Half time law enforcement ranger, with 140,938 visitors

reported in prior year, equates to about 282,000 on a 1 FTE basis.

Steens CMPA 2004 412,000 .5FTE/206,300 visitorsUpper Missouri River Breaks 2004 217,256 1FTE/217,256

Methodology Question Estimated number of acres each ranger must patrolData Notes Same as aboveScoring Approach <25,000 acres/ranger=100; 26K-40K=75; 41K-55K=50; 56-90K=25; over 90K=1 (National

Park Service averages 47,000 visitors per acre: made this figure equal to a "C" and double this figure equal to an "F")

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 71,100 1/71,100 acresCanyons of the Ancients 2005 No ranger employed No ranger has been employed at CANM for the past 2 years.Carrizo Plain 2005 408,000 .5FTE (see additional information for the number of visitors

per ranger methodology question above) per 204,107 acres.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 52,947 1 FTE per 52,947El Malpais 2005 450,000 .5FTE/226,000Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 400,000 2/807,241 acresGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 467,000 4 FTE/1,870,800Gunnison Gorge 2005 57,725 1FTE/57,725Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 7,472 1/7,472 acresLas Cienegas 2005 28,000 1.5 FTE/42,000 acresRed Rock Canyon 2005 49,000 4 FTE/196,000Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 86,400 1FTE for 86,400 acres.Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 960,000 .5FTE/484873Steens CMPA 2005 950,000 0.5 FTE for 425,000Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 377,346 1/377,346 acres

Methodology Question Estimated number of miles of roads and routes per rangerData NotesScoring Approach NOT SCORED as part of this indicator, just additional information.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 1FTE/170 milesCanyons of the Ancients 2005 1 FTE/375Carrizo Plain 2005 .5FTE/300-500 milesCascade-Siskiyou 2005 1FTE/240 (if we

count just BLM roads)

El Malpais 2005 .5FTE/362 milesGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 2 FTE/1837 miles of

roadsGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 4 FTE/908 milesGunnison Gorge 2005 1 FTE/130 milesHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 1 FTE/40-45 miles

of roads


Las Cienegas 2005 1.5 FTE/142 milesRed Rock Canyon 2005 4 FTE/70 miles of

routesSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 1 FTE/17 milesSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 .5FTE/1,800 milesSteens CMPA 2005 700 (est.)Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 1 FTE/564 miles of

roads

Indicator Maps and PermitsIndicator Background This indicator relies on a subjective assessment of map quality, informed by criteria

including whether maps showed trailheads and entrances, demarcated the NLCS unit boundaries, included rules, regulations and other important information, and identified the unit as a part of the NLCS. We were able to consistently apply the criteria and believe the scores accurately reflect the usefulness of maps for visitors. (For excellent examples of high-quality maps, see the maps for Sonoran Desert and Ironwood Forest Monuments produced by BLM, see also the map produced by the Friends of the Breaks for the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.) Data on permitting information are of high quality since they were gatherd by primary research. Unfortunately, while the BLM websites for NLCS units were accessible in late 2004/early 2005 when we collected this data, since then the majority of the BLM website has not been publicly available. Accordingly, many of the maps and permit information that we obtained from the website is no longer available--the BLM should post these important visitor documents to other websites until the main BLM site can be made publically available again.

Methodology Question Does the public have access to an user-friendly map(s) that provides the necessary information to visit the unit responsibly and easily--i.e. show major entrances, trail heads, rules and regulations?

Data Notes We called BLM offices and asked for a map, or requested one on line. By necessity, scoring is somewhat subjective.

Scoring Approach 5 (superb map)=100; 4 (good map)=75; 3 (average map)=50; 2 (below average)=25; 1 (poor map)=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 3 Nice map, with good info on archaeological site protection.

However, information on rules and regulations on the map conflict with proclamation statement on ORV use.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 4 The map is small but most critical information is covered.Carrizo Plain 2005 3 Unit provides several items in response to a map request.

Between the various items sent, most critical elements are covered (except a mention of the NLCS).

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 2 CSNM's map offers easy identification of trails and entrances, but says nothing about rules and regulations or the NLCS.

El Malpais 2005 3 Nice map. Everything but a mention of NLCS.Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 2 Doesn't mention rules and regulations or the NLCS.Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 4 Nice map, clearly says where to get topographic

mapss/quads. Doesn't mention NLCS.Gunnison Gorge 2005 4 Nice map; doesn't mention NLCS.Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 2 Doesn't show rules or regulationss, doesn't mention NLCS but

covers the rest of the basic necessary elements. Small, very difficult to read.

Las Cienegas 2005 3


Red Rock Canyon 2005 No map provided No map provided.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 3 Several documents sent in response to a request. One fairly

vague map meets all criteria except there is no mention of the NLCS. One map is amazingly detailed, great for hiking, but has old National Resources Area name, instead of National Monument name on it.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 3 Nice visitor brochure; no mention of NLCS, though.Steens CMPA 2005 3 Multiple maps are available but none are very complete--one

is county-wide, some small, none with full unit name.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 1 Upon request, received maps largely about the river, nothing

comprehensive and complete about the monument.

Methodology Question Are you able to find information about permitting requirements for hunting and camping--specifically, what permits you need and how to get them, by phone and/or via website?

Data Notes Data was collected by calling the NLCS units; prior to the mid-2005 removal of public access to most BLM websites, permit data was readily accessible there.

Scoring Approach Yes = 100; no = 1 (if website inaccessible=75)Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 YesCanyons of the Ancients 2005 YesCarrizo Plain 2005 Yes Permit info on website (when it was up) was not easy to find.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 YesEl Malpais 2005 Yes Great website (when it was accessible).Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 YesGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 YesHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 YesLas Cienegas 2005 YesRed Rock Canyon 2005 YesSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 YesSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 YesSteens CMPA 2005 YesUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Yes

Indicator Visitor kiosks and signageIndicator Background

Methodology Question Does the unit have visitor kiosks with accurate information at most primary entrance points and trailheads to provide information to visitors?

Data Notes Data is based on information from managers and local nonprofits groups.Scoring Approach Yes=100; yes with inaccurate information=50; no=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Yes Has 3 kiosks - two on Bloody Basin Road, and one on Badger

Springs, both with maps and info about rules and regs-but information about the legality of ORV use is unclear and inaccurate (says vehicle travel is permitted on trails and routes while in actuality vehicle travel is actually only permitted on roads).

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes Per manager, there are information kiosks at Lowry, Sand Canyon Pueblo, Upper Sand Canyon Trail, and Lower Sand Canyon trail. These kiosks include "Leave No Trace" messages and some regulatory information (area closed to motorized vehicles, ARPA, etc).

Carrizo Plain 2005 Yes Has four kiosks.


Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 YesEl Malpais 2005 Yes There are quite a few on a main trail.Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 NoGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 YesHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Yes There is one kiosk at the trailhead for the main trail, Elk River

trail - with maps, info about sensitive species, the Reserve in general.

Las Cienegas 2005 YesRed Rock Canyon 2005 No-but should visitor

center count in this case?

