2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERN 2.pdf · BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS,...

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002

2-1

2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives This chapter identifies a range of alternatives to address the purpose and need described in Chapter One. A summary list of the major issues is given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 – Major Issues

Issue Section How Issue Is Addressed In This Plan A. Public Land Health 2.1 Adopt standards for public land health and guidelines for grazing

management DesertTortoise

2.2 Establish Desert Tortoise Wildlife Management Areas and adopt management strategies within DWMA boundaries: �� Designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern on all public lands

within DWMAs �� Assign MUC L to all public lands within DWMAs �� Change desert tortoise habitat to all Category I inside and all Category III

outside of DWMAs �� Change grazing management to recover the desert tortoise �� Change burro management to recover the desert tortoise

Amargosa Vole

2.3 Designate an ACEC and adopt management strategies to facilitate recovery of the Amargosa vole and enhance other Amargosa watershed values

T&E Plants 2.4 Establish the Carson Slough ACEC and adopt management strategies to recover Threatened & Endangered plants

B. Threatened and Endangered and Special Status Species Protection:

Bats 2.5 Modify the MUC of the Silurian Hills to conserve BLM-sensitive bats 2.6 Complete plan maintenance actions to conform the CDCA plan to the

California Desert Protection Act 2.7 Establish MUC for 475,000 acres of released WSA

C. Issues resulting from the California Desert Protection Act

2.8 Evaluate the remnant Greenwater Canyon ACEC (820 acres) D. Organized Competitive Vehicle Events

2.9 Address organized competitive vehicle events outside of open areas to protect sensitive resources and address fragmented race course: �� Delete or modify the Barstow to Las Vegas race course �� Modify organized competitive vehicle speed events criteria

E. Motor Vehicle Access: Routes of Travel Designation

2.10 Address routes of travel designation for the NEMO planning area: �� Designate routes of travel in desert tortoise DWMAs �� Identify the process and priorities for route designation in the rest of the

planning area �� Evaluate MUC guidelines for consistency in determining routes to be

included in the routes of travel network Change the Tecopa Landfill MUC L to U making it available for disposal. E. Bureau policy on

elimination of landfills on public lands

2.11

Change the Shoshone Landfill MUC L to U making it available for disposal.

F. Wild and Scenic Rivers 2.12 Identify portions of the Amargosa River, Cottonwood Creek and Surprise Canyon Creek as eligible for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and determine classification of eligible segments �� Outline the process / additional steps for development of W&SR

recommendations to Congress.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.1 Standards and Guidelines

2-2

2.1 Standards and Guidelines BLM’s grazing regulations at Part 43 CFR 4180 require that State Directors, in consultation with Resource Advisory Councils, develop standards of rangeland health and guidelines for grazing management. The grazing regulations require that standards be in conformance with the “Fundamentals of Rangeland Health” (BLM policy developed in 1993) and that the standards and guidelines address each of the “guiding principles” as defined in the regulations (see Appendix B). Standards and guidelines are to be incorporated into BLM’s land use plans to improve ecological conditions. Improving ecological conditions is based upon attainment and maintenance of basic fundamentals for healthy systems. Standards and guidelines are defined as follows:

�� A “standard” is an expression of the levels of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy, sustainable rangelands.

�� “Guidelines” for grazing management are the types of grazing management methods and practices determined to be appropriate to ensure that the standards can be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting the standard.

Plan Alternatives and ScopeBy this planning effort, public land health standards will be developed and applied to resources and uses on the public (BLM) lands within the Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert planning area and grazing management guidelines will be developed and applied to grazing leases. The policy includes a set of “National Fallback” standards and guidelines that apply only to livestock grazing in the Current Management/No Action Alternative. For all other alternatives, common sets of “regional” standards and guidelines have been developed. Regional standards apply to all BLM lands and programs, while regional guidelines still only apply to livestock grazing. Bureau staff, in consultation with the California Desert District Advisory Council, have developed the regional standards and guidelines which satisfies the requirements of BLM’s strategic plan, complies with the fundamentals of rangeland health, and addresses each of the guiding principles as required by the grazing regulations. Their development of guidelines for grazing management also addresses each of the guiding principles. At this time there are no plans to develop guidelines for other activities.

The purpose and nature of this policy is similar to the “Vital Signs” program established for the National Park Service. While the definition and adoption of standards and guidelines apply specifically and only to BLM lands, the spirit of the policy is reflected throughout the planning area in developing the strategic approach to managing species and habitats.

Required Actions on Grazing Leases Standards and grazing management guidelines apply to grazing related portions of activity plans, terms and conditions of permits, leases, and other authorizations, and range improvements such as vegetation manipulation, fence construction and development of water. For lands leased for grazing, the regulations require the authorized officer to “take appropriate action” prior to the beginning of the next grazing season when standards are not achieved or guidelines are not complied with, and livestock grazing has been determined to be a significant factor in the failure to achieve the standard or comply with the guideline.

Application of Standards in Land Use Planning Standards of Public Land Health will be applied to all resources and uses of the public lands. Both sets of standards would be applied in the following manner:

�� Public Land Health Standards: A single set of public land health standards will be applied desert-wide and to all resources and uses. Standards have their foundation in the physical and biological laws of nature. These laws are consistent regardless of the resource or use.


2-3

�� Assessment of Public Land Health: The health of public lands and resources will be assessed using the standards as the measurement of desired function.

�� Assessment Scale: The health of the public lands will be assessed on a landscape /watershed scale. While it may be useful and necessary to examine certain environmental components at various scales, it is intended that there be just one measure or conclusion of overall public land health, and that this conclusion be made at a landscape or watershed scale.

�� Health Determination: Since standards are a statement of the goals for physical or biological function, these determinations will be based strictly on the results of resource assessments and independent of the uses on the public lands.

�� Resource Objectives: Resource management objectives are decisions made in consideration of resource values and capabilities and use needs through land use and activity plans. Public land health determinations will be used to determine if resource management objectives are being met. In some cases, particularly where intensive land uses are allowed, resource management objectives could be met, while the public land health determination may indicate non-conformance with the standards.

�� Causal Factors: When public land health determinations indicate that resource management objectives are not being met, a determination of cause(s) will be made.

�� Action/Adaptive Management: Where resource conditions and functions do not conform to resource management objectives, appropriate action, including changes to land use or activity plans, will be initiated using existing regulatory authorities for each authorized activity. In the case of livestock grazing, the regulations require that the authorized Officer “take appropriate action” prior to the beginning of the next grazing season when standards are not achieved or guidelines not complied with and livestock grazing has been determined to be a significant factor in the failure to achieve the standard or comply with the guideline.

�� Monitoring/ Adaptive Management: An assessment of public land health will define the status and location of environmental conditions. This knowledge will help determine if management changes are warranted and if needed, track progress towards health improvement.

Application of Standards in NEPA Analyses Analyses of resources and issues guided by standards will help NEPA1 review of projects. Consideration of standards should improve identification and analyses of:

�� Relevant resource conditions and ecosystem functions

�� Actions, in terms of effects on resources and ecosystem functions

�� The relationship of biological and physical resources and functions

�� The most important resources and functions

�� Project design and mitigation

�� Cumulative effects

�� Short-term and long-term effects

�� Project monitoring

1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1972


2-4

Alternative 1 – No Action Standards of Rangeland Health in the NEMO Planning Area Continue to utilize existing National Fallback Standards for grazing allotments. Fallback standards were developed to implement 43 CFR, Subpart 4180 grazing regulations. The fallback standards for rangeland health are:

1. Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform.

2. Riparian-wetland areas function properly.

3. Stream-channel morphology (including but not limited to gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness, and sinuosity) and functions are appropriate for the climate and landform.

4. Healthy, productive and diverse populations of native species exist and are maintained.

Rangeland Guidelines for Grazing Uses in the NEMO Planning Area Utilize existing National Fallback Guidelines for grazing management. Fallback guidelines were developed in conjunction with standards to implement 43 CFR Subpart 4180. Guidelines identify 15 grazing management practices to achieve the fallback standards.

1. Management practices maintain or promote adequate amounts of ground cover to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture, and stabilize soils.

2. Management practices maintain or promote soil conditions that support permeability rates that are appropriate to climate and soils.

3. Management practices maintain or promote sufficient residual vegetation to maintain, improve, or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge and stream bank stability.

4. Management practices maintain or promote stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions that are appropriate to climate and landform.

5. Management practices maintain or promote the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil organisms, plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow.

6. Management practices maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions necessary to sustain native populations and communities.

7. Desired species are being allowed to complete seed dissemination in one out of every three years (Management actions will promote the opportunity for seedling establishment when climatic conditions and space allow).

8. Conservation of federally threatened or endangered, proposed, Category I and II candidates, and other special status species is promoted by restoration and maintenance of their habitats.

9. Native species are emphasized in the support of ecological functions.

10. Non-native plant species are used only in those situations in which native species are not readily available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving properly functioning conditions and biological health.


2-5

11. Periods of rest from disturbance or livestock use during times of critical plant growth or regrowth are provided when needed to achieve healthy, properly functioning conditions (The timing and duration of use periods shall be determined by the authorized officer).

12. Continuous, season-long livestock use is allowed to occur only when it has been demonstrated to be consistent with achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems.

13. Facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas wherever they conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland function.

14. Development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites.

15. Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland is allowed to occur only if reliable estimates of production have been made. The BLM has established an identified level of annual growth or residue that is appropriate to remain on site at the end of the grazing season, and adverse effects on perennial species are avoided.

2.1.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan Standards of Public Land Health in the NEMO Planning Area Adopt a set of regional standards of public land health in the NEMO planning area. These regional standards would replace the fallback standards currently in effect. Regional standards of public land health address all resources and uses on all public lands and cover four environmental components to be applied in the context of public land management.

Soils: Soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate to soil type, climate, geology, landform, and past uses. Adequate infiltration and permeability of soils allow accumulation of soil moisture necessary for optimal plant growth and vigor, and provide a stable watershed. As indicated by:

�� Canopy and ground cover are appropriate for the site

�� Diversity of plant species with a variety of root depths

�� Litter and soil organic matter are present at suitable sites

�� Microbiotic soil crusts are maintained and in place

�� Evidence of wind or water erosion does not exceed natural rates for the site

�� Hydrology and nutrient factors maintained by soil permeability and water infiltration appropriate for precipitation

Native Species: Healthy, productive and diverse habitats for native species, including special status species (Federal T&E, federally proposed, federal candidates, BLM- sensitive, or California State T&E, and unusual plant assemblages) are maintained in places of natural occurrence. As indicated by:

�� Photosynthetic and ecological processes continue at levels suitable for the site, season, and precipitation regimes

�� Plant vigor, nutrient cycles, and energy flows are maintaining desirable plants and ensuring reproduction and recruitment


2-6

�� Plant communities are producing adequate limits

�� Age class distribution of plants and animals are sufficient to overcome mortality fluctuations

�� Distribution and cover of plant species and their habitats allow for reproduction and recovery from localized catastrophic events

�� Alien and noxious plants and wildlife do not exceed acceptable levels

�� Appropriate natural disturbances are evident

�� Populations and their habitats are sufficiently distributed to prevent the need for listing special status species

Riparian/Wetland and Stream Function: Wetland systems associated with subsurface, running, and standing water function properly and have the ability to recover from major disturbance (Refer to Appendix J). Hydrologic conditions are maintained, as indicated by:

�� Vegetative cover adequately protects banks and dissipates energy during peak water flows

�� Dominant vegetation is an appropriate mixture of vigorous riparian species

�� Recruitment of preferred species is adequate to sustain the plant community

�� Stable soils store and release water slowly

�� Plant species present indicate soil moisture characteristics are being maintained

�� There is minimal cover of shallow-rooted invader species, and they are not displacing deep-rooted native species

�� Shading of stream courses and water sources for riparian dependent species is maintained

�� Stream is in balance with water and sediment being supplied by the watershed

�� Stream channel size and meander is appropriate for soils, geology, and landscape

�� Adequate organic matter (litter and standing dead plant material) is present to protect the site and to replenish soil nutrients through decomposition


2-7

Water Quality: Surface and groundwater complies with objectives of the Clean Water Act and otherapplicable water quality requirements, including meeting the California State standards2 as indicated by:

�� Conformance to the applicable requirements for chemical constituents, water temperature, nutrient loads, fecal coliform, turbidity, suspended sediment, and dissolved oxygen.

�� Achievement of the standards for riparian, wetlands, and water bodies.

�� Aquatic organisms and plants (e.g., macro invertebrates, fish, algae, and plants) indicate support for beneficial uses.

�� Monitoring results or other data that show water quality is meeting the standards.

There are many management practices already in place or being proposed in NEMO that address water quality directly and also through soil-water-vegetation relationships (e.g., Amargosa River ACEC and Wild and Scenic River actions).

2 This standard was negotiated between the California State Water Resources Control Board and the BLM, and includes the following components:

Management Objective: For water bodies, the primary objective is to maintain the existing quality and beneficial uses of water protect them where they are threatened (and livestock grazing activities are a contributing factor), and restore them where they are currently degraded (and livestock grazing activities are a contributing factor). This objective is of even higher priority in the following situations: (a) where beneficial uses of water bodies have been listed as threatened or impaired pursuant to Section 303d of the Federal Clean Water Act; (b) where aquatic habitat is present or has been present for Federal threatened or endangered, candidate, and other special status species dependent on water resources; and, (c) in designated water resource sensitive areas such as riparian and wetland areas.

Meaning that BLM will, pursuant to the Clean Water Act:

�� Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of waters flowing across or underlying the lands it administers

�� Protect the integrity of these waters where it is currently threatened

�� Insofar as is feasible, restore the integrity of these waters where it is currently impaired

�� Not contribute to pollution, and take action to remedy any pollution resulting from its actions that violates applicable California (including the requirements identified in Regional Basin Plans), or tribal water quality standards or other applicable water quality requirements (e.g., requirements adopted by SWRCB or RWQCB in California, or US EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act). Where action related to grazing management is required, such action will be taken as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year (in accordance with 43 CFR 4180.1)

�� Be consistent with the non-degradation policies identified in the Regional Basin Plans in California

�� Work with the State (including the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) and U.S. EPA to establish appropriate beneficial uses for public waters, establish appropriate numeric targets for 303(d)-listed water bodies, and implement the applicable requirements to ensure that water quality on public lands meets the criteria for the designated beneficial uses of the water

�� Develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved by the SWRCB to protect and restore the quality and beneficial uses of water, and monitor both implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs. These BMPs will be developed in full consultation, coordination, and cooperation with permittees and other interests


2-8

Rangeland Guidelines For Grazing Uses in the NEMO Planning AreaThe Proposed Plan would adopt a set of regional guidelines in the NEMO planning area for grazing management. These regional guidelines would replace the current fallback guidelines, identify grazing management practices to achieve the regional standards and address the principles of grazing management practices as identified in 43 CFR 4180.2.

1. Facilities shall be located away from riparian-wetland areas wherever they conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland functions.

2. The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated resources shall be designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites.

3. Grazing activities at an existing range improvement that conflict with achieving proper functioning conditions (PFC) and resource objectives for wetland systems (lentic, lotic, springs, addits, and seeps) shall be modified so PFC and resource objectives can be met. Incompatible projects shall be modified to bring them into compliance. The BLM will consult, cooperate, and coordinate with affected interests and livestock producer(s) prior to authorizing modification of existing projects and initiation of new projects. New range improvement facilities shall be located away from wetland systems if they conflict with achieving or maintaining PFC and resource objectives.

4. Supplements shall be located a sufficient distance away from wetland systems so they do not conflict with maintaining riparian wetland functions.

5. Management practices shall maintain or promote perennial stream channel morphology and functions (e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness, and sinuosity) appropriate to climate and landform.

6. Grazing management practices shall meet state and federal water quality standards. Impoundments (stock ponds) and developed springs having a sustained discharge yield of less than 200 gallons per day to surface or groundwater are excepted from meeting state drinking water standards per SWRCB Resolution Number 88-63.

7. In the California Desert Conservation Area, all wildfires in grazing allotments shall be suppressed. However, to restore degraded habitats infested with invasive weeds (e.g., tamarisk) prescribed burning may be utilized as a tool for restoration. Prescribed burns may be used as a management tool where fire is a natural part of the regime.

8. In years when weather results in extraordinary conditions, seed germination, seedling establishment and native plant species growth shall be allowed by modifying grazing use.

9. Grazing on designated ephemeral rangeland shall be allowed only if reliable estimates of production have been made, an identified level of annual growth or residue to remain on site at the end of the grazing season has been established, and adverse effects on perennial species are avoided.

10. During prolonged drought, range stocking shall be reduced to achieve resource objectives and/or prescribed perennial forage utilization. On yearlong allotments, livestock utilization of key perennial species shall be checked prior to spring growing season (about March 1, when the Palmer Severity Drought Index/Standardized Precipitation Index indicates dry conditions are expected to continue.


2-9

11. Through the assessment process or monitoring efforts, the extent of invasive and/or exotic plants and animals shall be recorded and evaluated for future control measures. Methods and prescriptions shall be implemented, and an evaluation will be completed to ascertain future control measures for undesirable species.

12. Restore, maintain or enhance habitats to assist in the recovery of federal listed threatened and endangered species. Restore, maintain or enhance habitats of special status species including federally proposed and candidate, BLM sensitive, or California State T&E to promote their conservation.

13. Grazing activities shall support biological diversity across the landscape, and native species and microbiotic crusts are to be maintained.

14. Experimental and research efforts shall be encouraged to provide answers to grazing management and related resource concerns through cooperative and collaborative efforts with outside agencies, groups, and entities.

15. Livestock utilization limits of key perennial species would be as shown in Table 2.2 for the various range types

Table 2.2 – Proposed Plan Grazing Guidelines for Range Types

Percent Use of Key Perennial Species Range Type Poor-Fair Range Condition or

Growing Season3Good-Excellent Range Condition or

Dormant Season3

Mojave Sonoran Desert scrub 25 40 Salt Desert shrub land 25 35 Semi-desert grass and shrub land 30 40 Sagebrush grassland 30 40 Mountain shrub land 30 40

Monitoring of grazing allotment conditions will be routinely assessed to determine if Public Land Health Standards are being met. In those areas not meeting one or more standards, monitoring processes will be established, if they do not presently exist, to monitor indicators of health until the standard or resource objective has been attained. Livestock trail networks, grazed plants, livestock facilities, and animal waste are expected impacts in all grazing allotments, and will be considered during analysis of the assessment and monitoring process. Activity plans for other uses or resources that overlap an allotment could have prescribed resource objectives that may constrain grazing activities, e.g., ACEC. In areas where a standard(s) has not been met, changes to grazing management would be required to meet standards, and will be reviewed annually. During the final phase of the assessment process, the Range Determination includes the schedule for the next assessment of resource conditions. To attain standards and resource objectives, the best science will be used to determine appropriate grazing management actions. Cooperative funding and assistance from other agencies, individuals, and groups will be sought to collect monitoring data for indicators of each standard.

3 Rangeland in good condition or grazed during the dormant season can withstand the higher utilization level. Rangelands in poor condition or grazed during the active growth season would receive lower use levels.


2-10

Table 2.3 summarizes the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Plan for standards and guidelines for public land health. The No Action Alternative would use National Fallback standards while the Proposed Plan would adopt regional standards for public land health.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

1 St

anda

rds a

nd G

uide

lines

2-11

Tab

le 2

.3 –

Sta

ndar

ds a

nd G

uide

lines

: Sum

mar

y C

ompa

riso

n of

Alte

rnat

ives

Stan

dard

s and

Gui

delin

es

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n C

ontin

ue to

util

ize

exis

ting

natio

nal

fallb

ack

stan

dard

s of r

ange

land

he

alth

for g

razi

ng a

llotm

ents

st

anda

rds i

nclu

ding

the

follo

win

g fo

ur e

nviro

nmen

tal c

ompo

nent

s:

��

Upl

and

soils

exh

ibit

infil

tratio

n an

d pe

rmea

bilit

y ra

tes t

hat a

re a

ppro

pria

te to

so

il ty

pe, c

limat

e, a

nd

land

form

.

��

Rip

aria

n-w

etla

nd a

reas

are

in

prop

er fu

nctio

ning

con

ditio

n.

��

Hea

lthy,

pro

duct

ive

and

dive

rse

popu

latio

ns o

f nat

ive

spec

ies e

xist

and

are

m

aint

aine

d.

��

Stre

am-c

hann

el m

orph

olog

y (in

clud

ing

but n

ot li

mite

d to

gr

adie

nt, w

idth

/dep

th ra

tio,

chan

nel r

ough

ness

, and

si

nuos

ity) a

nd fu

nctio

ns a

re

appr

opria

te fo

r the

clim

ate

and

land

form

.

Ado

pt a

set o

f reg

iona

l sta

ndar

ds o

f pub

lic la

nd h

ealth

for a

ll pu

blic

land

s in

the

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

.

Soils

: Soi

ls e

xhib

it in

filtra

tion

and

perm

eabi

lity

rate

s tha

t are

app

ropr

iate

to so

il ty

pe, c

limat

e, g

eolo

gy, l

andf

orm

, and

pas

t use

s. A

dequ

ate

infil

tratio

n an

d pe

rmea

bilit

y of

soils

allo

w a

ccum

ulat

ion

of so

il m

oist

ure

nece

ssar

y fo

r opt

imal

pla

nt g

row

th a

nd v

igor

, and

pro

vide

a st

able

w

ater

shed

, as i

ndic

ated

by:

��

Can

opy

and

grou

nd c

over

are

app

ropr

iate

for t

he si

te

��

Ther

e is

div

ersi

ty o

f pla

nt sp

ecie

s with

a v

arie

ty o

f roo

t dep

ths

��

Litte

r and

soil

orga

nic

mat

ter a

re p

rese

nt a

t sui

tabl

e si

tes

��

Mic

ro b

iotic

soil

crus

ts ar

e m

aint

aine

d an

d in

pla

ce

��

Evid

ence

of w

ind

or w

ater

ero

sion

doe

s not

exc

eed

natu

ral r

ates

for t

he si

te

��

Soil

perm

eabi

lity,

nut

rient

cyc

ling

and

wat

er in

filtra

tion

are

appr

opria

te fo

r the

soil

type

R

ipar

ian/

Wet

land

and

Str

eam

Fun

ctio

n: W

etla

nd sy

stem

s ass

ocia

ted

with

subs

urfa

ce, r

unni

ng, a

nd st

andi

ng w

ater

func

tion

prop

erly

an

d ha

ve th

e ab

ility

to re

cove

r fro

m m

ajor

dis

turb

ance

s. H

ydro

logi

c co

nditi

ons a

re m

aint

aine

d, a

s ind

icat

ed b

y:

��

Veg

etat

ive

cove

r ade

quat

ely

prot

ects

ban

ks a

nd d

issi

pate

s ene

rgy

durin

g pe

ak w

ater

flow

s ��

Dom

inan

t veg

etat

ion

is a

n ap

prop

riate

mix

ture

of v

igor

ous r

ipar

ian

spec

ies

��

Rec

ruitm

ent o

f pre

ferr

ed sp

ecie

s is a

dequ

ate

to su

stai

n th

e pl

ant c

omm

unity

��

Stab

le so

ils st

ore

and

rele

ase

wat

er sl

owly

��

Plan

t spe

cies

pre

sent

indi

cate

soil

moi

stur

e ch

arac

teris

tics a

re b

eing

mai

ntai

ned

��

Ther

e is

min

imal

cov

er o

f sha

llow

-roo

ted

inva

der s

peci

es, a

nd th

ey a

re n

ot d

ispla

cing

dee

p-ro

oted

nat

ive

spec

ies.

��

Shad

ing

of st

ream

cou

rses

and

wat

er so

urce

s sup

port

ripar

ian

verte

brat

es a

nd in

verte

brat

es;

��

Stre

am is

in b

alan

ce w

ith w

ater

and

sedi

men

t bei

ng su

pplie

d by

the

wat

ersh

ed;

��

Stre

am c

hann

el si

ze a

nd m

eand

er is

app

ropr

iate

for s

oils

geo

logy

, and

land

scap

e; a

nd

��

Ade

quat

e or

gani

c m

atte

r (lit

ter a

nd st

andi

ng d

ead

plan

t mat

eria

l) is

pre

sent

to p

rote

ct th

e si

te a

nd to

repl

enis

h so

il nu

trien

ts th

roug

h de

com

h de

com

posi

tion.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

1 St

anda

rds a

nd G

uide

lines

2-12

Stan

dard

s and

Gui

delin

es

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Nat

ive

Spec

ies:

Hea

lthy,

pro

duct

ive

and

dive

rse

habi

tats

for n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s inc

ludi

ng sp

ecia

l sta

tus s

peci

es (F

eder

al T

&E,

fede

rally

pr

opos

ed, f

eder

al c

andi

date

s, B

LM se

nsiti

ve, o

r Cal

iforn

ia S

tate

T&

E, a

nd u

nusu

al p

lant

ass

embl

ages

) are

mai

ntai

ned

in p

lace

s of n

atur

al

occu

rren

ce, a

s ind

icat

ed b

y:

��

Phot

osyn

thet

ic a

nd e

colo

gica

l pro

cess

es c

ontin

ue a

t lev

els s

uita

ble

for t

he si

te, s

easo

n, a

nd p

reci

pita

tion

regi

mes

��

Plan

t vig

or n

utrie

nt c

ycle

s and

ene

rgy

flow

s are

mai

ntai

ning

des

irabl

e pl

ants

and

ens

urin

g re

prod

uctio

n an

d re

crui

tmen

t ��

Plan

t com

mun

ities

are

pro

duci

ng li

tter w

ithin

acc

epta

ble

limits

��

Age

cla

ss d

istri

butio

n of

pla

nts a

nd a

nim

als a

re su

ffici

ent t

o ov

erco

me

mor

talit

y flu

ctua

tions

��

Dis

tribu

tion

and

cove

r of p

lant

spec

ies a

nd th

eir h

abita

ts a

llow

for r

epro

duct

ion

and

reco

very

from

loca

lized

cat

astro

phic

eve

nts

��

Alie

n an

d no

xiou

s pla

nts a

nd w

ildlif

e do

not

exc

eed

acce

ptab

le le

vels

��

App

ropr

iate

nat

ural

dis

turb

ance

s are

evi

dent

��

Popu

latio

ns a

nd th

eir h

abita

ts a

re su

ffici

ently

dis

tribu

ted

to p

reve

nt th

e ne

ed fo

r lis

ting

spec

ial s

tatu

s spe

cies

W

ater

Qua

lity:

Wat

er q

ualit

y w

ill m

eet s

tate

and

sede

ral s

tand

ards

incl

udin

g ex

empt

ions

allo

wab

le b

y la

w. A

s ind

icat

ed b

y:

��

Dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n le

vels

, aqu

atic

org

anis

ms a

nd p

lant

s (e.

g., m

acro

inve

rtebr

ates

, fis

h an

d al

gae)

indi

cate

supp

ort o

f ben

efic

ial u

ses;

��

Che

mic

al c

onst

ituen

ts, w

ater

tem

pera

ture

, nut

rient

load

s, fe

cal c

olifo

rm a

nd tu

rbid

ity a

re a

ppro

pria

te fo

r the

site

or s

ourc

e; a

nd

��

Bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

will

be

impl

emen

ted.

Gra

zing

Man

agem

ent G

uide

lines

A

ltern

ativ

e 1

– N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

U

se e

xist

ing

natio

nal f

allb

ack

guid

elin

es fo

r gra

zing

man

agem

ent

that

iden

tify

15 g

razi

ng p

ract

ices

to

achi

eve

the

fallb

ack

stan

dard

s, lis

ted

iin S

ectio

n 2.

1.1

of th

is

Cha

pter

.

Ado

pt a

set o

f reg

iona

l gui

delin

es in

the

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

for g

razi

ng m

anag

emen

t. T

hese

regi

onal

gui

delin

es w

ould

repl

ace

the

curr

ent f

allb

ack

guid

elin

es a

nd in

clud

e ad

ditio

nal t

ools

(e.g

. wild

fire)

and

a m

ore

com

preh

ensi

ve se

t of g

uide

lines

. Th

ey w

ould

iden

tify

graz

ing

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

to a

chie

ve th

e re

gion

al st

anda

rds a

nd w

ould

add

ress

the

prin

cipl

es o

f gra

zing

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

as

iden

tifie

d in

43

CFR

418

0.2.

. Th

e gu

idel

ines

are

list

ed in

Sec

tion

2.1.

2 of

this

Cha

pter

.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.2 Desert Tortoise Conservation and Recovery

2-13

2.2 Desert Tortoise Conservation and Recovery The Alternatives identified in this document are intended to promote the recovery of the desert tortoise. The goal of any adopted strategy, at a minimum, would be to achieve the recovery criteria defined within the Recovery Plan for Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population 1994, USFWS). Meeting these criteria would achieve the necessary progress to de-list the desert tortoise. These recovery criteria are listed in the Proposed Desert Tortoise Conservation Strategy (Appendix A, page A-1).The Recovery Plan (pp. 45-55) recommended several actions to meet recovery criteria objectives. Chief among these were:

�� Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintained

�� Develop and implement management prescriptions for these areas to address threats sufficient to meet recovery criteria

�� Provide sufficient habitat in these areas to ensure that management strategies are effective (See Appendix A discussion)

�� Monitor tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management prescriptions in meeting recovery objectives in these areas (Refer to Appendix D)

�� Establish an environmental education program to facilitate understanding of desert tortoise threats and recovery needs, effect compliance with management strategies in these areas

�� Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to the desert tortoise in these areas and to evaluate and improve mechanisms to address these threats

These recommended actions apply to desert tortoise populations and habitat in all of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Units and form the basis for the alternatives in the NEMO planning effort. If alternative strategies were identified that also met the recovery objectives, they were also considered. Therefore, the six recovery plan actions and the No Action Alternative form the parameters for the range of alternatives. Not all actions require CDCA plan-level decisions. For additional activity-level planning see Appendix A.

The alternatives for desert tortoise recovery respond to eighteen issues that involve potential threats to the desert tortoise and its habitat identified from the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (1994), other literature reviews, past biological assessments and USFWS Biological Opinions. Some of these potential threats were identified based on range-wide analyses covering all six Desert Tortoise Recovery Units. Consequently, a separate issue analysis was conducted by the NEMO Biological Team on public lands in the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit, to determine their relative importance to this population4. Based on the issue analysis, the categories of management prescriptions to address desert tortoise recovery were identified. Potential threats more important in the East Mojave desert tortoise population include:

�� Surface disturbances resulting in habitat loss

�� Disturbances, if linear or large, that contribute to fragmentation of habitat

�� Cumulative effects that are not adequately analyzed or tracked

�� Forage competition which may occur between desert tortoise, cattle, horses and burros

�� Direct predation on desert tortoise by ravens and other predators

4 See Appendix A, proposed Desert Tortoise Conservation Strategy for a discussion of threats in the East Mojave and a summary list of major resources and Appendix C for a discussion of issues affecting the desert tortoise and its recovery.


2-14

Table 2.9 at the end of the section presents a summary comparison of alternatives for desert tortoise recovery. A summary of the grazing alternatives is presented in Table 2.10. Table 2.11 indentifies the grazing allotments for BLM and National Park Service, while Table 2.12 identifies grazing allotments and acreages within Desert Wildlife Management Areas.


2-15

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No action Desert Tortoise Recovery The existing strategies identified in the CDCA Plan, The Tortoise Rangewide Plan, California Statewide Tortoise Management Policy, and Biological Opinions issued under the Federal Endangered Species Act form the No Action Alternative. The existing management situation is described in more detail in Current Desert Tortoise Management Situation in BLM-Administered Lands Portion of Northern and Eastern Mojave Planning Area (Foreman 1998).

Desert Wildlife Management Areas A. Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintained

The No Action Alternative would use parameters on existing Category I, II, and III desert tortoise habitat with no additional special conservation strategies prescribed for the areas. Goals identified for desert tortoise habitat categories are defined as:

�� Category I: Maintain stable, viable populations and increase populations where possible

�� Category II: Maintain stable, viable populations

�� Category III: Limit declines to the extent possible using mitigation measures

Utilize existing Multiple-Use Class (MUC) on public lands in the planning area recognizing that:

�� Tortoise management direction has been set forth in the BLM Range-wide Management Plan and BLM California Statewide Tortoise Management Policy

�� The rangewide plan and statewide policy are based on tortoise habitat Categories that have been adopted in the CDCA Plan and are now being implemented

�� The three habitat management plans (HMPs) (totaling 232,000 acres) identified in the CDCA Plan have not been written

The three Habitat Management Plan Areas would remain in effect as designated by the CDCA Plan. These HMPs are smaller in acreage than the desert tortoise Category I habitat for the same area (refer to Table 2.4 for acreage comparison and Chapter 8, Figure 6a for a graphic representation of the No Action Alternative).

Table 2.4 – Acres of Category I Desert Tortoise Habitat Compared to Current HMP

Desert Tortoise Units Category I 5 Current HMP Piute-Fenner Unit 173,850 ~ 165,000 Ivanpah Valley Unit 37,280 ~ 25,000 Shadow Valley Unit 114,060 ~ 42,000 N. Ivanpah Unit 29,110 0 Total Acres 354,300 ~ 232,000

5 There is no Category II or III habitat located within the current HMP area.


2-16

General Management Strategy B. Develop and implement management prescriptions for those areas sufficient to meet the recovery criteria

Utilize directions from the CDCA Plan and Statewide Desert Tortoise Policy in all desert tortoise habitats on public lands without modification. Existing strategies identified in the CDCA Plan, the BLM and CDFG’s Statewide Desert Tortoise Policy, programmatic agreements or biological opinions6 with the USFWS would remain in effect, subject to periodic update and renegotiations. Current Biological Opinions (BO) and programmatic agreements include:

�� BO 1-6-92-F-19, July 13, 1993: Biological Opinion on the “Effects of Cattle Grazing in the California Desert on the Desert Tortoise” resulted in terms and conditions for continued grazing use in tortoise habitat.

�� BO 1-5-94-F-107 April 20, 1994: Biological Opinion on the “Effects of Cattle Grazing in Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat”. Terms and conditions in this opinion were similar to the previous BO.

�� BO 1-5-96-F-296R, February 28, 1997: Consultation for the purpose of extending the previous consultation resulted in terms and conditions applicable to cattle grazing on public lands from the 1994 opinion which is currently in effect.

�� BO 1-6-92-F-28, August, 1992 as revised in 1994 by BO 1-8-94-F-28R: Programmatic Biological Opinion for mineral exploration and other small mining operations of less than 10 acres was prepared by the USFWS for BLM. For these mining activities, standard mitigation measures apply (refer to Appendix A, mitigation measures for similar standard measures).

�� BO 1-8-97-F-17, March, 1997: Programmatic Biological Opinion for small projects of various types that are less than two acres in size (habitat disturbance) was prepared by USFWS for BLM. For these small projects, standard mitigation measures apply, similar to those for small mining exploration.

Biological consultation would occur with wildlife agencies on measures in the CDCA Plan and would continue on all projects proposed in desert tortoise habitat on a case-by-case basis. Projects not covered by BOs would be considered on a case-by-case basis, may involve consultation with USFWS or CDFG and may include additional terms and conditions for the conservation and recovery of the desert tortoise and its habitat.

Compensation: A mitigation fee based on the amount of acreage disturbed will be required of proponents of new development. The formula used to determine the amount of acreage to be acquired is described in the California Statewide Desert Tortoise Management Policy and considers the following factors:

�� Habitat category

�� Impact on adjacent lands reducing tortoise densities

�� Whether or not the use will tend to induce growth

�� Duration of the effect (i.e., short term - less than 10 years, long term - greater than 10 years)

�� Whether or not there is moderate to heavy existing disturbance

6 An evaluation prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act providing their conclusions on whether a proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroyor adversely modify critical habitat.


2-17

These factors are added together to arrive at an acreage multiplier used to determine the amount of compensation acres to be acquired by the project proponent. Category III habitat receives a compensation rate of 1.0 regardless of other factors.

C. Provide sufficient habitat in these areas to ensure that management strategies are effective.

The discussion of what is sufficient, i.e. how much area does the desert tortoise need, is found in Appendix A. The discussion is tiered from a recovery plan analysis. For further details, see the desert tortoise recovery plan itself. Under the no action alternative, existing habitat compensation mechanisms and land acquisition strategies would be utilized to pursue ongoing goals of acquisition of lands in high resource value areas, including Category I desert tortoise habitat, in exchange for developable lands elsewhere in the CDCA.

D. Monitor tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management prescriptions The No Action Alternative would follow the monitoring regime described in Appendix D. Monitoring would be similar in all Alternatives.

E. Establish an environmental education program to understand threats to the desert tortoise and recovery needs The environmental education program to be followed for the No Action Alternative would follow standard desert tortoise mitigations in Appendix A (A-5).

F. Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to the desert tortoise

Research would follow the guidelines in Appendix A (A-6) and be conducted in several forums. The main forum for determination of research would be the umbrella organization of the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group and its Technical Advisory Committees. Various agents will carry out research activities. Jointly funded research with partners will be a focus of future activities.

Vehicle Management Route designation would occur in all critical desert tortoise habitat, consistent with federal regulation and CDCA Plan guidance, based on the existing route inventory. Refer to Chapter 8, Figures 4c and d for the route inventory existing network for Alternative 1 (No Action). Routes not approved for vehicle access would, in most instances, be obliterated, barricaded, signed or marked. Specific techniques chosen would depend on location, potential effectiveness, and sensitivity of resources and availability of manpower and funding.

Rules for stopping, parking and camping would remain unchanged. Currently, vehicle parking along routes of travel is limited to within 300 feet of the route and specific areas may be signed open or closed to protect sensitive resources adjacent to the route. Use of washes is governed by area designations. In limited areas, the multiple-use class governs vehicle use in desert washes. Washes used as access routes may have travel limitations such as speed limits or seasonal closure imposed to protect resources or to minimize conflicts with other uses. The open camping zones along roads within the desert tortoise critical habitat may be limited to 100 feet in sensitive areas.


2-18

Grazing Management The No Action Alternative would utilize Fallback Standards of rangeland health and Guidelines for grazing management, CDCA Plan, allotment management plans, and terms and conditions from the existing USFWS biological opinions for cattle allotments in the planning area7. Maximum utilization levels on key forage species and minimum thresholds of ephemeral plant production required for cattle authorizations to occur are set in these biological opinions and would direct future management. Cattle cannot graze ephemeral forage on the allotment until there are at least 350 pounds of annual grasses and forbs per acre. Existing range conditions would designate limitations for perennial forage use. Restrictions for protection of tortoises and soil disturbance during construction of range facilities would continue. Temporary, non-renewable and ephemeral forage authorizations are limited in amount and period. The number and type of range improvements and designated periods to construct range improvements are detailed in the BO for each allotment.

Existing terms and conditions for this Alternative can be found in Appendix E.

Burro Management Utilize existing CDCA Plan management and East Mojave Herd Management Area (HMA) Plans to manage burros within desert tortoise habitat, including those within critical and/or Category I desert tortoise habitat. Appropriate Management Levels (AML) would be 44 burros for the Clark Mountain HMA.

Under the No Action alternative, a Clark Mountain HMA Plan will be developed incorporating:

�� Fallback standards and guidelines for grazing management, consistent with federal regulations for rangeland reform

�� Implementation of maximum utilization levels on key forage species for desert tortoise habitat

�� Habitat monitoring guidelines

�� Population census

�� Removal strategy

�� The development of natural and artificial waters to relieve pressures of some critical waters and aid in the distribution of burros

�� Erection of permanent trap sites to aid in population control; and

�� Other range improvements required specifically to promote desert tortoise conservation and recovery (Appendix E).

Land Tenure Existing public lands in critical and Category I habitat would be retained, consistent with the Statewide Desert Tortoise Management Policy. Most land would be acquired as compensation for project disturbances or as part of exchanges.

7 Federal Biological Opinion 1-5-94-F-107 (FWS 1994) and its extension 1-5-96-F-296R (FWS 1997)


2-19

2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Desert Tortoise Recovery Desert Wildlife Management Area A. Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintained

Establish two Desert Wildlife Management Areas consisting of four ACECs (Piute-Fenner, Ivanpah Valley, Shadow Valley, and Northern Ivanpah Valley) totaling 354,300 acres (see Table 2.4) as shown on Figure 6b, Chapter 8. These units include all critical habitat in these areas. The four ACECs will encompass and replace the existing wildlife habitat management areas (HMP Areas). Category I habitat would be adjusted slightly to coincide with the critical habitat boundaries including in the Ivanpah Unit (Category I eliminated north of the second main linear utility running across the southern extent of Ivanpah Dry Lake). All tortoise habitat outside of the Desert Wildlife Management Areas would be assigned Category III tortoise habitat.

Change MUC M to L in three units (Piute-Fenner, Shadow Valley, and Northern Ivanpah Valley) totaling 48,642 acres. Changes in MUC acreages are shown in Table 2.5. (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 6b)

Table 2.5 – Desert Tortoise Conservation and Recovery Area in MUC Locations and Management Categories: Alternative 2

Alternative 2 Designate 4 ACECs Desert Tortoise Units Acres L or C Acres M Total Acres Piute-Fenner Unit 169,890 3,960 173,850 Ivanpah Valley Unit 37,280 0 37,280 Shadow Valley Unit 75,307 38,753 114,060 N. Ivanpah Unit 23,181 5,929 29,110 Total 305,658 48,642 354,300

General Management Strategy B. Develop and implement management prescriptions for those areas sufficient to meet the recovery criteria

Modify existing CDCA plan management in all desert tortoise habitats in the planning area by adopting specific management strategies, including the following:

�� Under this alternative, projects that meet the criteria to be covered under this programmatic would be required to have a short supplemental biological opinion, tiered off the CDCA Plan BO, as amended herein, to be completed by the FWS within 30 days. This project-specific expedited opinion would address the following items, at a minimum: (1) the relationship of the specific proposed action to the CDCA Plan, (2) an evaluation of the effects of the action with respect to recovery within the recovery unit, (3) an incidental take statement, and (4) reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions for the incidental take, to the extent these are not covered in existing documentation submitted. Where unusual circumstances exist, the FWS may prepare, at their discretion, a standard, non-expedited, non-tiered biological opinion.