Gave partial credit because visitors can't enter monument without paying and getting informaiton at the visitor center. Kiosks are therefore not as vital as they are at other units.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Yes There are kiosks near the visitor centerSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 YesSteens CMPA 2005 Yes Kiosks are near where the north and south loop roads start.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Yes At each "launch site" there is a kiosk with a map.

Methodology Question Do the entrances to the NLCS unit have signs with accurate information?Data Notes Data on presence of signs is partly derived from an internal BLM survey of managers

which dates from 2001; while we sought to update with more recent information, the data may not complete reflect the current status of signge.

Scoring Approach yes=100; yes with inaccurate information=50; no=1Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 yes, but… Entrances have signs, but not all information on them is

consistent with the monument proclamation re OHV use. However, the unit will not change before the plan is complete.

Canyons of the Ancients 2001 yes, some Per manager, there are large "no off road motorized travel" signs at several entry points.

Carrizo Plain 2001 yesCascade-Siskiyou 2001 noEl Malpais 2001 yesGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 yesGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 yes, most About 80% of entrances are signed.Gunnison Gorge 2001 yesHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2001 yesLas Cienegas 2001 yesRed Rock Canyon 2001 yesSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2001 yesSnake River Birds of Prey 2001 yes Has signs, but they do not outline rules and regulations.Steens CMPA 2001 yesUpper Missouri River Breaks 2001 yes

Methodology Question Does the unit have boundary signs installed (eg at access points to wilderness, WSAs, ACECs)?

Data Notes Derived from 2001 BLM survey; may be out of date.Scoring Approach Yes=100, no=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2001 YesCanyons of the Ancients 2001 YesCarrizo Plain 2001 NoCascade-Siskiyou 2001 NoEl Malpais 2001 YesGrand Canyon-Parashant 2001 No


Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Unknown/no dataGunnison Gorge 2001 noHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2001 YesLas Cienegas 2001 NoRed Rock Canyon 2001 NoSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2001 NoSnake River Birds of Prey 2001 YesSteens CMPA 2001 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2001 No

Indicator Education/Outreach CapacityIndicator Background This indicator speaks to GPRA goals regarding education, and to the fact that the

NLCS is intended, in part, to promote scientific study, education, learning opportunities. Further, outreach personnel and educators can help visitors develop an appreciation of these special places and help coordinate critically needed volunteers.

Methodology Question Is there a public education officer -- other than the manager -- tasked to this unit? (Please note FTE)

Data Notes Data was gathered from BLM staff.Scoring Approach Yes=100; no=1; partial ranges from 25 to 75 depending on level of availability to the

NLCS unit (as opposed to field office or other NLCS unit, etc.).Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Partial There is a Field Office staff person in public affairs, and some

of his/her time is spent in Agua Fria when needed.Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes Anasazi Heritage Center staff includes education, visitor

services, interpreter/exhibits specialist, supervisory interpretive specialist, staff assistant--all provide monument information and development monument products. 5 FTE area shared between monument and heritage center.

Carrizo Plain 2005 NoCascade-Siskiyou 2005 Yes--1 FTE 1 FTEEl Malpais 2005 Yes --1 FTE Two people have some responsibilities for public education,

but also other duties; manager verifies that this is effectively 1 FTE.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Yes GCNM has a FTE interpretive specialist through an NPS partnership, and a recreation specialist/planner who can do outreach, and part of the public affairs person in the FO who covers the GCNM, VCNM and other BLM lands.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Yes--1 FTE Does exhibit work and education outreach.Gunnison Gorge 2005 No Unit gets about one month per year of an environmental

education staff person who also must work on grazing permits.Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Yes Has an interpretive specialist who carries out public education

and outreach.Las Cienegas 2005 Partial Recreation outdoor planner works on public education; there

isn't someone on-site doing public education.Red Rock Canyon 2005 No Full time person.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Yes There's at least one FTE - possibly more - at the unit.Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 yes Full time education person.Steens CMPA 2005 Partial No one assigned just to steens; the district shares a public

affairs person.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Partial The unit has a "interpretive center director" but the former

"education coordinator" position (which was 1/2-3/4 time) was cut, so another staff member covers this work


Methodology Question Does the unit have a formal public education program plan, enviromental education program plan, or resource interpretive information program?

Data Notes We only considered formal education plans (apart from a mention or minor text in the RMP) to qualify as a "yes" for this question.

Scoring Approach Yes=100; no=1.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No Working on an education plan as part of the RMPCanyons of the Ancients 2005 No CANM does public education, but doesn't have a formal plan.Carrizo Plain 2005 NoCascade-Siskiyou 2005 No This will be the next project after the ROD on the RMPEl Malpais 2005 No No separate plan exists; though there is guidance in the

chapter in RMP p.2-11-2-16Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No Working on a plan as part of the RMP processGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No Currently developing a plan plus curricula for interpretive

centers, using a consultant.Gunnison Gorge 2005 No The unit has "living classroom sites" for scientific learning,

geology, interpretation, etc. and demand from schools--they have programs, but not a formal program plan or interpretation person, w/brochures and programs--$$ is an issue!

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 No Not a stand alone plan, but RMP contains detailed info about enviro ed/interpretation plans

Las Cienegas 2005 No Working on it now.Red Rock Canyon 2005 YesSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No No stand alone plan, though the RMP, Ch. 2 talks about

making public outreach a priority but is not a plan..Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 No Will as part of the RMPSteens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No


Category Natural Resource MonitoringIndicator Invasive Species Monitoring: scope and frequency of monitoring.Indicator Background Difficult indicator to measure with any certainty/confidence in the data. BLM staff

generally can only provide estimates.Methodology Question What percent of the unit has been monitored/inventoried for non-native/invasive/noxious

species over the past 10 years?Data Notes The approaches used to monitor for invasives--by different units and the same unit for

different areas--vary dramatically. Budgets are generally insufficient to do a formal survey of the entire unit--typically staff therefore rely on informal surveys when they are out in the field to priortize areas for formal surveys and treatment. This made it extremely difficult for staff to answer the question with confidence; results should be treated with caution.

Scoring Approach For formal inventory: Linear scale where each 1% inventoried=2 points (50%=100). For informal monitoring: Extensive informal montoring=50, some informal monitoring=25, no informal monitoring=1.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 About 1% formal

plus extensive informal monitoring

Agua Fria does a formal inventory on 50 to 60 acres per year. Do additional informal mornitoring to keep track of instances of invasives they see while doing other work.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 40-50% formal Approximate. Estimates provided by staff varied, some were lower. Inventory is ongoing based on priority areas, proposed projects, and funding. Access is limited due to terrain and land ownership patterns.

Carrizo Plain 2005 About half informal About 100,000 acres is a ballpark figure. There isn't a "formal inventory"

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Unknown Studies in progress are expected to complete the inventory within 2 yrs. Most surveys are in "diversity emphasis areas."