�� Limit additional cumulative surface disturbance to 1% of public lands in each of the four proposed units of the identified Desert Wildlife Management Areas (see Appendix F. page F-1)


2-20

�� Adopt prescriptions and mitigation measures outlined in Appendix A, (Proposed NEMO Desert Tortoise Conservation Strategy) except as outlined for cumulative new surface disturbance and vehicle, grazing, burro and raven management specific to each alternative

�� Existing programmatic agreements or biological opinions with the USFWS would be replaced with a new programmatic agreement incorporating project stipulations listed in Attachment 1 of Appendix A. Biological consultation with wildlife agencies on measures in the CDCA Plan would occur, and projects in desert tortoise habitat would continue on a programmatic basis under the terms of the existing Statewide Desert Tortoise Policy and the terms identified therein

� Implement cooperative phased raven management program as described in Appendix A. This program includes actions targeted at (1) raven research; (2) alteration of raven habitat; (3) lethal actions against ravens in specific situations; (4) administrative actions the agency can undertake; and (5) possible actions for future phases. It may be modified or supplemented later by a multi-agency program authorized by the Desert Managers Group. Proposed projects on public lands anywhere in the planning area which have a potential for increasing raven populations will be reviewed for design and operation features and will require mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for proliferation of ravens.


The discussion of what is sufficient, i.e. how much area does the desert tortoise need, is found in Appendix A. For further details, see the desert tortoise recovery plan. Under alternative 2, existing habitat compensation mechanisms and land acquisition strategies would be supplemented to pursue ongoing goals of acquisition of lands in high resource value areas, including Category I desert tortoise habitat, in exchange for developable lands elsewhere in the CDCA.

D. Monitor tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management prescriptions.

Monitoring will be similar to No Action in that it will follow the guidelines of Appendix D. It will also follow Appendix A section A.4.

E. An environmental education program to facilitate understanding of desert tortoise threats and recovery needs. The environmental education program to be followed is the same as for the No Action and all other alternatives. All elements of Appendix A (A-5) would be a part of the program.

F. Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to the desert tortoise.

Research would follow the guidelines in Appendix A (A-6), and be conducted in several forums. In addition to topics addressed under the No action alternative, this alternative would also address Raven Research Activities. The main forum for determination of research would be the umbrella organization of the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group and its Technical Advisory Committees. Various agents will carry out research activities. Jointly funded research with partners will be a focus of future activities.


2-21

Vehicle Management Designate routes of travel in the DWMAs, consistent with federal regulations and the existing route inventory. Refer to Chapter 8, Figures 4a and b for the route inventory and proposed network under this alternative and Appendix Q for a discussion of the route designation process and methodology. Routes not approved for vehicle access would, in most instances, be obliterated, barricaded, signed or marked. Specific techniques chosen would depend on location, potential effectiveness, and sensitivity of resources and availability of manpower and funding.

Rules for parking and camping would be modified as follows:

�� Parking and camping will be allowed within 50 feet of route centerline within proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas

�� All navigable washes would be designated as closed routes in proposed DWMAs

�� Interpretive signing and informational kiosks will be installed

Grazing Management Utilize Regional Standards of public land health and Guidelines for Grazing Management, CDCA Plan, allotment management plans, and terms and conditions from the existing USFWS biological opinions. For allotments within the DWMAs:

�� Grazing use would no longer be available in those portions of the allotments within DWMAs.

�� Develop new allotment boundaries, where feasible, from portions of affected allotments outside of the DWMAs

Burro Management Remove burros from the Clark Mountain Herd Management Area and eliminate the Clark Mountain Herd Management Area. This area includes some lands now under NPS jurisdiction, which have not been available for burro use since passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Most of the remaining herd concentration areas are located in one of the proposed DWMAs. The herd management level (HML) for the Clark Mountain Herd Management Area would be changed from 44 to 0. This includes both the Clark Mountain HMA in Shadow Valley and two concentration areas east of Clark Mountain in the larger Clark Mountain HA, which already have herd management levels of 0, until such time as burros are substantially removed from these areas.

Land Tenure Acquire all private lands in DWMAs from willing sellers.

2.2.3 Alternative 3 – Addresses Recovery Plan Goals/Objectives With Two Focal Populations Desert Wildlife Management Areas A. Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintained Establish two Desert Wildlife Management Areas consisting of three ACECs (Piute-Fenner, Ivanpah Valley, and Shadow Valley) totaling 325,190 acres (see Table 2.4) as shown on Figure 6c, Chapter 8. These units include all critical habitat in the NEMO planning area. The three units would modify and replace the existing wildlife habitat management areas (WHMAs). Category I habitat would be eliminated in Northern Ivanpah Valley, reduced in Ivanpah Valley (eliminated north of the second main linear utility running across the southern extent of Ivanpah Dry Lake) and adjusted slightly in the other two units to coincide with the critical habitat boundaries. All tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs would be assigned Category III tortoise habitat.


2-22

Change MUC M to L in two units (Piute-Fenner and Shadow Valley) totaling 42,713 acres. Changes in MUC acreages are shown in Table 2.6 (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 6c for a map of this alternative.)

Table 2.6 – Desert Tortoise Conservation and Recovery Area in MUC Locations and Management Categories

Alternative 3 Designate 3 ACECs Desert Tortoise DWMA Unit Acres L or C Acres M Total Acres Piute-Fenner Unit 169,890 3,960 173,850 Ivanpah Valley Unit 37,280 0 37,280 Shadow Valley Unit 75,307 38,753 114,060 N. Ivanpah Unit 0 0 0 Total 282,477 42,713 325,190

General Management Strategy B. Develop and implement management prescriptions for these areas to address threats sufficient to meet recovery criteria. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2, as modified:

�� Under this alternative, projects that meet the criteria to be covered under this programmatic may include a short supplemental biological opinion, tiered off the CDCA Plan BO, as amended herein, to be completed by the FWS within 30 days, at the discretion of the Authorized Officer. Projects that meet the criteria to be covered under this programmatic would be tiered off the CDCA Plan BO, as amended herein.. The USFWS could concur on the project or could choose to provide a project-specific, expedited biological opinion. If it is determined that a short supplemental biological opinion is required, it would be completed by the FWS within 30 days. Where unusual circumstances exist, the FWS may prepare, at their discretion, a standard, non-expedited, non-tiered biological opinion.

�� Implement regional cooperative raven management program as described in Appendix A, which targets removal where juvenile tortoise mortality is high and raven predation is known to occur. Lethal removal of specific offending ravens would be allowed in this alternative. Proposed projects on public lands anywhere in the planning area which have a potential for increasing raven populations will be reviewed for design and operation features and will require mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for proliferation of ravens.


The discussion of what is sufficient, i.e. how much area does the desert tortoise need, is found in Appendix A. For further details, see the desert tortoise recovery plan. Under alternative 3, existing habitat compensation mechanisms and land acquisition strategies would be utilized to pursue ongoing goals of acquisition of lands in high resource value areas, including Category I desert tortoise habitat, in exchange for developable lands elsewhere in the CDCA.

D. Monitor desert tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management prescriptions. The same as Alternative 2. Monitoring will follow the guidelines of Appendix D. It will also follow Appendix A section A.4.

E. Establish an environmental education program to facilitate. Understanding of desert tortoise threats and recovery needs.


2-23

The environmental education program to be followed is the same as for the No Action and all other alternatives. All elements of Appendix A (A.5) would be a part of the program.

F. Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to desert tortoise. The same as Alternative 2. Research would follow the guidelines in Appendix A (6), and be conducted in several forums. In addition to topics addressed under the No action alternative, this alternative would also address Raven Research Activities. The main forum for determination of research would be the umbrella organization of the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group and its Technical Advisory Committees. Various agents will carry out research. Jointly funded research with partners will be a focus of future activities.

Vehicle Management Same as Alternative 2 except the following:

�� Stopping, parking and camping will be allowed within 100 feet of route centerline within proposed DWMAs.

�� Navigable washes may be designated open or limited, if they are major vehicle transportation routes in DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs, washes would be designated consistent with 43 CFR criteria and multiple-use guidelines. Parking and camping will be allowed only within the banks of the wash.

Grazing Management Utilize Regional Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Management, CDCA Plan, allotment management plans, and terms and conditions from the existing USFWS biological opinions. For allotments within the DWMAs:

�� Allow voluntary relinquishment of grazing leases and related authorizations. Grazing use would be unavailable upon relinquishment.

�� Remove cattle from the DWMAs when ephemeral forage production is less than 230 pounds per acre as per the grazing strategy from 3/15 to 11/1. The NEMO grazing strategy will be developed within a year and implemented within two years. The strategy shall be a written plan detailing the areas of removal, natural cattle movements, existing and potential improvements, and other constraints of cattle management based on adopted DWMAs.

�� Ephemeral grazing use for ephemeral allotments would no longer be available and ephemeral grazing use is unavailable on ephemeral/perennial allotments.

�� Temporary nonrenewable grazing use will not be authorized.

Burro Management Modify the Clark Mountain HMA boundary to exclude that area located within the Proposed Shadow Valley Unit of the identified DWMA and eliminate the herd concentration area within this same unit. Re-establish the HMA in the eastern portion of the Clark Mountain Herd Area. The Appropriate Management Level (AML) would be revised to 60 burros, consistent with CDCA Plan target HMA levels identified for the modified area in 1980, pending the outcome of a 5-year carrying capacity analysis, which would be based on the remaining forage provided by the modified HMA.


2-24

Burros located in the proposed DWMA would be removed and any potential migration would be managed through relocation by live capture or indirect means, such as manipulation of water supply, to the remaining herd concentration areas within the Clark Mountain HMA. Terms and conditions would be identified and incorporated into the East Mojave HMA plan. In order for burro use to continue in desert tortoise habitat, a 40%8 maximum utilization level on key forage species would be implemented. Strategies to manage burro drift into the DWMA or the Mojave National Preserve via exclusion fencing and other needed range improvements and requirements would promote desert tortoise conservation and recovery (See Appendix E).

Land Tenure Acquire all private lands in DWMAs from willing sellers.

2.2.4 Alternative 4 – Addresses Recovery Plan Goals/Objectives With One Focal Population Desert Wildlife Management Areas A. Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintained Establish a DWMA consisting of two units (Piute-Fenner and Ivanpah Valley) totaling 211,130 acres (see Table 2.4) as shown on Figure 6d, Chapter 8. These units include all critical habitats in the NEMO planning area south of Interstate 15 (i.e., all except in Shadow Valley). As in Alternative 2, the two units would be designated as ACECs, and the existing wildlife habitat management areas (WHMAs) would be deleted. Category I habitat would be eliminated in Northern Ivanpah Valley and Shadow Valley, the Shadow Valley WHMA would be deleted, reduced in Ivanpah Valley (eliminated north of the second main linear utility running across the southern extent of Ivanpah Dry Lake) and adjusted slightly in the Piute-Fenner Unit to coincide with the critical habitat boundaries. All tortoise habitats outside of the DWMA would be assigned Category III tortoise habitat.

Change MUC M to L in the Piute-Fenner Unit on 3,960 acres. Changes in MUC acreages are shown in Table 2.7 below. (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 6d)

Table 2.7 – Desert Torotise Conversation and Recovery Acres at Four Locations and MUC

Alternative 4 Designate 2 ACECs Desert Tortoise DWMA Unit Acres L or C Acres M Total Acres Piute-Fenner Unit 169,890 3,960 173,850 Ivanpah Valley Unit 37,280 0 37,280 Shadow Valley Unit 0 0 0 N. Ivanpah Unit 0 0 0 Total 207,170 3,960 211,130

8 Maximum utilization levels on key forage species would be further limited to 30% until range condition improves to “good”.


2-25

General Management Strategy B. Develop and implement management prescriptions Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except:

�� Projects that disturb more than 250 acres or require an EIS or CDCA Plan Amendment will necessitate a separate consultation with USFWS and are not covered by this plan alternative.

�� The programmatic consultation will also cover electrical transmission lines or pipelines within an existing CDCA Plan utility corridor for which the NEPA mechanism is an EA and not an EIS (rather than 1%).

�� Cumulative new surface disturbance limits of 3 percent in DWMAs.

�� A comprehensive phased raven management program that would not include lethal removals. Ravens that are known to prey on tortoise may be removed through non-lethal means, only.


The discussion of what is sufficient, i.e. how much area does the desert tortoise need, is found in Appendix A. For further details, see the desert tortoise recovery plan. Under alternative 4, existing habitat compensation mechanisms and land acquisition strategies would be utilized to pursue ongoing goals of acquisition of lands in high resource value areas, including Category I desert tortoise habitat, in exchange for developable lands elsewhere in the CDCA.

D. Monitor desert tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management The same as Alternatives 2 and 3.Monitoring will follow the guidelines of Appendix D. It will also follow Appendix A section 4.

E. Establish an environmental education program to facilitate understanding of desert tortoise threats and recovery needs.

The environmental education program to be followed is the same as for the No Action and all other alternatives. All elements of Appendix A (A5) would be a part of the program.

F. Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to the desert tortoise. Same as Alternatives 2 and 3. Research would follow the guidelines in Appendix A (A-6), and be conducted in several forums. In addition to topics addressed under the No action alternative, this alternative would also address Raven Research Activities. The main forum for determination of research would be the umbrella organization of the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group and its Technical Advisory Committees. Various agents will carry out research activities. Jointly funded research with partners will be a focus of future activities.

Vehicle Management Same as Alternative 2 except stopping, parking and camping will be allowed and limited to disturbed surfaces within 100 feet of route centerline within proposed DWMAs. This would be consistent with the CDCA Plan for sensitive areas, except measurement would be from centerline except the edge of the route to provide for reliable measurement..


2-26

Grazing Management Utilize Regional Standards of public land health and Guidelines for Grazing Management, CDCA Plan, allotment management plans, and terms and conditions from the existing USFWS biological opinions. For allotments within the wildlife management area:

�� Allow voluntary relinquishment of grazing leases and related authorizations and grazing use would no longer be available upon relinquishment.

�� Grazing use would be unavailable for ephemeral allotments, and ephemeral use would no longer be available under ephemeral authorization for ephemeral/perennial allotments. (Refer to Table 2-4 for a list of affected allotments and Appendix E for proposed terms and conditions for Cattle Grazing)

Burro Management Same as Alternative 1, No Action. Utilize existing CDCA plan management and the existing East Mojave Herd Management Area (HMA) plan to manage burros within desert tortoise habitat, including those within critical and/or Category I desert tortoise habitat.

Land Tenure Same as Alternative 3. Acquire all private lands in DWMAs from willing sellers.

2.2.5 Alternative 5 – Proposed Plan Desert Wildlife Management Areas A. Establish areas where viable desert tortoise populations are maintainedThe Proposed Plan establishes two DWMAs consisting of three ACECs (Piute-Fenner, Ivanpah Valley, and Shadow Valley) totaling 312,000 acres (see Table 2.8) as shown on Figure 6e, Chapter 8. This is a modification of Alternative 3. The three units would be designated as ACECs, and the existing wildlife habitat management areas (WHMAs) would be deleted. Category I habitat would be eliminated in Northern Ivanpah Valley, reduced in Ivanpah Valley (eliminated north of the second main linear utility running across the southern extent of Ivanpah Dry Lake) and in Shadow Valley (eliminated west of Bull Spring Wash and Turquoise Mountain Road), and adjusted elsewhere slightly to generally coincide with the critical habitat boundaries. These units include all critical habitat in the NEMO planning area except approximately 12,700 acres west of Bull Run Wash (Turquoise Mountain Road) and 485 acres in Ivanpah Valley adjacent to the Nipton townsite. All tortoise habitat outside of the DWMA would be assigned Category III tortoise habitat.

The 3 MUCs would be reclassified from “Moderate Use (M)” to “Limited Use (L)” in three units (Piute-Fenner and Shadow Valley) totaling 30,010 acres. Changes in MUC acreages are shown in Table 2.8. Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 6e for a map of the Proposed Plan.

Table 2.8 – Desert Tortoise Conservation and Recovery Locations and Acreages per MUC Classification

Proposed Plan (Alternative 5) Designate 3 ACECs Desert Tortoise DWMA Unit Acres L or C Acres M Total Acres Piute-Fenner Unit 169,890 3,960 173,850 Ivanpah Valley Unit 36,795 * 0 36,795 * Modified Shadow Valley Unit 75,305 26,050 101,355 N. Ivanpah Unit 0 0 0 Total 281,990 30,010 312,000 *Now reflects the 485-acre adjustment for Nipton exchange.


2-27

General Management Strategy B. Develop and implement management prescriptions

Modify existing CDCA Plan management in all desert tortoise habitats in the Planning area, by adopting specific management strategies, including the following:

�� Limit additional cumulative surface disturbance to 1% of public lands in each of the three proposed units of the identified Desert Wildlife Management Areas (see Appendix F-New Surface Disturbance and Rehabilitation Strategies)

�� Adopt prescriptions and mitigation measures outlined in Appendix A, (Proposed NEMO Desert Tortoise Conservation Strategy) except as outlined for cumulative new surface disturbance and vehicle, grazing, burro and raven management specific to each alternative, which see below

�� Existing programmatic agreements or biological opinions with the USFWS would be replaced with a new programmatic agreement (see next item) incorporating project stipulations listed in Attachment 1 of Appendix A. Biological consultation with wildlife agencies on measures in the CDCA Plan would occur, and projects in desert tortoise habitat would continue on a programmatic basis, under the terms of the existing Statewide Desert Tortoise Policy and the terms identified herein.

�� The BLM would obtain, through consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, a Biological Opinion (BO) covering the effects on listed species of the CDCA Plan as amended by the Proposed Plan. The criteria for projects to be included under the programmatic would include any project that

�� Disturbs less than 100 acres of tortoise habitat

�� Does not require an Environmental Impact Statement

�� Does not require amendment of the CDCA Plan.

�� The BLM would submit to USFWS a Report on Proposed Action (see Appendix A) for any qualifying project. The report would include a description of the project, the location, and a list of standard mitigation measures to be applied. An environmental assessment, if any, would be attached to the report. USFWS would respond within 30 days. Where unusual circumstances exist, the USFWS may prepare, at their discretion, a standard, non-expedited, non-tiered biological opinion.

�� Implement cooperative phased raven management program as described in Appendix A. This program includes actions targeted at (1) raven research; (2) alteration of raven habitat; (3) lethal actions against ravens in specific situations; (4) administrative actions the agency can undertake; and (5) possible actions for future phases. Lethal removal of specific offending ravens would be allowed in this alternative. It may be modified or supplemented later by a multi-agency program authorized by the Desert Managers Group. Proposed projects on public lands anywhere in the planning area which have a potential for increasing raven populations will be reviewed for design and operation features and will require mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the opportunity for proliferation of ravens.

�� Change the compensation ratio in all Category I habitat (i.e., within the DWMA ACECs) to 5:1.


2-28

C. Provide sufficient habitat in these areas to ensure that management strategies are effective. The discussion of what is sufficient, i.e. how much area does the desert tortoise need, is found in Appendix A. For further details, see the desert tortoise recovery plan. Under the proposed plan, existing habitat compensation mechanisms and land acquisition strategies would be utilized to pursue ongoing goals of acquisition of lands in high resource value areas, including Category I desert tortoise habitat, in exchange for developable lands elsewhere in the CDCA.

D. Monitor tortoise populations to assess effectiveness of management

The same as Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Desert Tortoise monitoring will follow the guidelines of Appendix D, and general monitoring guidelines found in Chapter 8, to the extent applicable. It will also follow Appendix A section A.4.

E. Establish an environmental education program to facilitate understanding of desert tortoise threats and recovery needs.

The environmental education program to be followed is the same as for the No Action and all other alternatives. All elements of Appendix A (A-5) would be a part of the program.

F. Continue research necessary to assess relative importance of threats to the desert tortoise. Research would follow the guidelines in Appendix A (A-6), and be conducted in several forums. In addition to topics addressed under Alternatives 2 through 4, the proposed plan would also address grazing-forage utilization research. A recommended priority research topic regarding allotment-specific research consistent with the recovery plan is to validate thresholds of competition for forage and other relevant variables of the proposed grazing management strategy.

The main forum for determination of research would be the umbrella organization of the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group and its Technical Advisory Committees. Various agents will carry out research activities. Jointly funded research with partners will be a focus of future activities.

Vehicle ManagementThe Proposed Plan will be the same as Alternative 2 except the following:

�� Stopping, parking and camping will be allowed in disturbed areas within 100 feet of route centerline within proposed DWMAs.

�� Washes in proposed DWMAs will be closed unless specifically designated as being open.

�� Where navigable washes are designated open or limited, parking and camping will be allowed only within the banks of the wash.

Routes of travel would be designated in the DWMAs, consistent with federal regulations and the existing route inventory. Refer to Chapter 8, Figures 4a and b for the route inventory and proposed route network for the Proposed Plan and Appendix Q for a discussion of the route designation process and methodology. Routes not approved for vehicle access would be obliterated, barricaded, signed or marked in most instances. Specific techniques chosen would depend on location, potential effectiveness, sensitivity of resources and availability of manpower and funding. Interpretive signing and informational kiosks will be installed.


2-29

Grazing Management For grazing management The Proposed Plan would use regional standards and guidelines, the CDCA plan, allotment management plans, and terms and conditions from the existing USFWS biological opinions.

For grazing management, the Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative 3 with the following modifications (Refer to Table 2.10. for a list of affected allotments and Appendix E for proposed terms and conditions for Cattle Grazing):

For a grazing allotment partially within a DWMA, when ephemeral forage production is less than 230 pounds per acre, cattle shall be substantially removed from the DWMA from March 15 to June 15.

In years of good winter precipitation and soil moisture presence, cattle may remain past March 15 in expectation of ephemeral forage production over 230 lbs./ac. If this level of forage is not attained when weather conditions (e.g., warming of the soil) are appropriate, cattle must leave the DWMA until such time as 230 lbs./ac. ephemeral forage is achieved or June 15, whichever is earlier. This determination will be made based on the evaluation and judgment of the BLM authorized officer. If cattle must be removed, the operator will be given two weeks to remove them from the DWMA

In years of poor winter precipitation or absence of soil moisture, cattle must be removed from the DWMA by March 15 and remain out until such time as 230 lbs./ac. ephemeral forage is achieved or June 15, whichever is earlier.

The term “substantially removed” recognizes that some cattle may wander into the area of seasonal closure despite the operator’s best efforts and regardless of management facilities (e.g., fences, water sources) that are in place.

For allotments within the DWMAs, the Proposed Plan would:

Allow voluntary relinquishment of grazing leases and related authorizations and grazing use would be no longer available upon relinquishment.

The grazing strategies would be developed within a year and implemented within two years. Each of the strategies shall be a written plan detailing the areas of removal, natural cattle movements, existing and potential improvements, and other constraints of cattle management based on adopted DWMAs.

Ephemeral grazing use for ephemeral allotments would be unavailable and ephemeral grazing use would no longer be available for ephemeral/perennial allotments.

Not authorize temporary nonrenewable grazing use.

Conduct research authorized on allotments within DWMAs consistent with Experimental Grazing Management parameters outlined in the 1994 USFWS Recovery Plan for desert tortoise, Mojave population. Research shall be submitted to the USFWS for concurrence.


2-30

Burro Management The Proposed Plan would reduce burros until substantially removed and eliminate the Clark Mountain Herd Management Area. This area includes some lands now under NPS jurisdiction, which have not been available for burro use since passage of the California Desert Protection Act. Most of the remaining herd concentration areas are located in Category I habitat, including in one of the proposed DWMAs. The herd management level (HML) for the Clark Mountain Herd Management Area would be changed from 44 to 0. This includes both the Clark Mountain HMA in Shadow Valley and concentration areas east of Clark Mountain in the larger Clark Mountain HA, which already have herd management levels of 0, consistent with existing CDCA Plan guidance, until such time as burros are substantially removed. These actions are the same as for Alternative 2.

Land Tenure Same as Alternative 2. Acquire all private lands in DWMAs from willing sellers.

2.2.6 Implementation Strategy for Desert Tortoise Recovery The implementation strategy for desert tortoise recovery is provided in Appendix B. It identifies time frames and commitments associated with components of the alternative recovery strategies that require substantial Federal and State resources. These commitments are specific to implementation of desert tortoise recovery in the NEMO planning area, except as identified to address follow-up coordination issues.

The following Table 2.9 presents a summary comparison of alternatives for desert tortoise recovery. A summary of the grazing alternatives is presented in Table 2.10. Table 2.11 identifies the grazing allotments for BLM and National Park Service, while Table 2.12 identifies grazing allotments and acreages within Desert Wildlife Management Areas.

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-31

Tab

le 2

.9 –

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise

Rec

over

y

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Util

ize

exis

ting

DT

mgt

. di

rect

ion

set f

orth

in th

e B

LM

Ran

ge-w

ide

Man

agem

ent P

lan

and

BLM

Cal

iforn

ia S

tate

wid

e To

rtoi

se M

anag

emen

t Pol

icy

on

354,

300

acre

s of C

ateg

ory

I DT

habi

tat w

ith n

o id

entif

ied

DW

MA

or a

dditi

onal

mgt

. st

rate

gies

.

Des

igna

te 2

DW

MA

s co

nsis

ting

of 4

uni

ts to

talin

g 35

4,30

0 ac

res

Des

igna

te 2

DW

MA

s co

nsis

ting

of 3

uni

ts to

talin

g 32

5,19

0 ac

res

Des

igna

te 2

DW

MA

s co

nsis

ting

of 2

uni

ts to

talin

g 21

1,13

0 ac

res

Alte

rnat

ive

3: m

odifi

ed,

Des

igna

te 2

DW

MA

s co

nsis

ting

of 3

uni

ts,

tota

ling

312.

000

acre

s, to

ex

clud

e: th

e Tu

rquo

ise

Mou

ntai

n ar

ea w

est o

f Bul

l Sp

ring

Was

h an

d Tu

rquo

ise

Mtn

Roa

d in

the

Shad

ow

Val

ley

Uni

t, an

d 48

5 ac

res

adja

cent

to N

ipto

n in

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y

Des

igna

te

Wild

life

Man

agem

ent

Are

a un

its

and

Iden

tify

MU

C

Man

agem

ent u

nits

– C

AT

1 Pi

ute-

Fenn

er –

173

,850

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y –

37,2

80

Shad

ow V

alle

y –

114,

060

N. I

vanp

ah –

29,

110

CA

T I

Tot

al –

354

,300

MU

C L

or C

– 3

05,6

58

MU

C M

– 4

8,64

2

WH

MA

– 2

32,0

00

Man

agem

ent u

nits

– C

AT

1 Pi

ute-

Fenn

er –

173

,850

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y –

37,2

80

Shad

ow V

alle

y –

114,

060

N. I

vanp

ah –

29,

110

CA

T I

Tot

al –

354

,300

MU

C L

or C

– 3

05,6

58

MU

C M

to L

(Cha

nge)

– 4

8,64

2 A

CEC

– 3

54,3

00

CA

T I -

DW

MA

– 3

54,3

00

Man

agem

ent u

nits

– C

AT

1 Pi

ute-

Fenn

er –

173

,850

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y –

37,2

80

Shad

ow V

alle

y –

114,

060

CA

T I

Tot

al –

325

,190

MU

C L

or C

– 2

82,4

77

MU

C M

to L

(Cha

nge)

– 4

2,71

3 A

CEC

– 3

25,1

90

CA

T I -

DW

MA

– 3

25,1

90

Man

agem

ent u

nits

– C

AT

1 Pi

ute-

Fenn

er –

173

,850

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y –

37,2

80

CA

T I

Tot

al –

211

,130

MU

C L

or C

– 2

07,1

70

MU

C M

to L

(Cha

nge)

– 3

,960

A

CEC

– 2

11,1

30

CA

T I -

DW

MA

– 2

11,1

30

Man

agem

ent u

nits

– C

AT

1 Pi

ute-

Fenn

er –

173

,850

Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y –

36,7

95

Shad

ow V

alle

y –

101,

355

CA

T I

Tot

al –

312

,000

MU

C L

or C

–27

8,71

0

MU

C M

to L

(Cha

nge)

–

30,0

10

AC

EC –

312

,000

C

AT

I - D

WM

A –

312

,000

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-32

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Gen

eral

M

anag

emen

t St

rate

gy

Util

ize

Exis

ting

Man

agem

ent

Stra

tegi

es:

��

Exis

ting

biol

ogic

al o

pini

ons

and

agre

emen

ts

��

Exis

ting

loca

l rav

en m

gt.

Act

iviti

es, d

efer

to

coor

dina

ted

mul

ti-ag

ency

pr

ogra

m to

be

deve

lope

d in

th

e fu

ture

��

Con

sulta

tion

case

-by-

case

ex

cept

for a

few

smal

l pr

ogra

mm

atic

agr

eem

ents

(e

.g.,

smal

l min

ing

(10

ac.),

sm

all d

istu

rban

ce (2

ac)

) ��

Stat

ewid

e M

OU

for

com

pens

atio

n

Util

ize

a Pr

ogra

mm

atic

C

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith ti

ered

ex

pedi

ted

BO

s, in

all

DT

habi

tats

. Thr

ee

trigg

ers f

or

cons

ulta

tions

are

: 1.

Any

pro

posa

l tha

t wou

ld

dist

urb

mor

e th

an 1

00

acre

s2.

Any

pro

ject

for w

hich

the

NEP

A m

echa

nism

is a

n EI

S, re

gard

less

of t

he si

ze

of th

e pr

ojec

t 3.

Any

pro

ject

, whi

ch c

an

only

be

cons

ider

ed

thro

ugh

a pl

an a

men

dmen

t pr

oces

s, re

gard

less

of t

he

size

of t

he p

roje

ct. T

his

requ

irem

ent a

pplie

s to

all

area

s of t

orto

ise

habi

tat-

both

insi

de a

nd o

utsid

e D

WM

As.

��

Cum

ulat

ive

new

surfa

ce

dist

urba

nce

limits

1%

; ��

Proj

ect s

peci

fic

dist

urba

nce

limits

100

ac

res.

��

Ado

pt D

T st

rate

gy

pres

crip

tions

&

Miti

gatio

n (A

PP A

) ��

A c

oope

rativ

e ph

ased

ra

ven

mgt

. pro

gram

��

Cha

nge

the

com

pens

atio

n ra

tio in

al

l Cat

egor

y I h

abita

t to

5:1.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

: U

tiliz

e a

Prog

ram

mat

ic

Con

sulta

tion

in a

ll D

T ha

bita

t to

cove

r act

iviti

es o

f 10

0 ac

res o

r les

s, pr

ogra

mm

atic

to in

clud

e co

ncur

renc

e an

d tie

red,

ex

pedi

ted

BO

s. Pr

opos

als

that

requ

ire se

para

te

cons

ulta

tions

incl

ude:

��

Any

pro

posa

l tha

t w

ould

dis

turb

mor

e th

an 1

00 a

cres

exc

ept i

n th

e fo

llow

ing

inst

ance

- a

prop

osal

for a

el

ectri

cal t

rans

mis

sion

lin

e or

pip

elin

e w

ithin

an

exi

stin

g C

DC

A P

lan

utili

ty c

orrid

or fo

r w

hich

the

NEP

A

mec

hani

sm is

an

EA

and

not a

n EI

S.

��

Cha

nge

the

com

pens

atio

n ra

tio in

al

l Cat

egor

y I h

abita

t to

5:1.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

exce

pt:

Util

ize

a Pr

ogra

mm

atic

C

onsu

ltatio

n in

all

DT

habi

tats

. The

firs

t trig

ger

wou

ld b

e m

odifi

ed a

s fo

llow

s:

��

Any

pro

posa

l tha

t w

ould

dis

turb

mor

e th

an 1

00 a

cres

(if n

ot

alre

ady

the

figur

e us

ed),

exce

pt in

the

follo

win

g in

stan

ce -

a pr

opos

al fo

r a

elec

trica

l tra

nsm

issi

on

line

or p

ipel

ine

with

in

an e

xist

ing

CD

CA

Pla

n ut

ility

cor

ridor

for

whi

ch th

e N

EPA

m

echa

nism

is a

n EA

an

d no

t an

EIS.

��

-Cum

ulat

ive

new

su

rface

dis

turb

ance

lim

its 3

% w

ith sa

me

trigg

ers a

s Alt

3.

��

Proj

ect s

peci

fic 2

50 a

c -

CA

T I &

III i

nsid

e an

d ou

tsid

e of

DW

MA

s ��

A c

ompr

ehen

sive

ph

ased

rave

n m

gt

prog

ram

whe

re le

thal

re

mov

al w

ould

not

oc

cur.

��

Cha

nge

the

com

pens

atio

n ra

tio in

al

l Cat

egor

y I h

abita

t to

5:1.

Alte

rnat

ive

3

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-33

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Veh

icle

M

anag

emen

t

Rou

te d

esig

natio

n w

ould

occ

ur

in a

ll C

ateg

ory

I hab

itat,

cons

iste

nt w

ith F

eder

al

regu

latio

n an

d C

DC

A P

lan

guid

ance

, bas

ed o

n th

e ex

istin

g ro

ute

inve

ntor

y.

��

Rul

es fo

r par

king

and

ca

mpi

ng w

ould

rem

ain

unch

ange

d - s

topp

ing

and

park

ing

alon

g ro

utes

of

trave

l is l

imite

d to

dis

turb

ed

area

s with

in 3

00 fe

et

��

Spec

ific

area

s may

be

sign

ed O

pen

or C

lose

d to

pr

otec

t sen

sitiv

e re

sour

ces

��

Use

of w

ashe

s is g

over

ned

by a

rea

desi

gnat

ions

. In

lim

ited

area

s, ve

hicl

e us

e in

de

sert

was

hes i

s gov

erne

d by

the

mul

tiple

-use

cla

ss

��

Was

hes a

s acc

ess r

oute

s m

ay h

ave

trave

l lim

itatio

ns

such

as s

peed

lim

its o

r se

ason

al c

losu

re im

pose

d to

pr

otec

t res

ourc

es.

��

The

open

cam

ping

zon

e al

ong

road

s with

in se

nsiti

ve

area

may

be

limite

d to

di

stur

bed

area

s with

in 1

00

feet

.

Des

igna

te ro

utes

of t

rave

l in

the

four

pro

pose

d un

its o

f th

e D

WM

A, c

onsi

sten

t with

fe

dera

l reg

ulat

ions

and

the

exis

ting

rout

e in

vent

ory.

R

ules

for p

arki

ng a

nd

cam

ping

wou

ld b

e m

odifi

ed

as fo

llow

s:

��

Park

ing

and

cam

ping

w

ill b

e al

low

ed in

di

stur

bed

area

s with

in

50 fe

et o

f rou

te

cent

erlin

e w

ithin

the

prop

osed

DW

MA

��

All

navi

gabl

e w

ashe

s w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed a

s C

lose

d.

��

Inte

rpre

tive

sign

ing

and

info

rmat

iona

l kio

sks

will

be

inst

alle

d.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

: ��

Park

ing

and

cam

ping

w

ill b

e al

low

ed in

di

stur

bed

area

s with

in

100

feet

of r

oute

ce

nter

line

with

in th

e pr

opos

ed D

WM

A.

��

Whe

re n

avig

able

w

ashe

s are

des

igna

ted

open

or l

imite

d, p

arki

ng

and

cam

ping

will

be

allo

wed

onl

y w

ithin

the

bank

s of t

he w

ash.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

: ��

Park

ing

and

cam

ping

w

ill b

e al

low

ed in

di

stur

bed

area

s with

in

100

feet

of r

oute

ce

nter

line

with

in th

e pr

opos

ed D

WM

A.

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Live

stoc

k G

razi

ng

Use

Fal

lbac

k St

anda

rds a

nd

Gui

delin

es C

DC

A P

lan,

al

lotm

ent m

anag

emen

t pla

ns,

and

term

s and

con

ditio

ns fr

om

the

exis

ting

USF

WS

biol

ogic

al

opin

ions

.

Use

d R

egio

nal S

tand

ards

an

d G

uide

lines

for G

razi

ng

Man

agem

ent,

CD

CA

Pla

n,

allo

tmen

t man

agem

ent p

lans

, an

d te

rms a

nd c

ondi

tions

fro

m th

e ex

istin

g U

SFW

S

Use

Reg

iona

l Sta

ndar

ds a

nd

Gui

delin

es fo

r Gra

zing

M

anag

emen

t, C

DC

A P

lan,

al

lotm

ent m

anag

emen

t pla

ns,

and

term

s and

con

ditio

ns

from

the

exis

ting

USF

WS

Use

Reg

iona

l Sta

ndar

ds o

f pu

blic

land

hea

lth a

nd

Gui

delin

es fo

r Gra

zing

M

anag

emen

t, C

DC

A P

lan,

al

lotm

ent m

anag

emen

t pla

ns,

and

term

s and

con

ditio

ns

For g

razi

ng m

anag

emen

t, th

e Pr

opos

ed P

lan

is th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 3

with

re

spec

t to

graz

ing

stra

tegi

es

(whi

ch se

e) e

xcep

t: th

e fo

llow

ing

chan

geof

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-34

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

biol

ogic

al o

pini

ons.

For

al

lotm

ents

with

in D

WM

As:

��

Gra

zing

use

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e in

th

ose

porti

ons o

f the

al

lotm

ents

with

in

DW

MA

s.

��

Dev

elop

new

allo

tmen

t bo

unda

ries,

whe

re

feas

ible

, fro

m p

ortio

ns

of a

ffect

ed a

llotm

ents

ou

tsid

e of

the

DW

MA

.

biol

ogic

al o

pini

ons.

For

al

lotm

ents

with

in th

e D

WM

As:

��

Allo

w v

olun

tary

re

linqu

ishm

ent o

f gr

azin

g le

ases

, and

re

late

d au

thor

izat

ions

. G

razi

ng u

se w

ould

be

unav

aila

ble

upon

re

linqu

ishm

ent.

��

Ephe

mer

al g

razi

ng u

se

for e

phm

eral

allo

tmen

ts

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e an

d ep

hem

eral

gr

azin

g us

e is

un

avai

labl

e on

ep

hem

eral

/per

enni

al

allo

tmen

ts.

��

Tem

pora

ry

nonr

enew

able

gra

zing

us

e w

ill n

ot b

e au

thor

ized

. ��

Cat

tle sh

all b

e re

mov

ed

from

the

DW

MA

as p

er

the

graz

ing

stra

tegy

fro

m 3

/15

to 1

1/1

durin

g ye

ars w

hen

ephe

mer

al fo

rage

pr

oduc

tion

is le

ss th

an

230

poun

ds p

er a

cre.

Th

e gr

azin

g st

rate

gy

will

be

deve

lope

d w

ithin

a y

ear a

nd

impl

emen

ted

with

in tw

o ye

ars.

The

Stra

tegy

sh

all b

e a

writ

ten

plan

de

taili

ngth

ear

eaof

from

the

exis

ting

USF

WS

biol

ogic

al o

pini

ons.

For

al

lotm

ents

with

in D

WM

As:

��

Allo

w v

olun

tary

re

linqu

ishm

ent o

f gr

azin

g le

ases

and

re

late

d au

thor

izat

ions

. ��

Gra

zing

use

wou

ld b

e un

avai

labl

e fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al u

se

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e un

der

ephe

mer

al a

utho

rizat

ion

for e

phem

eral

/ pe

renn

ial a

llotm

ents

.

seas

onal

eph

emer

al

limita

tions

, add

ition

al

defin

ition

s, an

d ad

ditio

nal

prio

rity

rese

arch

topi

c ar

e m

odifi

catio

ns u

nder

the

prop

osed

pla

n.

��

For a

gra

zing

allo

tmen

t pa

rtial

ly in

a D

WM

A,

whe

n ep

hem

eral

fora

ge

prod

uctio

n is

less

than

23

0 po

unds

per

acr

e,

cattl

e sh

all b

e su

bsta

ntia

lly re

mov

ed

from

the

DW

MA

from

M

arch

15

to Ju

ne 1

5.

��

In y

ears

of g

ood

win

ter

prec

ipita

tion

and

soil

moi

stur

e pr

esen

ce,

cattl

e m

ay re

mai

n pa

st

Mar

ch 1

5 in

ex

pect

atio

n of

ep

hem

eral

fora

ge

prod

uctio

n ov

er 2

30

lbs./

ac.

If th

is le

vel o

f fo

rage

is n

ot a

ttain

ed

whe

n w

eath

er

cond

ition

s (e.

g.,

war

min

g of

the

soil)

ar

e ap

prop

riate

, cat

tle

mus

t lea

ve th

e D

WM

A

until

such

tim

e as

230

lb

s./ac

. eph

emer

al

fora

ge is

ach

ieve

d or

Ju

ne 1

5, w

hich

ever

is

earli

er.

This

de

term

inat

ion

will

be

mad

e ba

sed

on th

e

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-35

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

deta

iling

the

area

of

rem

oval

, nat

ural

cat

tle

mov

emen

ts, e

xist

ing

and

pote

ntia

l im

prov

emen

ts, a

nd

othe

r con

stra

ints

of

cattl

e m

anag

emen

t.

eval

uatio

n an

d ju

dgm

ent o

f the

BLM

au

thor

ized

offi

cer.

If

cattl

e m

ust b

e re

mov

ed,

the

oper

ator

will

be

give

n tw

o w

eeks

to

rem

ove

them

from

the

DW

MA

.

��

In y

ears

of p

oor w

inte

r pr

ecip

itatio

n or

abs

ence

of

soil

moi

stur

e, c

attle

m

ust b

e re

mov

ed fr

om

the

DW

MA

by

Mar

ch

15 a

nd re

mai

n ou

t unt

il su

ch ti

me

as 2

30

lbs./

ac. e

phem

eral

fo

rage

is a

chie

ved

or

June

15,

whi

chev

er is

ea

rlier

.

��

The

term

“su

bsta

ntia

lly

rem

oved

” re

cogn

izes

th

at so

me

cattl

e m

ay

wan

der i

nto

the

area

of

seas

onal

clo

sure

de

spite

the

oper

ator

’s

best

effo

rts a

nd

rega

rdle

ss o

f m

anag

emen

t fac

ilitie

s (e

.g.,

fenc

es, w

ater

so

urce

s) th

at a

re in

pl

ace.

��

Con

duct

rese

arch

au

thor

ized

on

allo

tmen

ts w

ithin

D

WM

As c

onsi

sten

t

BLM

CD

DC

hapt

er 2

.0 P

ropo

sed

Plan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-36

Sum

mar

y of

Alte

rnat

ives

for

Des

ert T

orto

ise R

ecov

ery

Issu

e A

ltern

ativ

e #

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e# 2

M

od. R

ecov

ery

Plan

, Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 3

Tw

o Fo

cal P

opul

atio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

# 4

One

Foc

al P

opul

atio

n A

ltern

ativ

e #

5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

with

Exp

erim

enta

l G

razi

ng M

anag

emen

t pa

ram

eter

s out

lined

in

the

1994

USF

WS

Rec

over

y P

lan

for

dese

rt to

rtoi

se, M

ojav

e po

pula

tion.

Res

earc

h sh

all b

e su

bmitt

ed to

th

e U

SFW

S fo

r co

ncur

renc

e.

Wild

Hor

ses

& B

urro

s

Util

ize

exis

ting

CD

CA

Pla

n m

anag

emen

t and

the

exis

ting

East

Moj

ave

HM

A P

lan

to

man

age

burr

os w

ithin

DT

habi

tat

incl

udin

g th

ose

with

in c

ritic

al

and

/or C

ateg

ory

I hab

itat,

with

ad

ditio

nal m

anag

emen

t pa

ram

eter

s (te

rms a

nd

cond

ition

s).

Elim

inat

e th

e C

lark

M

ount

ain

HM

A, s

ince

mos

t of

the

area

, whi

ch h

as b

een

iden

tifie

d fo

r bur

ro

man

agem

ent i

n th

e C

DC

A

Plan

, is l

ocat

ed in

the

Shad

ow V

alle

y U

nit o

f the

D

WM

As.

Bur

ros w

ould

be

rem

oved

.

Mod

ify th

e C

lark

Mou

ntai

n H

MA

to e

xclu

de th

at a

rea

loca

ted

with

in th

e pr

opos

ed

DW

MA

s. T

he re

esta

blis

hed

HM

A b

ound

ary

wou

ld b

e ad

jace

nt to

the

Nev

ada

bord

er n

orth

of I

-15,

in

north

ern

Ivan

pah

Val

ley.

Th

e A

ML

wou

ld b

e 60

bu

rros,

per e

xist

ing

CD

CA

Pl

an c

onsi

dera

tions

, pen

ding

th

e ou

tcom

e of

a re

vise

d 5-

year

car

ryin

g ca

paci

ty

anal

ysis

.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

exis

ting

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

.

Alte

rnat

ive

2, c

ontin

ue to

re

duce

bur

ro n

umbe

rs in

the

Cla

rk M

ount

ain

Her

d M

anag

emen

t Are

a an

d as

soci

ated

con

cent

ratio

n ar

eas

with

in th

e Cl

ark

Mou

ntai

n H

erd

Are

a.

Cha

nge

the

HM

A A

ML

from

44

to 0

, con

sist

ent

with

the

othe

r tw

o co

ncen

tratio

n ar

eas f

or th

e C

lark

Mou

ntai

n H

erd

Are

a,

and

dele

te th

e H

erd

Man

agem

ent A

rea

whi

ch

over

laps

the

Shad

ow V

alle

y D

WM

A..

Lan

d T

enur

e U

se c

urre

nt la

nd a

cqui

sitio

n st

rate

gies

Ret

ain

all C

AT

I DT

habi

tat

Acq

uire

all

land

s in

the

DW

MA

s fro

m w

illin

g se

llers

Sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-37

Tab

le 2

.10

– Su

mm

ary

of G

razi

ng A

ltern

ativ

es

Sum

mar

y of

Gra

zing

Alte

rnat

ives

A

llotm

ent N

ame

Allo

tmen

t N

umbe

r A

ltern

ativ

e 1

N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Mod

ified

Rec

over

y Pl

an

Alte

rnat

ive

3 Tw

o Fo

cal

Popu

latio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

4 O

ne F

ocal

Pop

ulat

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

PL A

cres

A

UM

sE

/P10

Mgt

.11

Cla

rk M

ount

ain

0900

3 97

,560

121,

30312

E/P

A, B

, C

Gra

zing

use

wou

ld

no lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e an

d bo

unda

ry o

f al

lotm

ent w

ithin

the

DW

MA

.

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Col

ton

Hill

s 09

202

013013

E/P

D

D

D

D

D

Cre

scen

t Pea

k 09

013

6,71

912

35912

E/P

A, B

, C

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Dee

p Sp

rings

05

062

43,9

32

1,25

0 P

A

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Eure

ka V

alle

y 05

001

17,0

00

0 E

A

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Fish

Lak

e V

alle

y 00

96

577

52

P A

N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e G

old

Val

ley

0921

2 013

013

E/P

D

D

D

D

D

Hor

seth

ief

Sprin

gs

0900

7 15

0,14

0 2,

424

E/P

A

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Hun

ter M

ount

ain

0501

3 53

,920

0

P A

, B

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Jean

Lak

e 09

017

9,80

6 30

0 E/

P A

, B, C

G

razi

ng u

se w

ould

no

long

er b

e av

aila

ble

and

boun

dary

of

allo

tmen

t with

in th

e D

WM

A.

230

lbs.

of e

phem

eral

fo

rage

on

all a

llotm

ents

fro

m 3

/15-

6/15

or

rem

ove

lives

tock

, and

po

tent

ially

redu

ce

AU

Ms t

o 21

1.

Tem

pora

ry n

on-

rene

wab

le g

razi

ng u

se

will

not

be

auth

oriz

ed.

Ephe

mer

al u

se fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al/p

eren

nial

al

lotm

ents

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e, a

nd

allo

w fo

r vol

unta

ry

relin

quis

hmen

t of

graz

ing

leas

es a

nd

rela

ted

auth

oriz

atio

ns.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-38

Sum

mar

y of

Gra

zing

Alte

rnat

ives

A

llotm

ent N

ame

Allo

tmen

t N

umbe

r A

ltern

ativ

e 1

N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Mod

ified

Rec

over

y Pl

an

Alte

rnat

ive

3 Tw

o Fo

cal

Popu

latio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

4 O

ne F

ocal

Pop

ulat

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

PL A

cres

A

UM

sE

/P10

Mgt

.11

Kes

sler

Spr

ings

09

008

14,1

6112

48

112E/

P A

, B, C

G

razi

ng u

se w

ould

no

long

er b

e av

aila

ble

and

boun

dary

of

allo

tmen

t with

in th

e D

WM

A.

230l

bs. O

f eph

emer

al

fora

ge o

n al

l allo

tmen

ts

from

3/1

5-6/

15 o

r re

mov

e liv

esto

ck, a

nd

pote

ntia

lly re

duce

A

UM

s to

432.

Te

mpo

rary

non

-re

new

able

gra

zing

use

w

ill n

ot b

e au

thor

ized

Ephe

mer

al u

se fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al/p

eren

nial

al

lotm

ents

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e, a

nd

allo

w fo

r vol

unta

ry

relin

quis

hmen

t of

graz

ing

leas

es a

nd

rela

ted

auth

oriz

atio

ns.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Last

Cha

nce

0506

1 35

,532

1,

639

P A

N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e O

asis

05

059

22,9

68

656

P A

N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e Pa

hrum

p V

alle

y 08

000

26,9

52

353

E/P

A, C

N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e N

o C

hang

e Pi

ute

Val

ley

0900

4 20

,145

0

E A

, B, C

G

razi

ng u

se w

ould

no

long

er b

e av

aila

ble

and

boun

dary

of

allo

tmen

t with

in th

e D

WM

A.

230l

bs. o

f eph

emer

al

fora

ge o

n al

l allo

tmen

ts

from

3/1

5-6/

15 o

r re

mov

e liv

esto

ck.

Tem

pora

ry n

on-

rene

wab

le g

razi

ng u

se

will

not

be

auth

oriz

ed

Ephe

mer

al u

se fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al/p

eren

nial

al

lotm

ents

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e, a

nd

allo

w fo

r vol

unta

ry

relin

quis

hmen

t of

graz

ing

leas

es a

nd

rela

ted

auth

oriz

atio

ns.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Rou

nd V

alle

y 09

726

013

013E/

P D

D

D

D

D

Sout

h O

asis

05

063

15,1

73

477

P A

, B

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-39

Sum

mar

y of

Gra

zing

Alte

rnat

ives

A

llotm

ent N

ame

Allo

tmen

t N

umbe

r A

ltern

ativ

e 1

N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Mod

ified

Rec

over

y Pl

an

Alte

rnat

ive

3 Tw

o Fo

cal

Popu

latio

ns

Alte

rnat

ive

4 O

ne F

ocal

Pop

ulat

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

PL A

cres

A

UM

sE

/P10

Mgt

.11

Val

ley

Vie

w

0900

0 31

,575

12

84912

E/P

A, B

, C

Gra

zing

use

wou

ld

no lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e an

d bo

unda

ry o

f al

lotm

ent w

ithin

the

DW

MA

.

230l

bs. o

f eph

emer

al

fora

ge o

n al

l allo

tmen

ts

from

3/1

5-6/

15 o

r re

mov

e liv

esto

ck, a

nd

pote

ntia

lly re

duce

A

UM

s to

713.

Te

mpo

rary

non

-re

new

able

gra

zing

use

w

ill n

ot b

e au

thor

ized

Ephe

mer

al u

se fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al/p

eren

nial

al

lotm

ents

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e, a

nd

allo

w fo

r vol

unta

ry

relin

quis

hmen

t of

graz

ing

leas

es a

nd

rela

ted

auth

oriz

atio

ns.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Val

ley

Wel

ls

0900

9 22

3,00

712

4,27

212E/

P A

, B, C

G

razi

ng u

se w

ould

no

long

er b

e av

aila

ble

and

boun

dary

of

allo

tmen

t with

in th

e D

WM

A.

230l

bs. o

f eph

emer

al

fora

ge o

n al

l allo

tmen

ts

from

3/1

5-6/

15 o

r re

mov

e liv

esto

ck, a

nd

pote

ntia

lly re

duce

A

UM

s to

3,70

6.

Tem

pora

ry n

on-

rene

wab

le g

razi

ng u

se

will

not

be

auth

oriz

ed

Ephe

mer

al u

se fo

r ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

ts

and

ephe

mer

al/p

eren

nial

al

lotm

ents

wou

ld n

o lo

nger

be

avai

labl

e, a

nd

allo

w fo

r vol

unta

ry

relin

quis

hmen

t of

graz

ing

leas

es a

nd

rela

ted

auth

oriz

atio

ns.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Whi

te W

olf

0506

0 13

,733

30

7 P

A

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

No

Cha

nge

Tot

al

87

3,47

9 17

,886

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-40

10E

– T

ypes

of r

ange

land

veg

etat

ion

that

con

sist

ently

pro

duce

live

stock

prim

arily

com

pose

d of

ann

ual f

orbs

and

gra

sses

. Fo

rage

pro

duct

ion

can

vary

ext

rem

ely

from

yea

r to

year

, w

hich

requ

ires m

anag

emen

t fle

xibi

lity

to p

resc

ribe

stoc

king

rate

and

per

iod

of u

se.

P

– T

ypes

of r

ange

land

veg

etat

ion

that

con

sist

ently

pro

duce

live

stoc

k fo

rage

prim

arily

com

pose

d of

per

enni

al sh

rubs

and

gra

sses

. Th

is ty

pe o

f for

age

prod

uctio

n al

low

s co

nsis

tent

fora

ge a

lloca

tion

for g

razi

ng u

se.

11A

– G

razi

ng m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es a

re d

irect

ed a

nd g

uide

d by

the

Cal

iforn

ia D

eser

t Con

serv

atio

n A

rea

Pla

n, 1

980.

B

– G

razi

ng a

ctiv

ities

are

man

aged

und

er a

n ex

istin

g al

lotm

ent m

anag

emen

t pla

n.

C

– M

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s are

pre

scrib

ed fo

r cat

tle g

razi

ng a

ctiv

ities

in d

eser

t tor

tois

e ha

bita

t. M

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s for

gra

zing

act

iviti

es a

re li

sted

und

er U

.S. F

ish a

nd W

ildlif

e Se

rvic

e’s t

wo

biol

ogic

al o

pini

ons l

abel

ed B

iolo

gica

l Opi

nion

for

Cat

tle G

razi

ng o

n 25

Allo

tmen

ts in

the

Moj

ave

Des

ert,

Riv

ersi

de a

nd S

an B

erna

rdin

o C

ount

ies,

Cal

iforn

ia (1

-8-

94-F

-17,

ext

ende

d 5/

17/9

9), a

nd B

iolo

gica

l Opi

nion

for

the

Inte

rim

Liv

esto

ck G

razi

ng P

rogr

am P

ropo

sed

by th

e B

urea

u of

Lan

d M

anag

emen

t and

Nat

iona

l Par

k Se

rvic

e in

M

ojav

e D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

ritic

al H

abita

t (1-

5-96

-F-2

96R

).

D

– T

his a

llotm

ent i

s man

aged

by

the

NPS

, and

for c

urre

nt a

nd fu

ture

gra

zing

man

agem

ent r

efer

to th

e re

cent

ly p

ublis

hed

Gen

eral

Man

agem

ent P

lan.

Apr

il 2

002,

and

as

soci

ated

Dra

ft an

d F

inal

Env

iron

men

tal I

mpa

ct S

tate

men

ts, M

ojav

e N

atio

nal P

rese

rve.

12A

por

tion

of th

e al

lotm

ent i

s adm

inis

tere

d by

US

Nat

iona

l Par

k Se

rvic

e (N

PS) a

fter d

esig

natio

n of

the

Moj

ave

Nat

iona

l Pre

serv

e (M

NP)

. Th

e A

UM

s hav

e be

en a

djus

ted

dow

n ba

sed

on th

e pr

o-ra

ta sh

are

of B

LM a

nd N

PS a

dmin

istra

tion.

13A

ll of

the

allo

tmen

t adm

inis

tere

d by

NPS

afte

r des

igna

tion

of th

e M

NP

(sha

ded

gray

). D

elet

e al

loca

tions

and

are

a fo

r thi

s allo

tmen

t fro

m C

DC

A P

lan.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

2 D

eser

t Tor

tois

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-41

Tab

le 2

.11

– B

LM a

nd N

PS A

llotm

ents

and

Acr

eage

s

BLM

Allo

tmen

ts

NSP

Allo

tmen

ts

Tota

l A

llotm

ent

Nam

e A

llotm

ent

Num

ber

BLM

Pr

ivat

e St

ate

Tota

l N

PSPr

ivat

e St

ate

Tota

l Fe

dera

lPr

ivat

e St

ate

Tota

l

Cla

rk

Mou

ntai

n 90

03

97,5

60

871

5,53

7 10

3,96

8 15

,176

73

9 69

15

,984

11

2,73

6 1,

610

5,60

6 11

9,95

2

Piut

e V

alle

y 90

04

20,1

45

2,04

9 1,

338

23,5

32

22,8

23

1,46

3 57

124

,857

42

,968

3,

512

1,90

9 48

,389

Val

ley

Vie

w

9000

31

,575

1,

961

988

34,5

24

280,

519

7,30

8 7,

600

295,

427

312,

094

9,26

9 8,

588

329,

951

Val

ley

Wel

ls

9009

22

3,00

7 3,

364

10,5

31

236,

902

19,8

04

323

1,05

7 19

,804

24

2,81

1 3,

687

11,5

88

258,

086

Tabl

e 2.

12 –

BLM

Allo

tmen

ts a

nd A

crea

ges W

ithin

Pote

ntia

l Des

ert W

ildlif

e M

anag

emen

t Are

asPo

tent

ial D

WM

A A

CEC

B

LM

Priv

ate

Stat

e To

tal A

cres

A

llotm

ents

Shad

ow V

alle

y 10

7,07

2 1,

768

5,22

0 11

4,06

0 V

alle

y W

ells

Mod

ified

Sha

dow

Val

ley

95,6

70

1,74

8 3,

937

101,

355

Val

ley

Wel

ls

Nor

th Iv

anpa

h V

alle

y 27

,298

66

01,

152

29,1

10

Cla

rk M

ount

ain

Ivan

pah

Val

ley

34,8

30

2,45

0 0

37,2

80

Val

ley

Vie

w, K

essl

er S

prin

gs, &

Jean

Lak

e

Piut

e-Fe

nner

Val

ley

130,

474

37,2

10

6,16

6 17

3,85

0 Pi

ute

Val

ley

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.3 Amargosa Vole Conservation and Recovery

2-42

2.3 Amargosa Vole Conservation and Recovery Five areas along the Amargosa River have been identified for potential implementation of various Amargosa vole conservation strategies. Two of these are existing BLM ACECs. Grimshaw Lake Natural Area includes almost half of the critical habitat designated for the vole. Amargosa Canyon Natural Area is the southern extent of known historic habitat for the species. A third area includes the remainder of designated Amargosa Vole critical habitat, and extends from the southern end of Grimshaw Lake Natural Area to the northern end of Amargosa Canyon Natural Area, connecting the two. A fourth area extends from the Grimshaw Lake Natural Area northward to incorporate additional riparian habitat found along the central Amargosa River. The fifth area, located roughly 30 miles north of these areas on the Amargosa River, is referred to as the Upper Amargosa Reach. It includes upstream flow and source waters for the Central Amargosa River, important mesquite bosque wildlife habitat and ephemeral wetlands.

The alternatives include additional historic range of the Amargosa vole as well as adjacent riparian and mesquite bosque areas that are not currently known habitat for the species. Maintenance of water quantity and quality, particularly from springs and upstream riverine water flow are considered to be essential for the maintenance of Amargosa vole habitat.

Alternatives were developed that address vole recovery to the degree feasible at this time. The alternatives were also developed to be site-specific, as well as watershed-based, in order to facilitate Amargosa vole recovery, ecosystem planning and multiple-use management on public lands. There is currently insufficient information on population status, dynamics and other related issues to know what it will take to assure the vole's continued existence. Additional research would be carried out to address these issues as a part of the overall strategy. All alternatives would continue case-by-case consultations on proposed activities. A programmatic consultation may be developed later.

In addition, during analysis of Amargosa vole alternatives, the Amargosa River was determined to be potentially eligible under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) System. Vole recovery alternatives include proposals for WSR eligibility and further suitability studies that would be carried out in conjunction with ACEC Plan development. This issue is addressed separately in Section 2.12 of this Chapter.

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Amargosa Vole Management Area Options Alternative 1 (No Action) consists of activities already identified in the CDCA Plan for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species and in follow-up management plans developed for the ACECs (Amargosa Canyon and Grimshaw Lake ACECs, total 9,310 acres). Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 9a. The alternative would continue existing management of all Amargosa vole habitats on public lands with no additional designations, strategies or associated special management.


2-43

Amargosa Vole Proposed Management Prescriptions

The No Action Alternative would use existing CDCA Plan management directions on public lands in all known Amargosa vole habitat. Route designation would occur in MUC Limited areas, including Amargosa vole critical habitat, as time and personnel permit. Strategies and measures identified in existing ACEC Plans would remain in effect and would primarily consist of riparian restoration activities, monitoring of identified vole populations and associated wetlands vegetation, and recreation management. These ACEC management plans were prepared prior to federal listing of the vole, designation of critical habitat, and development of the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan. Conference and consultation would continue with state and federal wildlife agencies, respectively, on measures in the CDCA Plan and existing ACEC Management Plans, or any action that could affect the Amargosa vole,


2-44

2.3.2 Alternative 2 Amargosa Vole Management Area Options Designate the Amargosa River ACEC (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 9b and e). This alternative could affect 12,200 acres, including 10,450 acres of public lands managed by BLM in addition to the existing Amargosa Canyon (9,310 acres) and Grimshaw Lake Natural Areas (1,096 acres) ACECs including:

�� Suitable riparian habitat located east of the current Amargosa Canyon ACEC (2,400 acres in the China Ranch Wash area)

�� Suitable riparian habitat located upstream from the above mentioned areas to a point located five miles north of Shoshone including the Shoshone Cave Whip-scorpion Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA) (5,920 acres)

�� Upper Amargosa Mesquite Bosque WHMA (2,720 acres)

�� Designated Amargosa vole critical habitat not in the existing ACECs (1,180 acres of public lands)

Alternative 2 would also identify state (1,280 acres) and private lands (1,360 acres) in addition to the 630 acres already identified in the existing ACEC Plans for possible federal exchange or acquisition from willing landowners and inclusion in the Amargosa River ACEC, including the following:

�� 400 acres private lands east of Grimshaw Lake

�� 200 acres private lands within the Amargosa Canyon ACEC

�� 320 acres of state lands and 160 acres private lands that are critical habitat between Grimshaw Lake and Amargosa Canyon ACECs

�� 320 acres of state lands in the Old Spanish Trail area

�� 640 acres of state lands in the China Ranch Wash area

�� 600 acres of private land along the Amargosa River in the Shoshone area.

Amargosa Vole Alternative 2 Management Prescriptions Adopt strategies and measures prescribed in the existing Amargosa Canyon and Grimshaw Lake Natural Area ACEC Management Plans, as modified by recommended strategies and actions specified in the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan, as a single coordinated management plan, focused on riparian, ephemeral wetland and mesquite bosque resource protection and monitoring along the entire length of the proposed Amargosa River ACEC. (Refer to Appendix H for an outline of these recommended strategies and actions and further details may be found in the existing ACEC Plans). The management plan for this ACEC would be integrated, augmented and adjusted to address additional issues of concern for long-term management of the vole and other sensitive, threatened and endangered species occurring along this riverine system, within three years. This ACEC Management Plan would also include a programmatic consultation with the USFWS, should the scope of actions and activities detailed in that plan warrant such consultation. Issues, strategies and measures to be addressed in this proposed ACEC Management Plan would include:

�� Maintain viable populations of Amargosa vole

�� Develop monitoring and information base about Amargosa vole populations and habitat use

�� Conduct additional plant and wildlife inventories to identify all locations of special status species in the affected management unit, and develop appropriate measures to protect them


2-45

�� Develop strategies for riparian resource protection and monitoring in cooperation with private landowners and other federal, state and local agencies

�� Identify mechanisms to track progress in reaching the goals specified in the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan

�� Conserve and protect Amargosa watershed, riparian, ephemeral wetland and mesquite bosqueresources

�� Conduct route designations in conjunction with the ACEC Management Plan

�� Implement a land tenure strategy, targeting suitable Amargosa vole habitat within the expanded ACEC (Refer to Appendix N). Where land acquisition or exchange is not identified, conservation easements, cooperative riparian management strategies, and other measures would be used. BLM would work with interested landowners to maximize the recovery of the Amargosa vole

�� Protect riparian habitat used by four listed neotropical migratory bird species

�� Conserve other natural area values

�� Develop a suitability determination for Wild and Scenic River designation in areas determined eligible in this planning effort (Refer to Appendix O).

2.3.3 Alternative 3 – Proposed Plan Amargosa Vole Management Area Options The Proposed Plan incorporates sections of Alternative 2, as modified below. The Proposed Plan would designate the Amargosa River ACEC (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 9c and e). This Alternative would affect 9,820 acres, including 8,050 acres of public land s managed by BLM in addition to the existing ACEC acreages totaling ~19,130 acres, including:

�� Suitable riparian habitat located east of the current Amargosa Canyon ACEC (2,400 acres in the China Ranch Wash area)

�� Other suitable riparian habitat located upstream from these areas to a point located one mile south of Shoshone (3,520 acres)

�� Upper Amargosa Mesquite Bosque WHMA (2,720 acres)

�� Designated Amargosa vole critical habitat not in the existing ACECs (1,180 acres of public lands).

The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative 2 except lands are excluded in an area of the river from one mile south of Shoshone to a point five miles north of Shoshone and an existing 40 acre sand and gravel pit (T.21N. R.7E, Sec 29, Lot 1 abutting Highway 127).

It would also identify state (1,280 acres) and private lands (760 acres) in addition to the 630 acres already identified in the existing ACEC Plans for possible federal exchange or acquisition from willing landowners and inclusion in the Amargosa River ACEC. This would include the same areas for acquisition as Alternative 2, except lands in the Shoshone/Tecopa area (approximately 600 acres) would not be in the ACEC and would be excluded.


2-46

Amargosa Vole Proposed Management Prescriptions Same as Alternative 2.

Adopt strategies and measures prescribed in the existing Amargosa Canyon and Grimshaw Lake Natural Area ACEC Management Plans, as modified by recommended strategies and actions specified in the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan, as a single coordinated management plan, focused on riparian, ephemeral wetland and mesquite bosque resource protection and monitoring along the entire length of the proposed Amargosa River ACEC. Appendix H outlines the recommended strategies and actions. Further details may be found in existing ACEC Plans. The management plan for this ACEC would be integrated, augmented and adjusted within three years to address additional issues of concern for long-term management of the vole and other sensitive, threatened and endangered species occurring along this riverine system. The ACEC management plan would also include a programmatic consultation with the USFWS, should the scope of actions and activities detailed in that plan warrant such consultation. Issues, strategies and measures to be addressed in this proposed ACEC Management Plan would include:


�� Develop monitoring and additional information about Amargosa vole populations and habitat use

�� Conduct additional plant and wildlife inventories to identify all locations of special status species in the affected management unit, and develop appropriate measures to protect them

�� Develop strategies for riparian resource protection and monitoring in cooperation with private landowners and other federal, state, and local agencies

�� Identify additional mechanisms to track progress in reaching the goals specified in the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan

�� Conserve and protect Amargosa watershed, riparian, ephemeral wetland and mesquite bosqueresources

�� Conduct route designation in conjunction with the ACEC management plan

�� Implement a land tenure strategy, targeting suitable Amargosa vole habitat within the expanded ACEC (Appendix N). Where land acquisition or exchange is not identified, conservation easements, cooperative riparian management strategies, and other measures would be utilized. BLM would work with interested landowners to maximize the potential for recovery of the Amargosa vole

�� Protect riparian habitat utilized by four listed neotropical migratory bird species

�� Conserve other natural area values

�� Develop a suitability determination for Wild and Scenic River designation in areas determined eligible in this planning effort (Refer to Appendix O).


2-47

2.3.4 Alternative 4 Amargosa Vole Management Area Options Create a new Amargosa vole ACEC with boundaries coinciding to designated Amargosa vole critical habitat in the central Amargosa River watershed comprising 4,520 acres. The existing boundaries of the Amargosa Canyon and Grimshaw Lake Natural Area ACECs would be modified to exclude designated critical habitat: including 205 acres of the existing Amargosa Canyon ACEC and 1,055 acres of the existing Grimshaw Lake ACEC. Revised acreages total ~10,560 acres. Other existing ACEC and HMP boundaries would be unaffected. The proposed Amargosa vole ACEC would be dedicated to conservation of Amargosa vole populations and habitat. (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 9d)

It would also identify state (320 acres) and private lands (160 acres) for possible federal exchange or acquisition from willing landowners and inclusion in the Amargosa River ACEC.

Amargosa Vole Proposed Management Prescriptions Adopt the Amargosa Vole Recovery Plan recommendations as an overall management strategy for the proposed Amargosa Vole ACEC. The management plan for this ACEC would focus on Amargosa vole issues and would be completed within three years. This ACEC Management Plan would also include a programmatic consultation with the USFWS, if the scope of actions and activities detailed in that plan warrant such consultation. Issues, strategies and measures to be addressed in this proposed ACEC Management Plan would include:


�� Develop monitoring, and in general, additional information about Amargosa vole populations and habitat use

�� Identify additional mechanisms to track progress in reaching the goals specified in the Amargosa vole Recovery Plan and provide guidelines for multiple use, if needed

�� Conduct route designation in conjunction with the ACEC Management Plan

�� Implement a land tenure strategy, targeting suitable Amargosa vole habitat within the expanded ACEC. (Refer to Appendix N)

�� Develop a suitability determination for Wild and Scenic River designation in areas determined eligible in this planning effort. (Refer to Appendix O)

Table 2.13 provides a summary comparison of alternatives for the protection of the Amargosa vole and its habitat, and the Amargosa riparian corridor.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

3 A

mar

gosa

Vol

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-48

Tab

le 2

.13

– Su

mm

ary

Com

pari

son

of A

ltern

ativ

es fo

r A

mar

gosa

Vol

e an

d its

Hab

itat:

Man

agem

ent A

rea

Opt

ions

A

ltern

ativ

e 1

–

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

–

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Alte

rnat

ive

4

Con

tinue

exi

stin

g m

anag

emen

t of a

ll A

mar

gosa

vo

le h

abita

t on

publ

ic la

nds

with

no

addi

tiona

l de

sign

atio

ns, s

trate

gies

or

asso

ciat

ed sp

ecia

l m

anag

emen

t. A

ltern

ativ

e 1

(No

Act

ion)

con

sist

s of

activ

ities

alre

ady

iden

tifie

d in

th

e C

DC

A P

lan

for t

he

cons

erva

tion

and

reco

very

of

thre

aten

ed a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s and

in fo

llow

-up

man

agem

ent p

lans

dev

elop

ed

for t

he A

CEC

s (A

mar

gosa

C

anyo

n an

d G

rimsh

aw L

ake

AC

ECs)

.

Des

igna

te th

e A

mar

gosa

Riv

er A

CEC

.. T

his a

ltern

ativ

e co

uld

affe

ct 1

0,45

0 ac

res o

f pub

lic la

nds i

n ad

ditio

n to

the

exis

ting

Am

argo

sa C

anyo

n an

d G

rimsh

aw L

ake

Nat

ural

Are

as A

CEC

s (9

,310

acr

es) i

nclu

ding

:

��

Suita

ble

ripar

ian

habi

tat l

ocat

ed e

ast o

f the

cur

rent

Am

argo

sa

Can

yon

AC

EC (2

,400

acr

es in

the

Chi

na R

anch

Was

h ar

ea)

��

Oth

er su

itabl

e rip

aria

n ha

bita

t loc

ated

ups

tream

from

thes

e ar

eas t

o a

poin

t loc

ated

five

mile

s nor

th o

f Sho

shon

e in

clud

ing

the

Shos

hone

Cav

e W

hip-

scor

pion

Wild

life

Hab

itat

Man

agem

ent A

rea

(WH

MA

) (5,

920

acre

s)

��

Upp

er A

mar

gosa

Mes

quite

Bos

que

WH

MA

(950

acr

es)

��

Des

igna

ted

Am

argo

sa v

ole

criti

cal h

abita

t not

in th

e ex

istin

g A

CEC

s (1,

180

acre

s of p

ublic

land

s)

It w

ould

als

o id

entif

y st

ate

(1,2

80 a

cres

) and

priv

ate

land

s (1,

360

acre

s in

addi

tion

to th

e 63

0 ac

res a

lread

y id

entif

ied

in th

e ex

istin

g A

CEC

Pla

ns) f

or p

ossi

ble

fede

ral e

xcha

nge

or a

cqui

sitio

n fro

mw

illin

g la

ndow

ners

and

incl

usio

n in

the

Am

argo

sa R

iver

AC

EC,

incl

udin

g th

e fo

llow

ing:

��

400

acre

s priv

ate

land

s eas

t of G

rimsh

aw L

ake

��

200

acre

s priv

ate

land

s with

in th

e A

mar

gosa

Can

yon

AC

EC

��

320

acre

s of s

tate

land

s and

160

acr

es p

rivat

e la

nds t

hat a

re

criti

cal h

abita

t bet

wee

n G

rimsh

aw L

ake

and

Am

argo

sa

Can

yon

AC

ECs

��

320

acre

s of s

tate

land

s in

the

Old

Spa

nish

Tra

il ar

ea

��

640

acre

s of s

tate

land

s in

the

Chi

na R

anch

Was

h ar

ea

��

600

acre

s of p

rivat

e la

nd a

long

the

Am

argo

sa R

iver

in th

e Sh

osho

ne a

rea

Alte

rnat

ive

2, a

s mod

ified

: Des

igna

te th

e A

mar

gosa

Riv

er A

CEC

. Th

is a

ltern

ativ

e w

ould

affe

ct 8

,050

acr

es o

f pub

lic la

nds i

n ad

ditio

n to

the

exis

ting

AC

EC a

crea

ges.

This

alte

rnat

ive

is th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

exc

ept l

ands

are

exc

lude

d in

an

area

of

the

river

from

one

mile

sout

h of

Sho

shon

e to

a p

oint

five

mile

s nor

th o

f Sho

shon

e an

d an

exi

stin

g 40

-acr

e sa

nd a

nd g

rave

l pit

(T.

21N

. R

. 7E,

Sec

29,

Lot

1 a

butti

ng

Hig

hway

127

).

It w

ould

als

o id

entif

y st

ate

(1,2

80 a

cres

) an

d pr

ivat

e (7

60 a

cres

in a

dditi

on to

the

630

acre

s alre

ady

iden

tifie

d in

the

exis

ting

AC

EC P

lans

) lan

ds fo

r pos

sibl

e fe

dera

l ex

chan

ge o

r acq

uisi

tion

from

will

ing

land

owne

rs a

nd in

clus

ion

in th

e A

mar

gosa

R

iver

AC

EC.

This

wou

ld in

clud

e th

e sa

me

area

s fo

r acq

uisi

tion

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2

exce

pt la

nds i

n th

e Sh

osho

ne/T

ecop

a ar

ea

(app

roxi

mat

ely

600

acre

s).

Cre

ate

a ne

w A

mar

gosa

vol

e A

CEC

with

bou

ndar

ies

coin

cidi

ng to

des

igna

ted

Am

argo

sa v

ole

criti

cal h

abita

t in

the

cent

ral A

mar

gosa

Riv

er

wat

ersh

ed c

ompr

isin

g 4,

520

acre

s. T

he e

xist

ing

boun

darie

s of t

he A

mar

gosa

C

anyo

n an

d G

rimsh

aw L

ake

Nat

ural

Are

a A

CEC

s wou

ld

be m

odifi

ed to

exc

lude

de

sign

ated

crit

ical

hab

itat:

incl

udin

g 20

5 ac

res o

f the

ex

istin

g A

mar

gosa

Can

yon

AC

EC a

nd 1

,055

acr

es o

f the

ex

istin

g G

rimsh

aw L

ake

AC

EC. O

ther

exi

stin

g A

CEC

an

d H

MP

boun

darie

s wou

ld

be u

naffe

cted

. Th

e pr

opos

ed

Am

argo

sa v

ole

AC

EC w

ould

be

ded

icat

ed to

con

serv

atio

n of

Am

argo

sa v

ole

popu

latio

ns

and

habi

tat.

(Ref

er to

Cha

pter

8,

Fig

ure

9a a

nd b

)

It w

ould

als

o id

entif

y st

ate

(320

acr

es) a

nd p

rivat

e la

nds

(160

acr

es) f

or p

ossi

ble

fede

ral e

xcha

nge

or

acqu

isiti

on fr

omw

illin

g la

ndow

ners

and

incl

usio

n in

th

e A

mar

gosa

vol

e A

CEC

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

3 A

mar

gosa

Vol

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

2-49

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

N

o A

ctio

n M

anag

emen

t Pre

scri

ptio

ns:

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Man

agem

ent P

resc

ript

ions

:

Alte

rnat

ive

3 –

Pr

opos

ed P

lan

M

anag

emen

t Pre

scri

ptio

ns:

Alte

rnat

ive

4 M

anag

emen

t Pre

scri

ptio

ns:

Util

ize

exis

ting

CD

CA

pla

n m

anag

emen

t dire

ctio

n on

pub

lic

land

s in

all k

now

n A

mar

gosa

vol

e ha

bita

t. R

oute

des

igna

tion

wou

ld

occu

r in

MU

C L

imite

d ar

eas,

incl

udin

g A

mar

gosa

vol

e cr

itica

l ha

bita

t, as

tim

e an

d pe

rson

nel

perm

it. S

trate

gies

and

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied

in e

xisti

ng A

CEC

pla

ns

wou

ld re

mai

n in

effe

ct a

nd w

ould

pr

imar

ily c

onsi

st o

f rip

aria

n re

stor

atio

n ac

tiviti

es, m

onito

ring

of id

entif

ied

vole

pop

ulat

ions

and

as

soci

ated

wet

land

s veg

etat

ion,

an

d re

crea

tion

man

agem

ent.

Thes

e A

CEC

man

agem

ent p

lans

w

ere

prep

ared

prio

r to

Fede

ral

listin

g of

the

vole

, des

igna

tion

of

criti

cal h

abita

t, an

d de

velo

pmen

t of

the

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Rec

over

y Pl

an. C

onfe

renc

e an

d co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith S

tate

and

Fed

eral

wild

life

agen

cies

, res

pect

ivel

y, o

n m

easu

res i

n th

e C

DC

A P

lan

and

exis

ting

AC

EC m

anag

emen

t pl

ans,

or a

ny a

ctio

n th

at c

ould

af

fect

the

Am

argo

sa v

ole,

wou

ld

occu

r.

Ado

pt st

rate

gies

and

mea

sure

s pre

scrib

ed in

the

exis

ting

Am

argo

sa C

anyo

n an

d G

rimsh

aw L

ake

Nat

ural

Are

a A

CEC

man

agem

ent p

lans

, as m

odifi

ed b

y re

com

men

ded

stra

tegi

es a

nd a

ctio

ns sp

ecifi

ed in

the

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Rec

over

y Pl

an, i

nto

a sin

gle

coor

dina

ted

man

agem

ent p

lan,

focu

sed

on ri

paria

n ep

hem

eral

w

etla

nd a

nd m

esqu

ite b

osqu

e re

sour

ce p

rote

ctio

n an

d m

onito

ring

alon

g th

e en

tire

leng

th o

f the

pro

pose

d A

mar

gosa

Riv

er A

CEC

. (A

ppen

dix

H o

utlin

es o

f the

re

com

men

ded

stra

tegi

es a

nd a

ctio

ns).

The

man

agem

ent p

lan

for t

his A

CEC

w

ould

be

inte

grat

ed, a

ugm

ente

d an

d ad

just

ed w

ithin

thre

e ye

ars t

o ad

dres

s ad

ditio

nal i

ssue

s of c

once

rn fo

r lon

g-te

rm m

anag

emen

t of t

he v

ole

and

othe

r se

nsiti

ve, t

hrea

tene

d an

d en

dang

ered

spec

ies o

ccur

ring

alon

g th

is ri

verin

e sy

stem

. Th

is A

CEC

man

agem

ent p

lan

wou

ld a

lso in

clud

e a

prog

ram

mat

ic c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e U

SFW

S, sh

ould

the

scop

e of

act

ions

and

act

iviti

es d

etai

led

in th

at p

lan

war

rant

such

con

sulta

tion.

Iss

ues,

stra

tegi

es a

nd m

easu

res t

o be

add

ress

ed in

this

pr

opos

ed A

CEC

man

agem

ent p

lan

wou

ld in

clud

e:

��

Mai

ntai

n vi

able

pop

ulat

ions

of A

mar

gosa

vol

e ��

Dev

elop

mon

itorin

g, a

nd in

gen

eral

, add

ition

al in

form

atio

n ab

out A

mar

gosa

vo

le p

opul

atio

ns a

nd h

abita

t use

��

Con

duct

add

ition

al p

lant

and

wild

life

inve

ntor

ies t

o id

entif

y al

l loc

atio

ns o

f sp

ecia

l sta

tus s

peci

es in

the

affe

cted

man

agem

ent u

nit,

and

deve

lop

appr

opria

te m

easu

res t

o pr

otec

t the

m

��

Dev

elop

stra

tegi

es fo

r rip

aria

n re

sour

ce p

rote

ctio

n an

d m

onito

ring

in

coop

erat

ion

with

priv

ate

land

owne

rs a

nd o

ther

fede

ral,

state

, and

loca

l ag

enci

es

��

Iden

tify

mec

hani

sms t

o tra

ck p

rogr

ess i

n re

achi

ng th

e go

als s

peci

fied

in th

e A

mar

gosa

Vol

e R

ecov

ery

Plan

��

Con

serv

e an

d pr

otec

t Am

argo

sa w

ater

shed

, rip

aria

n, e

phem

eral

wet

land

and

m

esqu

ite b

osqu

e re

sour

ces

��

Con

duct

rout

e de

sign

atio

n in

con

junc

tion

with

the

AC

EC m

anag

emen

t pla

n.

��

Impl

emen

t a la

nd te

nure

stra

tegy

, tar

getin

g su

itabl

e A

mar

gosa

vol

e ha

bita

t w

ithin

the

expa

nded

AC

EC (A

ppen

dix

N).

Whe

re la

nd a

cqui

sitio

n or

ex

chan

ge is

not

iden

tifie

d, c

onse

rvat

ion

ease

men

ts, c

oope

rativ

e rip

aria

n m

anag

emen

t stra

tegi

es, a

nd o

ther

mea

sure

s wou

ld b

e ut

ilize

d. B

LM w

ould

w

ork

with

inte

rest

ed la

ndow

ners

to m

axim

ize

the

pote

ntia

l for

reco

very

of

the

Am

argo

sa v

ole

��

Prot

ect r

ipar

ian

habi

tat u

tiliz

ed b

y fo

ur li

sted

neo

tropi

cal m

igra

tory

bird

sp

ecie

s ��

Con

serv

e ot

her n

atur

al a

rea

valu

es

��

Dev

elop

a su

itabi

lity

dete

rmin

atio

n fo

r Wild

and

Sce

nic

Rive

r des

igna

tion

in a

reas

det

erm

ined

elig

ible

in th

is p

lann

ing

effo

rt. (

App

endi

x O

).

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

Ado

pt th

e A

mar

gosa

Vol

e R

ecov

ery

Plan

reco

mm

enda

tions

as a

n ov

eral

l m

anag

emen

t stra

tegy

for t

he

prop

osed

Am

argo

sa V

ole

AC

EC.