El Malpais 2005 Extensive informal monitoring

Unit estimates they've probably checked all 230,000 acres informally but provided no information on formal inventories.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 20% formal "Not every acre has been inventoried" - unit inventoried about 20% in 2004.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Very little formal, some informal

6000 acres from one survey; areas along roads. Asked two staff, neither could estimate total acres inventoried; one noted a formal survey along roads in 1997 (with a 15-20 foot buffer), but noted that BLM needs more surveys in the backcountry before they can assess the scope of the problem. Will survey along river soon. New ecologist is starting soon whose focus will be monitoring; they are trying to mobilize volunteers to help with monitoring.

Gunnison Gorge 2005 10% formal A comprehensive inventory is planned, "25% for 2006-2007"Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 100% formal Have mapped all the weeds on 7,500 acres - 3,000 acres

never disturbed, no infestation. Don't monitor every year now, but have enough knowledge to prioritize treatment. Have no invasive animals.

Las Cienegas 2005 Very little--approx 1% formal, some informal

Just starting

Red Rock Canyon 2005 Some informal Have interagency weed sentry program with Forest Service, monitor high priority areas.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No dataSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Extensive informal

monitoringHave mostly done informal monitoring

Steens CMPA 2005 Approx 25% formal Described as a conservative estimate.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Uncertain/no data Inventories conducted in 1999 and 2000. Goal was to

establish a baseline.


Methodology Question How often does the unit monitor for changes in extent and degree of invasive infestations?Data Notes This indicator/measure suffers from the same problem as the above.Scoring Approach Did not score

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Annually Inventory targeted area every yearCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Annually--target is

2,000 acresCANM monitors easily accessible areas yearly, constantly monitoring for change in priority species. For cheatgrass, which has been there 100 yrs, they are just trying to not make the problem worse. For potential new invaders, they're constantly monitoring in an effort to control early.

Carrizo Plain 2005 Some species regularly

There is no formal inventory, but a few species are tracked v. specifically, like salt cedar tamarisk and yellow star thistle. Reported with GPS coordinates.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Annually/constantlyEl Malpais 2005 Informally -

constantlyNo formal inventory, but daily informal inventory

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Annually Per BLM, the district maintains an active monitoring and containment program for nonnative invasive plant species. As non native, invasive plant species are found and identified, they are mapped and scheduled for treatment. They are treated as funds are available

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Actively monitor areas that they've treated

In small areas, which they've treated, they actively monitor. Elsewhere, no. They are looking to mobilize volunteers to help with monitoring and surveying

Gunnison Gorge 2005 AnnuallyHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 "Not every year" "We don't monitor every year, but we do have enough

knowledge from the 2001 baseline to prioritize treatment areas, and we go out and eradicate areas that are increasing" - in short, unit staff know severity and risk and address areas already identified and do manual removal using CA conservation corps

Las Cienegas 2005 Just starting formal inventory process

Just starting and looking to ramp up. So far, using remote sensing data to assess mesquite spread.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 AnnuallySanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data providedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Yearly Data are collected annually.Steens CMPA 2005 Annually Monitor regularly, in different areas each year. Monitor project

areas one year before and one year after treatment.Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 About every 5 years

Indicator Land Health/Upland areas monitoring: monitoring of condition and the use of these data for management.

Indicator Background This indicator primarily captures whether a unit is doing Rangeland Health Assessments (RHA), which are required for grazing allotments. RHA standards are set by states with federal guidance. However, the RHA approach and standards are considered by many to be weak. Land outside grazing allotments is not required to be assessed, but some some units have used ecological site inventories (ESI) to conduct assessments.


Methodology Question What percentage of the unit has been assessed for land health--and documented-- using a Rangeland Health Assessment, Ecological Sites Inventory or other approach within the last 10 years?

Data Notes This question was sometimes difficult to answer consistently for NLCS units because land in a grazing allotment is required to be assessed using certain guidelines, but not land outside grazing allotments. In addition, many units have assessments underway but have not yet completed analysis and documentation of findings. While the answers are generally accurate, they may not consistently refer to the same kind of monitoring and assessment.

Scoring Approach None=1; some=25; about half=50; most=75; all=100Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Most to all The monument has been doing the RHAs for grazing areas,

but no data were available. Reportedly, Agua Fria has done an Ecological Sites Inventory (that covers the entire unit) and 4 of the allotments have S&G evaluation completed or in progress. The remaining allotments wll be completed prior to the grazing leases expiring.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 All A rangeland health evaluation, ecological site inventory, and Riparian PFC evaluation were conducted monument-wide in Summer 2001

Carrizo Plain 2005 All studied but assessment not finished

A detailed assessment which is representative of the entire NM has been underway for 8 yrs & is currently being analyzed by statisticians. Not ready for public; unit will release this fall. Rangeland health assessments have also been done on some allotments.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 In progress, unknown

LHAs are part of the grazing study; not yet complete. Exact status is uncertain.

El Malpais 2005 All All pastures and allotments inside the NCA have been assessed. The unit was the first area in the BLM Field Office to be assessed due to a Guardians of the Forest lawsuit. Were assessed 4-6 yrs ago.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 About half Currently assessing all grazing allotments under the Evaluation of Rangeland Health Process. Approx 22% of the monument has been completed, 61 percent is in various stages of the process. Arizona Rangeland Health standards 1 and 3 addresses uplands quality.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Most 2001 and 2004 and ongoing Rangeland Health EIS covered about 80% of the monument; RHA data has not been incorporated into an EIS

Gunnison Gorge 2005 All LHA released in 2001Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Roughly half Unit did vegetation site assessment on 4,400 acres that were

previously harvested when they acquired headwaters b/c they want to restore those areas. Have also done some old growth assessments on the other 3,100 acres in old growth condition - but are focusing on disturbed areas

Las Cienegas 2005 Most 40K acres through ESI (1995) and RHA in last few yearsRed Rock Canyon 2005 None All grazing allotments closed, no RHA done because there are

no staff to do it. However, they have done some basic monitoring which indicates that there is significant wild horse and burro damage that needs to be addressed.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Unknown There are no allotments in the NM, so no RHAs are done. They do ecological health inventories in conjunciton with a professor at UC riverside.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 Most About 3/4 of the NCA is covered in the Sunnyside S&G which will be completed this fiscal year --covers the 14 grazing allotments north of the Snake, and will be available to the public


Steens CMPA 2005 Some Steens is close to finishing RHAs on all grazing land. Steens has about 400,000 acres, w/170,000 in wilderness and another 100,000 not grazed. They have done ESIs on other areas, but the data are old or otherwise not useful

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Most UMRB is doing Environmental Assessments for allotments as part of watershed assessments, but not assembling into a Rangeland Health Assessment for the overall unit.

Methodology Question Have the assessments of inventories been written up into a summary assessment for the entire NLCS unit available to the public?

Data Notes The answers to this question again were problematic. We hoped to ascertain whether land health assessments are summarized and readily available for public use.

Scoring Approach Yes=100; no=1.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 No No summarized assessment is available, just EAs for each

allotmentCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes In 2003, data were used to determine if monument allotments

were meeting the BLM standards for public land health in CO. Table of Standard determinations was provided.