The

man

agem

ent p

lan

for t

his A

CEC

w

ould

focu

s on

Am

argo

sa v

ole

issu

es a

nd w

ould

be

com

plet

ed

with

in th

ree

year

s. T

he A

CEC

m

anag

emen

t pla

n w

ould

also

incl

ude

a pr

ogra

mm

atic

con

sulta

tion

with

the

USF

WS,

if th

e sc

ope

of a

ctio

ns a

nd

activ

ities

det

aile

d in

that

pla

n w

arra

nt su

ch c

onsu

ltatio

n. I

ssue

s, st

rate

gies

and

mea

sure

s to

be

addr

esse

d in

this

pro

pose

d A

CEC

m

anag

emen

t pla

n w

ould

incl

ude:

��

Mai

ntai

n vi

able

pop

ulat

ions

of

Am

argo

sa v

ole

��

Dev

elop

mon

itorin

g, a

nd in

ge

nera

l, ad

ditio

nal i

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t Am

argo

sa v

ole

popu

latio

ns a

nd h

abita

t use

��

Iden

tify

mec

hani

sms t

o tra

ck

prog

ress

in re

achi

ng th

e go

als

spec

ified

in th

e A

mar

gosa

Vol

e R

ecov

ery

Plan

and

pro

vide

gu

idel

ines

for m

ultip

le u

se, i

f ne

eded

��

Con

duct

rout

e de

sign

atio

n in

co

njun

ctio

n w

ith th

e A

CEC

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n��

Impl

emen

t a la

nd te

nure

st

rate

gy, t

arge

ting

suita

ble

Am

argo

sa v

ole

habi

tat w

ithin

th

e ex

pand

ed A

CEC

. (A

ppen

dix

N)

��

Dev

elop

a su

itabi

lity

dete

rmin

atio

n fo

r Wild

and

Sc

enic

Riv

er d

esig

natio

n in

ar

eas d

eter

min

ed e

ligib

le in

this

plan

ning

effo

rt. (

App

endi

x O

)

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.4 Threatened and Endangered Plants

2-50

2.4 Threatened and Endangered Plants in the Lower Carson Slough The following alternatives provide a public lands strategy to manage listed and sensitive plant species in the Lower Carson Slough- Northern Franklin Playa vicinity. Portions of this public land area have been designated critical habitat for the endangered Amargosa niterwort and the threatened Ash Meadows gumplant and are known to support the BLM-designated sensitive Tecopa birdsbeak as well. The federally listed spring loving centaury may also occupy this area.

Three areas located adjacent to the California-Nevada Stateline near Death Valley Junction have been identified for potential application of conservation strategies for these threatened and endangered plant species. The critical habitat area designated for the Amargosa niterwort in the NEMO planning area is the only critical habitat that exists for this species. These areas comprise the Lower Carson Slough tributary to the Amargosa River.

The most critical issue for the endangered (federal and state) Amargosa niterwort, according to the USFWS, is interruption of the water supply for its habitat. The habitat for this species is saline and alkaline sinks located near the terminus of spring seepages. The rarity of the soil and water conditions limits the geographical distribution of the species. All designated critical habitat for this species occurs on BLM-managed lands that are classified as MUC Limited or Moderate.

The Ash Meadows gumplant and the spring loving centaury are associated with areas of perched groundwater and are sensitive to depletion of spring water discharges. There are concerns about over-commitment of the aquifer in Nevada. An Alternative addressing an Amargosa River watershed management strategy is included in the range of Alternatives.

The Chicago Valley Wild Horse Herd Management Area overlaps the Salt and Brackish Water Marsh Unusual Plant Assemblage, consisting of a salt and brackish water marsh, which supports the Amargosa niterwort. The horses also range on lands to the south of Old Meadows Road. Management prescriptions for wild horses and burros are described in the Chicago Valley Herd Management Area Plan. The current AML is 28 wild horses and 28 burros. The best available information on the present population is four horses and four burros.

At this time, insufficient information exists on the two listed plant species to prepare a programmatic biological opinion for activities anticipated to occur on these lands. Therefore, case-by-case consultation would be required for activities proposed within their habitat. A programmatic opinion could be requested as a potential outcome of the future ACEC Management Plans prescribed for proposed management area alternatives.

2.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Lower Carson Slough T&E Plant Management Area Options Utilize existing CDCA management direction on 1,540 acres of public lands designated as critical habitat (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 10) for one endangered and one threatened plant species, without designation of additional management areas or associated special management strategies.

Lower Carson Slough T&E Management Direction And Strategies Guidelines identified in the CDCA Plan for MUC L and M public lands would remain in effect. Consultation requirements with the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act would occur on a project-by-project basis for actions potentially affecting these two critical habitat units and the three listed species. Terms and conditions would be developed through the consultation process to mitigate effects of any approved actions.


2-51

As resources permit, route designations would occur in MUC L public land areas of the Amargosa niterwort critical habitat and the entire Ash Meadows gumplant critical habitat unit. Consultation and conference with the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) respectively, on any measures in the CDCA Plan, and on all proposed projects with the potential to affect these three listed plant species or adversely modify the two designated critical habitat units, on a project-by-project basis, would continue. Special consideration would be given to sensitive resources including listed plants located within the Salt and Brackish Water Marsh Unusual Plant Assemblage during the NEPA process. Design structures and specific terms and conditions would be incorporated into proposals to avoid, compensate and/or mitigate potential impacts to listed plant species.

2.4.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan Lower Carson Slough Threatened and Endangered Plant Management Area Options Combine the two critical habitat units for the Amargosa niterwort and Ash Meadows gumplant to create one Lower Carson Slough ACEC totaling 4,340 acres (Figure 10). The Lower Carson Slough ACEC would be dedicated to conservation of special status plant populations, Amargosa River watershed values, ephemeral wetlands, mesquite bosques and riparian areas. The ACEC would be comprised of the following elements:

�� 1,200 acres of Amargosa niterwort critical habitat

�� 340 acres of Ash Meadows gumplant critical habitat

�� 2,800 acres of Lower Carson Slough linkage

�� = 4,340 acres Total Area

Lower Carson Slough T&E Management Direction and Strategies Establish a strategy for the proposed Lower Carson Slough ACEC to accomplish the conservation objectives for special status plants, and riparian, ephemeral wetland and mesquite bosque habitats. Integrate this strategy with that to be developed for the proposed Amargosa River ACEC (see Section 2.3).

The Lower Carson Slough ACEC Management Plan would be completed within three years and would include an Endangered Species Act consultation with the USFWS if the scope of actions warrants consultation. Actions would include the following:

�� Identify locations of threatened, endangered and sensitive species and develop appropriate measures to protect them

�� Develop a monitoring program for and determine habitat needs of the Amargosa niterwort, Ash Meadows gumplant, spring-loving centaury and Tecopa birdsbeak

�� Adopt area wide route designations with the rest of the Amargosa River ACEC planning effort

�� Develop a strategy for conservation and monitoring of ephemeral wetlands, mesquite bosquesand riparian areas in cooperation with adjacent private landowners and other federal, state, and local agencies

�� Identify additional mechanisms to track progress in reaching special status plant population and recovery goals

�� Develop guidelines for road construction and other activities adjacent to special status plant populations


2-52

�� Administratively change the Appropriate Management Level (AML) for wild horses and burros from 28 horses and 28 burros to 12 horses and 0 burros to protect impacts on special status plants. This change reflects the current management strategy; and

�� Delineate the Amargosa aquifer and develop a strategy in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard surface and groundwater flows.

2.4.3 Alternative 3 Lower Carson Slough T&E Plant Management Area Options Create two separate ACECs, the Amargosa Niterwort ACEC (1200 acres) and the Ash Meadows gumplant ACEC (340 acres), made up of critical habitat for these plants within California (Figure 10). The ACECs would be dedicated to conservation of special status plant populations found in the ACECs and would include all designated critical habitat for the Amargosa niterwort and Ash Meadow gumplant within the NEMO planning area.

Lower Carson Slough T&E Management Direction And Strategies Establish specific strategies for the proposed Amargosa niterwort ACEC and the proposed Ash Meadows gumplant ACEC. These strategies would be applicable to conservation of habitat supporting remaining listed plant populations in these ACECs, including all designated critical habitat for the Amargosa niterwort and Ash Meadows gumplant in the NEMO planning area. This ACEC Management Plan would be completed within three years and would include a programmatic Endangered Species Act consultation with the USFWS, if the scope of actions warrants consultation. Issues and management actions would be the same as Alternative 2.

Table 2.14 summarizes alternatives for threatened and endangered in lower Carson Slough.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

4 Th

reat

ened

and

End

ange

red

Plan

ts in

the

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

2-53

Tab

le 2

.14

– Su

mm

ary

Com

pari

son

of A

ltern

ativ

es fo

r T

hrea

tene

d an

d E

ndan

gere

d Pl

ants

in th

e L

ower

Car

son

Slou

gh

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Alte

rnat

ive

3 U

tiliz

e ex

istin

g C

DC

A m

anag

emen

t di

rect

ion

on 1

,540

acr

es o

f pub

lic la

nds

desi

gnat

ed a

s crit

ical

hab

itat f

or o

ne

enda

nger

ed a

nd o

ne th

reat

ened

pla

nt sp

ecie

s

Com

bine

the

two

criti

cal h

abita

t uni

ts fo

r the

Am

argo

sa n

iterw

ort a

nd A

sh M

eado

ws g

umpl

ant

to c

reat

e on

e Lo

wer

Car

son

Slou

gh A

CEC

(4,3

40 a

cres

). T

he L

ower

Car

son

Slou

gh A

CEC

w

ould

be

dedi

cate

d to

con

serv

atio

n of

spec

ial s

tatu

s pla

nt p

opul

atio

ns in

the

AC

EC, A

mar

gosa

R

iver

wat

ersh

ed v

alue

s, ep

hem

eral

wet

land

s mes

quite

bos

ques

and

ripa

rian

area

s. T

he A

CEC

w

ould

be

com

pris

ed o

f the

follo

win

g el

emen

ts:

��

A

mar

gosa

nite

rwor

t crit

ical

hab

itat -

1,2

00 a

cres

��

A

sh M

eado

ws g

umpl

ant c

ritic

al h

abita

t - 3

40 a

cres

��

Lo

wer

Car

son

Slou

gh li

nkag

e - 2

,800

acr

es

Cre

ate

two

sepa

rate

AC

ECs,

the

Am

argo

sa N

iterw

ort A

CEC

(1

200

acre

s) a

nd th

e A

shM

eado

ws g

umpl

ant A

CEC

(340

ac

res)

, mad

e up

of c

ritic

al h

abita

t fo

r the

se p

lant

s with

in

Cal

iforn

ia. T

he A

CEC

s wou

ld b

e de

dica

ted

to c

onse

rvat

ion

of

spec

ial s

tatu

s pla

nt p

opul

atio

ns

foun

d in

the

AC

ECs a

nd w

ould

in

clud

e al

l des

igna

ted

criti

cal

habi

tat f

or th

e A

mar

gosa

ni

terw

ort a

nd A

sh M

eado

w

gum

plan

t with

in th

e N

EMO

pl

anni

ng a

rea.

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Man

agem

ent P

resc

ript

ions

: A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

M

anag

emen

t Pre

scri

ptio

ns:

Alte

rnat

ive

3 M

anag

emen

t Pre

scri

ptio

ns:

Util

ize

exis

ting

CD

CA

Pla

n m

anag

emen

t di

rect

ion

on 1

,540

acr

es o

f pub

lic la

nds

desi

gnat

ed a

s crit

ical

hab

itat f

or tw

o lis

ted

plan

ts o

n ad

jace

nt la

nds w

here

thre

e lis

ted

plan

ts m

ay b

e lo

cate

d w

ith w

ithou

t spe

cial

pl

ant m

anag

emen

t stra

tegy

. Gui

delin

es

iden

tifie

d in

the

CD

CA

Pla

n fo

r MU

C

Lim

ited

and

Mod

erat

epu

blic

land

s wou

ld

rem

ain

in e

ffect

, con

sulta

tion

requ

irem

ents

w

ith th

e U

SFW

S un

der t

he E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s Act

wou

ld o

ccur

on

a pr

ojec

t-by-

proj

ect b

asis

for a

ctio

ns p

oten

tially

aff

ectin

g th

ese

two

criti

cal h

abita

t uni

ts a

nd th

e th

ree

liste

d sp

ecie

s. T

erm

s and

con

ditio

ns

miti

gatin

g ef

fect

s of t

he a

ctio

ns w

ould

be

deve

lope

d th

roug

h th

e co

nsul

tatio

n pr

oces

s.

As r

esou

rces

per

mit,

rout

e de

sign

atio

n w

ould

occ

ur in

MU

C L

imite

d pu

blic

land

ar

eas i

n po

rtion

s of t

he A

mar

gosa

nite

rwor

t cr

itica

l hab

itat a

nd th

e en

tire

Ash

Mea

dow

s

Esta

blis

h a

stra

tegy

for t

he p

ropo

sed

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

AC

ECto

acc

ompl

ish

the

cons

erva

tion

obje

ctiv

es fo

r spe

cial

stat

us p

lant

s and

ripa

rian,

eph

emer

al w

etla

nd a

nd m

esqu

ite

bosq

ue h

abita

ts.

Inte

grat

e th

is st

rate

gy w

ith th

at to

be

deve

lope

d fo

r the

pro

pose

d A

mar

gosa

R

iver

AC

EC

The

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

AC

EC M

anag

emen

t Pla

n w

ould

be

com

plet

ed w

ithin

thre

e ye

ars

and

wou

ld in

clud

e an

End

ange

red

Spec

ies A

ct c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e U

SFW

S if

the

scop

e of

ac

tions

war

rant

s suc

h co

nsul

tatio

n. A

ctio

ns w

ould

incl

ude

the

follo

win

g:

��Id

entif

y lo

catio

ns o

f thr

eate

ned,

end

ange

red

and

sens

itive

spec

ies a

nd d

evel

op a

ppro

pria

te

mea

sure

s to

prot

ect t

hem

��D

evel

op a

mon

itorin

g pr

ogra

m fo

r and

det

erm

ine

habi

tat n

eeds

of A

mar

gosa

nite

rwor

t, A

sh

Mea

dow

s gum

plan

t, sp

ring-

lovi

ng c

enta

ury

and

Teco

pa b

irdsb

eak

��Im

plem

ent r

oute

des

igna

tions

(Ro

ute

desi

gnat

ions

for t

his a

rea

wou

ld b

e co

mpl

eted

in a

pu

blic

pro

cess

by

no la

ter J

une,

200

4 or

as s

ubse

quen

tly a

gree

d un

der s

tipul

ated

agr

eem

ent)

��D

evel

op a

stra

tegy

for c

onse

rvat

ion

and

mon

itorin

g of

eph

emer

al w

etla

nds,

mes

quite

bo

sque

s and

ripa

rian

area

s in

coop

erat

ion

with

adj

acen

t priv

ate

land

owne

rs a

nd o

ther

fede

ral,

stat

e, a

nd lo

cal a

genc

ies

��Th

is A

CEC

Man

agem

ent P

lan

wou

ld b

e co

mpl

eted

with

in

thre

e ye

ars a

nd w

ould

incl

ude

a pr

ogra

mm

atic

End

ange

red

Spec

ies A

ct c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith

the

USF

WS,

if th

e sc

ope

of

actio

ns w

arra

nts c

onsu

ltatio

n.

Issu

es a

nd m

anag

emen

t ac

tions

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

2. (

Rou

te

desi

gnat

ions

for t

his a

rea

wou

ld b

e co

mpl

eted

in a

pu

blic

pro

cess

by

no la

ter

June

, 200

4 or

as s

ubse

quen

tly

agre

ed u

nder

stip

ulat

ed

agre

emen

t)

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

4 Th

reat

ened

and

End

ange

red

Plan

ts in

the

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

2-54

gum

plan

t crit

ical

hab

itat u

nit.

Con

sulta

tion

and

conf

eren

ce w

ith th

e U

SFW

S an

d C

alifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent o

f Fis

h an

d G

ame

(CD

FG) r

espe

ctiv

ely,

on

any

mea

sure

s in

the

CD

CA

Pla

n, a

nd o

n al

l pro

pose

d pr

ojec

ts w

ith th

e po

tent

ial t

o af

fect

thes

e th

ree

liste

d pl

ant s

peci

es o

r adv

erse

ly

mod

ify th

e tw

o de

sign

ated

crit

ical

hab

itat

units

, on

a pr

ojec

t-by-

proj

ect b

asis,

wou

ld

cont

inue

to o

ccur

, des

ign

stru

ctur

es a

nd

spec

ific

term

s and

con

ditio

ns w

ould

be

inco

rpor

ated

into

pro

posa

ls to

avo

id,

com

pens

ate

and/

or m

itiga

te p

oten

tial

impa

cts t

o lis

ted

plan

t spe

cies

. (R

oute

de

sign

atio

ns fo

r thi

s are

a w

ould

be

com

plet

ed in

a p

ublic

pro

cess

by

no la

ter

June

, 200

4 or

as s

ubse

quen

tly a

gree

d un

der

stip

ulat

ed a

gree

men

t)

��Id

entif

y m

echa

nism

s to

track

pro

gres

s in

reac

hing

spec

ial s

tatu

s pla

nt p

opul

atio

n an

d re

cove

ry g

oals

;

��C

ondu

ct ro

ute

desi

gnat

ion

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith th

e A

CEC

Man

agem

ent P

lan.

��D

evel

op g

uide

lines

for r

oad

cons

truct

ion

and

othe

r act

iviti

es a

djac

ent t

o sp

ecia

l sta

tus p

lant

po

pula

tions

;

��C

hang

e th

e A

ppro

pria

te M

anag

emen

t Lev

el (A

ML)

for w

ild h

orse

s and

bur

ros f

rom

28

hors

es a

nd 2

8 bu

rros

to 1

2 ho

rses

and

0 b

urro

s to

prot

ect i

mpa

cts o

n sp

ecia

l sta

tus p

lant

s. Th

is c

hang

e re

flect

s the

cur

rent

man

agem

ent s

trate

gy.

��D

elin

eate

the

Am

argo

sa a

quife

r and

dev

elop

a st

rate

gy in

coo

pera

tion

with

oth

er fe

dera

l, st

ate,

and

loca

l age

ncie

s to

safe

guar

d su

rface

and

gro

undw

ater

flow

s.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.5 Bat Conservation in the Silurian Hills

2-55

2.5 Bat Conservation in the Silurian Hills The following Alternatives provide a strategy on BLM-managed lands in the NEMO planning area to study and manage habitats for several designated sensitive bat species, and provide additional protection measures for them in the Silurian Hills. The Alternatives address sensitive bat use sites in this area and could provide information and strategies that could be applicable to the entire CDCA. Establishment of a specified bat management area and collection of relevant habitat use patterns could also have ramifications upon the need for or content of future bat listing packages.

2.5.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Utilize existing CDCA Plan direction on 7,400 acres of public lands supporting extensive habitat for several designated sensitive bat and other species, with no additional identified management area or special management strategies. Guidelines identified in the CDCA Plan for MUC “M” (Moderate Use) public lands and additional requirements related to renewed mining operations and mine closures, would remain in effect. All existing routes in the area are currently designated open, consistent with MUC M guidelines. In the future, site-specific seasonal or permanent vehicle route closures may be pursued, when specific wildlife threats or unnecessary and undue damage to public land resources are identified. (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 11 for a map of the Silurian Hills)

2.5.2 Alternative 2 Create the Silurian Hills Bat Habitat Management Planning Area, comprised of 7,400 acres of public land in the Silurian Hills. Prepare a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and change the existing Moderate MUC for public lands to Limited. Establish specific strategies designed to promote conservation of designated sensitive bats and other designated sensitive wildlife that use similar habitats. Issues and management actions to be addressed in the HMP for this area, to be prepared within three years, include:

�� Conserve Silurian Hills bat habitat, including both roosting and feeding sites

�� Conduct additional research to map, determine life history and use patterns

�� Identify threats and develop protection strategies for bats

�� Inventory and monitor bat sites to track population trends

�� Designate routes consistent with MUC Limited guidelines

�� Develop specific mitigation measures for active mining and reclamation strategies for inactive mines, which preserve their potential for bat use

2.5.3 Proposed Plan Change the existing Moderate (M) Multiple Use Classification (MUC) to Limited (L) designation for 7,400 acres of public land in the Silurian Hills region, known to support extensive habitat for several designated sensitive bat species. Route designation would occur on MUC L lands, including seasonal limitations and/or closures to sensitive bat values (e.g. active bat maternity roosts).

A summary of the alternatives for conservation of bats in the Silurian Hills is presented in Table 2.15.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

5 B

at C

onse

rvat

ion

in th

e Si

luria

n H

ills

2-56

Tab

le 2

.15

– Su

mm

ary

of A

ltern

ativ

es fo

r C

onse

rvat

ion

of S

iluri

an H

ills B

ats

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– P

ropo

sed

Plan

U

tiliz

e ex

istin

g m

anag

emen

t dire

ctio

n an

d M

UC

Mod

erat

e on

7,4

00 a

cres

of

publ

ic la

nd in

the

Silu

rian

Hill

s reg

ion

that

is k

now

n to

supp

ort e

xten

sive

ha

bita

t for

seve

ral d

esig

nate

d se

nsiti

ve

bat s

peci

es.

Gui

delin

es id

entif

ied

in th

e C

DC

A P

lan

for M

UC

Mod

erat

e pu

blic

land

s and

ad

ditio

nal r

equi

rem

ents

rela

ted

to

rene

wed

min

ing

oper

atio

ns a

nd m

ine

clos

ures

, wou

ld re

mai

n in

effe

ct. A

ll ex

istin

g ro

utes

in th

e ar

ea a

re c

urre

ntly

de

sign

ated

ope

n, c

onsi

sten

t with

MU

C

Mod

erat

e gu

idel

ines

. In

the

futu

re, s

ite-

spec

ific

seas

onal

or p

erm

anen

t veh

icle

ro

ute

clos

ures

may

occ

ur if

spec

ific

wild

life

thre

ats o

r und

ue a

nd

unne

cess

ary

dam

age

to p

ublic

land

re

sour

ces a

re id

entif

ied.

Cre

ate

the

Silu

rian

Hill

s Bat

Hab

itat M

anag

emen

t Pla

nnin

g A

rea,

com

pris

ed o

f 7,4

00 a

cres

of p

ublic

land

in th

e Si

luria

n H

ills r

egio

n. P

repa

re a

Hab

itat M

anag

emen

t Pla

n (H

MP)

and

ch

ange

the

exis

ting

Mod

erat

e M

UC

for p

ublic

land

s to

Lim

ited.

Esta

blis

h sp

ecifi

c st

rate

gies

des

igne

d to

pro

mot

e th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

des

igna

ted

sens

itive

bat

s and

oth

er d

esig

nate

d se

nsiti

ve w

ildlif

e th

at u

se si

mila

r hab

itats

. Iss

ues a

nd

man

agem

ent a

ctio

ns to

be

addr

esse

d in

the

HM

P fo

r thi

s are

a,

to b

e pr

epar

ed w

ithin

thre

e ye

ars,

incl

ude:

��

Con

serv

atio

n of

Silu

rian

Hill

s bat

hab

itat,

incl

udin

g bo

th

roos

ting

site

s and

feed

ing

loca

tions

��

Add

ition

al re

sear

ch to

map

, det

erm

ine

life

hist

ory

and

use

patte

rns,

iden

tify

thre

ats a

nd d

evel

op p

rote

ctio

n st

rate

gies

fo

r bat

s ��

Inve

ntor

ies a

nd m

onito

ring

of b

at si

tes t

o tra

ck p

opul

atio

n tre

nds

��

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

rout

e de

sign

atio

n, c

onsi

sten

t with

M

UC

Lim

ited

stan

dard

s ��

Dev

elop

men

t of s

peci

fic m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s for

act

ive

min

ing

and

recl

amat

ion

stra

tegi

es fo

r ina

ctiv

e m

ines

, w

hich

pre

serv

e th

eir p

oten

tial f

or b

at u

se

Cha

nge

the

exis

ting

Mod

erat

e M

UC

to L

imite

d de

sign

atio

n fo

r 7,4

00

acre

s of p

ublic

land

in th

e Si

luria

n H

ills r

egio

n, k

now

n to

supp

ort

exte

nsiv

e ha

bita

t for

seve

ral d

esig

nate

d se

nsiti

ve b

at sp

ecie

s. R

oute

de

sign

atio

n w

ould

occ

ur o

n M

UC

L la

nds,

incl

udin

g se

ason

al

limita

tions

and

/or c

losu

res t

o se

nsiti

ve b

at v

alue

s (e.

g. a

ctiv

e ba

t m

ater

nity

roos

ts).

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.7 California Desert Protection Act Implementation

2-57

2.6 CDCA Plan Maintenance Actions Several changes to the 1980 CDCA Plan, as amended, are needed as a result of the passage of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (CDPA). National Environmental Policy Act review is not required for Congressional actions such as the CDPA (83 Stat. 852, Section 102 C and 40 CFR 1506.8). The changes to the CDCA Plan needed to conform to the CDPA are listed in Appendix M, and these changes are considered “plan maintenance” actions to provide consistency with law. These text changes will be provided as an addendum to the Record of Decision (ROD) or in subsequent documentation as provided for in the ROD.

Plan maintenance actions resulting from the CDPA fall into two groups. The first group is lands that are no longer under the jurisdiction of the BLM. 3,000,000 acres of public lands previously under the jurisdiction of the BLM were transferred to the National Park Service. All BLM land-use decisions for these lands have been revoked.

The second group is lands still under the jurisdiction of the BLM. In the NEMO planning area, these include management areas affected by new park boundaries, lands Congress designated as wilderness or wilderness study areas, remaining lands under wilderness review, lands released from wilderness study status, small ribbons of land (under 500 acres) released from wilderness review and the Mountain Pass/Dinosaur Trackway ACEC. These plan maintenance actions are not addressed further in this document. (See Appendix M)

2.7 California Desert Protection Act Implementation – Multiple Use Class of Released Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) Released wilderness study areas (WSAs) total approximately 475,000 acres. Most parcels in the NEMO planning area were released wilderness study areas recommended as not suitable by the Bureau of Land Management (p. 54 of the CDCA Plan). According to the CDCA Plan, if and when released from wilderness consideration, these public lands are to be managed according to the multiple-use class (MUC) originally designated in the Plan. Approximately 460,000 acres are included in this category (Table 2.16).

Table 2.16 – Released Lands: Summary of Acreages Assigned to Each MUC by Alternatives

Alternative MUC Moderate Acres MUC Limited Acres

1 – No Action-Original CDCA Plan Assignment 152,350 315,950

2 – Assign to Surrounding MUC 66,900 401,400

3 – Proposed Plan Mixed Assignment 75,380 392,920

The second category of lands includes four areas totaling approximately 8,300 acres. These four areas (two in Kingston Range, one in Slate Range, and a portion of an area adjacent to Piute Wilderness) were recommended by the BLM as suitable for wilderness to Congress, which Congress chose not to designate as wilderness and chose to release from further wilderness consideration. In this second instance, these lands were designated as MUC controlled under the CDCA Plan. The CDCA Plan (p.55 of the CDCA Plan as amended by the 1982 Plan Amendments Record of Decision, p, 121) indicated that, if and when released from wilderness consideration, these recommended WSAs should have an interim Multiple-Use Class Limited designation, which they are managed under pending final determination through the land use planning process.


2-58

A preliminary analysis of the 41 areas of released lands in the NEMO planning area indicated that 21 of these areas have undergone changes in circumstance or new information. (See Table 2.17) The other 20 areas are not recommended as suitable for inclusion in the wilderness system. These 20 areas should be managed according to the MUC that they were originally designated in the CDCA Plan. This is consistent for all alternatives.

Table 2.17 – Release Lands: MUC of Released WSA: Parcel Comparison of Alternatives

Map ReferenceNumber

Name Acres9 Adjacent MUC

1980 CDCA MUC – Alternative 1 No Action

Alt 2 Proposed Plan Alternative 3

R-1 Fish Lake Valley 15,260 L, incl. WSA L L L

R-2 Wyman Creek 15,420 L, incl. WSA L L L

R-3 Piper Mountain- North

4,202 L, C L L L

R-4 Saline Valley* 1,163 C, M C (to L now) M L

R-5 Inyo Mountains-N* 2,976 C, M L and C (to L now) L L

R-6 Inyo Mountains-S 679 M L M L

R-7 Cerro Gordo Peak-N 19,047 M, C M, L M L

R-8 Cerro Gordo Peak-E 1241 C, M M M L

R-9 Cerro Gordo Peak-S 3526 M, C M M L

R-10 Argus 606 L, C L L L

R-11 Wild Rose Canyon 9,238 L, C L L L

R-12 Surprise* 2,178 L, C L M L

R-13 Surprise Canyon 3,276 L, M L, M M L

R-14 Slate Range 53,933 L, C L L L

R-15 Manly Peak* 18,664 L, C, M L M L

R-16 Slate Range-SE 4,448 L C (to L now) L L

B-1 Greenwater 34,720 M, L L, M L L

B-2 Eagle Mountain 15,746 L, M, C M L L

B-3 Stewart Valley 780 C, L L L L

B-4 Chicago Valley 2,153 L, C L L L

B-5 Pahrump 3,122 L, C L L L

B-6 Resting Springs Range

9,845 L, C L L L

B-7 Dublin Hills 6,581 M, C M M M

B-8 Shoshone 9,479 L, C L L L

B-9 Sperry Hills 24,504 L, C, M-small L L L

9 Acres rounded to the nearest acre.


2-59

Map ReferenceNumber

Name Acres9 Adjacent MUC

1980 CDCA MUC – Alternative 1 No Action

Alt 2 Proposed Plan Alternative 3

B-10 East of China Ranch 4,010 M, L, C M, L L L

B-11 Avawatz 31,837 M, C (WSA) M L M

B-12 Dumont 17,401 I, L, M, & C (WSA)

M L L

B-13 Silurian 20,036 M, C M L M

B-14 Hollow Hills North 544 M, C L M L

B-15 Baker Northwest 3,067 L, C (WSA) L L L

B-16 Baker Northeast 8,171 M, C, L-v. small M M M

N-1 Kingston Range-E 1,076 M, L C (to L now) M L

N-2 Kingston Range-W 2,169 M, L C (to L now) M L

N-3 Mesquite Mountains 1,144 L L L L

N-4 Boulder Corridor-W 2,591 M, C L M M, L

N-5 Boulder Corridor-E 9,004 L, C L L M, L

N-6 Piute Wilderness 5,889 L C (to L now), L L L

N-7 Mesquite Springs 24,853 C, M, L-v. small M L L

N-8 Lava Hills 34,733 L, M-v. small L L L

N-9 South Bristol Mountains

38,906 L L L L

Three alternatives were considered for the 21 released lands that have had a change in circumstance or new information, or were recommended as suitable for inclusion in the wilderness system. The first was the No Action Alternative, since full consideration was given to parcels during CDCA Plan development. Under this alternative, the MUC of these lands would continue as identified during the CDCA Plan analysis, prior to receiving wilderness study area status, as they have been managed upon their release from wilderness consideration in 1994. For the four areas that were recommended wilderness, a continuation of MUC L management and designation would occur. The second alternative conforms the MUC of released lands to those of surrounding lands, wherever feasible by policy and consistency to MUC guidelines. Where more than one MUC surrounds a parcel, the predominant MUC category would be used.


2-60

A third alternative was considered if the MUC of the lands around a parcel were changed by CDCA plan amendment, or proposed for change in this planning document (e.g., desert tortoise DWMAs). The second alternative was also considered if new information had been compiled, such as for threatened and endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, cultural sites eligible for the National Register, or concerning management of conflicting uses, which would lead to a different conclusion as to the appropriate MUC for a parcel. In these cases, an alternative is proposed for the MUC to be consistent with the MUC of surrounding lands or new information. Otherwise, the MUC of each parcel is already consistent with that of surrounding non-wilderness lands and existing CDCA Plan analysis.10

There are also remnant parcels that show up due to Congressional boundary adjustments which are relatively small or long, linear slivers of less than 500 acres each (See Table 2.18). These total less than 10,000 acres. In cases where small acreages or long slivers of public lands were released, the redesignation of each parcel is being addressed as a plan maintenance action under Section 2.6 of this Chapter. Lands would be redesignated consistent with surrounding MUC that is not wilderness, or in the case of any completely surrounded released public lands that are completely surrounded by wilderness, consistent with the original CDCA Plan.

Table 2.18 – Released Lands: MUC of Released WSAs Identified Less than 500 Acres11

Name Adjacent MUC MUC in CDCA

Funeral Mountains L & Wilderness L

Sidehill Mine L & Wilderness L

Baxter Mine Wilderness C (to L now)

Ibex I & Wilderness I

Saddle Peak L & Wilderness M

Alexander M & Wilderness M

Hollow Hills East L & Wilderness L

Gunsight L & Wilderness L

Alexander M & Wilderness M

Copper Queen L L

Piper Mountain L L

Piper Mountain L L

Saline L L

Jumbo Mine L & Wilderness L

10 In a few cases, such as the two recommended Kingston Range parcels, surrounding MUC was mixed, and there was not a route or other clear feature to use to divide the parcels. This Alternative provided for MUC “Moderate” as an Alternative for consideration to the MUC “Limited” of the No Action Alternative. 11 Lands under 500 acres will return to their former MUC, except MUC C will return to MUC L. Total acreage for all areas is less than 10,000 acres. This table is not all-inclusive. There are small segments and slivers of released lands that are toosmall to accurately measure.


2-61

2.7.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Continue to manage approximately 475,000 acres of public lands consistent with existing CDCA Plan guidance for lands released from further wilderness review by Congress. All lands that were not recommended by BLM as wilderness would return to their original MUC in the CDCA Plan, Lands recommended by BLM as wilderness would utilize MUC Limited as their final MUC designation. Under this alternative, approximately 315,950 acres would be managed under MUC L guidance and approximately 152,350 acres would be managed under MUC M guidance. Reclassification of all or part of these lands may be revisited at a future date. Refer to figure 5a in Chapter 8 for an overview of this alternative.

2.7.2 Alternative 2 Designate public lands released from further wilderness review by Congress consistent with the CDCA Plan, surrounding lands and new information. This would result in a change in MUC in approximately half the areas, where some or all of the acreage surrounding released lands is different than that identified in the CDCA Plan, or new information has become available. Under this alternative, approximately 401,400 acres would be managed under MUC L guidance and approximately 66,900 acres would be managed under MUC M guidance. Refer to figure 5b in Chapter 8 for an overview of this alternative. In addition, areas under 500 acres would return to their original MUC.

2.7.3 Alternative 3 - Proposed Plan The Proposed Plan is the same as Alternative 1 (No Action) where designated MUC is based on original CDCA Plan analysis, except in the 11 locations listed which would be designated consistent with surrounding lands, as follows (see Chapter 8, Figure 5c for a map of this alternative). Under this alternative, approximately 392,920 acres would be managed under MUC L guidance and approximately 75,380 acres would be managed under MUC M guidance, including;

• Cerro Gordo (R-7 through R-9 on map). Approximately 21,244 acres in portions of three areas designated as M in 1980 CDCA Plan based on mineral values under this alternative would go to L based on scenic, cultural, and sensitive wildlife issues.

• Surprise Canyon (R-13 on map). Approximately 849 acres in the southern half of this released area was designated as M in 1980 CDCA Plan (eastern part of Middle Park Canyon) based on mineral values. Under the Proposed Plan Alternative it would go to L, based on watershed values, sensitive wildlife, pinyon juniper vegetative community, and scenic values.

• Greenwater (B-1 on map). Approximately 3,000 acres designated as M along northern boundary of released lands in the 1980 CDCA Plan based on mineral values under this alternative would go to L based on raptor, bighorn sheep, Category III desert tortoise habitat, and other wildlife and plant community values.

• Eagle Mountain (B-2 on map). Approximately 15,746 acres designated as M in 1980 CDCA Plan based on mineral values under this alternative would go to L based on new T&E and cultural issues.

• East of China Ranch (B-10 on map). Approximately 800 of the 4,010 acres was designated as M in the CDCA Plan based on mineral values; under this alternative it would go to L based on watershed, riparian, sensitive species, and scenic values.

• Dumont (B-12 on map). Approximately 17,402 acres designated as M based on recreational and mineral values in the CDCA Plan under this alternative would go to L based on prehistoric cultural, riparian, and habitat values and to facilitate access management into the Salt Creek ACEC.


2-62

�� Boulder Corridor W & E (N-4 and N-5 on the map). Approximately 1,036 acres of Boulder Corridor - West (N-4), within the western end of the Shadow Valley Desert Tortoise DWMA under this alternative would be reclassified from M to L. The other 1,554 acres would remain MUC M. Approximately 6,001 acres of Boulder Corridor - East (N-5), in Mesquite Valley at the Nevada border, under this alternative would be reclassified from L to M. The other 3,002 acres within the eastern end of the Shadow Valley Desert Tortoise DWMA would remain MUC L.

�� Mesquite Springs (N-7). Approximately 18,564 acres designated as M in the CDCA Plan based on recreational and mineral values under this alternative would be classified as L based on cultural, riparian and scenic values.

In addition, areas under 500 acres would return to their original MUC.

A summary of alternatives for Multiple Use Class of lands released from wilderness study review is presented in Table 2.19. Multiple use class “Controlled” would no longer be appropriate for these lands or consistent with the CDCA.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

Su

mm

ary

of M

UC

Cha

nges

of R

elea

sed

WSA

2-63

Tab

le 2

.19

– Su

mm

ary

Com

pari

son

of A

ltern

ativ

es M

UC

Cha

nges

of R

elea

sed

WSA

Lan

ds

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Con

tinue

to m

anag

e pu

blic

land

s un

der

the

CD

CA

Pla

n ut

ilizi

ng in

terim

Mul

tiple

-Use

Cla

ss L

imite

d de

sign

atio

ns

on 3

15,9

50 a

cres

of

publ

ic l

ands

rel

ease

d fro

m f

urth

er

wild

erne

ss r

evie

w b

y C

ongr

ess

and

152,

350

acre

s of

pu

blic

land

s de

sign

ated

as

Mod

erat

e. R

ecla

ssifi

catio

n of

al

l or p

art o

f the

se la

nds m

ay b

e re

visi

ted

at a

futu

re d

ate.

Con

sist

ent

with

th

e or

igin

al

CD

CA

Pl

an

findi

ngs,

desi

gnat

e 40

1,40

0 ac

res

of p

ublic

lan

ds r

elea

sed

from

fu

rther

wild

erne

ss r

evie

w b

y C

ongr

ess

as M

ultip

le-U

se

Cla

ss

Lim

ited

and

66,9

00

acre

s of

pu

blic

la

nds

as

Mod

erat

e.

Des

igna

ted

cons

iste

nt

with

th

e or

igin

al

CD

CA

Pl

an

findi

ngs

exce

pt in

the

follo

win

g lo

catio

ns w

here

MU

C o

f la

nds

surr

ound

ing

have

bee

n re

-des

igat

ed a

nd n

ew d

ata

subs

tant

iate

nee

d. 3

92,9

20 a

cres

of p

ublic

land

s re

leas

ed

from

furth

er w

ilder

ness

revi

ew b

y C

ongr

ess

as M

ultip

le-

Use

Cla

ss L

imite

d an

d 75

,380

acr

es o

f pu

blic

lan

ds a

s M

oder

ate.

Loc

atio

ns w

here

cha

nges

hav

e be

en m

ade:

��

Cer

ro G

ordo

(3 a

reas

tota

ling

21,2

44 a

cres

) ��

Surp

rise

Can

yon

(849

acr

es)

��

Gre

enw

ater

(3,0

00 a

cres

) ��

Eagl

e M

ount

ain

(15,

746

acre

s)

��

East

of C

hine

Ran

ch (4

,009

acr

es)

��

Dum

ont (

17,4

01 a

cres

) ��

Bou

lder

Cor

ridor

W &

E (1

1,59

3 ac

res)

��

Mes

quite

Spr

ings

(18,

564

acre

s)

MU

C M

– 1

52,3

50

MU

C L

–31

5,95

0

MU

C M

– 6

6,90

0

MU

C L

– 4

01,4

00

MU

C M

–75

,380

MU

C L

– 3

92,9

20

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.9 Organized Competitive Vehicle Events

2-64

2.8 Greenwater Canyon ACES Deletion About 73 percent of the original Greenwater Canyon ACEC was included in the expansion of Death Valley National Park and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the BLM. The remaining 820 acres of public lands are evaluated under ACEC importance and relevance criteria. (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 12 for a map of all alternatives.)

2.8.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The 820 acres remaining under BLM jurisdiction would continue to be managed as a cultural ACEC, under the existing ACEC management plan. Acreage, maps and text of the ACEC management plan would be amended to exclude approximately 2,160 acres of National Park Service lands from inside the ACEC boundaries, as ACEC is a Bureau of Land Management designation and management tool.

2.8.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan The Greenwater Canyon Cultural ACEC would be deleted, and the 820 acres remaining under BLM jurisdiction would no longer be managed as an ACEC. The 820 acres would be managed according to the underlying MUC Limited guidelines for the area. A summary of alternatives for reconsideration of the Greenwater Canyon ACEC status is present in Table 2.20.

Table 2.20 - Summary Comparison of Alternatives: Greenwater ACEC Reconsideration

Greenwater Canyon ACEC Deletion Proposal Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan The 820 acres remaining under BLM jurisdiction would continue to be managed as a cultural ACEC, under the existing ACEC management plan.

The Greenwater Canyon Cultural ACEC would be deleted and the 820 acres remaining under BLM jurisdiction would be managed according to MUC Limited Use guidelines.

2.9 Organized Competitive Vehicle Events The Barstow-to-Vegas (B-to-V) Motorcycle Race Course was established by a 1982 Plan Amendment to the CDCA Plan. The B-to-V course is about 250 miles in length and crosses desert tortoise critical habitat in the West Mojave Desert, Mojave National Preserve and NEMO planning area, then crosses into Nevada. Within California, approximately 65 percent of the course is located in critical desert tortoise habitat.

With the creation of the Mojave National Preserve, designation of wilderness and retention of certain WSAs north of I-15, the West-East alignment of the Barstow-to-Vegas course was effectively severed and potential realignment is severely limited. The original course is no longer intact, with 23.4 miles now in the Mojave National Preserve. In addition, the desert tortoise was listed in 1989. At the time of its listing, heavy monitoring of the 1989 B-to-V event occurred in order to prevent impacts. Post race monitoring reports documented impacts that were considered unacceptable to a listed species.