Carrizo Plain 2005 NoCascade-Siskiyou 2005 NoEl Malpais 2005 No The individual rangeland health assessments for pastures and

allotments were compiled into ecological assessments at the grazing allotment level, but never consolidated into an overall unit assessment.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No The RHAs have not been completed, nor summarized, for the Monument. See ch. 3 of the DEIS for more overall general info on the status of the uplands in the monument

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No Needs to be used for grazing EIS first (Rangeland Health EIS")Gunnison Gorge 2005 YesHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 NoLas Cienegas 2005 Yes In 2003Red Rock Canyon 2005 No Have only done individual EasSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No information

receivedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Not yet (assessment

not yet completed)S&G will be available to public when complete

Steens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No The individual EAs are currently available; sounds like the

compiled assessment will be part of the forthcoming RMP?

Indicator Wildlife and Plant Monitoring: monitoring of special status species and compilation/synthesis of data.

Indicator Background Data is very scarce/weak. While BLM biologists and their state counterparts conduct species monitoring, the data are not compiled or analyzed for easy interpretation. Very few units were able to send us data.

Methodology Question How often do you monitor special status species? What results have you found. Please provide trend data if possible.

Data Notes Not relevant--no data available.Scoring Approach Not scored due to insufficient data.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Data not

consistently available


Indicator Riparian Area MonitoringIndicator Background Riparian Area Monitoring relies on the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) measure.

While PFC is useful because data ia available for virtually all riparian areas, both the BLM and external audiences criticize its use as a measure of riparian health, as te: PFC does not mean that a stream has been fully restored, meet state water quality standards or is in pristine ecological condition, it is simply a BLM management indicator that stream conditions are not getting worse and are on a long-term recovery trend.

Methodology Question What percentage of the waterways (miles of rivers and streams) in the NLCS unit have been assessed for Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) during the past 10 years?

Data Notes These data are generally of good quality (although many people question the usefulness of the PFC measure itself)--riparian areas monitoring is required and data are usually available.

Scoring Approach Linear scale: 1%=1, 100%=100.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 100% Data up-to-dateCanyons of the Ancients 2005 12% of all streams,

100 of perennial12% of total miles of stream if you count all streams--perennial and emphemeral/intermittant. Much higher (100 percent) if just perennial. Also, 21% of the known number of seeps and springs were assessed.

Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevant Carrizo has no riparian areasCascade-Siskiyou 2005 Approximately 33% Unit says have done approximately 1/3 of monument, but

couldn't provide us with any data. Also say they are doing an additional 25 miles will be surveyed this year. Their surveys are much more intensive than just PFC, looking at cobble sizes, stream width, etc. Unit is also repeating one section done 20 yrs ago using both PFC and the old methodology to assess trends

El Malpais 2005 100%--virtually no riparian areas

Unit has virtually no riparian areas. They assessed the few that exist while doing the Rangeland Health Assessments

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 75% "The monument has no rivers, creeks, streams or lakes, it does have numerous springs and associated riparian areas. The riparian areas are assessed during the RH eval process to determine if they are meeting standard 2 for rangeland health (pfc)"

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 100% This is part of the rangeland health EIS and cannot be released pending final discussions

Gunnison Gorge 2005 100% Land Health Assessment released in 2001.Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 100% 0% assessed, but gathered data for all steam miles. Relevant

scientists (botanist, fish biologist, hydrologist) have assessed all the channels, but have not sat down together to come to formal consensus on all areas. (Too busy with RMP and road closure/ restoration). Plan to do over the next year.

Las Cienegas 2005 100% Try to do 2 to 3 miles every year so it works out to all streams every 5 years.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 75% Unit assesses about 3/4, not getting into tiny seeps, etc.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data providedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 100% PFC data was collected for the Snake River as part of the

NCA RMP process. Virtually all sections of the Snake and tributaries are in PFC. This data will be available in the affected environment section of the draft RMP in Fall 2005

Steens CMPA 2005 0% data out of date Steens data are out of date and not compiled.


Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 100% Breaks did riparian assessments as part of rangeland assessments for watersheds, but the watersheds straddle the unit borders and have not been completed for the entire NLCS unit.

Methodology Question Have the results of the PFC assessment been drawn up into an overall assessment with summay data available to the public?

Data Notes Data are considered to be generally reliable.Scoring Approach Yes=100; no=1.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Yes Provided an excel spreadsheet with all data summarizedCanyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes Data is summarized by individual spring/seep and stream

reach. Info is publicly available.Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevant Data will be summarized.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 No The RMP says (under proposed actions) that a PFC survey

would be completed to provide a landscape wide assessment of riparian areas throughout the CSNM, and this assessment would be utilized to prioritize riparian areas for restoration activities. Also, manager affirmed that this is part of the livestock study - hired a person to work on it this summer, still assessing.

El Malpais 2005 Yes The results for cebolla canyon spring have been drawn up into an assessment.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 No The RH assessments have not been completed, nor summarized, for the monument. See ch 3 of the DEIS for more info on the overall general status of riparian areas in the monument

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 YesGunnison Gorge 2005 Yes As part of 2001 Land Health AssessmentHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 No Haven't assessed streams yetLas Cienegas 2005 Yes, for EISRed Rock Canyon 2005 Yes, in most recent

RMPRed Rock staff claims the results are In most recent RMP

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data providedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 YesSteens CMPA 2005 NoUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No The completed riparian assessments still reside in the

individual watershed assessments; unclear if they will be compiled for the forthcoming RMP.

Indicator Water Quality MonitoringIndicator Background

Methodology Question What percentage of the NLCS unit's streams and rivers have been assessed for 303(d) compliance during the past 5 years?

Data Notes Data is of mixed quality, and varying age. We used EPAs 2002 database of “water quality limited river segments,” and data available in individual units' RMP/EIS.

Scoring Approach Linear scale: 100%=100; 1%=1Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 25% Agua Fria River in 2 places as part of NAWQA, one place for

303d. Interview with Agua Fria staff indicates they haven't had anyone/had the staff capacity at BLM to do this for perhaps a decade.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 0 CANM has limited data on water quality in Yellow Jacket Canyon from grab samples from 1983-2001

Carrizo Plain 2005 Not applicable Unit only has intermittent streams.


Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 35%El Malpais 2005 Not applicable The unit doesn't have streams or rivers requiring assessment,

per the managerGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Not Applicable No waterways requiring 303 monitoring. The unit has no

rivers/lakes/creeks. The monument does have approx 130 springs or seeps and 275 livestock ponds. Most of the springs or seeps have been developed for livestock or wildlife waters, and most of the water rights are held by ranchers. The monument staff is, however, beta testing a spring inventory protocol (NPS level 1 spring inventory). Contingent upon future funding, all springs will be inventoried, using this protocol, in the monument.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 60% Unit has a few 303 waterways that they are currently analyzing, and due to natural erosion they may be moved into another category. Unit monitors waterways at least 2-3 times a year

Gunnison Gorge 2005 75-100%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 75-100% Received conflicting data from BLM staff and 303 compliance

database. assessed for 303 compliance; we erred on the side of BLM input, which was "100%"

Las Cienegas 2005 100%Red Rock Canyon 2005 N/A Only intermittent streams.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data providedSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 100%Steens CMPA 2005 50% There are 800 miles of perennial rivers in the planning areaUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 90% Unit has some monitoring gauges, and monitor annually if not

in PFC/at risk (every two years) otherwise less often


Category Ecosystem and Species HealthIndicator FragmentationIndicator Background Fragmentation of ecosystems into small patches can reduce habitat for wildlife species

that rely on large contiguous ecosystems and can affect quality of visitor experience. We've included several possible measures of fragmentation, given the importance of this issue to the NLCS, which is rich in wildlife and meant to remain "remote and rugged" for visitors. However, please note that the fragmentation analysis uses BLM roads and routes data and treats all roads and routes equally. This approach makes less sense for some species than others. The data are meant to be used as a broad indicator of fragmentation; an assessment of how certain species may be affected or how a small track affects the landscape and species in comparison to a larger, paved road would need to be done separately.

Methodology Question Based on a GIS analysis, what percentage of the NLCS unit's land area is outside of roads plus a 1/4 mile buffer area?

Data Notes Results should be used with caution because NLCS units do notconsistently classify roads and routes, and the data may not reflectcurrent on-the-ground road networks.

Scoring Approach We did not score this or other indicators in this section, due to inadequate data for most units as a whole (though we were able to do a fragmentation analysis for roads in all units assessed. If scored, one scoring system might be: <50=1, 50-55=25, 55-60=40, 60-65=60, 65-70=80, >70=100

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 46%Canyons of the Ancients 2005 52%Carrizo Plain 2005 45%Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 16.5%El Malpais 2005 54%Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 60%Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 83%Gunnison Gorge 2005 46%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 24%Las Cienegas 2005 27%Red Rock Canyon 2005 78%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 77%Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 36%Steens CMPA 2005 60%Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 59%


Methodology Question Based on a GIS analysis, what percentage of the NLCS unit's land area is further than 1/2 mile from a road?

Data Notes Landscape fragemetnation was analyzed using BLM GIS roads data; those results should be used with caution. Although we used the most recent BLM data set which a unit could provide, but NLCS units do not consistently classify roads and routes, and the data may not reflectcurrent on-the-ground road networks.

Scoring Approach See above note. Also, a possible scoring system might be: <30%=1, 30-35=10, 35-40=25, 40-45=50, 45-50=75, >50=100

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 17%Canyons of the Ancients 2005 26%Carrizo Plain 2005 20%Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 4%El Malpais 2005 28%Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 36%Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 69%Gunnison Gorge 2005 27%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 2%Las Cienegas 2005 4.5%Red Rock Canyon 2005 67%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 63%Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 18%Steens CMPA 2005 35%Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 32%

Methodology Question What percentage of the NLCS unit's land area is further than 1 mile from a road?Data Notes Results should be used with caution because NLCS units do not

consistently classify roads and routes, and the data may not reflectcurrent on-the-ground road networks.

Scoring Approach See above note. Also, a possible scoring system might be: <10%=1, 10-15=25, 15-20=50, 20-25=75, >25=100

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 0.7%Canyons of the Ancients 2005 7%Carrizo Plain 2005 5%Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 0%El Malpais 2005 6%Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 13%Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 47%Gunnison Gorge 2005 9%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 0%Las Cienegas 2005 .01%Red Rock Canyon 2005 53%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 44%Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 9.5%Steens CMPA 2005 10%Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 11%


Methodology Question What percentage of the NLCS unit's land area is further than 2 miles from a road?Data Notes Results should be used with caution because NLCS units do not

consistently classify roads and routes, and the data may not reflectcurrent on-the-ground road networks.

Scoring Approach See above note. Also, a possible scoring system might be: <5%=1, 5-7=25, 7-10=50, 10-15=75, >15=100

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 0%Canyons of the Ancients 2005 1%Carrizo Plain 2005 0%Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 0%El Malpais 2005 0.5%Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 3%Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 22%Gunnison Gorge 2005 0%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 0%Las Cienegas 2005 0%Red Rock Canyon 2005 32%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 20%Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 3%Steens CMPA 2005 1%Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 2%

Indicator Rangeland and Upland HealthIndicator Background

Methodology Question What percent of non-riparian land in the unit is in compliance with standards or deemed ecologically healthy?

Data Notes Often, data was not available/could not be released, making it impossible to score/grade.Scoring Approach We did not score/grade, due to minimal avaialbe data. However, a possible scoring

system for comparable data might be as simple as a linear scale: 100%=100, 1%=1Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Can't assess; data

in individual assesments

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 5,287 acres, or 3% "The Monument has a total of 28 allotments. An analysis of rangeland health concluded that a total of 26 allotments have not achieved one or more of the five Standards as a result of livestock grazing. This means that only 5,287 acres or less than 3 percent of the land area in the Monument is achieving all five Standards." Please note: this is a more stringent interpretation of meeting the standard than other NLCS units applied.

Carrizo Plain 2005 Study not completeCascade-Siskiyou 2005 Study not completeEl Malpais 2005 Can't Assess-No

summary data available

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Unknown. 22 percent have been assessed, but don’t know how many in compliance with standards.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Data can't be released

Needs to go through grazing EIS first

Gunnison Gorge 2005 93 percent


Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 No survey availableLas Cienegas 2005 98 percent "All uplands" - only a few pieces of riparian they are working

on fixingRed Rock Canyon 2005 No inventory doneSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Survey not yet

availableSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 UnknownSteens CMPA 2005 No current data

availableUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Can't assess. No

summarized data available.

Indicator Extent of InvasivesIndicator Background Invasive species are a problem in many units, suggesting that BLM's efforts or ability to

control the problem is widely relevant across the System, and possibly a good measure of their capacity to manage for ecosystem health. However, the data we could gather/presented for this indicator are generally not comparable, or are at best general estimates, leading to our decision not to score in this assessment. Units reported on different kinds of invasives; some units reported only on invasives considered "noxious" while others reported on any non-native species whether they are considered noxious or relatively benign.

Methodology Question How many acres of land are impacted by non-native/invasive/noxious species in the NLCS unit?

Data Notes The data are generally rough estimates, as complete inventories of most units are rare.Scoring Approach No scores were assigned due to data inconsistencies.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Can't give

meaningful estimateData too sparse

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 3,500 acres or 2.1% All are B List species on the CO Department of Ags noxious weed list. In addition, there are several hundred acres of salt cedar which have not been inventoried, nor have they inventoried C List species such as common millein, downy brome, field bindweed, and jointed goatgrass

Carrizo Plain 2005 100,000 acres of 50%

Ballpark figure

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 1,000 acres or 1-2% This is documented acreageEl Malpais 2005 1,200 acres or 0.5% New Mexico is relatively weed free. .0001 is affected with

invasive species; salt cedar in one canyon - about 1,200 acresGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Unknown "Because not every acre has been inventoried, it is not

possible to say how many contain invasives"Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 6000 or 0.3% per

1997 roadside survey.