Alternatives are presented to address these issues and include no change to the existing course or a modified course to avoid sensitive resources, deletion of the B-to-V course and limitation of point-to-point competitive speed events to OHV open areas, and use of criteria rather than a course to protect sensitive resources and determine what routes may be used for point-to-point competitive speed events outside of OHV open areas.


2-65

Two of these strategies (a set course and criteria) are not necessarily exclusive of one another. Some of these Alternatives may provide for racing opportunities in addition to the Barstow-to-Vegas annual event. Similar amendments are currently being considered in adjacent planning areas to the west (West Mojave) and south (Northern and Eastern Colorado). Criteria were derived from the work of the 1994 Technical Review Team appointed by the Desert Advisory Council to review competitive event issues and develop options to address them.

2.9.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The B-to-V Race Course would remain as delineated on the California Desert Conservation Area Plan Land Use Map12 and subject to the provisions/stipulations of the CDCA Plan (Refer to Chapter 8, Figure 14 for a map of all alternatives).

This Alternative would allow for other point-to-point motorized vehicle events outside of OHV open areas in accordance with the Organized Competitive Vehicle Events section of the Recreation Element of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan as amended.

The CDCA Plan identifies criteria for events that traverse through MUC L lands: “Organized competitive events will be allowed in Multiple-Use Class M and I areas and may be permitted to cross some Multiple-Use Class L areas on approved vehicle routes of travel” (see Motorized Vehicle Access Element and Part 6, Appendix V to the proposed plan, October 1980). Because of potentially sensitive resources in Multiple-Use Class L areas, race routes through these areas must comply with the following additional requirements:

�� All courses will remain on routes of travel that have been “approved” for motorized-vehicle use in MUC L.

�� Pit and spectator areas will not be allowed.

�� Fragile and/or significant areas will be avoided.

�� The BLM will require the event sponsors to mitigate potential negative impacts and may require rehabilitation where feasible.

�� All racecourses are temporary and may not be used on a continual basis pending specific resource studies. (See Appendix V to the proposed Plan, October 1980, for further clarification).

�� Long-term adverse impacts will not be allowed.

�� Event participants may have to traverse MUC L lands under controlled (yellow flag) conditions (e.g., no passing, timed speeds, maintained roads) as appropriate for resource protection and public safety.

�� Length (mileage) of the event passing through MUC L will be a key factor in determining use.

�� Width of the course will be the minimum practicable for resource protection and public safety.

�� All other alternative routes have been considered.

�� Criteria required by 43 CFR 8372 and BLM Manual 6260 will be met.

12 This alignment is no longer feasible due to the listing of the desert tortoise and establishment of the Mojave National Preserve. These changes in circumstances have made it impossible for the BLM to issue a permit for the race reasonably following the course shown on the California Desert Conservation Area Plan Land-Use Map as amended in 1982. See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law June 8, 1990 (U.S. District Court) (SA CV 90-267-JSL).


2-66

Until such time as “approved routes of travel” can be identified in MUC L, the passage of vehicles under permit for a competitive event will be confined to paved or maintained roads. For purposes of the Plan “maintained roads” will be defined as “regularly or frequently maintained by continuous use (e.g., passage of vehicles) or machine maintenance.” The California Desert District Manager will determine “regular or frequent maintenance” criteria. All proposals would be subject to site-specific evaluation. Conference and consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies would occur if the proposal might affect listed species.

2.9.2 Alternative 2 Amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan to:

�� Remove delineation of the Barstow-to-Las Vegas Race Course from the Land Use Map of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, (1980 as amended).

�� Competitive vehicle events would only be held in MUC I (Intensive) areas having an area designation of “Open”.

�� Amend the MUC Guidelines to delete all reference to organized competitive vehicle events in MUC L and M, under the Recreation Element of the CDCA Plan.

2.9.3 Alternative 3 Amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan to provide for OHV competitive events in the following manner:

�� Replace the MUC Guidelines and the Recreation Element of the CDCA Plan to include the following criteria for point-to-point motorized vehicle events on all lands outside of Open Areas regardless of the MUC:

1. Events shall be limited to routes designated as open. The racecourse shall be limited to existing route width.

2. Start areas shall be located on MUC I lands designated as OHV open areas. Pit, finish and spectator areas shall be limited to suitable sites in classes M or I. All pit areas shall be limited to support crews.

3. The event shall not be permitted in wilderness areas, WSAs, ACECs; critical habitat, identified cultural resource sites or districts, riparian habitats and other sensitive areas. The event shall not be permitted on historic trails and roads that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, designated National Historic Trails or other specially designated trails or routes.

4. Written permission from property owners to cross private property shall be provided to the BLM.

5. Permit stipulations shall be prepared for each event and shall address monitoring activities, reclamation plans, insurance, enforcement, penalties, racecourse alignment and markings, number of participants (not to exceed 500) and other standard permit requirements.

6. Start areas shall be located within Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Areas. The start area must be located sufficiently within and distant from the boundary of the Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area to allow the field of participants to narrow (given the differing speeds of the various contestants) so that the event could continue within the confines of the established racecourse outside the “open area.” Participation shall be limited to motorcycles and ATVs.


2-67

�� Remove delineation of the B-to-V Race Course from the Land Use Map of the CDCA Plan, (1980 as amended).

�� Delete the following text from the section titled Organized Competitive Vehicle Events under the Recreation Element of the Plan: “…and one motorcycle race course. (The Barstow-to-Vegas Motorcycle Race Course is established running from Alvord Road to Stateline. See Supplemental information)”.

2.9.4 Alternative 4 This alternative would designate a replacement Barstow-to-Vegas Race Course to allow one event per year that would avoid critical desert tortoise habitat, ACECs, wilderness areas and other sensitive resources consistent with criteria identified in Alternative 3. The alternative alignment (Chapter 8, Figure 14) evaluated follows the Kingston Wash wilderness corridor north of the current alignment. A number of other alignments were considered and dismissed from further consideration because they crossed wilderness or other sensitive areas such as ACECs or critical habitat for listed species.

The additional criteria for organized competitive vehicle events outside of open areas would be the same as Alternative 3 except that:

�� Where there is no evidence of sensitive resources, the course may be expanded to as much as 100 feet, in specified areas as identified in the permit, at the discretion of the Authorized Officer.

�� This alternative would also allow the course to pass through an ACEC on a designated open route, provided that the ACEC Management Plan clearly states that the route may be utilized for the named event and all other conditions identified in the ACEC Plan are met.

2.9.5 Alternative 5 – Proposed Plan Amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan to:

�� Remove delineation of the Barstow-to-Las Vegas Race Course from the Land Use Map of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, (1980 as amended).

�� Replace the text in the section titled Organized Competitive Vehicle Events under the Recreation Element of the CDCA Plan with: Competitive vehicle events would be held only in MUC I areas having an area designation of “Open“ or on specified recreation routes which have been delineated and designated in the CDCA Plan.

�� Amend the MUC Guidelines to delete all reference to organized competitive vehicle events in MUC L and M, under the Recreation Element of the CDCA Plan.

Table 2.21 summarizes the alternatives for Organized Competitive Vehicle Events.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

9 O

rgan

ized

Com

petit

ive

Veh

icle

Eve

nts

2-68

Tab

le 2

.21

– Su

mm

ary

of C

ompa

riso

n A

ltern

ativ

es fo

r O

rgan

ized

Com

petit

ive

Veh

icle

Eve

nts

Alte

rnat

ive

1A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Th

e B

-to-V

Rac

e C

ours

e w

ould

rem

ain

as d

elin

eate

d on

the

Cal

iforn

ia D

eser

t C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a Pl

an L

and

Use

Map

.

This

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld

perm

it m

otor

ized

ve

hicl

e ev

ents

out

side

of

ope

n ar

eas i

n ac

cord

ance

with

pr

ovis

ions

of t

he

CD

CA

Pla

n, a

s am

ende

d. T

hese

ac

tiviti

es a

re p

erm

itted

in

MU

C In

tens

ive

and

Mod

erat

e ar

eas.

Crit

eria

hav

e be

en

iden

tifie

d in

the

Rec

reat

ion

Elem

ent o

f th

e C

DC

A P

lan

to

gove

rn c

ross

ing

of

MU

C L

land

s.

Rem

ove

delin

eatio

n of

th

e B

arst

ow-to

-Veg

as

race

cour

se fr

om th

e La

nd U

se M

ap o

f the

19

80 C

alifo

rnia

D

eser

t Con

serv

atio

n A

rea

Plan

, as

amen

ded.

Am

end

the

Mul

tiple

-us

e C

lass

Gui

delin

e to

re

stric

t com

petit

ive

vehi

cle

even

ts to

M

UC

I w

ith a

n ar

ea

desi

gnat

ion

of

“Ope

n”.

(OH

V O

pen

Are

as)

Rep

lace

the

MU

C G

uide

lines

and

the

Rec

reat

ion

Elem

ent o

f the

C

DC

A P

lan

with

the

follo

win

g cr

iteria

for p

oint

-to-p

oint

m

otor

ized

veh

icle

eve

nts o

n al

l lan

ds o

utsi

de o

f Ope

n A

reas

:

��

Even

ts sh

all b

e lim

ited

to ro

utes

des

igna

ted

as o

pen.

The

ra

ceco

urse

shal

l be

limite

d to

exi

stin

g ro

ute

wid

th.

��

Star

t are

as sh

all b

e lo

cate

d in

MU

C I.

Fin

ish

and

spec

tato

r ar

eas s

hall

be li

mite

d to

suita

ble

site

s in

clas

ses M

or I

. A

ll pi

t are

as sh

all b

e lim

ited

to su

ppor

t cre

ws.

��

The

even

t sha

ll no

t be

perm

itted

in w

ilder

ness

are

as,

WSA

s, A

CEC

s; c

ritic

al h

abita

t, id

entif

ied

cultu

ral r

esou

rce

site

s or d

istri

cts,

ripar

ian

area

s, an

d ot

her s

ensi

tive

area

s.

The

even

t sha

ll no

t be

perm

itted

on

hist

oric

trai

ls a

nd ro

ads

that

are

on

or e

ligib

le fo

r the

Nat

iona

l Reg

iste

r of H

isto

ric

Plac

es, d

esig

nate

d N

atio

nal H

isto

ric T

rails

or o

ther

sp

ecia

lly d

esig

nate

d tra

ils o

r rou

tes.

��

Writ

ten

perm

issi

on fr

om p

rope

rty o

wne

rs to

cro

ss p

rivat

e pr

oper

ty sh

all b

e pr

ovid

ed to

the

BLM

. ��

Perm

it st

ipul

atio

ns sh

all b

e pr

epar

ed fo

r eac

h ev

ent a

nd

shal

l add

ress

mon

itorin

g ac

tiviti

es, r

ecla

mat

ion

plan

s, in

sura

nce,

enf

orce

men

t, pe

nalti

es, r

acec

ours

e al

ignm

ent

and

mar

king

s, nu

mbe

r of p

artic

ipan

ts (n

ot to

exc

eed

500)

an

d ot

her s

tand

ard

perm

it re

quire

men

ts.

��

The

race

shal

l be

man

aged

und

er ti

med

-sta

rt co

nditi

ons

(max

imum

100

veh

icle

s per

wav

e), a

nd p

artic

ipat

ion

shal

l be

lim

ited

to m

otor

cycl

es a

nd A

TVs.

Rem

ove

delin

eatio

n of

the

Bar

stow

-to-V

egas

race

cou

rse

from

th

e La

nd U

se M

ap o

f the

198

0 C

alifo

rnia

Des

ert C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a Pl

an, a

s am

ende

d

Am

end

the

Cal

iforn

ia D

eser

t Con

serv

atio

n A

rea

Plan

.

Del

ete

the

follo

win

g te

xt fr

om th

e se

ctio

n tit

led

Org

aniz

ed

Com

petit

ive

Veh

icle

Eve

nts u

nder

the

Rec

reat

ion

Elem

ent o

f the

Pl

an:

…an

d on

e m

otor

cycl

e ra

ceco

urse

. (T

he B

arst

ow-to

-Veg

as

Mot

orcy

cle

Rac

e C

ours

e is

est

ablis

hed

runn

ing

from

Alv

ord

Roa

d to

Sta

telin

e. S

ee S

uppl

emen

tal i

nfor

mat

ion.

)

Rea

lign

the

Bar

stow

-to-V

egas

ra

ceco

urse

thro

ugh

the

Kin

gsto

n W

ash

corr

idor

thro

ugh

wild

erne

ss

area

36,

to a

void

the

Moj

ave

Nat

iona

l Pre

serv

e, c

ritic

al d

eser

t to

rtois

e ha

bita

t, A

CEC

's, w

ilder

ness

ar

eas a

nd o

ther

sens

itive

reso

urce

ar

eas.

Pass

age

thro

ugh

Mul

tiple

-use

Cla

ss

Lim

ited

wou

ld b

e un

der c

ondi

tions

es

tabl

ishe

d in

the

Rec

reat

ion

Elem

ent o

f the

CD

CA

Pla

n, a

nd th

e an

nual

eve

nt w

ould

be

limite

d to

tim

ed-s

tarts

.

The

addi

tiona

l crit

eria

for p

oint

-to-

poin

t eve

nts o

utsi

de o

f ope

n ar

eas

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2

exce

pt th

at:

��

Whe

re th

ere

is n

o ev

iden

ce o

f se

nsiti

ve re

sour

ces,

the

cour

se

may

be

expa

nded

to a

s muc

h as

10

0 fe

et, i

n sp

ecifi

ed a

reas

as

iden

tifie

d in

the

perm

it, a

t the

di

scre

tion

of th

e A

utho

rized

O

ffic

er. A

ny o

ther

eve

nts

wou

ld h

ave

the

sam

e lim

its a

s A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

��

This

Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld a

lso

allo

w th

e co

urse

to p

ass

thro

ugh

an A

CEC

on

a de

sign

ated

ope

n ro

ute

prov

ided

th

at th

e A

CEC

Man

agem

ent

Plan

cle

arly

stat

es th

at th

e ro

ute

may

be

utili

zed

for t

he n

amed

ev

ent a

nd a

ll ot

her c

ondi

tions

id

entif

ied

in th

e A

CEC

Pla

n ar

e m

et.

Am

end

the

Cal

iforn

ia D

eser

t C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a Pl

an to

:

��

Rem

ove

delin

eatio

n of

th

e B

arst

ow-to

-Las

V

egas

Rac

e C

ours

e fr

om th

e La

nd U

se M

ap

of th

e 19

80 C

alifo

rnia

D

eser

t Con

serv

atio

n A

rea

Plan

, as a

men

ded.

��

Rep

lace

the

text

in th

e se

ctio

n tit

led

Org

aniz

ed

Com

petit

ive

Veh

icle

Ev

ents

und

er th

e R

ecre

atio

n El

emen

t of

the

CD

CA

Pla

n w

ith:

Com

petit

ive

vehi

cle

even

ts m

ay o

nly

be

held

in M

UC

I w

ith a

n ar

ea d

esig

natio

n of

“O

pen“

or o

n sp

ecifi

ed

recr

eatio

n ro

utes

whi

ch

have

bee

n de

linea

ted

and

desi

gnat

ed in

the

CD

CA

Pla

n.

��

Am

end

the

MU

C

Gui

delin

es to

del

ete

all

refe

renc

e to

org

aniz

ed

com

petit

ive

vehi

cle

even

ts in

MU

C L

and

M

, und

er re

crea

tion.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.10 Motor Vehicle Access – Routes of Travel Designation

2-69

2.10 Motor Vehicle Access – Routes of Travel Designation Definition of Terms The CDCA Plan, as amended in 1982, defined route designations as follows:

�� Open Route – Access on the route by motorized vehicles is allowed.

�� Limited Route – Access on the route is limited to use by motorized vehicles in one or more of the following ways and limited with respect to:

1. Number of vehicles allowed

2. Types of vehicles allowed

3. Time or season of vehicle use

4. Permitted or licensed vehicle use only;

5. Establishment of speed limits

�� Closed Route – Access on the route by motorized vehicles is prohibited except:

1. Fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicles when used for emergency purposes

2. Combat or combat support vehicles when used for national defense purposes

3. Vehicles whose use is expressly authorized by an agency head under a permit, lease, or contract

4. Vehicles used for official purposes by employees, agents, or designated representatives of the Federal Government or one of its contractors.

In addition to 43 CFR criteria, the following are factors in route designation:

�� Redundant route – A redundant route is one whose purpose is seemingly identical to that of another route, inclusive of providing the same or very similar recreation opportunities or experiences. Redundant routes are given strong consideration for closing, particularly where other conflicts exist such as in desert tortoise critical habitat. Upon designating such a route as “closed,” the use thereby redirected to another route or routes would be in accordance with the route designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1.

�� Problem route - A route that once furnished access to a point that now occurs in wilderness (a) could provide access to the boundary of that wilderness area, or (b) has become a management “problem” as motorized access into wilderness has continued and no purpose would be served in establishing a trailhead at that point. Existing access to cultural or other sensitive resources may have resulted in degradation of the resources. Problem routes are given strong consideration for closing.

�� Non-existent route – Non-existent routes are defined in the context of the NEMO Plan as routes that are no longer used and have been substantially reclaimed by the forces of nature. Some routes that are delineated on the 1979 CDCA existing route inventories and/or the most recent versions of 7.5-minute USGS maps cannot be located due to complete or near-complete natural reclamation. Non-existent routes are not included in the inventory if no evidence of them can be found. If some evidence of past use can be found, they are given strong consideration for closing.


2-70

�� Partially non-existent routes – Partially non-existent routes are (1) intermittently visible, encouraging cross-country travel at locations where surface evidence of the route disappears and/or (2) although still visible, travel upon them would require the crushing of substantial vegetation due to the degree of reclamation that has already occurred. Partially non-existent routes are given strong consideration for closing, or partial closing; depending on what other routes they may connect with.

�� Maintained road – The CDCA Plan, as amended, defines a maintained road as “regularly or frequently maintained by continuous use (e.g., passage of vehicles) or machine maintenance.” For determining which routes the BLM will designate in the NEMO Plan, a maintained dirt road is generally one that is maintained periodically with the use of machines (e.g., motorized graders), which is a standard that can be more uniformly applied. Several maintained roads are mapped and maintained by each County. BLM also maintains some frequently traveled routes, and a few rights-of-way are privately maintained.

�� Casual use – Casual use of public lands in the context of motorized-vehicle access is defined as the use of routes not requiring a specific authorization. Routes of travel designations are focused on this use.

�� Authorized use – Authorized use in such context is the use of routes approved through a permitting process for specific activities (e.g., rights-of-way issued for development of communication). Authorized use may or may not be limited by the routes of travel designations. An example would be a right-of-way granted off of the routes of travel network for development of a specific communication site without existing access (e.g., to an unroaded mountaintop). Reclamation of that access would be considered, and if appropriate, incorporated as part of the plan of development and right-of-way grant, upon site abandonment. The communication site proposal, including access, would undergo public review (environmental assessment or environmental impact statement).

General Scope of Route Designation Some roads and routes crossing public lands are considered to be part of the primary transportation system of the planning area and will not be addressed in the route designation process. This includes federal, state, and county paved and maintained roads and major linear rights-of-way or similar authorizations. These roads and routes will be shown on the route designation maps to give an overall view of the transportation network. In addition, route designations apply only to routes and portions thereof on BLM-managed public lands. The designation of routes as “open,” “limited,” and “closed” is not applicable on private lands. Access for the use and enjoyment of private lands will be addressed on a case-by-case basis where private landowners may be adversely affected by route designation decisions. Easements across private lands will be pursued for routes that are included in the route network, as needed.

Washes as motorized-vehicle routes of travel are addressed in the same manner as non-wash routes, that is, they are designated “open”, “limited”, or “closed”. The designation of routes as “open”, “limited,” and “closed” is also generally applicable to both casual and authorized users of public lands. Where there is a requirement for occasional access associated with an authorized use, but it is determined that unlimited casual use may cause undesirable resource impacts, routes will be designated “closed” and available for use only by the authorized party. In such cases, the authorized use of a “closed” route usually limits this use in some manner or requires mitigation in some form. It is anticipated that BLM will make few “closed” routes available for use by authorized parties, except those within wilderness for which use is strictly defined in the California Desert Protection Act (1994).


2-71

InventoryAccording to the 1982 CDCA Plan amendment of the Motorized-Vehicle Access Element, an existing route of travel is a route established before approval of the CDCA Plan in 1980 with a minimum width of two feet, and showing significant surface evidence of prior vehicle use or, for washes, having a history of prior use. Baseline inventory was taken from ICMP “existing” route inventory maps compiled from 1975 aerial photos, 15-minute USGS maps from 1955-1956 as edited in 1979, and from state and federal agency and other maps. These are the inventory maps that were utilized to produce the Desert Access Guides, which include some, but not all, of the routes.

There were concerns in the initial route designation process that few routes were identified for closure or limitations. Steps need to be taken to document and prevent route proliferation. Additional existing trails needed to be identified and mapped

In the NEMO effort, the inventory from 1979 was supplemented with updated USGS topographical maps. Route location field data collected, beginning in 1993, and supplemental public input from 1998-1999 were used. NEMO route designation scoping meetings and follow-up field visits to Piute-Fenner DWMA with staff of the field office were held during 1998. Private landowners, user and interest groups were given the opportunity to review and comment on early route recommendations and provide input. The objective of this effort was to drive all routes within the planning area and record their locations. Routes not on the 1979 inventory of “existing” routes may be considered for addition to the inventory, consistent with the MUC and CDCA Plan.

To date, “existing” routes in all Category I, II and critical desert tortoise habitat have been field checked and mapped for the NEMO Plan. This covers approximately 350,000 acres of land in the southern 30 percent of the planning area that is not designated as wilderness or wilderness study area. In addition, routes have been previously inventoried, field checked, mapped and analyzed in a few of the larger ACECs, such as the Amargosa and Grimshaw Lake Natural Area ACECs, and the nearby Salt Creek ACEC, in conjunction with ACEC management planning from the early 1980’s.

Route Designation Criteria Five criteria are identified in 43 CFR 8342.1 to consider when making area and route-specific designation decisions, including:

1. Minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or other resources, and prevention of impairment of wilderness suitability.

2. Minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats.

3. Minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, to ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

4. No trails will be located in designated wilderness or primitive areas.

5. Routes designated in natural areas must not adversely affect natural, esthetic, scenic, or other values for which the areas were established.

Applying location-specific criteria occasionally leads to the designation of an entire route as closed rather than limiting the closure to a portion of the route.


2-72

Scope of Route Designation in the NEMO Planning Area Route designations are not appropriate in congressionally designated wilderness areas, nor in wilderness study areas (1.4 million acres) where Congress has not determined whether lands should be designated as wilderness or should be released. For the remainder of public land routes, “open”, “limited”, and “closed” route designations may be made in each of the Multiple-Use Classes, including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), and in unclassified lands. This covers approximately 1.8 million acres, of which approximately 1.4 million acres are public lands in the NEMO planning area.

Approximately 24 percent of the 1.8 million acres where route designation is needed will be designated in this planning effort (designations apply to public lands only). BLM will make the designation of the remaining route network a priority in areas where protection and recovery of T&E species is the goal through supplemental route designation or new efforts in conjunction with follow-up surveys and ACEC planning. These areas are currently or are proposed as MUC “L” and ACECs.

General priorities for completion and implementation of route designation in the remainder of the planning area are:

1. Areas which are identified for the protection and enhancement of T&E and sensitive species, areas which have high sensitivity for cultural resources, and designated special areas (e.g., ACECs)

2. Areas which may affect access to wilderness

3. Areas which are identified for the protection and enhancement of watershed or public land health values

4. MUC L or I areas

5. MUC M areas

6. Other public lands

The BLM California Desert District has evaluated the route designation process, and proposed to simplify it. The proposal eliminates the “existing” route network approach that is currently used in some MUC within the CDCA, that are based on a twenty-two year old database where it exists, and replaces it with the route network process used within MUC “L” for route designations. The designation of routes in MUC “M” and “I” outside of OHV open areas can proceed efficiently based on established priorities with a consistent and simple approach. Each field office through the land-use planning process will pursue these route network designations as site-specific analyses consistent with the CDCA Plan, as amended. All routes of travel shall be designated for all public lands within the planning area by June 2004 or as otherwise agreed to in agreement C-00-0927 WHA. (see Appendix B).

Route-Specific NEPA Documentation The EIS prepared for the NEMO Plan constitutes NEPA documentation for designating routes of travel. Detailed maps at the 1:24,000 scale depicting routes and their proposed designations are available for review at the Needles, Ridgecrest, and Barstow Field Offices and the California Desert District Office in Riverside.


2-73

Implementation of Route Designation Decisions �� Routes comprising a basic recreational access network within the NEMO planning area

would be individually assigned to signify their availability for use. This network is based on recreational touring routes for the NEMO planning area. Signing strategies may vary to reflect site-specific needs, particularly in DWMAs and other management areas.

�� Information kiosks depicting the basic recreational access network would be installed at key locations throughout the NEMO planning area. These kiosks would furnish information relating to access opportunities and limitations, resource protection, and visitor safety.

�� Maps, brochures, etc. depicting the basic recreational access network would be developed and distributed to the public. Information would be similar to that on the kiosks, but would be more comprehensive as space allows.

�� Routes designated “closed” within desert tortoise route subregions would be appropriately signed, barricaded, or rehabilitated to exclude access, and allow recovery, except where limited use is needed to achieve management objectives (e.g., maintenance of small game guzzlers to support wildlife populations). In such cases, access would be controlled to exclude casual use by the general public, yet allow administrative use. In other subregions, closure strategies would be appropriate to specific area goals and would be addressed at the time of specific route designations, by subregion.

�� Decisions to sign routes that are not included in the basic recreational access network, but that are available for motorized-vehicle use (i.e., they have not been designated “closed”) would be based on need to minimize resource conflicts. They would not be depicted on informational kiosks.

The intent of this strategy is (1) to provide off-highway vehicle recreationists with well-defined, signed routes on which to explore the desert, and (2) to direct use to a limited number of primary routes. This would decrease use throughout secondary routes. In general, the identified primary routes will accommodate higher levels of use with lower potential for adverse impacts better than the secondary routes.

2.10.1 Alternative 1 – No Action In General Except as presented below, BLM would designate routes in accordance with 43 CFR 8342.113,subject to CDCA Plan provisions. BLM also would include an “approved routes of travel network” that would require BLM selection of specific routes to be included in that network. For MUC guidelines, see page 77 of the CDCA Plan, as amended, reprint of March 1999. BLM would individually map routes, whether or not they are in washes, WSAs, ACECs, MUC “C” or unclassified lands. Then, under “existing” or “approved” guidelines identified in the Plan, depending on the MUC of the area that contains them, BLM would designate them as “open”, “closed” or “limited”.

Wilderness Areas BLM would not designate routes in wilderness areas because, under 43 CFR 8342.1(d), trails are not to be located in officially designated wilderness areas. If a trail cannot be located in such an area, it would not be within the scope of BLM route designation efforts.

13 Route designations approved through the NEMO Plan constitute CDCA Plan decisions.


2-74

Non-Existent and Partially Non-Existent Routes (see 2.10 for explanations) Although the CDCA Plan does not make this distinction, there is general agreement that these circumstances exist and, in the context of route designation, need to be addressed. For any route satisfying either of the 2.10 definitions, with field verification information on file, BLM would designate such routes as “closed” even though they may be apparent on the 1979 inventory maps (on which BLM’s Desert Access Guides are based) or on USGS topographic maps. Where a portion of the route connects to other routes that are not declared to be a non-existent route, only the non-existent route portion would be closed under this alternative.

Products of the Initial (1979) Route Designation Process: BLM would designate as “closed” three (3) routes (11 miles total length, two in Shadow Valley and one in Ivanpah).

MUC L Lands (washes included, if individually identified as “open” for vehicle use): As set forth under “In General” above, unless vehicle use has been limited or prohibited through final publication of an effective Federal Register Notice, BLM would designate as “open” those “existing” routes (1979 maps14) under CDCA Plan guidelines for L.

MUC M Lands (washes included, if individually identified as “open” for vehicle use): As set forth under “In General” above, unless vehicle use has been limited or prohibited through final publication of an effective Federal Register Notice, BLM would designate as “open” those “existing” routes (1979 maps15) under CDCA Plan guidelines for M.

Secondary Washes not identified on 1979 inventory maps. These routes would be presumed to be non-existent, by the definitions that they are not identified in the inventory. This is consistent with the goals for the desert tortoise subregions. Consistent with the Multiple-Use Class and goals of future subregions, specific routes (including washes) may be considered for inclusion in the approved subregion inventory at the time of specific route designation, consistent with the purposes and goals of the NEMO planning effort and to meet the specific resource and use needs within the subregion.

Inventory adjustments and strategies will be determined at the outset of planning for each subregion, based on the issues and needs for each area.

Amargosa niterwort: Unless the Federal Register Notice (FY 87) is not in effect, BLM would designate as “closed” two (2) routes (6.0 miles total length) to protect populations of this plant species in the Ash Meadows vicinity. At the Barstow Field Office, see the appropriate 1987 Route Designation Maps (Barstow Resource Area, Map C, Routes C-1 and C-2), which served as a source for BLM’s Desert Access Guides.

2.10.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would designate routes in accordance with criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1. Route designation would remain subject to the provisions/stipulations of the CDCA Plan as amended below. Desert washes, as motorized-vehicle routes of travel, are addressed in the same manner as non-wash routes; that is, they are individually mapped and navigable washes are designated as “open”, “closed” or “limited”. Proposed Actions in Alternative 2 would:

14 These maps are on file in the Field Offices. 15 These maps are on file in the Field Offices.


2-75

�� Amend the CDCA Plan Motorized-Vehicle Access Element to designate and manage routes of travel in accordance with MUC Limited guidelines irrespective of Multiple-Use Class, except in MUC “C” (Wilderness) and in areas designated “Open“ for vehicle use.

�� Designate “existing” routes, including navigable washes, that have been individually identified “open” (per 1979 maps) for motor-vehicle use with the following exceptions:

1. Where such use has already been limited or prohibited through publication of a final notice in the Federal Register, including:

�� Two routes (6 miles) that were closed through Federal Register Notice in Fiscal Year 87 to protect Amargosa niterwort populations, which would be designated as “closed” for motor-vehicle use.

2. Where conflicts with other uses have resulted in recommendation for closure or limitation under 43 CFR 8342.1 criteria, including but not limited to:

�� Close or seasonally limit any route within 1/4 mile of any significant bat roost.

�� Close any route within 1/4 mile of prairie falcon and golden eagle aeries (cliff nests).

�� Close any route within 1/4 mile of a site of known occurrence of current or future listed T&E plant populations.

�� Close any route within 1/4 mile of a natural or artificial water source (e.g., springs, seeps, streams, guzzlers).

�� Close or seasonally limit washes, including navigable washes that do not contribute to the primary transportation network.

�� Close any route within 1/4 mile of a significant sacred site or cultural resource that may be impacted or lost.

�� Close, seasonally limit, or upgrade routes with significant erosion and degradation potential.

�� Develop criteria for each special area to protect sensitive resources therein.

3. Redundant routes (see definition of terms at the beginning of section 2.10).

�� In addition, non-existent routes and wilderness not be included and designated as “closed”, the same as Alternative 1 (No Action)

�� In addition to the above general exceptions, in the Desert Tortoise DWMAs, the following additional exceptions would apply:

1. Three routes (11 miles) that were closed through the initial route designation process in 1979, two in Shadow Valley and one in Northern Ivanpah, would be designated as “closed” for motor-vehicle use.

2. Routes where specific biological parameters proposed under this alternative are applied to meet desert tortoise DWMA goals and objectives (see Appendix A), shall be designated “closed” or “limited” as appropriate.

3. Under this alternative, all wash routes that are not part of the primary transportation network would be designated closed in desert tortoise DWMAs.


2-76

2.10.3 Alternative 3 – Proposed Plan Designate routes in accordance with criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1 et seq.


�� Designate “existing” routes as “open” for motor-vehicle use, including washes that have been individually identified (1979 maps). The same exceptions as Alternative 2 would apply, with the following modification: Evaluate existing washes on a case-by-case basis, based on their contribution to the primary transportation network and providing access to specific recreational destinations, consistent with criteria, rather than closing or seasonally limiting washes that do not contribute to the primary transportation network.

�� In addition, non-existent routes and wilderness would not be included and designated as “closed”, the same as Alternative 1 (No Action).

�� In addition to the general exceptions, in the Desert Tortoise DWMAs, routes would be designated “open” for motor-vehicle use with the following additional exceptions:


2. Routes where specific biological parameters proposed under this Alternative are applied to meet desert tortoise DWMA goals and objectives shall be designated “closed” or “limited” as appropriate (see Appendix A; section A-2.8).

2.10.4 Alternative 4 Designate routes in accordance with criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1.


�� Designate “existing” routes, including navigable washes that have been individually identified “open” for motor-vehicle use (see 1979 maps). This designation is the same as Alternative 2, with the following exceptions:

1. Address existing washes, including navigable washes, on a case-by-case basis and evaluate them based on the primary transportation network and access to specific recreational destinations, consistent with criteria (same as Alternative 3).

2. Routes would not be considered for “closure” based on being defined as redundant routes

�� In addition to the above general exceptions, in the Desert Tortoise DWMAs, routes will be designated “open” for motor-vehicle use with the following additional exceptions:



2-77

2. Routes where specific biological parameters proposed under this alternative are applied to meet desert tortoise DWMA goals and objectives (see Appendix A) shall be designated “closed” or “limited” as appropriate.

Alternatives for motorized vehicle access, which includes route designation, in the planning area, is summarized by alternative in Table 2.22.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

10 M

otor

Veh

icle

Acc

ess –

Rou

tes o

f Tra

vel D

esig

natio

n

2-78

Tab

le 2

.22

– Su

mm

ary

Com

pari

son

of A

ltern

ativ

es: M

otor

Veh

icle

Acc

ess N

etw

ork

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Des

igna

te ro

utes

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

crite

ria in

43

CFR

834

2.1.

16

Rou

te

desi

gnat

ion

wou

ld re

mai

n su

bjec

t to

the

prov

isio

ns a

nd st

ipul

atio

ns o

f the

C

DC

A P

lan.

Des

ert w

ashe

s, as

m

otor

ized

-veh

icle

rout

es o

f tra

vel,

are

addr

esse

d in

the

sam

e m

anne

r as n

on-

was

h ro

utes

. The

y ar

e in

divi

dual

ly

map

ped,

usi

ng th

e 19

77-1

979

inve

ntor

y. D

epen

ding

upo

n th

e m

ulip

le-u

se c

lass

in w

hich

they

occ

ur,

navi

gabl

e w

ashe

s are

des

igna

ted

unde

r “ex

istin

g” o

r “ap

prov

ed”

guid

elin

es id

entif

ied

in th

e Pl

an, a

s ei

ther

“op

en”,

“cl

osed

” or

“lim

ited”

.

��

Und

er th

e N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e, a

ll “e

xist

ing”

rout

es

in M

UC

“L”

and

“M

” ar

eas,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes t

hat

have

bee

n in

divi

dual

ly id

entif

ied

(197

9 m

aps17

), w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed “

open

” fo

r mot

or-

vehi

cle

use,

exc

ept w

here

such

us

e ha

s alre

ady

been

lim

ited

or

proh

ibite

d th

roug

h pu

blic

atio

n of

a

final

not

ice

in th

e F

eder

al

Reg

iste

r.

Des

igna

te ro

utes

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith c

riter

ia in

43

CFR

834

2.1.

R

oute

des

igna

tion

wou

ld re

mai

n su

bjec

t to

the

prov

isio

ns a

nd

stip

ulat

ions

of t

he C

DC

A P

lan

as a

men

ded

belo

w.

Des

ert

was

hes,

as m

otor

ized

-veh

icle

rout

es o

f tra

vel,

are

addr

esse

d in

th

e sa

me

man

ner a

s non

-was

h ro

utes

and

are

indi

vidu

ally

m

appe

d, u

sing

the

1977

-197

9 in

vent

ory.

��

Am

end

the

CD

CA

Pla

n M

otor

ized

-Veh

icle

Acc

ess

Elem

ent t

o de

sign

ate

and

man

age

rout

es o

f tra

vel i

n ac

cord

ance

with

MU

C L

imite

d gu

idel

ines

irre

spec

tive

of

Mul

tiple

-Use

Cla

ss, e

xcep

t in

MU

C “

C”

(Wild

erne

ss) a

nd

in a

reas

des

igna

ted

“Ope

n” fo

r veh

icle

use

. ��

Des

igna

te “

exis

ting”

rout

es, i

nclu

ding

nav

igab

le w

ashe

s, th

at h

ave

been

indi

vidu

ally

iden

tifie

d “o

pen”

(19

79 m

aps)

fo

r mot

or-v

ehic

le u

se w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

exce

ptio

ns:

oW

here

such

use

has

alre

ady

been

lim

ited

or p

rohi

bite

d th

roug

h pu

blic

atio

n of

a fi

nal n

otic

e in

the

Fed

eral

R

egis

ter.

oW

here

con

flict

s w

ith o

ther

use

s hav

e re

sulte

d in

re

com

men

datio

n fo

r clo

sure

or l

imita

tion

unde

r 43

CFR

834

2.1

crite

ria, i

nclu

ding

but

not

lim

ited

to:

��

Clo

se o

r sea

sona

lly li

mit

any

rout

e w

ithin

1/4

m

ile o

f any

sign

ifica

nt b

at ro

ost.

��

Clo

se a

ny ro

ute

with

in 1

/4 m

ile o

f pra

irie

falc

on

and

gold

en e

agle

eyr

ies (

cliff

nes

ts).

��

Clo

se a

ny ro

ute

with

in 1

/4 m

ile o

f a si

te o

f kn

own

occu

rren

ce o

f cur

rent

or f

utur

e lis

ted

T&E

plan

t pop

ulat

ions

. ��

Clo

se a

ny ro

ute

with

in 1

/4 m

ile o

f a n

atur

al o

r ar

tific

ial w

ater

sour

ce (e

.g.,

sprin

gs, s

eeps

, st

ream

s, gu

zzle

rs).

Des

igna

te ro

utes

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith

crite

ria in

43

CFR

834

2.1.

��

Am

end

the

CD

CA

Pla

n M

otor

ized

-Veh

icle

Acc

ess

Elem

ent t

o de

sign

ate

and

man

age

rout

es o

f tra

vel i

n ac

cord

ance

with

MU

C L

imite

d gu

idel

ines

irre

spec

tive

of

Mul

tiple

-Use

Cla

ss, e

xcep

t in

MU

C “

C”

(Wild

erne

ss) a

nd in

ar

eas d

esig

nate

d “O

pen”

for

vehi

cle

use.

��

Des

igna

te “

exis

ting”

rout

es,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes,

that

ha

ve b

een

indi

vidu

ally

iden

tifie

d

“ope

n” (1

979

map

s) fo

r mot

or-

vehi

cle

use

with

the

sam

e ex

cept

ions

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

with

th

e fo

llow

ing

exce

ptio

n:

��

Eval

uate

exi

stin

g w

ashe

s as

pote

ntia

l rou

tes,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes,

on a

cas

e-by

-ca

se b

asis

, bas

ed o

n th

eir

cont

ribut

ion

to th

e pr

imar

y tra

nspo

rtatio

n ne

twor

k an

d pr

ovid

ing

acce

ss to

spec

ific

recr

eatio

nal d

estin

atio

ns,

cons

iste

nt w

ith c

riter

ia.

Des

igna

te ro

utes

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith c

riter

ia in

43

CFR

834

2.1.

��

Am

end

the

CD

CA

Pla

n M

otor

ized

-Veh

icle

Acc

ess

Elem

ent t

o de

sign

ate

and

man

age

rout

es o

f tra

vel i

n ac

cord

ance

with

MU

C

Lim

ited

guid

elin

es

irres

pect

ive

of M

ultip

le-U

se

Cla

ss, e

xcep

t in

MU

C “

C”

(Wild

erne

ss) a

nd in

are

as

desi

gnat

ed “

Ope

n” fo

r ve

hicl

e us

e.

��

Des

igna

te “

exis

ting”

rout

es,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes,

that

hav

e be

en in

divi

dual

ly

iden

tifie

d “o

pen”

(19

79

map

s) fo

r mot

or-v

ehic

le u

se

with

the

sam

e ex

cept

ions

as

Alte

rnat

ive

2, w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

exce

ptio

ns:

oA

ddre

ss e

xist

ing

was

hes,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes,

on a

ca

se-b

y-ca

se b

asis

and

ev

alua

te th

em b

ased

on

the

prim

ary

trans

porta

tion

netw

ork

and

acce

ss to

spec

ific

recr

eatio

nal d

estin

atio

ns,

cons

iste

nt w

ith c

riter

ia.

16R

oute

des

igna

tions

app

rove

d th

roug

h th

e N

EMO

Pla

n co

nstit

ute

CD

CA

Pla

n de

cisi

ons.

17Th

ese

map

s are

on

file

in th

e Fi

eld

Offi

ces.

The

orig

inal

map

s are

ver

y fra

gile

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

10 M

otor

Veh

icle

Acc

ess –

Rou

tes o

f Tra

vel D

esig

natio

n

2-79

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

A

ltern

ativ

e 4

��

Thre

e ro

utes

that

wer

e cl

osed

th

roug

h th

e in

itial

rout

e de

sign

atio

n pr

oces

s in

1979

. Tw

o ro

utes

in S

hado

w V

alle

y an

d on

e in

Nor

ther

n Iv

anpa

h w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed a

s “cl

osed

” fo

r mot

or-v

ehic

le u

se.

Not

incl

uded

as r

oute

s are

the

follo

win

g, w

hich

wou

ld b

e de

sign

ated

as

“cl

osed

”:

��

Rou

tes t

hat a

re n

on-e

xist

ent o

r pa

rtial

ly n

on-e

xist

ent a

s ver

ified

by

fiel

d re

view

dur

ing

this

plan

ning

effo

rt, a

lthou

gh th

ey

appe

ared

on

the

1979

inve

ntor

y m

aps u

sed

to p

repa

re th

e D

eser

t A

cces

s Gui

des,

or w

ere

foun

d on

cu

rren

t USG

S to

pogr

aphi

cal

map

s of t

he a

rea.