Gunnison Gorge 2005 25,000 acres of 50% Predominately cheatgrass, Allyssum, Russian KnapweedHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 1,000 acres or 13-

15%About 1,000 acres affected, but a wider area of infestation exists that is not an immediate threat to old growth forest

Las Cienegas 2005 10,000 acres or 25% Rough estimateRed Rock Canyon 2005 100 (acres or

percent?)Red broom and cheatgrass are widespread but no method for treating. Other species need to be treated

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data provided.Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 484,000 (100%) "Virtually all" but he emphasizes the difference between

noxious and invasives - the invasives are on most of the land


Steens CMPA 2005 30,000 acres, (3% based on GIS info from 80s)

100 acres by noxious weeks, another 2,000 by juniper. Ballpark figures

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 18,000 acres of 4.8% "But this is an incomplete figure"

Methodology Question How many acres of invasive species were treated last year?Data Notes Treatment data also tend to be estimates.Scoring Approach No scores were assigned due to data inconsistencies.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 40 acres Treat about 40 acres every yearCanyons of the Ancients 2005 100 acresCarrizo Plain 2005 100 acres Usually 50-150 acres a year; during drought the unit treats

tamarisk and other perennials.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 100-950 Not sure of estimate. Have received contrasting info - "very

little treatment applied due to snow" vs. 950 acres for canadian thistle. RMP (p. 142) says 425 acres of noxious weeds were treated in riparian areas in 2003, and this is likely to be an annual average.

El Malpais 2005 10 acres two years ago est

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Less than 20 acres Due to drought conditins, fewer acres (20) were treated last year than previous years. Trend data is not available, however we continue to inventory for nonnative specis and monitor areas treated in the past

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 Roughly 200 acres could call Amber Hughes at 435-644-4362--she is the weed specialist. Trend data is extremely limited at this time.

Gunnison Gorge 2005 50 Only treat noxious weedsHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 500 Manager wrote "200 acres treated/retreated over the last two

years" - major problems are english ivy, scotch broom, cotone aster, pampas grass

Las Cienegas 2005 No treatments yetRed Rock Canyon 2005 10 acresSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 2-3 percent of total

areaArea treated for tamarisk problems, specifically

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 600 acres For noxious weeds. Treat invasives on an as needed basis, usually along with rehab projects

Steens CMPA 2005 15.5 Total in CMPAUpper Missouri River Breaks 2005 1675 acres treated Biological controls, herbicides, and manual removal

Indicator Riparian HealthIndicator Background

Methodology Question Based on the PFC assessments, what percent of riparian miles are considered to be in properly functioning condition?

Data Notes Data are from BLM staff, and are generally informed estimates/fairly reliable.Scoring Approach We did not score, but if we had, a possible approach could have been a linear scale:

1%=1 to 100%=100.Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 38.1Canyons of the Ancients 2005 7.3 % of streams

assesed were in PFCOf 11 springs assessed, only 3 met the criteria for PFC

Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevant--no riparian areas

Carrizo has no riparian areas

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 No summary data


El Malpais 2005 Can't assess, no summary data available.

1.5 miles of cebolla canyon stream

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 7 out of 12 miles or waterways

"7 out of 12" - the 12 includes the 3 not yet rated, so breakdown is 7 PFC, 3 not rated, and 2 at risk

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 49.4%--see notes See riparian summary in RMP. 49.4 % of assessing streams and flowing water (lotic reaches) and 34.4 % of lentic sites (springs, seeps, and pools)

Gunnison Gorge 2005 94.4% LHA from 2001Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Can't report,

assessment not yet complete

Data gathered, but not yet assessed

Las Cienegas 2005 61 percent Unit assessed 19 miles of streams in 2000. 61% were in PFC, 39% FAR. That may have changed because not all have been updated. Some assessments were done this year, and at least one segment improved. None are "not functioning"

Red Rock Canyon 0Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 none - zero unit (BLM part) does not monitor water qualitySnake River Birds of Prey 2005 95 percentSteens CMPA 2005 Can't assess, no

current data available

Steens data are out of date and not compiled. - tho RMP p.3-11 says that PCF assessment between 1997-2000 had about 75% of miles in PFC, 13% FAR upward, 9% FAR/nonapparent, 2% FAR/downward, and 1 % nonfunctioning

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Can't assess, no summary data available?

Methodology Question What percent are considered to be functioning at risk (FAR)?Data NotesScoring Approach Not scored

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 59.8Canyons of the Ancients 2005 61.6% of streams

assessed24 miles rated FAR with a downward trend, 1 mile rated FAR with an upward trend, and 18 miles FAR with trend not apparent, and 2 miles FAR with trend static

Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevant--no riparian areas

Carrizo has no riparian areas

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 No summary dataEl Malpais 2005 No summary data Can't assess, no summary dataGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 2 of 12 milesGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 44% about 44 % of streams and flowing water, and 48.4% of

springs, seeps, poolsGunnison Gorge 2005 6.3%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Can't report,



Las Cienegas 2005 39 percentSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 unknownSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 5% John SullivanSteens CMPA 2005 Can't assess, no


Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 can't assess, no summary data available?


Methodology Question What percent are considered to be "not functioning" (NR)?Data NotesScoring Approach Not scored

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 2.1%Canyons of the Ancients 2005 24.6%Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevant--no

riparian areasCarrizo has no riparian areas

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 Can't report, assessment not yet complete

El Malpais 2005 Can't report, assessment not yet complete

Can't assess, no summary data

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 0%Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 6.7% 6.7% of streams and flowing water, and 17.2 % of springs,

seeps, and poolsGunnison Gorge 2005 0%Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Can't report,



Las Cienegas 2005 0%Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 0 Can't report,


Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 0%Steens CMPA 2005 Can't assess, no


Steens data are out of date and not compiled. As of 1997-2000 data, 1% were nonfunctioning.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Can't assess, no summary data available?

Indicator Water QualityIndicator Background

Methodology Question How many miles of rivers and other waterways are there in the NLCS unit?Data NotesScoring Approach Not scored (and not intended to be scored). Just included as context information.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 50Canyons of the Ancients 2005 676 miles of streamsCarrizo Plain 2005 Some streams and

seepsCascade-Siskiyou 2005 No data. asked Andy Kerry, 7/05Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 0 no rivers/creeks/lakes in the monumentGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No dataGunnison Gorge 2005 84.1Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 19 miles Including main stems and forks.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No data can the unit estimate?Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 85Steens CMPA 2005 371 miles of

perennial, and 1,337 of all

1,337 of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral in the CMPA


Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No data

Methodology Question Do the waterways (at least the portion monitored) in the NLCS unit meet meet the 303(d) standard?

Data Notes Data are mostly fromthe EPA’s 2002 database of “water quality limited river segments,”varies in quality based on the rigor of state monitoring programs. In addition, the data reported by units and those in the EPA database often conflicted.