W

here

a

porti

on o

f the

rout

e co

nnec

ts to

ot

her r

oute

s tha

t are

not

dec

lare

d to

be

a no

n-ex

iste

nt ro

ute,

onl

y th

e no

n-ex

iste

nt ro

ute

porti

on

wou

ld b

e cl

osed

und

er th

is

alte

rnat

ive.

��

Rou

tes t

hat a

re w

ithin

des

igna

ted

wild

erne

ss a

reas

.

��

Clo

se o

r sea

sona

lly li

mit

was

hes,

incl

udin

g na

viga

ble

was

hes t

hat d

o no

t con

tribu

te to

the

prim

ary

trans

porta

tion

netw

ork.

��

Clo

se a

ny ro

ute

with

in 1

/4 m

ile o

f a si

gnifi

cant

sa

cred

site

or c

ultu

ral r

esou

rce

that

may

be

impa

cted

or l

ost.

��

Clo

se, s

easo

nally

lim

it, o

r upg

rade

rout

es w

ith

sign

ifica

nt e

rosi

on a

nd d

egra

datio

n po

tent

ial.

��

Dev

elop

crit

eria

for e

ach

spec

ial a

rea

to p

rote

ct

sens

itive

reso

urce

s the

rein

. o

Red

unda

nt ro

utes

(see

def

initi

on o

f ter

ms a

t the

be

ginn

ing

of se

ctio

n 2.

10).

��

In a

dditi

on to

the

abov

e ge

nera

l exc

eptio

ns, i

n th

e D

eser

t To

rtois

e D

WM

As,

rout

es w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed “

open

” fo

r m

otor

-veh

icle

use

with

the

follo

win

g ad

ditio

nal

exce

ptio

ns:

oTh

ree

rout

es th

at w

ere

clos

ed th

roug

h th

e in

itial

rout

e de

sign

atio

n pr

oces

s in

1979

, tw

o in

Sha

dow

Val

ley

and

one

in N

orth

ern

Ivan

pah,

wou

ld b

e de

sign

ated

as

“clo

sed”

for m

otor

-veh

icle

use

. o

Rou

tes w

here

spec

ific

biol

ogic

al p

aram

eter

s pro

pose

d un

der t

his a

ltern

ativ

e ar

e ap

plie

d to

mee

t des

ert

torto

ise

DW

MA

goa

ls a

nd o

bjec

tives

(see

App

endi

x A

) sha

ll be

des

igna

ted

“clo

sed”

or “

limite

d” a

s ap

prop

riate

. o

Und

er th

is a

ltern

ativ

e, a

ll w

ash

rout

es th

at a

re n

ot p

art

of th

e pr

imar

y tra

nspo

rtatio

n ne

twor

k w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed c

lose

d in

des

ert t

orto

ise D

WM

As.

��

In a

dditi

on, n

on-e

xist

ent r

oute

s and

wild

erne

ss n

ot b

e in

clud

ed a

nd d

esig

nate

d as

“cl

osed

”, th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

��

In a

dditi

on to

the

abov

e ge

nera

l ex

cept

ions

, in

the

Des

ert

Torto

ise

DW

MA

s, ro

utes

wou

ld

be d

esig

nate

d “o

pen”

for m

otor

-ve

hicl

e us

e w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

addi

tiona

l exc

eptio

ns:

oTh

ree

rout

es th

at w

ere

clos

ed th

roug

h th

e in

itial

ro

ute

desi

gnat

ion

proc

ess i

n 19

79, t

wo

in S

hado

w

Val

ley

and

one

in N

orth

ern

Ivan

pah,

wou

ld b

e de

sign

ated

as “

clos

ed”

for

mot

or-v

ehic

le u

se.

oR

oute

s whe

re sp

ecifi

c ad

ditio

nal b

iolo

gica

l pa

ram

eter

s pro

pose

d un

der

this

alte

rnat

ive

are

appl

ied

to m

eet d

eser

t tor

tois

e D

WM

A g

oals

and

ob

ject

ives

(see

App

endi

x A

), sh

all b

e de

sign

ated

“c

lose

d” o

r “lim

ited”

as

appr

opria

te.

��

In a

dditi

on, n

on-e

xist

ent r

oute

s an

d w

ilder

ness

wou

ld n

ot b

e in

clud

ed a

nd d

esig

nate

d as

“c

lose

d”, t

he sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1

– N

o A

ctio

n

oR

oute

s wou

ld n

ot b

e co

nsid

ered

for “

clos

ure”

ba

sed

on b

eing

def

ined

as

redu

ndan

t rou

tes.

��In

add

ition

to th

e ab

ove

gene

ral

exce

ptio

ns, i

n th

e D

eser

t To

rtois

e D

WM

As,

rout

es w

ould

be

des

igna

ted

“ope

n” fo

r mot

or-

vehi

cle

use

with

the

follo

win

g ad

ditio

nal e

xcep

tions

:

oTh

ree

rout

es th

at w

ere

clos

ed th

roug

h th

e in

itial

ro

ute

desi

gnat

ion

proc

ess i

n 19

79, t

wo

in

Shad

ow V

alle

y an

d on

e in

Nor

ther

n Iv

anpa

h,

wou

ld b

e de

sign

ated

as

“clo

sed”

for m

otor

-ve

hicl

e us

e.

oR

oute

s whe

re sp

ecifi

c ad

ditio

nal b

iolo

gica

l pa

ram

eter

s pro

pose

d un

der t

his a

ltern

ativ

e ar

e ap

plie

d to

mee

t des

ert

torto

ise

DW

MA

goa

ls

and

obje

ctiv

es (s

ee

App

endi

x A

) sha

ll be

de

sign

ated

“cl

osed

” or

“l

imite

d” a

s app

ropr

iate

.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.11 Landfills

2-80

2.11 Landfills The Alternatives identified in this planning effort provide strategies to implement the BLM’s policies on elimination of solid waste landfills. Under current policy, BLM may allow existing solid waste landfills in the planning area to operate so long as adequate progress towards closure or patent of the facilities is being made. Closure of existing landfills under state supervision is a process that can take decades, and involves development and implementation of a monitoring and formal closure program.

The range of Alternatives includes patenting of the existing landfill sites in the NEMO planning area to Inyo County. Closure of the facilities was considered and dismissed. Closure would not provide substantially fewer environmental impacts to the public lands, which have already been utilized for solid waste disposal. Closure would result in higher costs to the county over a shorter time and may not meet short-term solid waste disposal needs of the area.

2.11.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Continue to manage 29.4 acres of public lands, which include the former and current Tecopa community landfill, and 50 acres of public lands, which include the former and current Shoshone community landfill, using the existing MUC Limited guidelines. The facilities would be closed and remain under federal ownership. The formal closure process would begin on Tecopa and Shoshone community landfills under the state of California guidance.

2.11.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan Redesignate Tecopa and Shoshone community landfill sites from MUC Limited to Unclassified to facilitate conveyance out of Federal ownership to Inyo County.

Table 2.23 presents a summary of landfill alternatives.

Table 2.23 – Summary Comparison Alternatives for Landfills

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan Continue to manage 29.4 acres of public lands, which includes the former and current Tecopa community landfill, using existing MUC Limited guidelines. Close facilities and retain Federal ownership.

On 29.4 acres encumbered by the former and current Tecopa community landfill site, public lands would be redesignated from MUC Limited to Unclassified to facilitate conveyance out of Federal ownership to Inyo County.

Continue to manage 50 acres of public lands, which includes the former and current Shoshone community landfill, using existing MUC Limited guidelines. Close facilities and retain Federal ownership.

On 50 acres encumbered by the former and current Shoshone community landfill site, public lands would be redesignated from MUC Limited to Unclassified to facilitate conveyance out of federal ownership to Inyo County.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.12 Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

2-81

2.12 Wild and Scenic River Eligibility 2.12.1 Introduction Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have been mandated to evaluate potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS) per Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 United States Code 1271-1287, et seq). Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart 297, addresses management of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8350, specifically addresses designation of management areas. NWSRS study guidelines have also been published in Federal Register Volume 7, Number 173 (September 7, 1982), for public lands managed by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior. Additional guidance on wild and scenic rivers (WSR) is provided in BLM Manual 8351.

The NWSRS study process includes three regulatory steps:

1. Identification of river(s) and/or river segment(s) that are eligible for WSR designation

2. Determination of eligible river(s) and/or segment(s) potential classification with respect to wild, scenic, recreational designation, or any combination thereof

3. Conducting a suitability study of eligible river(s) and/or segment(s) for inclusion into the NWSRS, via legislative action. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is commonly prepared to document the analysis needed for this suitability determination/WSR designation

Any river or river segment on public lands found eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS is to be managed as if this river/segment were designated until such time as a suitability determination is made. This requires management of public lands within 0.25 mile of the subject river/segment, to conform to management standards and guidelines presented in applicable Federal agency manuals for wild and scenic rivers until the suitability determination is completed.

If a river or river segment is found suitable for inclusion to the NWSRS, the U.S. Congress must then pass legislation designating this river/segment, prior to its formal addition to the NWSRS. In addition to federal agencies, private individuals and/or groups, as well as state governments, can nominate rivers and/or segments for inclusion.

2.12.2 Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determinations The first two steps, i.e., eligibility and classification, are documented in this report, covering portions of three different streams within the planning area, and the impacts are evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement. The Amargosa River, Cottonwood Creek, and Surprise Canyon Creek had segments that were found eligible for the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and preliminary classifications of those segments were made. Table 2.24 summarizes the results of the eligibility and classification findings on the three streams.

Table 2.24 - Summary of Wild and Scenic River Eligible Segments

Riverine Segment Classification Public Land Miles Private Land Miles Amargosa--Shoshone to Tecopa Scenic 6.25 3.75 Amargosa--Tecopa to Sperry Siding Wild 6.50 2.50 Amargosa--Sperry Siding to SH 178 Recreational 7.00 0.00 Cottonwood--USFS Boundary to Canyon Entrance Recreational 4.7 0.00 Surprise Canyon-DVNP to Chris Wicht Camp Scenic 4.0 0.00 Surprise Canyon-Chris Wicht to Surprise Canyon ACEC West Boundary

Recreational 1.0 0.00

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.12 Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

2-82

Appendix O describes the documentation for eligibility and classification of the three segments of the Amargosa River, and the accompanying matrix of values for all identified rivers in the Eastern Inyo County region. Appendix S contains additional information on eligibility and classification of the segment of Cottonwood Creek, and Appendix T on eligibility and classification of the two segments of Surprise Canyon. See Chapter 8, Figures 15a – 15c for a graphic representation of the eligible segments for each of the three streams.

2.12.3 Alternative 1 – No Action Determine 6 segments identified in Table 2.24 as not eligible for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. This is a baseline No Action Alternative for the purposes of evaluation of impacts. The formal change to No Action would occur with additional review and analysis of each segment during the suitability analysis process, if appropriate, consistent with Wild and Scenic Rivers Act guidance.

2.12.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Plan Determine 6 segments identified in Table 2.24 as eligible for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation, and provide interim protection and management for the river’s free-flowing character and any identified outstandingly remarkable values, until a suitability study is completed. This is the Proposed Action for the purposes of evaluation of impacts. The formal designations as currently recommended, or any modifications of these classifications, would occur with additional review and analysis of each segment during the suitability analysis process, if appropriate, consistent with Wild and Scenic Rivers Act guidance. Interim protection strategies for all areas are provided through MUC zoning. In addition, Interim measures for the Amargosa River are in place through Kingston wilderness designation, and with this planning effort, through the Proposed Amargosa River ACEC. Interim protection strategies for the Surprise Canyon Creek area are in place through the Surprise Canyon ACEC Plan. An additional interim measure includes a route closure through the canyon from Chris Wicht Camp to the NPS boundary, and will be addressed through a separate EIS for the Surprise Canyon area. Additional interim measures for Cottonwood Creek, which has been tentatively classified as recreational, are not necessary at this time. .

2.12.5 Wild and Scenic River Designation Process The suitability determinations for these segments would be subsequently analyzed and completed, in an Environmental Impact Statement format. The results of the suitability determinations would amend the applicable land use plan, i.e., the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan (BLM 1980, as amended) for segments found suitable. Recommendations would be sent forward to Congress for any segments found suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System in this subsequent Environmental Impact Statement. Classifications may be revisited, based on further analysis that occurs during the suitability phase. The river segments under consideration in the suitability phase in the western portion of the planning area in western Inyo County and a small part of Mono County may be adjusted based on the results of an evaluation of regional river outstanding remarkable values, to be considered as part of the suitability EIS process.

2.13 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis Additional alternatives were considered but dismissed from further analysis in this planning effort for a variety of reasons. Following is a review of some of the alternatives receiving the most discussion.

BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan Amendments and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 2.13 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis

2-83

Regional standards of public land health are to be developed in consultation with local Resource Advisory Councils (43 CFR 4181). BLM in consultation with California Desert District Advisory Council developed the standards and guidelines presented in Section 2.1.2, Alternative 2. They are similar to those developed by Resource Advisory Councils in other regions and consistent with the regulatory parameters for development of regional guidelines, Therefore, other alternatives are not considered.

For desert tortoise recovery, an Alternative to withdraw one or more areas from mineral entry was considered. The Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan recommended withdrawal of Ivanpah Valley. The DWMAs do not contain high mineral potential, except for sand and gravel which is a common variety mineral. Withdrawal was dismissed because the cumulative surface disturbance limitation criteria within the desert tortoise Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) effectively address the issue.

A grazing management Alternative was considered, but dismissed that would have prohibited cattle feeding supplements (i.e., protein, nitrogen, and energy) in the DWMAs. The use of supplements is such an integral and vital part of cattle ranching on open rangelands, that elimination of feeding supplements would end grazing operations in DWMAs, an option that is already addressed in Alternative 2 for desert tortoise recovery.

An Alternative that restricts parking and camping distance to 15 feet from route centerline was considered but dismissed. This distance was used in the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan immediately adjacent to the proposed Piute Valley ACEC. Recreational use in Nevada is higher due to its closer proximity to Las Vegas than in the NEMO planning area, where use is generally low. The BLM intends to establish one standard for general public vehicular access within DWMAs throughout the CDCA in order to ease public education and compliance in the California Desert. Therefore, the NEMO planning effort identified a range of Alternatives consistent with other planning efforts in the CDCA for general vehicular access. Site-specific issues can be identified and addressed in each ACEC as needed.


2-84

An Alternative for Amargosa vole and Threatened and Endangered plant recovery was considered but dismissed that would have designated the recovery areas as wildlife habitat management areas (WHMAs) instead of ACECs. This Alternative was dismissed because the habitat management plans would not override MUC guidelines and, hence, would not be effective in limiting the effects of conflicting activities.

Two additional Alternatives for T&E plant recovery at Carson Slough were considered and dismissed. The first alternative would have used the existing Salt and Brackish Water Marsh Unusual Plant Assemblage to define the boundaries of the ACEC. It was dismissed from further analysis because the UPA boundaries were based on different resource values than the listed plants that are the focus of the proposed ACEC protection strategies. The second Alternative would have totaled approximately 38,400 acres, encompassing much larger acreage than the critical habitat boundaries, which totals 1,540 acres for the two plant species. It is also significantly larger than the largest proposal that the BLM has analyzed in this document. The second Alternative is 280 percent of the critical habitat size that meets the purpose and need of protecting the threatened and endangered plant species in areas where substantial populations have been documented. In addition, upstream source waters have been identified in California, and are included in the Amargosa River ACEC. Other source waters of Carson Slough are located in Nevada and are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that limiting factors for distribution of these plants include rare soil conditions and a reliable water source.

No facts or evidence have been provided to indicate that this larger 38,400 acre area contains the unusual soil conditions that are necessary for survival of the two species. The soil conditions conducive to growth of the species, based on existing surveys in California and Nevada, appear to be linked to specific geological substrate in localized areas of this riparian corridor. BLM has developed strategies to ensure reliable water sources on public lands. In this case, there are no facts in evidence that groundwater is in jeopardy for these plants. Effective tools exist for areas where regional groundwater becomes a concern, short of including large watersheds of surface lands within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. The lack of evidence for this alternative notwithstanding, BLM does not propose any actions under NEMO that would substantially alter the hydrology of the Amargosa/Carson Slough area or isolate populations of the Amargosa vole.

Under the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA), portions of four ACECs had acreage transferred to the National Park Service. For three of these ACECs (Clark Mountain, Saline Valley, and Surprise Canyon), alternatives were considered and dismissed from further analysis that would have deleted the ACECs if the remaining areas did not still meet ACEC importance and relevance criteria. A preliminary review of those three ACECs found that significant resources meeting the importance and relevance criteria for designation still exist. The fourth ACEC is Greenwater Canyon, where significant resources are now located within National Park Service boundaries. It is therefore proposed for further analysis and potential deletion in this document.

Another CDPA provision released approximately 45 measurable parcels of public lands that had been portions of wilderness study areas. The multiple-use class is being established on all of these parcels in this planning effort. One of these released areas, located in the Southern Panamints adjacent to Death Valley National Park and Fort Irwin National Training Center, was given preliminary ACEC consideration. Sufficient data do not exist to establish importance and relevance criteria at this time. Consequently, this ACEC proposal was dismissed from further consideration.


2-85

Public input was provided during scoping for consideration of all wash routes for “limited” access to be provided during fall hunting season. This strategy is inconsistent with one of the primary purpose and needs of this plan, as well as with the route-by-route designation strategy required in the CDCA Plan. It would present specific conflicts with T&E species conservation and recovery—one of the major NEMO plan goals. Within DWMAs, the first consideration for all washes is their suitability and value as desert tortoise habitat. Washes that have conventionally been used as routes of travel on a regular basis and/or do not meet criteria as suitable and valuable desert tortoise habitat received further field survey in the DWMAs to determine whether they provided a primary recreational access linkage in the route network. Although, the alternative suggested during scoping was not considered further for analysis, individual wash routes may be considered for a specific designation under most alternatives through the NEMO or subsequent land-use planning.

2.14 Summary of Impacts The following tables summarize the impacts of the alternatives.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-86

Tab

le 2

.25

– St

anda

rds a

nd G

uide

lines

Stan

dard

s and

Gui

delin

es

Res

ourc

es

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Veg

etat

ion

��

The

grow

ing

perio

d is

exp

ecte

d to

incr

ease

for p

eren

nial

fora

ge sp

ecie

s. ��

Long

-term

incr

ease

in p

eren

nial

pla

nts a

djac

ent t

o ra

nge

impr

ovem

ents

. ��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

the

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive.

The

sa

me

bene

fits i

n gr

azin

g al

lotm

ents

are

exp

ecte

d on

all

publ

ic la

nds.

��

Reg

iona

l sta

ndar

ds a

nd g

uide

lines

wou

ld re

duce

im

pact

s.

T&

E Pl

ants

��

Popu

latio

n of

T&

E pl

ants

will

ben

efit

sim

ilarly

to o

ther

veg

etat

ion

��

See

vege

tatio

n ab

ove

for i

mpa

cts.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

Nox

ious

wee

ds

��

Subs

tant

ial d

ecre

ase

in sp

ecifi

c no

xiou

s wee

ds th

at re

spon

d to

man

agem

ent

tech

niqu

es.

��

See

vege

tatio

n ab

ove

for i

mpa

cts.

W

etla

nds &

R

ipar

ian

&

Floo

dpla

ins

��

Rip

aria

n sp

ecie

s at c

erta

in sp

ring

sour

ces w

ithin

the

Last

Cha

nce

and

Sout

h O

asis

A

llotm

ents

wou

ld im

prov

e to

mee

t pro

perly

func

tioni

ng c

ondi

tions

. ��

Con

tinue

d ov

eral

l rip

aria

n w

etla

nd c

ondi

tion

impr

ovem

ent w

ithin

allo

tmen

ts.

��

See

vege

tatio

n ab

ove

for i

mpa

cts.

��

Reg

iona

l sta

ndar

ds a

nd g

uide

lines

wou

ld b

e m

ore

sens

itive

than

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Wild

life

��

With

in g

razi

ng a

llotm

ents

, inc

reas

es in

pla

nt v

igor

, bio

mas

s, an

d se

ed p

rodu

ctio

n w

ill

prov

ide

incr

ease

d fo

od so

urce

s. ��

With

in g

razi

ng a

llotm

ents

, inc

reas

es in

pla

nt c

over

and

litte

r will

pro

vide

incr

ease

d sh

elte

r aga

inst

wea

ther

and

pre

datio

n.

��

With

in g

razi

ng a

llotm

ents

, im

prov

emen

ts in

stru

ctur

e, d

iver

sity

and

size

of r

ipar

ian

habi

tats

will

be

effe

ctiv

e in

incr

easi

ng a

nim

al d

iver

sity

and

sust

aini

ng m

igra

tory

bird

po

pula

tions

.

��

Gui

delin

es a

re st

rong

er a

nd m

ore

defin

itive

in

Alte

rnat

ive

2, re

/ veg

etat

ion

man

agem

ent.

��

Incr

ease

s in

plan

t bio

mas

s, ca

nopy

, cov

er a

nd v

igor

be

tter t

han

Alte

rnat

ive

1 fo

r wild

life.

T&

E ��

See

abov

e w

ildlif

e im

pact

s ��

Mon

itorin

g w

ill h

elp

mai

ntai

n po

pula

tions

on

allo

tmen

ts.

��

See

abov

e w

ildlif

e im

pact

s.

Soil,

Wat

er, A

ir

��

Red

uced

ero

sion

rate

s due

to m

odifi

ed g

razi

ng p

ract

ices

. ��

Smal

l red

uctio

ns in

par

ticul

ate

(PM

10) e

mis

sion

s cou

ld re

sult

from

bet

ter v

eget

ativ

e co

ver a

nd re

duce

d w

ind

eros

ion

with

in g

razi

ng a

llotm

ents

that

are

mee

ting

stan

dard

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 w

here

gra

zing

con

tinue

s. B

enef

its fr

om re

gion

al st

anda

rds w

ould

cov

er a

ll pu

blic

la

nds.

��

Air

qual

ity b

enef

its a

re g

reat

er th

an th

e N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e be

caus

e th

e gu

idel

ines

are

stro

nger

.

Wat

er Q

ualit

y/

Qua

ntity

��

Will

redu

ce se

dim

enta

tion

and

incr

ease

infil

tratio

n ra

tes.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

but

gre

ater

ben

efits

to w

ater

qu

ality

can

be

expe

cted

bas

ed o

n m

ore

defin

itive

gu

idel

ines

. W

ilder

ness

and

V

isua

l ��

Man

agin

g ec

osys

tem

hea

lth in

acc

orda

nce

with

nat

iona

l fal

lbac

k st

anda

rds a

nd

guid

elin

es w

ill g

ener

ally

ben

efit

wild

erne

ss

��

Site

-spe

cific

“m

inim

um to

ol a

naly

sis”

wou

ld o

ccur

for a

ll pr

ojec

ts.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t cov

ers a

ll w

ilder

ness

in th

e pl

an a

rea.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-87

Stan

dard

s and

Gui

delin

es

Res

ourc

es

Alte

rnat

ive

1 –

No

Act

ion

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Wild

and

Sce

nic

Riv

ers

��

No

Impa

cts.

��

Hig

her s

tand

ards

for e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n to

pr

otec

t wild

and

scen

ic ri

ver v

alue

s pen

ding

fina

l le

gisl

ativ

e de

cisi

on.

Cul

tura

l/Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

Cur

rent

live

stoc

k, w

ild h

orse

s and

bur

ros m

ay a

dver

sely

affe

ct re

sour

ces.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t cov

ers a

ll pu

blic

land

s.

Rec

reat

ion

��

Poss

ible

clo

sure

of s

ome

acce

ss ro

utes

. Rec

reat

ion

wou

ld n

ot b

e ap

prec

iabl

y im

pact

ed.

Spec

ific

rout

e cl

osur

es a

nd li

mita

tions

hav

e no

t be

base

d on

stan

dard

s in

this

pla

nnin

g ef

fort.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t cov

ers a

ll pu

blic

land

s. So

me

incr

ease

d us

e of

reso

urce

s

Cat

tle G

razi

ng

��

Ach

ievi

ng fa

llbac

k st

anda

rds v

ia a

llotm

ent m

anag

emen

t wou

ld in

crea

se so

me

fora

ge.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 pl

us c

attle

act

iviti

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith n

atur

al so

urce

s of w

ater

wou

ld b

e fu

rther

re

stric

ted.

W

ild H

orse

s &

Bur

ros

��

If o

ne o

r mor

e of

the

rang

elan

d he

alth

stan

dard

s are

not

bei

ng d

ue to

wild

hor

ses a

nd

burro

s, ac

tions

may

incl

ude,

rem

oval

and

pla

cem

ent i

nto

the

Nat

iona

l Wild

Hor

se a

nd

Bur

ro A

dopt

ion

Prog

ram

, ere

ctin

g fe

nces

, and

/or p

rovi

ding

add

ition

al im

prov

emen

ts

such

as w

ater

sour

ces .

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t cov

ers a

ll pu

blic

land

s.

Min

eral

s & M

inin

g ��

No

Impa

cts

��

No

Impa

cts

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Poss

ible

clo

sure

of s

ome

acce

ss ro

utes

. ��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t cov

ers a

ll pu

blic

land

s. A

ll im

pact

s mor

e or

less

spre

ad o

ver a

wid

er a

rea.

L

and

Use

s / u

tiliti

es

��

No

impa

cts.

��

No

impa

cts

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

��

Mee

ting

and

mai

ntai

ning

stan

dard

s has

resu

lted

in so

me

incr

ease

d co

st o

f doi

ng

busi

ness

and

will

con

tinue

to d

o so

ove

r the

long

-term

. Pro

vidi

ng o

vers

ight

and

se

rvic

es fo

r som

e pe

rmitt

ed u

sers

of p

ublic

land

s and

the

gove

rnm

ent m

ay c

ost m

ore

than

at p

rese

nt.

��

Ther

e m

ay b

e a

prob

lem

with

ranc

hers

and

recr

eatio

nist

s.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1

exce

pt in

the

long

-term

, pub

lic la

nds t

hat m

eet s

tand

ards

, are

als

o m

ore

pote

ntia

l soc

ioec

onom

ic b

enef

its, f

or lo

cal

com

mun

ities

and

tour

ism

.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Cas

ual u

se o

ppor

tuni

ties c

ould

be

nega

tivel

y af

fect

ed. A

bout

20%

of r

oute

s are

pr

opos

ed fo

r lim

itatio

ns o

r clo

sing

in C

ateg

ory

1 an

d cr

itica

l hab

itats

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-88

Tab

le 2

.26

- Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

V

eget

atio

n ��

Exis

ting

impa

cts t

o ve

geta

tion

are

low

in

torto

ise

habi

tats

. ��

No

know

n T&

E sp

ecie

s re

cord

ed w

ithin

des

ert

torto

ise

criti

cal h

abita

t.

��

Incr

ease

d ab

ove

grou

nd

biom

ass,

plan

t re

prod

uctio

n, a

nd v

igor

. ��

Ant

icip

ated

upw

ard

trend

in

veg

etat

ion

cond

ition

du

e to

DW

MA

AC

EC

pres

crip

tions

.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

that

DW

MA

cov

ers

29,1

10 fe

wer

acr

es.

��

Rip

aria

n im

pact

s are

the

sam

e as

in A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Less

ben

efic

ial t

o ve

geta

tion

than

Alte

rnat

ive

2 or

3

beca

use

DW

MA

cov

ers a

n ar

ea 1

14,0

60 a

cres

smal

ler

than

Alte

rnat

ive

3 an

d gr

azin

g an

d bu

rros w

ould

ge

nera

lly c

ontin

ue in

ex

istin

g ar

eas.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

es 2

& 3

ex

cept

DW

MA

co

vers

an

area

13,

185

acre

s les

s tha

n A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

Nox

ious

wee

ds

��

Surfa

ce d

istu

rbin

g ac

tiviti

es a

nd v

ehic

le u

se

wou

ld p

rom

ote

wee

dy

spec

ies a

nd la

rger

fire

s.

��

Som

e be

nefit

s fro

m

effo

rts to

enh

ance

hab

itats

and

reha

bilit

ate

surfa

ce

distu

rban

ces.

��

Few

er d

istu

rban

ces f

rom

el

imin

atio

n of

driv

ing

in

was

hes w

ithin

DW

MA

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 on

ly

cove

ring

a sm

alle

r are

a.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 on

ly

cove

ring

a sm

alle

r are

a.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Wild

life

��

Impa

cts t

o w

ildlif

e po

pula

tions

are

gen

eral

ly

low

. ��

Impa

cts f

rom

maj

or

high

way

s (I-1

5 an

d I-4

0,

Hig

hway

95)

can

be

expe

cted

to c

ontin

ue.

��

Dis

turb

ance

from

clo

sed

rout

es a

nd n

ew p

roje

cts.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 pl

us: R

educ

ed

com

petit

ion

for f

orag

e,

tram

plin

g of

ani

mal

s, re

duct

ion

in d

istu

rbed

ar

eas o

n tra

ils a

nd a

t w

ater

ing

site

s. ��

Dec

reas

ed p

arki

ng a

nd

cam

ping

dis

tanc

es o

ff ro

utes

to 5

0 fe

et w

ould

re

duce

hab

itat l

oss.

��

Fenc

ing

of h

ighw

ays

wou

ld re

duce

road

kill

s.

��

Ben

efic

ial i

mpa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

desc

ribed

for A

ltern

ativ

e 2

but o

ver a

smal

ler a

rea

and

with

low

er re

duct

ions

in

burro

and

cat

tle u

se

��

Sim

ilar t

o th

ose

desc

ribed

fo

r Alte

rnat

ive

3 bu

t ove

r a

smal

ler a

rea

and

with

co

ntin

ued

effe

cts o

f bur

ro

traili

ng a

nd g

razi

ng in

Sh

adow

Val

ley.

��

Non

-leth

al c

ontro

l of r

aven

s (m

itiga

tion,

sani

tatio

n, e

tc.)

will

hel

p pr

otec

t the

des

ert

torto

ise,

but

ther

e is

still

the

pote

ntia

l tha

t som

e ra

vens

w

ill c

ontin

ue to

be

sele

ctiv

e on

juve

nile

torto

ises

. Li

miti

ng th

e re

mov

al o

f su

ch ra

vens

thro

ugh

non-

leth

al m

eans

will

be

larg

ely

inef

fect

ive

and

may

ad

vers

ely

affe

ct th

e re

cove

ry

of th

e sp

ecie

s.

��

Impa

cts t

o ge

nera

l w

ildlif

e po

pula

tions

an

d ha

bita

ts w

ill b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

3.

T&E

Ani

mal

s ��

No

imm

edia

te st

rate

gy fo

r si

gnifi

cant

are

as o

f co

ncer

n.

��

Mos

t ben

efic

ial

alte

rnat

ive

to lo

ng te

rm

reco

very

of d

eser

t

��

29,1

10 a

cres

less

hig

h va

lue

habi

tat u

nder

AC

EC

Mgt

. th

an A

lt. 2

.

��

114,

060

acre

s les

s hig

h va

lue

habi

tat u

nder

AC

EC

Mgt

. tha

n A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3

exce

pt e

xclu

des

high

val

ue D

T ha

bita

t

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-89

Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

��

Con

tinua

tion

of

cum

ulat

ive

habi

tat

fragm

enta

tion.

��

Prot

ectio

n of

T&

E on

a

site

-spe

cific

bas

is.

��

Ther

e w

ould

be

cont

inue

d co

mpe

titio

n be

twee

n to

rtois

es a

nd o

ther

he

rbiv

ores

at s

ome

times

. ��

Torto

ise

popu

latio

ns

wou

ld b

e su

ppre

ssed

½

mile

from

pav

ed ro

ads.

��

Util

ity c

orrid

or

distu

rban

ces c

ould

dis

turb

de

sert

torto

ise

habi

tat.

USF

WS

stip

ulat

ions

are

in

effe

ct. U

SFW

S w

ould

pr

ovid

e a

BO

to li

mit

nega

tive

effe

cts.

��

Gra

zing

can

redu

ce c

over

us

ed b

y to

rtois

es fo

r fo

rage

and

pro

tect

ion.

torto

ise.

��

Proj

ecte

d re

duct

ion

of

mor

talit

y an

d in

crea

se in

vi

gor a

nd re

crui

tmen

t rat

e fo

r 354

,300

acr

es

iden

tifie

d fo

r DW

MA

s un

der A

CEC

pr

escr

iptio

ns.

��

Tram

plin

g of

torto

ises

and

bu

rrow

s by

cattl

e an

d bu

rros w

ould

be

redu

ced.

��

Com

petit

ion

for f

orag

e be

twee

n to

rtois

es, c

attle

an

d bu

rros w

ould

be

redu

ced.

��

Fenc

ing

of h

ighw

ays

wou

ld re

duce

torto

ise

road

kill

s and

redu

ce

rave

n fo

od su

pple

men

ts.

��

Leth

al c

ontro

l of r

aven

s w

ould

redu

ce ra

ven

pred

atio

n on

you

ng

torto

ises

and

aid

in

torto

ise

recr

uitm

ent.

��

Prog

ram

mat

ic m

itiga

tion

stra

tegy

for p

roje

cts

affe

ctin

g to

irtoi

se.

��

Ben

efic

ial t

o lo

ng-te

rm

reco

very

of d

eser

t tor

tois

e,

but l

ess t

han

Alt

2.

��

Proj

ecte

d re

duct

ion

of

mor

talit

y an

d in

crea

se in

vi

gor a

nd re

crui

tmen

t rat

e,

but l

ess t

han

Alt

2.

��

Ben

efic

ial t

o lo

ng te

rm

reco

very

, but

less

than

A

ltern

ativ

es 2

or 3

. ��

Proj

ecte

d re

duct

ion

of

mor

talit

y an

d in

crea

se in

an

d re

crui

tmen

t rat

e, b

ut le

ss

than

Alte

rnat

ives

2 o

r 3.

(12,

700

acre

s) w

est

of T

urqu

oise

Mtn

. R

oad

and

485

acre

s in

Ivan

pah

Val

ley

near

the

Nip

ton

tow

nsite

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-90

Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

So

il-W

ater

-Air

��

BO

wou

ld d

irect

m

anag

emen

t for

cat

tle

graz

ing.

��

Som

e so

il co

mpa

ctio

n an

d di

sturb

ance

s can

occ

ur

durin

g gr

azin

g. O

HV

ac

tivity

wou

ld c

ause

ad

ditio

nal s

oil e

rosi

on a

nd

sedi

men

tatio

n. F

allb

ack

stan

dard

s wou

ld a

ffect

w

ater

qua

lity

and

quan

tity.

Air

qual

ity

wou

ld n

ot b

e af

fect

ed.

��

Red

uced

ero

sion

rate

s, le

ss so

il co

mpa

ctio

n w

ithin

DW

MA

s.

��

Wat

er a

nd a

ir im

pact

s si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

bu

t les

s ben

efic

ial b

ecau

se

the

area

is sm

alle

r and

ac

tivity

redu

ctio

n is

less

.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

but

le

ss.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

but

less

ben

efic

ial

beca

use

the

area

is

smal

ler a

nd a

ctiv

ity

redu

ctio

n is

less

. ��

Soil

in D

WM

AS

wou

ld b

e be

tter

prot

ecte

d th

an in

A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

Cul

tura

l /N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

��

Impa

cts w

ould

con

tinue

, pa

rticu

larly

nea

r wat

er

sour

ces.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

dec

reas

e,

parti

cula

rly n

ear w

ater

so

urce

s. ��

Surfa

ce d

istu

rban

ce

limita

tions

wou

ld re

duce

im

pact

s fro

m e

xist

ing

activ

ities

. ��

DW

MA

s w

ould

hav

e no

di

rect

impa

cts o

n cu

ltura

l re

sour

ces.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

less

acr

eage

wou

ld

be in

MU

C L

than

in

Alte

rnat

ive

2, a

nd th

ere

wou

ld b

e le

ss p

rote

ctio

n fo

r 29,

110

acre

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

: im

pact

s wou

ld n

ot

decr

ease

in N

orth

ern

Ivan

pah

Val

ley

or S

hado

w

Val

ley

area

s and

less

ac

reag

e w

ould

be

in M

UC

L th

an in

eith

er A

ltern

ativ

es 2

or

3.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 ex

cept

less

acr

eage

w

ould

be

in M

UC

L

than

in A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

an

d th

ere

wou

ld b

e le

ss p

rote

ctio

n fo

r 42

,295

acr

es.

Rec

reat

ion

��

App

roxi

mat

ely

5.7%

of

rout

es c

lose

d or

lim

ited

in

dese

rt to

rtois

e su

breg

ions

fo

r rec

reat

ion

use

and

acce

ss.

��

Stop

ping

, par

king

, ca

mpi

ng w

ould

con

tinue

to

be

allo

wed

and

lim

ited

to d

istu

rbed

are

as w

ithin

30

0 fe

et o

f cen

terli

ne

with

in D

WM

As,

exce

pt

spec

ifica

lly id

entif

ied

sens

itive

are

as w

here

st

oppi

ng, p

arki

ng a

nd

cam

ping

cou

ld b

e fu

rther

lim

ited

to 1

00 fe

et.

��

App

roxi

mat

ely

26.4

% o

f ro

utes

clo

sed

or li

mite

d in

de

sert

torto

ise

subr

egio

ns

��

Stop

ping

, par

king

, ca

mpi

ng w

ould

con

tinue

to

be

allo

wed

, and

furth

er

limite

d to

dis

turb

ed a

reas

w

ithin

50

feet

from

ce

nter

line

with

in

DW

MA

s. ��

No

acce

ss to

was

hes

wou

ld p

rote

ct d

eser

t to

rtois

e ha

bita

ts.

��

App

roxi

mat

ely

19.3

% o

f ro

utes

clo

sed

or li

mite

d in

de

sert

torto

ise

subr

egio

ns

��

Stop

ping

, par

king

, ca

mpi

ng w

ould

con

tinue

to

be a

llow

ed a

nd fu

rther

lim

ited

to d

istu

rbed

are

as

100

feet

from

cen

terli

ne

with

in D

WM

As.

��

App

roxi

mat

ely

18.5

% o

f ro

utes

clo

sed

or li

mite

d in

de

sert

torto

ise

subr

egio

ns

��

The

acce

ss n

etw

ork

wou

ld

be si

mila

r to

alte

rnat

ive

3,

and

so w

ould

the

impa

cts t

o us

ers a

nd u

ses,

exce

pt a

ll of

th

e ar

ea n

orth

of I

nter

stat

e 15

wou

ld b

e ex

clud

ed fr

om

the

DW

MA

. ��

Stop

ping

, par

king

and

ca

mpi

ng w

ould

not

cha

nge,

so

som

e im

pact

s w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3 ex

cept

one

are

a w

ould

be

excl

uded

fro

m th

e Sh

adow

V

alle

y A

CEC

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-91

Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

C

attle

Gra

zing

��

Con

tinue

d gr

azin

g us

e ba

sed

on th

e sta

tus o

f the

de

sert

torto

ise

fora

ge

cond

ition

s and

rang

e as

sess

men

ts.

��

Som

e al

lotm

ents

may

be

volu

ntar

ily c

ance

led

base

d on

third

par

ty b

uy-

outs

.

��

Gra

zing

with

in 6

al

lotm

ents

with

in

DW

MA

s wou

ld b

e el

imin

ated

.

��

Gra

zing

with

in 5

al

lotm

ents

with

in tw

o D

WM

As w

ould

hav

e m

inim

um fo

rage

al

loca

tions

of 2

30 lb

s air

dry

wei

ght p

er a

cre

for

sprin

g an

d fa

ll gr

azin

g to

oc

cur (

Mar

ch 1

5 to

Nov

. 1)

. ��

Gra

zing

with

in o

ne

ephe

mer

al a

llotm

ent w

ould

no

long

er b

e au

thor

ized

. ��

No

long

er g

razi

ng o

f the

ep

hem

eral

allo

tmen

t will

re

sult

in sm

all i

mpa

cts t

o ca

ttle

oper

atio

ns.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

: eph

emer

al p

ortio

ns

of 3

allo

tmen

ts w

ould

no

long

er b

e gr

azed

with

in

DW

MA

s. ��

Gra

zing

with

in o

ne

ephe

mer

al a

llotm

ent w

ould

no

long

er o

ccur

. ��

No

long

er g

razi

ng o

f ep

hem

eral

por

tions

of

AU

Ms w

ill re

sult

in sm

all

impa

cts t

o ca

ttle

oper

atio

ns

in th

ree

allo

tmen

ts w

ith lo

st

inco

me

from

ext

ra c

ows i

n ab

out f

our y

ears

out

of t

en.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 3

exce

pt m

inim

um

fora

ge a

lloca

tion

term

s wou

ld b

e lim

ited

to th

e sp

ring

graz

ing

seas

on

(Mar

ch 1

5 to

June

15

).

Wild

Hor

se &

Bur

ro

��

Con

tinue

d bu

rro re

mov

als

with

in th

e H

MA

unt

il th

e ov

eral

l AM

L is

ach

ieve

d fo

cusi

ng o

n cr

itica

l ha

bita

t. ��

Few

er im

pact

s wou

ld

occu

r fro

m fe

wer

ani

mal

s.

��

Elim

inat

e th

e C

lark

M

ount

ain

HM

A. B

urro

s w

ould

be

rem

oved

.

��

Rem

ove

all b

urro

s fro

m

exis

ting

Cla

rk M

tn. H

MA

. Es

tabl

ish

new

HM

A o

n th

e ea

st si

de o

f the

her

d ar

ea.

Red

uces

the

decl

ine

in lo

ss

of h

abita

t and

incr

ease

s bu

rro n

umbe

rs b

y 16

in th

e C

DD

.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Min

eral

s & M

inin

g ��

Impa

cts w

ould

con

tinue

un

chan

ged

cons

iste

nt w

ith

exis

ting

Stat

e ag

reem

ents

an

d bi

olog

ical

opi

nion

s.

��

Plan

s of O

pera

tions

in

stead

of n

otic

e on

smal

l m

inin

g ac

tions

(sam

plin

g un

der 1

,000

tons

) for

48

,642

acr

es c

hang

ed to

M

UC

L.

��

Prog

ram

mat

ic B

O u

p to

10

0 ac

res c

ould

exp

edite

ap

prov

al p

roce

ss o

n m

inin

g ac

tions

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alt

3 ex

cept

: req

uire

men

t fo

r Pla

ns o

f Ope

ratio

ns

wou

ld a

ffect

42,

713

acre

s ch

ange

d to

MU

C L

.

��

Sam

e as

Alt

2 ex

cept

: re

quire

men

t for

Pla

ns o

f O

pera

tions

wou

ld a

ffect

3,

960

acre

s cha

nged

to

MU

C L

.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 3

exce

pt re

quire

men

t fo

r Pla

ns o

f O

pera

tions

wou

ld

affe

ct 3

0,01

0 ac

res

chan

ged

to M

UC

L.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-92

Des

ert T

orto

ise C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 4

Alte

rnat

ive

5 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

V

ehic

le A

cces

s ��

Rou

te d

esig

natio

n in

C

ateg

ory

I des

ert t

orto

ise

habi

tat

��

Exis

ting

rout

e ne

twor

k ap

prov

ed.

��

94.3

per

cent

ope

n,

1.2

perc

ent l

imite

d, a

nd

4.5

perc

ent c

lose

d ro

utes

.

��

Add

ition

al c

riter

ia to

pr

otec

t sen

sitiv

e re

sour

ces.

��

Was

hes d

esig

nate

d fo

r cl

osin

g in

DW

MA

s ��

73.6

per

cent

ope

n

7.3

perc

ent l

imite

d, a

nd

19.1

per

cent

clo

sed

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alt

2 ex

cept

cr

iteria

incl

ude

acce

ss a

nd

recr

eatio

n co

nsid

erat

ions

. ��

Som

e w

ashe

s may

be

desi

gnat

ed o

pen,

min

or

was

hes c

lose

d.

��

80.7

per

cent

ope

n,

8.

2 pe

rcen

t lim

ited,

and

11.1

per

cent

clo

sed

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3 ex

cept

redu

ndan

t rou

tes m

ay

rem

ain

open

. ��

81.5

per

cent

ope

n,

8.2

perc

ent l

imite

d, a

nd 1

0.3

perc

ent c

lose

d ro

utes

.

��

Sam

e as

Alt

3

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

��

See

Gra

zing

abo

ve

��

Tour

ism

gro

wth

can

be

expe

cted

to c

ontin

ue

��

See

Gra

zing

abo

ve

��

Tour

ism

gro

wth

can

be

expe

cted

to c

ontin

ue

��

See

Gra

zing

abo

ve

��

Tour

ism

gro

wth

can

be

expe

cted

to c

ontin

ue

��

See

Gra

zing

abo

ve

��

Tour

ism

gro

wth

can

be

expe

cted

to c

ontin

ue

��

See

Gra

zing

abo

ve

��

Tour

ism

gro

wth

can

be

exp

ecte

d to

co

ntin

ue

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-93

Tab

le 2

.27

– A

mar

gosa

Vol

e C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 V

eget

atio

n ��

Ove

rall

nega

tive

impa

cts o

n

vege

tatio

n w

ould

be

redu

ced

thro

ugh

AC

EC p

lans

.

��

Gen

eral

ben

efic

ial e

ffect

s fro

m h

abita

t m

anag

emen

t. ��

Posi

tive

impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar

to th

ose

for A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

but

ov

er a

n ar

ea 2

,400

acr

e sm

alle

r.

��

Posi

tive

impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

for A

ltern

ativ

e 3

cove

ring

5,30

0 ac

res l

ess,

no

wat

ersh

ed fo

cus.

T&E

Plan

ts

��

Teco

pa b

irdsb

eak

is a

rare

pla

nt

spec

ies i

n th

e G

rimsh

aw N

atur

al

Are

a A

CEC

and

rece

ives

pr

otec

tion.

No

othe

r spe

cial

st

atus

pla

nts a

re k

now

n fro

m th

e ex

istin

g A

CEC

s.

��

An

addi

tiona

l pop

ulat

ion

of T

ecop

a bi

rdsb

eak

a fe

w m

iles s

outh

of

Shos

hone

wou

ld b

e in

clud

ed in

the

expa

nded

AC

EC.

It w

ould

be

an

addi

tiona

l foc

us fo

r pro

tect

ion

mea

sure

s in

subs

eque

nt A

CEC

pl

anni

ng.

No

othe

r spe

cial

stat

us p

lant

s ar

e kn

own

to b

e w

ithin

the

expa

nded

A

CEC

.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 (N

o A

ctio

n).

N

oxio

us

wee

ds

��

Exot

ic p

lant

s wou

ld n

ot b

e re

mov

ed fr

om p

rivat

e la

nds i

n th

e Sh

osho

ne st

retc

h of

the

river

th

at a

re d

ispla

cing

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n. R

ipar

ian

rest

orat

ion

wou

ld n

ot o

ccur

exc

ept w

here

in

itiat

ed b

y la

ndow

ners

.

��

Exot

ic p

lant

s (Ta

mar

ix sp

p.) w

ould

be

rem

oved

from

priv

ate

land

s with

in th

e Sh

osho

ne st

retc

h of

the

river

that

are

gr

adua

lly d

ispl

acin

g na

tive

vege

tatio

n an

d rip

aria

n re

stor

atio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ould

oc

cur,

follo

win

g fe

dera

l acq

uisit

ion

from

will

ing

selle

rs. E

xotic

seed

sour

ce

prob

lem

cou

ld th

en b

e re

duce

d or

el

imin

ated

.

��

Rem

oval

of n

oxio

us w

eeds

wou

ld

be si

mila

r to

thos

e de

scrib

ed in

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

but o

ver a

n ar

ea

2,40

0 ac

res s

mal

ler.

��

The

effe

cts o

n re

mov

al o

f no

xiou

s wee

ds w

ould

be

simila

r to

thos

e de

scrib

ed in

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

t ove

r 7,6

80 a

cres

less

and

he

nce,

with

redu

ced

effe

ctiv

enes

s.

W

etla

nds a

nd

Rip

aria

n ��

Rip

aria

n ha

bita

ts on

pub

lic la

nds

wou

ld c

ontin

ue to

rece

ive

impr

ovem

ent b

y th

e re

mov

al o

f ex

otic

tam

arisk

and

repl

antin

g of

na

tive

trees

. ��

Exot

ics i

n th

is ar

ea w

ould

like

ly

cont

inue

to se

rve

as a

seed

so

urce

s for

exo

tic p

lant

es

tabl

ishm

ent i

n do

wns

tream

po

rtion

s of t

he A

mar

gosa

Riv

er.

��

Pres

crip

tions

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

for a

si

ngle

, coo

rdin

ated

, wat

ersh

ed-b

ased

A

CEC

. ��

Enha

ncem

ent o

f rip

aria

n an

d w

etla

nd

valu

es w

ould

occ

ur a

s tam

arisk

rem

oval

ef

forts

wer

e ex

tend

ed o

ver a

wid

er

porti

on o

f the

wat

ersh

ed (s

ee th

e di

scus

sion

abov

e fo

r R

ipar

ian/

Wet

land

s).

��

Impa

cts t

o pl

ant c

omm

uniti

es

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

thos

e de

scrib

ed in

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

t ov

er a

n ar

ea 2

,400

acr

es sm

alle

r.

��

Impa

cts t

o pl

ant c

omm

uniti

es

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

thos

e de

scrib

ed in

Alte

rnat

ive

1 w

ithin

th

e A

mar

gosa

vol

e A

CEC

3,3

10

acre

s mor

e w

ould

be

incl

uded

in

this

alte

rnat

ive.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-94

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 W

ildlif

e ��

Hab

itats

on

publ

ic la

nds w

ould

co

ntin

ue to

rece

ive

impr

ovem

ent

by th

e re

mov

al o

f exo

tic

tam

aris

k an

d re

plan

ting

of n

ativ

e tre

es.

��

Con

solid

atio

n of

add

ition

al

habi

tat i

mpo

rtant

to A

mar

gosa

vo

le a

nd m

igra

tory

bird

s wou

ld

not o

ccur

. Fis

h ha

bita

t wou

ld b

e m

anag

ed u

nder

MU

C-L

gu

idel

ines

.

��

Gen

eral

ben

efic

ial e

ffect

s fro

m h

abita

t m

anag

emen

t em

phas

is.

��

Add

ition

al b

enef

icia

l effe

cts f

rom

ha

bita

t man

agem

ent e

mph

asis

incl

udin

g th

e Sh

osho

ne ri

verin

e ar

ea.

��

Impa

cts t

o ge

nera

l wild

life

reso

urce

s wou

ld b

e si

mila

r as

Alte

rnat

ive

2, e

xcep

t tha

t ad

ditio

nal h

abita

t man

agem

ent

emph

asis

wou

ld n

ot b

e pr

ovid

ed

in th

e Sh

osho

ne ri

verin

e ar

ea o

r in

the

Shos

hone

Cav

e W

hip-

Scor

pion

HM

P ar

ea.

��

Impa

cts t

o ge

nera

l wild

life

reso

urce

s wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

3, e

xcep

t tha

t 5,3

00

few

er a

cres

wou

ld b

e af

fect

ed.

T

&E

��

Frag

men

ted

owne

rshi

p of

hab

itat

wou

ld c

ontin

ue.

��

Cur

rent

AC

EC m

anag

emen

t w

ould

con

tinue

for t

he v

ole

in

exis

ting

AC

ECs.

��

Com

bine

d A

CEC

tota

ling

21,5

10 a

cres

of

pub

lic la

nds,

incl

udin

g 10

,450

ad

ditio

nal a

cres

wou

ld b

enef

it vo

le.

��

Acq

uisit

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties f

or p

rivat

e la

nds t

o re

duce

or e

limin

ate

habi

tat

fragm

enta

tion,

thus

ben

efiti

ng th

e vo

le.

��

The

impa

cts a

re p

ositi

ve a

nd si

gnifi

cant

fo

r the

Am

argo

sa v

ole,

bot

h in

the

near

-te

rm a

nd o

ver t

he li

fe o

f the

AC

EC

man

agem

ent p

lan.

��

Com

bine

d A

CEC

tota

ling

19,3

00

acre

s of p

ublic

land

s, in

clud

ing

8,05

0 ad

ditio

nal a

cres

wou

ld

bene

fit v

ole.

��

Acq

uisit

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties f

or

priv

ate

land

s to

redu

ce o

r el

imin

ate

habi

tat f

ragm

enta

tion,

th

us b

enef

iting

the

vole

.

��

Com

bine

d A

CEC

of 4

,520

acr

es

of p

ublic

land

s, al

l of w

hich

w

ould

be

criti

cal h

abita

t, w

ould

be

nefit

vol

e.

��

Acq

uisit

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties f

or

priv

ate

land

s to

redu

ce o

r el

imin

ate

habi

tat f

ragm

enta

tion

wou

ld o

ccur

. Ben

efit

to th

e vo

le

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an A

lts 2

and

3.

��

Som

e co

nsol

idat

ion

of c

urre

ntly

fra

gmen

ted

vole

hab

itat w

ould

oc

cur.

Exis

ting

AC

ECs

��

No

Impa

cts.

��

Com

bine

the

two

exis

ting

AC

EC's.

��

Not

incl

uded

in th

e ne

w

Am

argo

sa R

iver

AC

EC in

this

Alte

rnat

ive

is th

e ac

quis

ition

of

850

acre

s of p

rivat

e la

nds a

long

th

e A

mar

gosa

Riv

er in

the

vici

nity

of S

hosh

one.

��

Des

igna

te th

e A

mar

gosa

vol

e A

CEC

. Th

is A

CEC

des

igna

tion

wou

ld n

ot in

clud

e th

e ex

istin

g A

mar

gosa

Can

yon

and

Grim

shaw

Lak

e N

atur

al A

reas

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-95

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 So

il, W

ater

, Air

��

Soil

eros

ion

rate

s will

con

tinue

at

cur

rent

rate

s. ��

Impa

cts f

rom

the

no a

ctio

n al

t re

pres

ent n

on-p

oint

-sou

rce

impa

cts t

hat a

re c

ontro

lled

by

Bes

t Man

agem

ent P

ract

ices

(B

MP)

. Por

tions

of t

he M

UC

and

A

CEC

gui

danc

e fo

r the

CD

CA

Pl

an a

nd sp

ecifi

c m

anag

emen

t ac

tions

in th

e A

mar

gosa

and

/or

Grim

shaw

Nat

ural

Are

a A

CEC

Pl

ans r

epre

sent

BM

P un

der t

he

Cle

an W

ater

Act

. Sm

all r

educ

tions

in p

artic

ulat

e (P

M10

) em

issio

ns c

ould

resu

lt fro

m b

ette

r veg

etat

ive

cove

r and

re

duce

d w

ind

eros

ion

with

in th

e A

CEC

s.

��

Red

uced

sedi

men

tatio

n an

d in

crea

sed

infil

tratio

n ra

tes

��

The

Am

argo

sa w

ater

shed

wou

ld d

eriv

e in

crea

sed

bene

fits f

rom

coo

rdin

ated

w

ater

shed

pro

tect

ion

strat

egy

and

incr

ease

d m

onito

ring

focu

s. ��

Air:

Im

pact

s wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as th

e no

act

ion

alte

rnat

ive.

��

Soil:

Im

pact

s wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2

but s

omew

hat

less

ben

efic

ial d

ue to

the

smal

ler

area

cov

ered

. ��

Wat

er:

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Air:

Im

pact

s wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as th

e N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e.

��

Soil:

Im

pact

s wou

ld b

e sim

ilar

to A

ltern

ativ

e 1

but s

omew

hat

less

ben

efic

ial d

ue to

the

smal

ler

area

cov

ered

. ��

Wat

er:

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar

to A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Air:

Im

pact

s wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Ben

efic

ial i

mpa

cts f

or so

ils,

wat

er a

nd a

ir w

ould

resu

lt fro

m

impl

emen

tatio

n of

regi

onal

st

anda

rds.

Wild

&Sc

enic

��

Iden

tifie

d W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c de

sign

atio

n fo

r the

Am

argo

sa

Riv

er.

��

Elig

ibili

ty d

eter

min

atio

ns o

n 20

la

nd m

iles o

f the

Am

argo

sa ri

ver

will

hel

p pr

otec

t res

ourc

es.

��

Iden

tifie

d W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c de

sign

atio

n fo

r the

Am

argo

sa R

iver

. ��

Iden

tifie

d W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c de

sign

atio

n fo

r the

Am

argo

sa

Riv

er.

��

Iden

tifie

d W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c de

sign

atio

n fo

r the

Am

argo

sa

Riv

er.

Cul

tura

l/Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

Gra

dual

loss

of r

esou

rces

due

to

cont

inue

d pu

blic

acc

ess a

nd u

ses

com

pare

d to

Alte

rnat

ives

2, 3

an

d 4.

��

Incl

usio

n of

sign

ifica

nt re

sour

ces i

n ex

pand

ed A

CEC

wou

ld in

crea

se

prot

ectio

n an

d pr

eser

vatio

n.

��

Veg

etat

ive

habi

tat m

anip

ulat

ion

coul

d ne

gativ

ely

impa

ct re

sour

ces.

��

Incl

usio

n of

sign

ifica

nt re

sour

ces

in e

xpan

ded

Am

argo

sa ri

ver

AC

EC w

ould

incr

ease

pro

tect

ion

and

pres

erva

tion.

��

Few

er re

sour

ces p

rote

cted

than

w

ith A

ltern

ativ

e 2

due

to sm

alle

r ar

ea in

exp

ande

d A

CEC

.

��

Incl

usio

n of

reso

urce

s in

new

A

CEC

wou

ld in

crea

se th

eir

prot

ectio

n an

d pr

eser

vatio

n.

��

Far l

ess r

esou

rces

pro

tect

ed th

an

with

Alte

rnat

ives

2 a

nd 3

due

to

far s

mal

ler a

rea

in A

CEC

.

Rec

reat

ion

��

No

Impa

cts.

��

Mod

erat

e po

sitiv

e be

nefit

to re

crea

tion

reso

urce

s and

act

iviti

es.

��

Whe

re th

e ac

tions

in th

is A

ltern

ativ

e im

prov

e th

e na

tura

l re

sour

ces,

they

als

o im

prov

e th

e se

tting

for n

atur

e-ba

sed

recr

eatio

n.

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-96

Am

argo

sa V

ole

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 M

iner

als &

M

inin

g ��

Ove

rall

impa

cts o

f the

A

ltern

ativ

e 1

on m

iner

al

deve

lopm

ent a

re d

eem

ed to

be

low

exc

ept f

or g

eoth

erm

al

deve

lopm

ent i

n th

e ex

istin

g A

CEC

.

��

Grim

shaw

Lak

e/Te

copa

por

tion

of th

e A

ltern

ativ

e. P

ropo

sed

expa

nsio

n in

clud

es e

xisti

ng sa

nd a

nd g

rave

l pit

and

wou

ld c

urta

il In

yo C

ount

y’s a

bilit

y to

mai

ntai

n its

road

s. A

CEC

gui

delin

es

wou

ld li

kely

den

y fu

rther

exp

ansi

on o

f th

e pi

t whe

n pe

rmit

is re

new

able

in th

e ye

ar 2

011.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Som

e in

dire

ct im

pact

s may

occ

ur

from

dev

elop

men

t on

adja

cent

pr

ivat

e la

nds i

nclu

ding

pr

olife

ratio

n of

rout

es.

��

New

rout

e de

sign

atio

n is

unlik

ely

to

subs

tant

ially

cha

nge

the

exis

ting

situ

atio

n in

the

Am

argo

sa.

��

Rec

reat

ion

uses

may

be

impa

cted

w

ithin

the

AC

EC, j

ust a

s the

y m

ay in

cu

rrent

crit

ical

hab

itat.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

Lan

d U

se

��

Prop

osed

act

iviti

es in

crit

ical

ha

bita

ts w

ould

con

tinue

to

requ

ire c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e U

SFW

S.

��

Impa

cts f

rom

dev

elop

men

t on

adja

cent

priv

ate

land

s inc

lude

in

cide

ntal

take

, los

s or

degr

adat

ion

of h

abita

t fro

m

recr

eatio

nal u

se, p

rolif

erat

ion

of

rout

es, a

nd il

lega

l dum

ping

.

��

Impa

cts t

o de

velo

pmen

t inc

lude

lim

itatio

ns o

n fu

ture

righ

ts-o

f-way

or

land

-use

per

mits

, par

ticul

arly

whe

re

ripar

ian

impa

cts c

ould

occ

ur.

To b

e de

velo

ped

and

anal

yzed

in c

onju

nctio

n w

ith A

CEC

man

agem

ent p

lans

. ��

Cha

nges

will

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d co

sts

and

may

pre

clud

e so

me

activ

ities

in th

e A

CEC

. ��

New

loca

tabl

e m

inin

g ac

tiviti

es w

ould

re

quire

a p

lan

of o

pera

tions

in

conj

unct

ion

with

env

ironm

enta

l as

sess

men

t and

bio

logi

cal c

onsu

ltatio

n.

��

Impa

cts t

o la

nd u

se a

re si

mila

r in

scop

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2, e

xcep

t th

ey w

ould

affe

ct a

ppro

xim

atel

y 2,

400

acre

s les

s.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

in sc

ope

and

acre

age

affe

cted

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Wild

Hor

ses

and

Bur

ros

Ther

e w

ould

be

no im

pact

s sin

ce n

o H

As o

r HM

As o

verla

p ex

istin

g A

CEC

s or c

ritic

al v

ole

habi

tat

��

Impa

ct sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

See

C

arso

n Sl

ough

pla

nts f

or c

hang

es.

��

Impa

ct a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Impa

ct a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Gra

zing

��

No

impa

cts b

ecau

se th

ere

are

no

allo

tmen

ts in

the

area

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-97

Tab

le 2

.28

– T

&E

Pla

nt C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

over

y: L

ower

Car

son

Slou

gh

T &

E P

lant

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery:

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

3 V

eget

atio

n ��

Pote

ntia

l neg

ativ

e im

pact

s to

vege

tatio

n fro

m m

inin

g so

uth

of A

sh M

eado

ws R

oad.

��

Fenc

ing

alon

g th

e ro

ad w

ould

redu

ce

OH

V tr

avel

in w

etla

nds.

��

Incr

ease

s in

hors

es a

nd b

urro

s cou

ld

nega

tivel

y af

fect

wet

land

hab

itats.

��

Rip

aria

n, a

lkal

i mar

sh, a

nd m

esqu

ite

bosq

ue c

omm

uniti

es o

n 4,

340

acre

s of

publ

ic la

nds w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed a

s the

Lo

wer

Car

son

Slou

gh A

CEC

. M

anag

emen

t act

ions

to m

onito

r, pr

otec

t an

d st

udy

thes

e co

mm

uniti

es w

ould

en

sure

thei

r con

serv

atio

n an

d fu

nctio

n.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

in

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

t onl

y on

1,5

40 a

cres

of

criti

cal h

abita

t for

the

Am

argo

sa n

iterw

ort

and

Ash

Mea

dow

gum

plan

t. B

enef

icia

l im

pact

s wou

ld c

over

2,8

00 le

ss a

cres

than

A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

but

all

criti

cal h

abita

t wou

ld

be in

clud

ed.

T&E

Plan

ts

��

No

spec

ific

man

agem

ent f

or re

cove

ry o

f A

mar

gosa

nite

rwor

t, as

h m

eado

w

gum

plan

t and

sprin

g-lo

ving

cen

taur

y w

ould

be

iden

tifie

d.

��

Prot

ectiv

e ac

tions

wou

ld n

ot b

e im

plem

ente

d as

act

ions

whi

ch m

ay

thre

aten

pla

nts a

re p

ropo

sed

on a

cas

e-by

-ca

se b

asis

, and

AC

EC d

esig

natio

n w

ould

no

t occ

ur.

��

Incr

ease

s in

hors

es a

nd b

urro

s with

in

spec

ified

AM

L co

uld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

lis

ted

plan

t spe

cies

.

��

Am

argo

sa n

iterw

ort,

Ash

Mea

dow

s gu

mpl

ant,

and

sprin

g-lo

ving

cen

taur

y on

4,

340

acre

s of p

ublic

land

s on

both

side

s of

Ash

Mea

dow

s Roa

d in

clud

ing

and

betw

een

both

des

igna

ted

criti

cal h

abita

t un

its w

ould

be

desi

gnat

ed L

ower

Car

son

Slou

gh A

CEC

.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

in

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

tonl

y on

1,5

40 a

cres

of

criti

cal h

abita

t for

the

nite

rwor

t and

gu

mpl

ant.

N

oxio

us W

eeds

��

Subs

tant

ial d

ecre

ase

in n

oxio

us w

eeds

that

re

spon

d to

man

agem

ent t

echn

ique

s.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

W

etla

nds,

Ripa

rian

&

Floo

dpla

ins

��

Gen

eral

veg

etat

ion

for m

ost o

f the

are

a is

al

kali

mar

sh a

nd ri

paria

n so

see

the

disc

ussi

on o

n G

ener

al V

eget

atio

n.

��

See

the

disc

ussio

n on

Gen

eral

Veg

etat

ion.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an A

ltern

ativ

e 2

See

the

disc

ussio

n on

Gen

eral

Veg

etat

ion.

Wild

life

��

One

of t

he fe

w w

etla

nd a

reas

in th

e C

DC

A a

dmin

iste

red

by th

e B

LM n

ot

man

aged

und

er sp

ecifi

c pr

escr

iptio

ns in

an

AC

EC m

gt p

lan.

��

Wild

life

spec

ies d

epen

dent

upo

n w

etla

nd

and

ripar

ian

habi

tat w

ould

ben

efit

from

th

e im

prov

ed m

anag

emen

t of t

hese

co

mm

uniti

es.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss th

an A

ltern

ativ

e 2

beca

use

less

of t

he L

ower

Car

son

Slou

gh

ripar

ian

habi

tat w

ould

ben

efit

from

pr

escr

iptio

ns a

nd m

anag

emen

t dev

elop

ed

in a

n A

CEC

pla

n.

T&

E A

nim

als

��

No

spec

ial s

tatu

s ani

mal

s hav

e be

en

reco

rded

in th

is a

rea.

��

See

the

disc

ussio

n on

Gen

eral

Wild

life.

��

See

the

disc

ussi

on fo

r Gen

eral

Wild

life.

Soil,

Wat

er, A

ir

��

Impa

cts a

re fr

om n

on-p

oint

-sou

rces

and

ar

e co

ntro

lled

by B

est M

anag

emen

t Pr

actic

es (B

MP)

. Po

rtion

s of t

he M

UC

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 an

d po

tent

ial f

or so

il er

osio

n w

ould

be

decr

ease

d by

act

iviti

es a

nd u

ses w

ithin

the

��

Ben

efic

ial i

mpa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

t wou

ld a

ffec

t 2,8

00 a

cres

le

ss.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-98

T &

E P

lant

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery:

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

3 gu

idan

ce fo

r the

CD

CA

Pla

n an

d sp

ecifi

c m

anag

emen

t act

ions

in th

e C

arso

n Sl

ough

ar

ea a

nd th

e U

PA re

pres

ent B

MP

unde

r th

e C

lean

Wat

er A

ct.

Thes

e pr

actic

es

incl

ude

rem

oval

of e

xotic

tam

aris

k an

d re

plac

emen

t with

nat

ive

spec

ies,

rout

e cl

osur

es a

nd re

stric

tions

on

vehi

cle

use,

m

onito

ring

of su

rface

wat

ers,

and

prov

idin

g hy

drol

ogis

t rev

iew

of p

roje

cts.

��

The

BM

Ps re

duce

sedi

men

tatio

n an

d in

crea

se in

filtra

tion

rate

s. T

hese

are

de

sira

ble

and

are

posi

tive

step

s tow

ard

solu

tion

of th

e im

paire

d w

ater

shed

cl

assi

ficat

ion,

whi

ch o

ccur

s in

porti

ons o

f th

is w

ater

shed

.

��

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

fallb

ack

stan

dard

s as

iden

tifie

d in

4.1

.1 w

ill p

rovi

de so

me

bene

ficia

l im

pact

s to

air a

nd w

ater

qua

lity

and

quan

tity.

AC

ECs,

incl

udin

g lim

itatio

ns to

hor

se a

nd

burro

pop

ulat

ion

grow

th a

nd su

rface

di

stur

banc

e.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 bu

t add

ed fo

cus o

n ex

otic

and

inva

sive

sp

ecie

s rem

oval

, mon

itorin

g of

surfa

ce

and

grou

ndw

ater

, and

ass

essi

ng p

rope

r fu

nctio

ning

con

ditio

n of

the

wet

land

and

rip

aria

n ha

bita

t thr

ough

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

regi

onal

stan

dard

s and

gu

idel

ines

that

will

pro

vide

add

ition

al

bene

fits t

o w

ater

reso

urce

s.

��

Air

qual

ity w

ould

not

be

affe

cted

by

Alte

rnat

ive

2 fo

r T&

E pl

ant c

onse

rvat

ion

and

reco

very

, exc

ept a

s ide

ntifi

ed in

4.1

.2,

impl

emen

tatio

n of

regi

onal

stan

dard

s.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-99

T &

E P

lant

Con

serv

atio

n an

d R

ecov

ery:

Low

er C

arso

n Sl

ough

R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

3 R

ecre

atio

n ��

Res

ults

in m

inor

impa

cts t

o ve

hicu

lar

acce

ss, a

nd th

eref

ore,

to re

crea

tion.

��

Posi

tive

impa

ct o

n re

crea

tion

thro

ugh

enha

ncem

ent o

f a m

ore

natu

ral

envi

ronm

ent a

nd tr

ail s

yste

m.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

Wild

Hor

se a

nd B

urro

��

No

Impa

cts.

��

Wou

ld re

sult

in th

e el

imin

atio

n of

the

Chi

cago

Val

ley

HM

A a

nd p

lace

men

t of

any

burr

os su

bseq

uent

ly fo

und

in th

e B

LM's

adop

tion

prog

ram

. ��

Wou

ld p

reve

nt a

subs

tant

ial i

ncre

ase

in

the

hors

e he

rd fr

om o

ccur

ring

at so

me

futu

re d

ate.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

Min

eral

s and

Min

ing

��

An

activ

e ze

olite

min

e fiv

e m

iles

east

of

Dea

th V

alle

y Ju

nctio

n w

ould

not

be

affe

cted

exc

ept f

or T

&E

plan

t sur

vey

and

appr

opria

te m

itiga

tion

if an

exp

ansi

on o

f th

e m

ine

is p

ropo

sed.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1,

ex

cept

1,2

90 a

cres

on

publ

ic la

nds s

outh

of

Ash

Mea

dow

s Roa

d w

ould

be

man

aged

ac

cord

ing

to M

UC

L g

uide

lines

. (P

lan

of

Ope

ratio

ns re

quire

men

t for

smal

l min

ing

oper

atio

ns sa

mpl

ing

less

than

1,0

00 to

ns)

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

2 bu

t ap

prox

imat

ely

half

as m

uch

acre

age

wou

ld b

e af

fect

ed b

y re

quire

men

ts fo

r Pl

ans o

f Ope

ratio

n fo

r sm

all m

inin

g ac

tiviti

es.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Supp

lem

enta

l rou

te d

esig

natio

n w

ill b

e pu

rsue

d no

rth o

f Ash

Mea

dow

s Roa

d, to

pr

otec

t sen

sitiv

e so

ils ri

paria

n ar

eas,

and

T&E

plan

ts.

��

Som

e ro

utes

may

be

clos

ed to

pro

tect

lis

ted

plan

ts a

nd se

nsiti

ve so

il co

mpl

exes

ba

sed

on re

sults

of a

naly

sis a

nd su

rvey

in

clud

ing

on 1

,290

acr

es so

uth

of A

sh

Mea

dow

s Roa

d.

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

2, b

ut

wou

ld a

ffect

abo

ut h

alf a

s muc

h ac

reag

e so

uth

of A

sh M

eado

ws R

oad.

Cul

tura

l and

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an R

esou

rces

��

No

actio

ns w

ould

dire

ctly

affe

ct c

ultu

ral

reso

urce

s ��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1

exce

pt A

CEC

m

anag

emen

t inc

lude

s all

criti

cal e

lem

ents

, an

d in

gen

eral

, cul

tura

l res

ourc

es w

ould

be

nefit

from

pro

tect

ive

mea

sure

s whe

re

exte

nsiv

e su

rvey

s hav

e no

t yet

occ

ured

.

��

Sim

ilar t

o al

tern

ativ

e 2,

exc

ept 1

,540

acr

es

wou

ld b

e in

volv

ed.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

0

Tab

le 2

.29

– B

at C

onse

rvat

ion

in th

e Si

luri

an H

ills

Bat

Con

serv

atio

n in

the

Silu

rian

Hill

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n W

ildlif

e ��

Sens

itive

bio

logi

cal r

esou

rces

wou

ld c

ontin

ue

to b

e su

bjec

t to

pote

ntia

l effe

ct fr

om n

otic

e-le

vel m

inin

g ac

tions

with

in 1

5 da

ys o

f fili

ng.

��

A h

abita

t man

agem

ent p

lan

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

with

man

agem

ent d

irect

ion

cons

iste

nt w

ith g

uida

nce

outli

ned

in th

e B

LM’s

bat

man

agem

ent p

olic

ies,

the

CD

CA

Pl

an, a

nd a

ny S

tate

or F

eder

al b

at sp

ecie

s lis

tings

.

��

The

revi

ew p

erio

d fo

r ide

ntifi

catio

n of

m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s for

thes

e se

nsiti

ve

biol

ogic

al re

sour

ces w

ould

be

incr

ease

d fro

m

15 d

ays t

o 30

day

s. ��

Prep

arat

ion

of a

n en

viro

nmen

tal a

sses

smen

t w

ould

be

requ

ired

on a

ll m

inin

g ac

tions

on

affe

cted

pub

lic la

nd, i

nclu

ding

smal

l min

ing

actio

ns.

��

Ant

icip

ated

to re

sult

in li

mite

d ro

ute

clos

ures

/sea

sona

l res

trict

ions

for t

he b

enef

it of

bat

s and

oth

er m

ine

dwel

ling

wild

life.

T&E

Ani

mal

s ��

Prot

ectio

n of

BLM

sens

itive

and

oth

er b

at

spec

ies k

now

n to

resi

de in

win

terin

g or

nu

rser

y ro

osts

with

in in

activ

e m

ines

wou

ld

occu

r on

a ca

se-b

y-ca

se b

asis

as p

ropo

sals

for

min

ing

and

othe

r act

iviti

es a

re re

ceiv

ed.

��

Miti

gatio

ns d

esig

ned

to m

inim

ize

activ

e m

inin

g im

pact

s to

min

e-dw

ellin

g ba

ts a

nd

thei

r hab

itat i

n th

e ar

ea w

ould

con

tinue

to b

e di

fficu

lt to

effe

ctiv

ely

achi

eve

with

in th

e sh

ort

revi

ew p

erio

d.

��

Littl

e ag

ency

em

phas

is w

ould

be

exte

nded

to

stud

ying

how

bes

t to

cons

erve

bat

s/m

ine

dwel

ling

wild

life

and

habi

tat

��

A h

abita

t man

agem

ent p

lan

(HM

P) w

ould

be

deve

lope

d th

at im

plem

ents

man

agem

ent

dire

ctio

n pr

ovid

ed in

BLM

’s b

at m

anag

emen

t po

licie

s. ��

Hab

itat f

or b

ats a

nd o

ther

cav

e-dw

ellin

g sp

ecie

s wou

ld re

ceiv

e th

e be

nefit

s of a

de

liber

ate

and

focu

sed

stra

tegy

for p

rote

ctin

g ca

ves a

nd a

band

oned

min

es in

the

Silu

rian

Hill

s. A

stud

y pl

an to

enh

ance

con

serv

atio

n of

bat

hab

itat w

ould

occ

ur.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

pro

gram

mat

ic

mea

sure

s for

con

sist

ent a

pplic

atio

n to

all

activ

ities

can

be

deve

lope

d th

at p

rote

ct a

nd

enha

nce

bat p

opul

atio

ns

Cul

tura

l /

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

Cur

rent

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

wou

ld

cont

inue

and

som

e in

adve

rtent

aff

ects

wou

ld

occu

r.

��

MU

C c

hang

e to

L w

ill e

nhan

ce p

oten

tial f

or

iden

tifyi

ng c

ultu

ral r

esou

rces

ass

ocia

ted

with

m

iner

al te

stin

g an

d ex

tract

ion

ther

eby

prov

idin

g fo

r avo

idan

ce o

r miti

gatio

n.

��

App

ropr

iate

reha

bilit

atio

n of

his

toric

per

iod

shaf

ts a

nd a

dits

for b

at h

abita

t will

enh

ance

pr

otec

tion

of a

ny re

mna

nt c

ultu

ral r

esou

rces

(h

isto

ric p

erio

d m

inin

g fe

atur

es).

��

MU

C c

hang

e to

L w

ill e

nhan

ce p

oten

tial f

or

iden

tifyi

ng c

ultu

ral r

esou

rces

ass

ocia

ted

with

m

iner

al te

stin

g an

d ex

tract

ion,

ther

eby

prov

idin

g fo

r avo

idan

ce o

r miti

gatio

n.

��

App

ropr

iate

reha

bilit

atio

n of

his

toric

shaf

ts

and

adits

for b

at h

abita

t will

enh

ance

pr

otec

tion

of a

ny re

mna

nt c

ultu

ral r

esou

rces

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

1

Bat

Con

serv

atio

n in

the

Silu

rian

Hill

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n R

ecre

atio

n ��

Bat

gra

tes m

ay b

e us

ed o

n so

me

cave

s with

ba

t mat

erni

ty ro

osts

, int

erfe

ring

with

cav

e ex

plor

atio

n op

portu

nitie

s.

��

Non

-mot

oriz

ed b

uffe

rs a

roun

d so

me

inac

tive

min

es c

ould

lim

it re

crea

tiona

l opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r roc

khou

nder

s, an

d hi

stor

ic se

eker

s. ��

Bat

gra

tes w

ould

con

tinue

to b

e us

ed.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

Min

eral

s &

Min

ing

��

A p

lan

of o

pera

tions

and

a 3

0 da

y pr

oces

sing

pe

riod

are

requ

ired

for s

ampl

ing/

min

ing

over

1,

000

tons

. Fi

nanc

ial a

ssur

ance

s are

requ

ired

for b

oth

notic

es a

nd p

lans

of o

pera

tions

. The

re

quire

men

t for

bat

gat

es is

an

insig

nific

ant

incr

ease

ove

r cos

t of n

orm

al g

ates

to k

eep

out

hum

ans f

or sa

fety

reas

ons.

��

Proc

essi

ng ti

me

wou

ld b

e 30

inste

ad o

f 15

days

for s

ampl

ing

less

than

1,0

00 to

ns.

��

BLM

wou

ld b

ear t

he b

urde

n of

con

duct

ing

surv

eys a

nd re

mov

ing

bats

with

in re

gula

tory

tim

efra

mes

. ��

Ove

rall

impa

cts o

n m

inin

g w

ould

not

be

sign

ifica

ntly

gre

ater

than

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Few

impa

cts t

o ve

hicl

e ac

cess

are

ant

icip

ated

fro

m th

e N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e ��

Acc

ess o

n ex

istin

g ro

utes

of t

rave

l with

lo

caliz

ed re

stric

tions

to v

ehic

ular

acc

ess w

ill

occu

r, ba

sed

on se

nsiti

ve re

sour

ces w

hen

iden

tifie

d. T

he n

etw

ork

of ro

utes

ava

ilabl

e fo

r cas

ual m

otor

ized

use

will

con

tinue

to

prov

ide

reas

onab

le a

cces

s thr

ough

out t

he

plan

ning

are

a

��

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ould

resu

lt in

min

or to

m

oder

ate

nega

tive

impa

cts t

o ve

hicl

e ac

cess

ba

sed

on ro

ute

clos

ures

and

seas

onal

lim

itatio

ns id

entif

ied

durin

g H

MP

plan

ning

. A

dditi

onal

pub

lic in

put w

ould

occ

ur a

t tha

t tim

e.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

2, b

ut

may

be

less

, sin

ce ro

ute

desi

gnat

ion

will

not

be

look

ed a

t thr

ough

an

HM

P

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

2

Tabl

e 2.

30 –

CD

CA

Pla

n M

aint

enan

ce A

ctio

ns

CD

CA

Pla

n M

aint

enan

ce A

ctio

ns

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Veg

etat

ion

��

Ther

e w

ould

be

no d

irect

impa

cts o

n na

tura

l res

ourc

es u

sing

the

CD

CA P

lan

MU

C g

uida

nce

for r

elea

sed

land

s.��

Pote

ntia

l for

indi

rect

impa

cts

wou

ld

cont

inue

to o

ccur

with

less

opp

ortu

nity

fo

r miti

gatio

n fo

r sm

all m

inin

g ac

tions

in

MU

C M

are

as.

��

Indi

rect

ben

efic

ial i

mpa

cts f

rom

rout

e de

sign

atio

n in

MU

C L

are

as c

an b

e an

ticip

ated

, par

ticul

arly

in w

ashe

s.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

that

the

cum

ulat

ive

addi

tion

of

85,4

50 a

cres

in M

UC

L w

ould

resu

lt in

po

tent

ial b

enef

icia

l im

pact

s on

thos

e la

nds,

as d

iscu

ssed

und

er N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e.

��

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 (N

o A

ctio

n) e

xcep

t tha

t the

cum

ulat

ive

addi

tion

of 7

6,97

0 ac

res i

n M

UC

M

wou

ld re

sult

in p

oten

tial b

enef

icia

l im

pact

s on

thos

e la

nds,

as d

iscu

ssed

un

der N

o A

ctio

n

Nox

ious

Wee

ds

��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eW

etla

nds &

Rip

aria

n ��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eEx

istin

g A

CEC

s ��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eW

ildlif

e ��

See

abov

e ��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eT&

E A

nim

als

��

See

abov

e ��

See

abov

e ��

See

abov

e Ex

istin

g A

CEC

s ��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eSo

il, W

ater

, Air

��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e ��

See

abov

eW

ater

Qua

lity/

Qua

ntity

��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

e��

See

abov

eC

ultu

ral/N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

��

No

dire

ct im

pact

s ��

Indi

rect

affe

cts i

n si

x sm

all a

reas

tota

ling

17,5

00 a

cres

pre

viou

sly

reco

mm

ende

d as

w

ilder

ness

land

and

man

aged

in M

UC

C.

��

No

dire

ct im

pact

s.��

Indi

rect

affe

cts i

n si

x sm

all a

reas

tota

ling

17,5

00 a

cres

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1

wou

ld n

ot a

ffect

cu

ltura

l res

ourc

es if

in c

onfo

rman

ce w

ith

CD

PA.

��

Indi

rect

affe

cts i

n si

x sm

all a

reas

tota

ling

17,5

00 a

cres

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Rec

reat

ion

��

No

Impa

cts

��

No

Impa

cts

��

No

Impa

cts

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

3

CD

CA

Pla

n M

aint

enan

ce A

ctio

ns

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Min

eral

s & M

inin

g ��

Alte

rnat

e 1

cum

ulat

ivel

y w

ould

be

mor

e fa

vora

ble

than

Alte

rnat

e 2

or 3

, as i

t w

ould

pro

vide

for m

ore

rele

ased

po

lygo

ns to

retu

rn to

MU

C M

. Th

e ad

vant

age

wou

ld b

e th

e gr

eate

r ap

plic

abili

ty o

f Not

ice

leve

l act

ivity

, in

clud

ing

in a

reas

with

hig

her m

iner

al

pote

ntia

l. O

n a

site

-spe

cific

bas

is, t

he

othe

r alte

rnat

ives

may

be

pref

erab

le

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1

exce

pt th

at th

e ad

ditio

n of

85,

450

acre

s in

MU

C L

w

ould

resu

lt in

pot

entia

l neg

ativ

e im

pact

s to

smal

l exp

lora

tory

min

ing

activ

ities

on

thos

e la

nds,

as d

iscu

ssed

und

er N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e. O

n a

parc

el-b

y-pa

rcel

ba

sis,

this

Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e po

tent

ially

mor

e m

iner

al e

xplo

ratio

n fri

endl

y in

8 a

reas

, and

par

tially

so in

an

othe

r 4 a

reas

. It

wou

ld b

e le

ss m

iner

al

expl

orat

ion

frien

dly

in 8

are

as, a

nd

parti

ally

so in

4 a

reas

.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive1

exce

pt th

at th

e ad

ditio

n of

76,

970

acre

s in

MU

C L

w

ould

resu

lt in

crea

sed

proc

essi

ng ti

me

from

15

to 3

0 da

ys fo

r sam

plin

g le

ss th

an

1,00

0 to

ns o

n th

ose

land

s, as

dis

cuss

ed

unde

r No

Act

ion.