Scoring Approach Did not score, but a possible methodology would be: All meet standard=100; most meet=75; half meet=50; less than half meet=25; none meet=0

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Yes EPA data from Quinn shows that they are meeting the 303d

standard, but Agua Fria has not been able to assess water qualtiy over the last 10 years due to elimination of the hydrologist position.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 No areas impaired, although are localized problems

the state of CO has not identified any water body in the monument as officially impaired according to section 303d of the Clean Water Act. Although none of the streams are in an impaired status, there are still localized water quality concerns - McElmo Creek influenced by irrigation return flows and the saline Mancos Shale

Carrizo Plain 2005 Not relevantCascade-Siskiyou 2005 Some do but many

don't9 streams fail 303 standard due to elevated temps.

El Malpais 2005 Not assessedGrand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Not Relevant No rivers/creeks/lakes in the monumentGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No streams meeting Has a few waterways that they are currently analyzing, that

might be moved into another categoryGunnison Gorge 2005 "No" per EPA data,

89% according to LHA

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 Partial S. Fork Elks and tributaries (14 miles) are impaired for sediment, Salmon Creek is not listed as impaired

Las Cienegas 2005 No E. coli issuesRed Rock Canyon 2005 Not assessedSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 No dataSnake River Birds of Prey 2005 Almost all Only one small section of Sinker Creek is a 303d Listed

stream - and that the rest meet State water quality standards--this small stretch of a creek is less than a mile in length, and is the only stretch in the NCA on a 303d list for temperature for reasons outside their control, as most of the stream is on private land

Steens CMPA 2005 50% 50% of streams are water quality limited according to RMP--see p.2-13 of RMP (notes 303(d) list).

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 Unknown due to conflicting data

maybe about 60% meet?

Indicator Special Status SpeciesIndicator Background Based on calls to BLM, there was minimal trend data available for most special status

species in NLCS units. Accordingly, this indicator is not scored.Methodology Question What are the estimated numbers and trends for special status species found in the unit?Data NotesScoring Approach

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_info


Agua Fria 2005 Almost no units were able to provide species data.


Category Cultural Resource ManagementIndicator Total Cultural InventoriesIndicator Background

Methodology Question What percent of the NLCS unit has ever been inventoried for cultural resources? (Any kind of inventory, Section 106 and Section 110).

Data Notes Data is from interviews with BLM staff, and from RMPs/EIS for the units. Often, total inventory is an estimate.

Scoring Approach Over 25=100; 20-24=80; 15-19=60; 10-14=40; 5-9=20; <5=1. (The US Forest Service has inventoried 20% of total acreage; we set this figure at a score of 80). Given the density of cultural resources in the NLCS, one would expect the BLM to at least match Forest Service performance on this indicator.

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 6% 4,200-5,000 acres of the total inventory (about 60-70 percent)

is Section 110 inventory.Canyons of the Ancients 2005 18% About 30,000 acresCarrizo Plain 2005 12% About 23,000 acres of the federal land in the Monument has

been inventoried.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 14%El Malpais 2005 4% 10,152 acres inventoried, almost all Class III inventory.Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 3% Probably 3-5 percent for the whole Arizona Strip was best

estimate.Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 3% 80,000 acres has been comprehensively surveyed of the

monument's 1.9 million acresGunnison Gorge 2005 13% Since 2001, unit has completed 2,000 acres of Section 110

inventory; as part of planning process BLM conducted two major surveys under sec 110 - one to reeval all known sites, and then as part of an inventory of all existing roads and trails.

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 100% BLM had Humboldt State University carry out a Section 110 inventory of the Reserve in 2000 under a cooperative agreement - see p.2-10 of the RMP - HSU inventoried all 7,400 acres

Las Cienegas 2005 4-5% Estimated 2,000 acres of inventory; usually inventory on a project-specific basis, usually Sec 106, sites tend to be concentrated in specific areas - most work conducted around Cienegas Creek.

Red Rock Canyon 2005 8-9% This is a rough estimate of total inventory. Per the RMP/EIS (2000), In the north part of the NCA, about 17% has been surveyed for cultural resources. In the south, "less comprehensive inventories" (no estimate available in RMP). Accordingly best estimate assumed that several thousand acres at most have been inventoried in the south, in addition to the lands in the north, for about 8-9% total in the NCA.

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 11% About 17,850 acres inventoried on federal land (BLM and FS); "very little" inventory per BLM's RMP (p.3-31); about 7% of the total acreage managed by the BLM and the FS

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 20% Like most of the data in this section, 20 percent is an estimate. Unit has completed a fair amount of Class I and II inventory in some areas. Block surveys for fire rehab over a big area Lots of section 106 projects.

Steens CMPA 2004 7% 7 percent is an estimate of the cultural inventory across the whole Steens/Andrew planning area, per the 2004 proposed RMP.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 2% Less than 5,000 acres inventoried. Various inventories occurred in the past to different standards, and they didn't calculate acreage, so this is a guess - and 5,000 acres represents an estimate of extensively inventoried areas.


Methodology Question How many identified/recorded cultural/historic sites are there in the unit?Data Notes Data is from interviews with BLM staff, and from RMPs/EIS for the units. This data is

provided merely as "additional information" and is not factored in the score for any units/indicators.

Scoring Approach NOT SCORED/GRADED--JUST PROVIDED AS ADDITIONAL INFOUnit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 400 est. Estimated to be a fraction of what's out thereCanyons of the Ancients 2005 6,000 Fraction of what's estimated to be in the monument (20-

30,000 estimated)Carrizo Plain 2005 201 201 is the number of sites formally recorded.Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 400 sites for whole

area (not just CS)Very little unit level data are available.

El Malpais 2005 571Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 895 4,000 sites recorded for the entire AZ Strip.Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 4,000Gunnison Gorge 2005 No data providedHeadwaters Forest Reserve 2005 7 historic sites and 1

prehistoricMany sites have contributing properties, some covering hundreds of acres

Las Cienegas 2005 200 Conservative estimate. Includes 2 historic sites that date to the 1870s. In some places, site density is high

Red Rock Canyon 2005 326+ See p. 154 of RMP for more information.Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 315 See RMP p. 3-31 and 3-32 for more information.Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 1,180 recorded Majority have not been formally determined eligible for NRHP

listing - eval of eligibility often not done unless direct impact to resources. Some are significant, some aren't. One area is an ACEC for archeaology and covers 27,000 acres with 200 cultural sites eligible for NR listing

Steens CMPA 2004 163 in the CMPA and 495 in the AMU

This is the total number that have been recorded since the late 1970s, per the 2004 RMP, p. 3-36-37

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 159 115 known prehistoric sites and 44 historic period sites. There are more sites that are unknown and more sites on private property within the monument boundaries.

Indicator Proactive Annual InventoriesIndicator Background

Methodology Question How many acres of Section 110 cultural resource inventories is the unit conducting per year? (We used average acres per year over the past 3-4 years).