The

Pro

pose

d Pl

an

Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e sl

ight

ly m

ore

bene

ficia

l to

min

ing

than

Alte

rnat

ive

2 on

a

per a

cre

basi

s. O

n a

parc

el-b

y-pa

rcel

ba

sis,

this

Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e po

tent

ially

mor

e m

iner

al e

xplo

ratio

n fri

endl

y in

2 a

reas

than

no

actio

n. I

t w

ould

be

less

min

eral

exp

lora

tion

frien

dly

than

no

actio

n in

5 a

reas

, and

pa

rtial

ly so

in 4

are

as.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

Ove

rall

rout

e de

sign

atio

n ca

n be

exp

ecte

d to

resu

lt in

few

er o

pen

rout

es o

n re

leas

ed

land

s ide

ntifi

ed a

s MU

C L

, but

this

may

va

ry o

n a

site

-spe

cific

bas

is.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1. T

he a

dditi

on o

f 85

,450

acr

es in

MU

C L

cou

ld re

sult

in

pote

ntia

l add

ition

al li

mita

tions

to a

cces

s du

ring

rout

e de

sign

atio

n on

thos

e la

nds,

as d

iscu

ssed

und

er N

o A

ctio

n. O

n a

parc

el b

y pa

rcel

bas

is, t

his A

ltern

ativ

e w

ould

be

pote

ntia

lly m

ore

acce

ss fr

iend

ly

in 8

are

as, a

nd p

artia

lly so

in 4

are

as.

It w

ould

be

less

acc

ess f

riend

ly in

8 a

reas

, an

d pa

rtial

ly so

in 4

are

as.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive 1

. The

add

ition

of

76,9

70 a

cres

in M

UC

L c

ould

resu

lt in

po

tent

ial a

dditi

onal

lim

itatio

ns to

acc

ess

durin

g ro

ute

desi

gnat

ion

on th

ose

land

s, as

dis

cuss

ed u

nder

No

Act

ion.

On

a pa

rcel

-by-

parc

el b

asis

, thi

s Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e pa

rtial

ly m

ore

acce

ss fr

iend

ly

in 2

are

as.

It w

ould

be

less

acc

ess

frien

dly

in 5

are

as, a

nd p

artia

lly so

in

anot

her 4

are

as.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

4

Tabl

e 2.

31 –

Gre

enw

ater

Can

yon

AC

EC D

elet

ion

Prop

osal

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

– N

o A

ctio

n A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Cul

tura

l/Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

No

chan

ges t

o ex

istin

g si

tuat

ion

unde

r Alte

rnat

ive

1. M

anag

e un

der e

xist

ing

AC

EC M

anag

emen

t Pl

an.

��

No

know

n si

gnifi

cant

site

s wou

ld b

e im

pact

ed.

As y

et u

nide

ntifi

ed c

ultu

ral

reso

urce

s with

in th

e re

mai

ning

por

tion

of th

e A

CEC

wou

ld b

e m

anag

ed u

nder

M

UC

L g

uide

lines

. M

iner

als &

Min

ing

��

Min

eral

act

iviti

es in

the

area

cur

rent

ly re

quire

pl

ans o

f ope

ratio

n an

d sp

ecia

l miti

gatio

n st

rate

gies

to

pre

vent

impa

cts t

o an

y cu

ltura

l res

ourc

es.

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1. M

inin

g ac

tions

on

BLM

land

s wou

ld b

e m

anag

ed u

nder

MU

C L

gui

delin

es, r

equi

ring

a Pl

an o

f Ope

ratio

ns a

nd

proc

essi

ng ti

me

of 3

0 da

ys.

Spec

ial m

itiga

tion

spec

ific

to a

n A

CEC

wou

ld n

ot

be im

pose

d, b

ut if

a “

may

affe

ct”

to si

gnifi

cant

cul

tura

l res

ourc

es o

ccur

s, ad

ditio

nal m

itiga

tion

and

cons

ulta

tion

wou

ld b

e re

quire

d.

Rec

reat

ion

��

Ver

y fe

w ro

utes

of t

rave

l. M

inim

al E

ffect

. ��

Som

ewha

t inc

reas

ed re

crea

tion

in G

reen

wat

er C

anyo

n, in

clud

ing

cam

ping

ad

jace

nt to

the

mai

n op

en ro

ute

thro

ugh

the

cany

on (i

n di

sturb

ed a

reas

with

in

300

feet

of t

he ro

ute)

.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

5

Tab

le 2

.32

– O

rgan

ized

Com

petit

ive

Veh

icle

Eve

nts

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Veg

etat

ion

��

Dis

turb

ance

of s

oil s

truct

ure

supp

ortin

g ve

geta

tion,

pro

mot

ion

of w

eedy

spec

ies

thro

ugh

surfa

ce d

istu

rban

ce, l

oss o

f soi

l af

ter l

oss o

f soi

l-hol

ding

cry

ptog

amic

cru

sts,

loss

of s

eeds

in th

e so

il, a

nd re

duct

ion

of

soil

moi

stur

e th

roug

h co

mpa

ctio

n.

��

Non

-nat

ive

inva

sive

pla

nts a

lso

pose

an

incr

ease

d po

tent

ial f

or la

rger

fire

s.

��

Cou

rse

wid

enin

g co

uld

have

subs

tant

ial

effe

cts o

n ve

geta

tive

com

posi

tion.

��

Dat

a co

llect

ed in

are

as o

utsid

e de

sert

torto

ise

habi

tat w

here

the

perm

itted

cou

rse

wid

th w

as 1

00 fe

et sh

owed

that

stra

ying

and

co

urse

wid

enin

g oc

curr

ed.

The

race

cou

rse

wid

th in

the

area

to th

e w

est o

f a p

it ar

ea

was

mea

sure

d at

260

feet

and

nea

r So

lom

ons K

nob

seve

ral t

rans

ects

not

ed ra

ce

vehi

cle

track

s ove

r 90

feet

out

side

the

perm

itted

cou

rse

wid

th.

��

As a

resu

lt of

shor

tcut

ting

and

over

runn

ing

in w

ashe

s, th

e 19

89 e

vent

cau

sed

exte

nsiv

e da

mag

e to

veg

etat

ion

and

brea

kdow

n of

w

ash

bank

s. ��

Hig

her t

han

norm

al le

vels

of d

ust o

n le

af

surfa

ces m

ay re

duce

coo

ling

effic

ienc

y of

th

e pl

ants

and

cau

se a

dded

stre

ss.

��

Cru

shin

g of

ve

geta

tion

alon

g co

urse

s wou

ld n

ot

occu

r.

��

Cha

nges

in sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n w

ould

be

subs

tant

ially

re

duce

d.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

desc

ribed

in

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ou

tsid

e of

DW

MA

s ��

With

in D

WM

As,

impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 3,

be

caus

e so

me

even

ts w

ould

st

ill b

e he

ld

outs

ide

of O

HV

op

en a

reas

.

��

The

impa

cts o

f thi

s al

tern

ativ

e w

ithin

th

e D

umon

t Dun

es

off-h

ighw

ay

vehi

cle

“Ope

n”

area

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1

for a

ll re

sour

ces.

��

The

impa

cts i

n al

l ot

her a

reas

of t

he

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

wou

ld b

e th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2

for a

ll re

sour

ces.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

6

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

T&E

Plan

ts

��

Miti

gatio

n m

easu

res c

omm

only

app

lied

wou

ld p

rohi

bit r

aces

on

rout

es tr

aver

sing

kn

own

habi

tat o

f spe

cial

stat

us p

lant

s.

How

ever

, inv

ento

ries o

f spe

cial

stat

us p

lant

s ar

e in

com

plet

e.

��

The

risk

of d

amag

e to

spec

ial s

tatu

s pl

ants

or t

heir

habi

tat f

rom

ride

rs,

spec

tato

rs, a

nd p

re-

even

t rid

ers w

ould

be

rem

oved

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o A

lt 1

outs

ide

of D

WM

As

but t

he ri

sk o

f ha

ving

an

even

t in

habi

tat o

f a sp

ecia

l st

atus

pla

nt w

ould

be

redu

ced.

Som

e ris

k w

ould

rem

ain

beca

use

sens

itive

pl

ant i

nven

torie

s are

in

com

plet

e.

��

With

in D

WM

As,

impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alt

2.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

N

oxio

us

Wee

ds

��

Alth

ough

mos

t of t

hese

impa

cts (

e.g.

, soi

l pr

ofile

dis

rupt

ion

and

com

pact

ion,

ge

rmin

atio

n an

d co

ver s

ite m

odifi

catio

n,

and

forb

and

shru

b lo

ss) w

ould

be

limite

d to

th

e ev

ent c

ours

e its

elf,

the

pote

ntia

l for

sp

read

of i

nvas

ive

non-

nativ

e pl

ants

and

ve

geta

tive

type

-con

vers

ion

wou

ld e

xten

d be

yond

the

race

cou

rse.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

of

Stan

dard

s and

G

uide

lines

. ��

Nox

ious

wee

ds

wou

ld n

ot b

e pr

omot

ed b

y ra

cing

ac

tiviti

es.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 1

but

they

wou

ld o

ccur

ou

tsid

e of

the

DW

MA

s.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 3,

be

caus

e so

me

even

ts w

ould

be

outs

ide

the

OH

V

open

are

as.

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

W

etla

nds,

Rip

aria

n &

Fl

oodp

lain

s

��

No

impa

cts w

ould

occ

ur b

ecau

se th

ere

are

no ri

paria

n ar

eas.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Subs

tant

ial

stra

tegi

es w

ould

be

nec

essa

ry if

a

feas

ible

al

ignm

ent i

s fo

und.

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

7

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Wild

life

��

Loss

of f

orag

e, c

hang

es in

fora

ge sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n, a

nd lo

ss o

f cov

er w

ould

resu

lt fro

m d

istu

rban

ce o

f veg

etat

ion.

��

Ani

mal

s can

be

run

over

abo

ve g

roun

d or

be

low

gro

und.

Soi

l com

pact

ion

disr

upts

bu

rrow

suita

bilit

y. I

n ge

nera

l, it

can

be

expe

cted

that

spec

ies d

iver

sity

wou

ld b

e re

duce

d al

ong

race

rout

es w

here

veg

etat

ion

and

soil

distu

rban

ces o

ccur

. ��

Wild

life

activ

ities

wou

ld b

e di

srup

ted

on th

e sh

ort t

erm

, and

cou

ld in

clud

e no

t onl

y th

e ra

ce e

vent

but

als

o pr

e-rid

ing

of th

e co

urse

as

par

ticip

ants

pra

ctic

e.

��

Cha

nges

in b

ehav

ior p

atte

rns c

ould

occ

ur.

��

Wild

life

may

be

inju

red

or k

illed

. ��

Hab

itat d

egra

datio

n co

uld

occu

r.

��

This

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

enef

it w

ildlif

e sp

ecie

s, as

di

stur

banc

es w

ould

be

rem

oved

.

��

Rem

oval

of r

acin

g w

ould

allo

w fo

r co

ntin

ued

soil

and

vege

tatio

n re

cove

ry.

��

Deg

rada

tion

of

habi

tat a

long

ra

ceco

urse

s wou

ld

not o

ccur

. Th

ese

and

othe

r effe

cts

desc

ribed

mor

e fu

lly

in A

ltern

ativ

e 1

wou

ld n

ot o

ccur

.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

desc

ribed

in

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

Impo

rtant

wild

life

habi

tat w

ould

be

avoi

ded.

��

Insi

de o

f DW

MA

s, im

pact

s wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

The

effe

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

3,

but a

dditi

onal

im

pact

s to

ripar

ian

habi

tat

may

occ

ur.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

8

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

T&E

��

Whe

re e

vent

s pas

s thr

ough

hab

itat o

f a

liste

d an

imal

, the

re is

pot

entia

l for

a ta

ke

thro

ugh

harm

or h

aras

smen

t,

��

Hab

itat l

oss f

or sp

ecia

l sta

tus a

nim

als,

espe

cial

ly d

eser

t tor

tois

e, is

a re

sult

of

fact

ors d

escr

ibed

in th

e di

scus

sion

of

Gen

eral

Veg

etat

ion

abov

e.

��

Hea

vily

use

d ro

ute

cour

ses p

rovi

de fo

r in

vasi

on o

f wee

dy sp

ecie

s, w

hich

in tu

rn

may

resu

lt in

type

-con

verte

d ar

eas t

hat

prov

ide

redu

ced

cove

r for

hat

chlin

g an

d ju

veni

le to

rtois

es, m

akin

g th

em su

scep

tible

to

pre

datio

n an

d de

ath

from

exp

osur

e. T

he

resu

lts a

re a

reas

of r

educ

ed to

rtoise

den

sity

. ��

The

wid

enin

g of

the

cour

se m

ay c

ontri

bute

to

hab

itat f

ragm

enta

tion.

��

Torto

ise

burro

ws m

ay b

e cr

ushe

d ��

Sens

itive

spec

ies s

uch

as b

igho

rn sh

eep,

bu

rrow

ing

owls

and

bat

s, ar

e lik

ely

to b

e im

pact

ed, r

angi

ng fr

om te

mpo

rary

di

spla

cem

ent f

rom

hab

itat t

o co

mpl

ete

area

av

oida

nce.

��

This

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

enef

it th

e de

sert

torto

ise

and

poss

ibly

oth

er

spec

ial s

tatu

s an

imal

s by

rem

ovin

g po

tent

ial

for d

irect

mor

talit

y fro

m ru

nove

rs a

nd

by fa

cilit

atin

g co

ntin

ued

soil

and

vege

tativ

e re

cove

ry.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

desc

ribed

in

Alte

rnat

ive

2,

exce

pt a

reas

out

side

of

DW

MA

s cou

ld

cont

inue

to re

ceiv

e im

pact

s if a

via

ble

cour

se is

iden

tifie

d.

��

Ther

e is

a h

igh

pote

ntia

l for

ta

ke o

f the

de

sert

torto

ise

by a

com

petit

ive

even

t hel

d in

a

narr

ow w

ash

such

as

Kin

gsto

n.

Thou

gh n

ot

desi

gnat

ed a

s cr

itica

l hab

itat

for t

he sp

ecie

s, th

is w

ash

may

ac

t as a

n im

porta

nt

habi

tat l

inka

ge

betw

een

dese

rt to

rtois

e po

pula

tions

in

the

East

and

W

est M

ojav

e.

Impa

cts o

n to

rtois

e ar

e si

mila

r to

Alt

3.

��

Sens

itive

pla

nt

spec

ies m

ay b

e im

pact

ed

beca

use

som

e ev

ents

may

be

held

out

side

OH

V o

pen

area

s.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-10

9

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Soil,

Wat

er, A

ir

��

Soil

dist

urba

nce

and

rem

oval

of v

eget

atio

n as

soci

ated

with

use

of a

com

petit

ive

race

cour

se w

ould

resu

lt in

incr

ease

d w

ind

and

wat

er e

rosi

on o

f aff

ecte

d so

ils.

Red

uced

soil

perm

eabi

lity

/wat

er st

orag

e po

tent

ial a

nd c

ompa

ctio

n w

ithin

the

race

cour

se w

ould

also

occ

ur w

ith su

ch u

se

over

tim

e. L

evel

s of i

mpa

ct w

ould

diff

er

depe

ndin

g on

allo

wed

race

cour

se w

idth

, sp

ecifi

c ra

ceco

urse

segm

ent,

and

frequ

ency

/tim

ing

of u

se.

��

Soil

impa

cts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith p

ast e

vent

s w

ere

dete

rmin

ed to

be,

a re

duct

ion

in d

eser

t pa

vem

ent c

over

age

and

incr

ease

d de

velo

pmen

t of s

oft,

pow

der-

like

mat

eria

ls

that

are

ver

y su

scep

tible

to w

ind

and

wat

er

eros

ion.

��

Soi

l nut

rient

leve

ls a

re e

xpec

ted

to d

ecre

ase

over

the

long

term

due

to th

e re

mov

al o

f the

ve

geta

tive

cove

r, fro

m th

e ch

urni

ng o

f the

so

il su

rface

by

race

traf

fic, a

nd th

roug

h th

e m

ixin

g of

nut

rient

poo

r soi

ls w

ith th

e m

ore

ferti

le so

ils a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith “

plan

t isl

ands

.”

��

Tem

pora

ry in

crea

se in

the

amou

nt o

f ox

idan

ts a

nd c

arbo

n m

onox

ide

alon

g th

e co

urse

. ��

Air

qual

ity st

anda

rds f

or P

M10

wou

ld b

e te

mpo

raril

y ex

ceed

ed b

ased

on

mea

sure

men

t of t

otal

susp

ende

d pa

rticu

late

s. ��

The

atm

osph

ere

surr

ound

ing

the

even

t w

ould

be

impa

cted

by

the

gene

ratio

n of

dus

t an

d te

mpo

rary

em

issi

ons r

esul

t in

a sh

ort-

term

(app

roxi

mat

ely

14 h

ours

) red

uctio

n in

ai

r qua

lity.

��

Mod

erat

e in

crea

ses

in sh

ort-t

erm

air

qual

ity a

nd so

il im

pact

s in

OH

V

open

are

as w

ould

oc

cur a

s a re

sult

of

disp

lace

d ra

cing

ac

tivity

.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts a

re

sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

K

ings

ton

Was

h so

ils h

ave

a re

lativ

ely

low

po

tent

ial f

or

win

d er

osio

n in

co

mpa

rison

to

the

orig

inal

B

arst

ow-to

-V

egas

cou

rse,

al

ong

the

Bou

lder

C

orrid

or.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

0

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Wat

er

Qua

lity/

Qua

ntity

O

n oc

casi

on, a

rtific

ial w

ashe

s are

form

ed d

ue

to so

il er

osio

n an

d al

tere

d w

ater

dra

inag

e al

ong

com

petit

ive

cour

ses p

artic

ular

ly o

n st

eepe

r gra

des.

��

No

Impa

ct

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

Cul

tura

l/Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

Uni

dent

ified

site

s with

in o

r adj

acen

t to

even

t rou

tes m

ay b

e im

pact

ed.

��

Uns

urve

yed

area

s cou

ld b

e su

bjec

t to

impa

ct

from

veh

icle

s tha

t stra

y fro

m th

e co

urse

.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts m

ay

occu

r to

two

know

n si

tes t

hat

may

be

elig

ible

fo

r lis

ting

in th

e N

atio

nal

Reg

iste

r of

His

toric

Pla

ces

and

that

may

be

of g

reat

con

cern

to

Nat

ive

Am

eric

ans

��

No

prot

ectio

n is

of

fere

d to

hi

stor

ic ro

utes

an

d tra

ils th

at

may

be

dete

rmin

ed

elig

ible

for

listin

g in

the

NR

HP.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

1

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Rec

reat

ion

��

Alth

ough

the

orig

inal

B-to

-V h

as n

ot b

een

run

since

198

9, so

me

shor

ter l

engt

h co

urse

s m

ay b

e vi

able

. ��

Com

petit

ive

even

ts c

an b

e al

low

ed

cons

iste

nt w

ith M

UC

and

Rec

reat

ion

Elem

ent g

uide

lines

of t

he C

DC

A P

lan,

but

it

is d

iffic

ult t

o lo

cate

a su

itabl

e ra

ceco

urse

in

the

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

due

to re

sour

ce

conf

licts

. ��

Non

-mot

oriz

ed re

crea

tion

wou

ld b

e di

spla

ced

durin

g ev

ents

, pre

para

tion

and

clea

n up

.

��

The

dele

tion

of th

e ra

ce c

ours

e w

ould

ha

ve a

min

imal

ne

gativ

e ef

fect

to

oppo

rtuni

ties f

or

com

petit

ive

vehi

cle

even

ts c

ompa

red

to

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

If th

e B

-to-V

cou

rse

is d

elet

ed a

nd n

o pr

ovis

ions

are

mad

e fo

r com

petit

ive

vehi

cle

even

ts

outs

ide

OH

V o

pen

area

s pot

entia

l op

portu

nitie

s for

th

is fo

rm o

f re

crea

tion

coul

d be

cu

mul

ativ

ely

dim

inis

hed.

��

Mor

e co

nflic

ts m

ay

occu

r in

OH

V o

pen

area

s fro

m li

mite

d op

portu

nitie

s es

peci

ally

dur

ing

holid

ay w

eeke

nds.

��

Impa

cts f

rom

the

dele

tion

of th

e B

-to-

V c

ours

e w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

��

This

Alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld a

llow

for

resu

mpt

ion

of lo

ng

dist

ance

poi

nt-to

-po

int c

ompe

titiv

e ev

ents

out

side

of

OH

V o

pen

area

s an

d im

pact

s wou

ld

be p

oten

tially

po

sitiv

e to

m

otor

ized

re

crea

tion.

H

owev

er, a

s with

ot

her a

ltern

ativ

es,

proc

essi

ng

appl

icat

ions

wou

ld

be ti

me

cons

umin

g an

d ha

ve u

ncer

tain

ou

tcom

es b

ased

on

iden

tifie

d re

sour

ce

conf

licts

, in

the

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

. ��

Non

-mot

oriz

ed

recr

eatio

n w

ould

be

impa

cted

neg

ativ

ely

��

Impa

cts a

re

sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3

but

appr

oval

of t

he

cour

se w

ould

re

sult

in

addi

tiona

l re

stric

tions

as

soci

ated

with

pr

otec

tion

mea

sure

s for

w

ilder

ness

, T&

E an

d rip

aria

n re

sour

ces,

incl

udin

g sp

eed

limits

and

ad

ditio

nal

chec

kpoi

nts.

��

Oth

er n

on-

mot

oriz

ed

recr

eatio

n w

ould

be

neg

ativ

ely

impa

cted

dur

ing,

be

fore

and

afte

r ev

ents

.

��

Sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 2,

ex

cept

that

BLM

w

ould

allo

w

com

petit

ive

even

ts

to b

e he

ld o

n sp

ecifi

ed ro

utes

de

linea

ted

in th

e C

DC

A p

lan.

��

Oth

er re

crea

tioni

sts

wou

ld h

ave

few

er

oppo

rtuni

ties.

��

Oth

er n

on-

mot

oriz

ed

recr

eatio

n w

ould

be

neg

ativ

ely

impa

cted

dur

ing,

be

fore

and

afte

r ev

ents

. ��

Mor

e co

nflic

ts m

ay

occu

r in

OH

V o

pen

area

s fro

m li

mite

d op

portu

nitie

s es

peci

ally

dur

ing

holid

ay w

eeke

nds.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

2

Org

aniz

ed C

ompe

titiv

e V

ehic

le E

vent

s R

esou

rce

Alte

rnat

ive

1 A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

4 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Prop

osed

Pla

n

Gra

zing

��

Ther

e w

ould

be

shor

t-ter

m d

isru

ptio

n of

on-

goin

g gr

azin

g ac

tiviti

es.

��

No

Impa

cts.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

the

sam

e as

A

ltern

ativ

e 1

in a

ny

area

s whe

re a

n ev

ent i

s per

mitt

ed

with

in a

n al

lotm

ent.

��

This

revi

sed

alig

nmen

t wou

ld

resu

lt in

less

po

tent

ial

disr

uptio

n to

ca

ttle

graz

ing

than

the

curr

ent

corr

idor

.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

No

addi

tiona

l acc

ess w

ould

be

prov

ided

w

ith th

is a

ltern

ativ

e.

��

Som

e ac

cess

adj

acen

t to

the

race

cou

rse

coul

d be

deg

rade

d ov

er ti

me

as a

resu

lt of

co

mpe

titiv

e ev

ents

and

spec

tato

r vis

itatio

n.

��

Rou

te m

aint

enan

ce n

eeds

wou

ld b

e hi

ghes

t un

der t

his a

ltern

ativ

e

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

:��

Rou

te d

egra

datio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce

impa

cts w

ould

be

low

er th

an

Alte

rnat

ive

1 be

caus

e op

en ro

ute

mai

nten

ance

loca

ted

in p

roxi

mity

to th

e B

-to-V

race

cour

se is

an

ticip

ated

to b

e lo

wes

t of a

ll al

tern

ativ

es

pres

ente

d.

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

: ��

The

degr

ee o

f ope

n ro

ute

mai

nten

ance

as

soci

ated

with

this

al

tern

ativ

e is

an

ticip

ated

to b

e hi

gher

than

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

and

4,

but l

ess t

han

Alte

rnat

ive

1, a

nd

��

Impa

cts w

ould

de

pend

on

resu

lts o

f ro

ute

desi

gnat

ions

in

the

rest

of t

he

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

.

��

Impa

cts a

re

sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3:

��

Ope

n ro

ute

mai

nten

ance

is

antic

ipat

ed to

be

high

er th

an

Alte

rnat

ive

2 an

d le

ss th

an

Alte

rnat

ive

1 an

d 3.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

de

pend

on

resu

lts o

f rou

te

desi

gnat

ions

in

the

rest

of t

he

NEM

O p

lann

ing

area

.

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

��

Adv

erse

impa

cts f

rom

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ar

e co

nsid

ered

neg

ligib

le.

��

Shou

ld su

ch a

n ev

ent b

e he

ld, c

omm

uniti

es

alon

g th

e co

urse

, par

ticul

arly

in B

arst

ow

and

Bak

er, c

ould

incu

r som

e ec

onom

ic

bene

fit fr

om th

e sa

le o

f goo

ds a

nd se

rvic

es

to p

artic

ipan

ts, t

heir

fam

ilies

, and

to

spec

tato

rs.

The

past

eve

nt h

as a

ttrac

ted

up

to 5

,000

indi

vidu

als.

��

Com

mun

ities

alo

ng

the

B-to

-V c

ours

e,

parti

cula

rly B

arst

ow

and

Bak

er, w

ould

lo

se so

me

econ

omic

be

nefit

from

the

sale

of

goo

ds a

nd

serv

ices

to

parti

cipa

nts,

thei

r fa

mili

es, a

nd to

sp

ecta

tors

.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 1.

��

Impa

cts a

re

sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1

exce

pt fo

r the

in

crea

sed

cost

as

soci

ated

with

ru

nnin

g th

e ac

tivity

in th

e K

ings

ton

Was

h.

��

Impa

cts a

re th

e sa

me

as A

ltern

ativ

e 2.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

3

Tab

le 2

.33

– R

oute

s of T

rave

l Des

igna

tions

Rou

tes o

f Tra

vel D

esig

natio

ns

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 V

eget

atio

n ��

Veg

etat

ion

chan

ges a

long

road

s in

clud

e in

crea

sed

size

and

hei

ght

alon

g ro

adsid

es d

ue to

wat

er

harv

estin

g, lo

ss o

f veg

etat

ion

due

to o

ff-ro

ad d

rivin

g, a

nd c

hang

es in

co

mpo

sitio

n du

e to

veh

icle

and

vi

sito

r ind

uced

fire

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

T

&E

Plan

ts

��

Min

or im

pact

s to

sens

itive

ve

geta

tion

as a

resu

lt of

par

king

, ca

mpi

ng, a

nd ro

ute-

prol

ifera

tion.

��

Posi

tive

bene

fit to

any

kno

wn

sens

itive

veg

etat

ion

with

in ¼

mi.

of ro

utes

.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

N

oxio

us

Wee

ds

��

A h

igh

pote

ntia

l exi

sts f

or w

eed

esta

blis

hmen

t adj

acen

t to

open

ro

utes

wid

espr

ead

over

tim

e.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

W

etla

nds,

Rip

aria

n &

Fl

oodp

lain

s

��

Loca

lized

impa

cts t

o sp

rings

fre

quen

ted

by v

isito

rs.

��

Posi

tive

bene

fit to

sprin

gs a

nd

stre

ams w

ithin

¼ m

i. of

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

Wild

life

��

Min

or im

pact

s ove

rall,

loca

lized

se

ason

al im

pact

s dur

ing

bree

ding

an

d re

arin

g yo

ung.

��

Min

or im

pact

s ove

rall.

One

hu

ndre

d ei

ghty

thre

e fe

wer

mile

s of

ope

n ro

utes

wou

ld le

ssen

lo

caliz

ed o

r sea

sona

l im

pact

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

T&E

Ani

mal

s ��

Popu

latio

ns m

ay b

e su

rpre

ssed

al

ong

road

s dep

endi

ng o

n sp

eed

and

frequ

ency

of u

se.

��

Act

iviti

es a

long

road

s (of

f-roa

d dr

ivin

g, d

ogs,

litte

ring,

shoo

ring,

an

d fir

es) m

ay re

duce

hab

itats

or

caus

e to

rtois

e m

orta

lity.

��

Veh

icle

use

in w

ashe

s can

dis

turb

ha

bita

ts, c

rush

bur

row

s, or

run

over

torto

ises

. To

rtois

es u

se

was

hes f

or tr

avel

ing,

bur

row

ing,

ne

stin

g an

d fo

ragi

ng.

��

Con

sist

ent w

ith b

iolo

gica

l pa

ram

eter

s, fe

wer

impa

cts t

o D

eser

t Tor

tois

e ha

bita

t and

less

po

tent

ial f

or fr

agm

enta

tion.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

4

Rou

tes o

f Tra

vel D

esig

natio

ns

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4 So

il, W

ater

, A

ir��

Som

e in

crea

sed

eros

ion

pote

ntia

l, an

d di

srup

tion

of b

iolo

gica

l soi

l cr

usts

adj

acen

t to

open

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1. T

hese

im

pact

s w

ill b

e pa

rtial

ly o

ffset

by

mod

erat

e be

nefit

in w

ashe

s fro

m c

lose

d ro

utes

.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ithin

D

WM

As,

less

than

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ou

tsid

e of

DW

MA

s but

gre

ater

than

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

base

d on

like

ly

num

ber o

f ope

n w

ashe

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3.

Wat

erQ

ualit

y/Q

uant

ity

��

Loca

lized

incr

ease

d tu

rbid

ity a

nd

leak

ing

fuel

oils

in o

pen

was

h ro

utes

.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 1

in ty

pe,

but l

esse

r in

quan

tity,

bas

ed o

n no

ope

n w

ash

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ithin

D

WM

As,

less

than

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ou

tsid

e of

DW

MA

s but

gre

ater

than

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

base

d on

like

ly

num

ber o

f ope

n w

ashe

s.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3.

Cul

tura

l/Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

��

No

new

impa

cts a

ntic

ipat

ed.

��

Posi

tive

bene

fit to

cul

tura

l with

in

¼ m

i. of

sign

ifica

nt si

tes,

and

alon

g cl

osed

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

Rec

reat

ion

��

No

new

impa

cts.

CD

CA

Pla

n de

sign

atio

ns w

ill c

ontin

ue.

��

94.3

per

cent

of e

xist

ing

rout

es

desi

gnat

ed o

pen.

��

Fiv

e ro

utes

pre

viou

sly

clos

ed

thro

ugh

Fede

ral R

egis

ter (

1979

, 19

87) w

ould

be

clos

ed th

roug

h th

is p

roce

ss.

Mor

e ro

utes

may

re

sult

in im

pact

s to

scen

ic

reso

urce

s .fo

r som

e re

crea

tioni

sts

who

pre

fer p

rimiti

ve c

ondi

tions

.

��

Mod

erat

e im

pact

s fro

m

rest

rictio

ns in

des

ert t

orto

ise

subr

egio

n ro

utes

.

��

73.6

per

cent

of e

xist

ing

rout

es

desi

gnat

ed o

pen.

��

No

open

was

h ro

utes

. ��

Tech

nica

l 4-w

heel

driv

ers a

nd

hunt

ers t

hat c

urre

ntly

util

ize

was

hes a

nd m

ore

rugg

ed ro

utes

fo

r mot

oriz

ed a

cces

s wou

ld b

e m

ost a

ffect

ed.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 2

with

in

DW

MA

s. S

easo

nally

or o

ther

wis

e lim

ited

or c

lose

d w

ashe

s wou

ld b

e an

ticip

ated

to b

e lo

wer

out

side

of

sens

itive

are

as, b

ased

on

crite

ria.

��

80.7

per

cent

of e

xist

ing

rout

es

appr

oved

as o

pen.

��

Sam

e gr

oups

mor

e af

fect

ed, b

ut le

ss

so.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

��

81.5

per

cent

of e

xist

ing

rout

es a

ppro

ved

as o

pen.

��

Sam

e gr

oups

mor

e af

fect

ed.

Min

eral

s &

Min

ing

��

No

new

impa

cts a

ntic

ipat

ed. A

no

tice

or p

lan

of o

pera

tions

is

requ

ired

for a

cces

s on

othe

r tha

n op

en ro

utes

.

��

Com

pare

d w

ith A

ltern

ativ

e 1,

th

ere

wou

ld b

e an

incr

ease

in th

e nu

mbe

r of w

ashe

s and

rout

es

requ

iring

aut

horiz

atio

n fo

r ac

cess

. Im

pact

on

min

eral

de

velo

pmen

t is a

ntic

ipat

ed to

be

min

or.

��

Impa

cts w

ould

be

betw

een

Alte

rnat

ives

1 a

nd 2

in D

WM

As.

Se

ason

ally

or o

ther

wis

e lim

ited

or

clos

ed w

ashe

s wou

ld b

e an

ticip

ated

to

be

few

er o

utsi

de o

f sen

sitiv

e ar

eas,

base

d on

crit

eria

. Im

pact

s to

min

eral

acc

ess o

r min

ing

wou

ld b

e so

mew

here

bet

wee

n A

ltern

ativ

es 1

an

d 2.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

3.

Veh

icle

Acc

ess

��

94.3

per

cent

of r

oute

s in

dese

rt to

rtois

e su

breg

ions

are

ope

n,

1.

2 pe

rcen

t are

lim

ited,

and

��

73.6

per

cent

ope

n,

7.

3 pe

rcen

t lim

ited,

and

19.1

per

cent

clo

sed

rout

es.

��

Sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

2 in

DW

MA

s.

Futu

re d

esig

natio

ns o

utsi

de o

f D

WM

As c

an b

e ex

pect

ed to

resu

lt in

m

ore

rout

esth

anA

ltern

ativ

e2

but

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

ltern

ativ

e 3.

R

oute

s wou

ld n

ot b

e co

nsid

ered

for c

losu

re,

base

don

bein

gre

dund

ant

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

5

Rou

tes o

f Tra

vel D

esig

natio

ns

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 A

ltern

ativ

e 3

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Alte

rnat

ive

4

4.5

perc

ent a

re c

lose

d.

��

Res

t of t

he p

lann

ing

area

to b

e de

sign

ated

by

June

200

4.

��

No

rout

es in

was

hes i

n de

sert

torto

ise

subr

egio

ns.

mor

e ro

utes

than

Alte

rnat

ive.

2 b

ut

less

than

Alte

rnat

ive

1.

��

80.7

per

cent

ope

n,

8.

2 pe

rcen

t lim

ited,

and

11.1

per

cent

clo

sed

rout

es.

��

Was

h ro

utes

pos

sible

in d

eser

t to

rtois

e su

breg

ions

if p

art o

f mai

n tra

nspo

rtatio

n ne

twor

k.

base

d on

bei

ng re

dund

ant

in M

UC

M o

r I a

nd m

ay

faci

litat

e a

mod

erat

e in

crea

se in

ope

n ro

utes

. ��

81.5

per

cent

ope

n,

8.

2 pe

rcen

t lim

ited,

and

10.3

per

cent

are

clo

sed

ro

utes

. ��

Was

h ro

utes

pos

sible

if

part

of m

ain

trans

porta

tion

netw

ork.

BLM

CD

D2.

0 Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Am

endm

ents

and

Alte

rnat

ives

N

EMO

CM

P/FE

IS, J

uly

2002

2.

14 S

umm

ary

of Im

pact

s

2-11

6

Tab

le 2

.34

– T

ecop

a/Sh

esho

ne P

ropo

sed

Lan

dfill

MU

C C

hang

e fo

r D

ispo

sal

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

Alte

rnat

ive

2 –

Prop

osed

Pla

n V

eget

atio

n ��

Loss

of v

eget

atio

n ��

Impa

cts a

re a

ntic

ipat

ed to

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1

Wild

life

��

Loss

of a

ssoc

iate

d re

side

nt w

ildlif

e on

app

roxi

mat

ely

5 ac

res o

f the

leas

e si

te.

��

Impa

cts a

re a

ntic

ipat

ed to

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1

Soil,

Wat

er, A

ir

��

Surfa

ce d

istu

rban

ce, d

isru

ptio

n an

d co

mpa

ctio

n of

surfa

ce so

ils

��

Incr

ease

d lo

cal d

ust g

ener

atio

n du

ring

activ

ities

. ��

No

futu

re g

roun

dwat

er im

pact

s are

ant

icip

ated

��

Shos

hone

site

also

incl

udes

dis

rupt

ion

of n

atur

al d

rain

age

patte

rns a

nd in

crea

sed

eros

ion

to

an a

djac

ent d

rain

age.

��

Impa

cts a

re a

ntic

ipat

ed to

be

the

sam

e as

Alte

rnat

ive

1

Lan

d U

se/ U

tiliti

es

��

Indi

rect

impa

cts w

ould

occ

ur a

t the

Tec

opa

site

base

d on

con

tinue

d us

e of

the

exis

ting

land

fill a

utho

rizat

ion

until

site

clo

sure

and

recl

amat

ion

is a

ffect

ed, o

r, if

stat

e st

anda

rds c

an

be m

et, u

ntil

the

auth

oriz

atio

n ex

pire

s in

2007

. ��

Indi

rect

impa

cts a

t the

Sho

shon

e sit

e w

ould

occ

ur b

ased

on

cont

inue

d us

e of

the

exis

ting

land

fill a

utho

rizat

ion

at a

muc

h re

duce

d ra

te, u

ntil

site

clos

ure

and

recl

amat

ion

is e

ffect

ed, o

r, if

stat

e st

anda

rds c

an b

e m

et, u

ntil

the

auth

oriz

atio

n ex

pire

s in

2008

.

��

Sim

ilar t

o A

lt 1

exce

pt th

at: c

losu

re m

ay o

ccur

ove

r a lo

nger

tim

e fra

me.

Fac

ilitie

s are

exp

ecte

d to

get

a li

mite

d am

ount

of

use

in th

e fu

ture

with

mod

est i

mpa

cts f

rom

land

fillin

g ac

tiviti

es.

The

Stat

e, ra

ther

than

BLM

, wou

ld id

entif

y m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s, be

caus

e it

is a

gain

st B

LM p

olic

y to

in

clud

e en

cum

bran

ces o

n th

ese

pate

nts.

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

��

The

soci

oeco

nom

ic im

pact

s of r

etai

ning

the

land

fills

in F

eder

al o

wne

rshi

p ar

e un

know

n re

gion

ally

. Lo

cally

, it m

ay re

sult

in h

ighe

r sho

rt-te

rm c

osts

for w

aste

man

agem

ent i

n ea

ster

n In

yo C

ount

y. T

he lo

ng-te

rm c

osts

are

diff

icul

t to

pred

ict,

and

wou

ld d

epen

d up

on th

e ul

timat

e st

rate

gy a

nd ti

min

g fo

r eac

h la

ndfil

l.

��

Impa

cts a

re si

mila

r to

Alte

rnat

ive

1 ex

cept

loca

lly A

ltern

ativ

e 2

may

resu

lt in

low

er sh

ort-t

erm

cos

ts fo

r was

te m

anag

emen

t in

Eas

tern

Inyo

Cou

nty.

Tab

le 2

.35

– W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c R

iver

Elig

ibili

ty

Res

ourc

e A

ltern

ativ

e 1

(No

Act

ion)

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

– Pr

opos

ed P

lan

Wild

an

d Sc

enic

R

iver

s ��

The

six

segm

ents

wou

ld n

ot b

e de

term

ined

elig

ible

to th

e W

ild a

nd S

ceni

c R

iver

s (W

SR)

syst

em.

��

This

alte

rnat

ive

prov

ides

a b

asel

ine

for c

ompa

rison

of i

mpa

cts.

��

The

WSR

Act

and

fede

ral g

uide

lines

requ

ire fe

dera

l age

ncie

s, up

on d

eter

min

atio

n of

WSR

elig

ibili

ty, t

o pr

ovid

e in

terim

pr

otec

tion

and

man

agem

ent f

or a

rive

r’s fr

ee-f

low

ing

char

acte

r and

any

iden

tifie

d ou

tsta

ndin

g re

mar

kabl

e va

lues

, su

bjec

t to

valid

exi

sting

righ

ts, u

ntil

such

tim

e as

a su

itabi

lity

stud

y is

com

plet

ed.

App

endi

ces O

, S, a

nd T

des

crib

es th

e ou

tsta

ndin

g re

mar

kabl

e va

lues

on

each

stre

am th

at w

ill b

enef

it by

this

elig

ibili

ty d

eter

min

atio

n. D

urin

g th

is in

terim

per

iod,

al

l pro

posa

ls th

at c

ould

affe

ct th

e A

mar

gosa

Riv

er,

Cot

tonw

ood

Cre

ek, a

nd S

urpr

ise

Can

yon

Cre

ek a

nd th

eir

reso

urce

s w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

agai

nst t

he re

gula

tory

crit

eria

and

ad

ditio

nal l

imits

on

uses

may

occ

ur.

Furth

er a

naly

sis o

f po

tent

ial i

mpa

cts t

o al

l res

ourc

es a

nd u

ses w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted

durin

g th

e su

itabi

lity

anal

ysis

.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERN 2.pdf · BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS,...

Documents

Transcript of 2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERN 2.pdf · BLM CDD 2.0 Proposed Plan and Alternatives NEMO CMP/FEIS,...