Data Notes Data was largely collected from BLM staff via interview, and is generally "best estimates."Scoring Approach >2000=100; 1500-1999=75; 1000-1499=50; 500-999=25; <500=1 (We were unable to find

an ideal benchmark for this data, such as a clear goal used by other agencies for proactive, Section 110 inventories, and thus used the average of the NLCS units we examined annual progress over past few years (1855 acres/yr) and set this equal to a high "B".

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2004 600 acres avg. Agua Fria surveyed about 1300 acres under section 110 in

2002, then another 400-500 since 2002.Canyons of the Ancients 2004 2,000 acres avg. 0 acres last year, but about 9,800 acres over the past five

years. After a big fire in 2000, inventoried 500 acres. Total for last 5 years - 10,300 acres (981 plus sites recorded through this 10,300 acre inventory)

Carrizo Plain 2004 10,000 acres avg. Last year inventoried 4% of the 250,000 acres in the monument; over the past couple years, 8% of the 250K acres. Since it was designated, 10-10.5% of the 250,000.


Cascade-Siskiyou 2004 0 CSNM has not done any section 110 since 1997El Malpais 2004 0 Last 110 survey was in 1994. RMP goal is to inventory 2.5 %

of the unit for class III cultural resources, see RMP p. 2-95Grand Canyon-Parashant 2004 800 acres/avg. About 800 acres a year for each of the last three years.

Difficult to do more, b/c majority of time goes into 106.Grand Staircase-Escalante 2004 9000 avg. Did 1,760 acres in 04.Gunnison Gorge 2004 500 acres avg/yr.

est.2,000 acres of 110 over the past 4 yrs as part of the RMP process

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2004 Not relevant--see add'tl info

100 percent done for the RMP in 2003 w/local university.

Las Cienegas 2004 100 acres 0 last year, but about 500 acres total over the past five years. This may be a conservative estimate; there's also been an inventory along the the creek; a ASU PHd candidate did Class III inventory.

Red Rock Canyon 2004 No data providedSanta Rosa and San Jacinto 2004 50 acres/avg/yr.Snake River Birds of Prey 2004 75 per year Perhaps about 200 acres total over the past three years.

Proactive program is just getting started.Steens CMPA 2004 Very little/almost

none (0%)Almost all of the cultural resource inventories in the Planning Area have been for project specific activities, rather than initiated by the cultural resource program, and thus are not necessarily in the areas of highest priority

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2004 1,000 acres "Bank inventory" done last year through a challenge cost share with a private archaologist, 50/50 match. Identified new sites.

Indicator BLM Cultural Staff CapacityIndicator Background

Methodology Question What percent of time does the NLCS unit receive from a cultural resource specialist?Data Notes Data was gathered via interviews with BLM staff, and reflects estimated time spent in the

unit.Scoring Approach <0.25 FTE=1, otherwise linear scale where 25%=25 and 100%=100

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 0.75FTE Archaeologist spends about 75 percent of her time on the

monument.Canyons of the Ancients 2005 1 FTE CANM has a full-time archaeologist on staff, and the manager

spends about 10-15 percent of her time on cultural resources, too.

Carrizo Plain 2005 0.4FTECascade-Siskiyou 2005 .6-.7FTEEl Malpais 2005 .16 FTE (2/12th of

an FTE)Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 .3 FTEGrand Staircase-Escalante 2005 1 FTE One right now, normally have two, the other just retired; BLM

is in process of trying to hire. For the current arch, not all his time is just on the Monument, and 75-80 percent of his time is Section 106.

Gunnison Gorge 2005 .33 FTE 2 months of her time; she concentrates on stabilization of sites, and one seasonal for one month a yr that gets funding through OHV grant and does OHV inventorying.

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 .17 FTE (2/12ths of an FTE)

Cultural sites also get some attention from park rangers who are out every day, and from interpretation staff - one is a park ranger, and one is an interpretive specialist, who are out giving people tours and include a cultural report in their tours.

Las Cienegas 2005 .25 FTE There is a half-time exhibit specialist who works half-time on empire ranch and half on san pedro riparian NCA

Red Rock Canyon 2005


Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 .4 FTESnake River Birds of Prey 2005 .2 FTESteens CMPA 2005 .5-.6 FTE There is a temporary archaeologist who spends 2 months a

year on steens, and an archaeologist at the district office spends about 1/3 to 1/2 his time in the unit.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 .10-.20FTE

Indicator Site Stewardship ProgramIndicator Background

Methodology Question Does the unit have formal partnerships with volunteers to monitor sites through a program or friends group?

Data Notes Information was largely collected from BLM staff.Scoring Approach Yes=100; no=1

Unit_name Year Answer Additional_infoAgua Fria 2005 Yes Site stewards throught AZ site steward program. They

monitor about 20 sites and have about 25 site stewards. They cover the rest of the field office as well. Some sites visited several times a month, and others, more remote, once or twice per year.

Canyons of the Ancients 2005 Yes Canyons of the Ancients has a good site stewardship program that monitors properties. The site stewards monitored and assessed 34 properties in 2003.

Carrizo Plain 2005 Yes Carrizo had a site stewardship program for 12-13 years. Consistently 18-20 active volunteers.

Cascade-Siskiyou 2005 NoEl Malpais 2005 Yes Are currently establishing a partnership specifically for El

Malpais. Volunteers monitor for evidence of vandalism, but cover whole field office area, not just in El Malpais NCA.

Grand Canyon-Parashant 2005 Yes Arizona Site Stewarship program (see Agua Fria above) also monitoring at Grand Canyon-Parashant. They monitor 133 arch sites for all of the strip - GCPNM 38 sites, VCNM - 11, rest in the middle area. The program found some 6 incidents of damage. Each monitor visits their site about 4 times a year.

Grand Staircase-Escalante 2005 No A site stewardship program is on the list of things to do, there's local interest in a site stewardship program.

Gunnison Gorge 2005 No A site stewardship program may not be necessary because Gunnison Gorge does not have very many signficant, high-quality cultural/historic sites.

Headwaters Forest Reserve 2005 NoLas Cienegas 2005 Yes Empire Ranch Foundation plays a major role in the

preservation of Empire Ranch.Red Rock Canyon 2005 Yes Friends of Red Rock Canyon has a cultural resource team

that documents, photographs, monitors sites in the NCA. See their website. (Sept. 2005)

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 2005 Yes (small) 1.5 people monitor 6 sites, but they're having a second training course, sponsored with Forest Service Bureau of Reclamation, and Agua Caliente, soon.

Snake River Birds of Prey 2005 No, other than National Guard

The National Guard trains on 138,000 acres of the NCA, and manages cultural resources under requirements of their MOU, but we did not count this as a volunteer driven site stewardship program.

Steens CMPA 2005 No No site stewardship program for Steens specifically. There is a site stewardship program for the larger area, and are starting one for the district. Unit does, however, monitor about 4-5 sites on Steens to check for impacts.

Upper Missouri River Breaks 2005 No


Documents

State of the National Landscape Conservation System: A ...pdf.wri.org/wilderness_society_nlcs_data_appendix.pdf · El Malpais 2005 Part-time Kathy Walter jointly manages this unit