West Mojave Plan FEIR/S - Desert Managers Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NAMETable 3-10Current And Historic Tortoise Management AreasDATENOTESESTABLISHEDCrucial Habitat 1980 California Desert Conservation Area Plan DesignationCategory I, II, and III 1993 California Desert Conservation Area Plan DesignationCritical Habitat 1994 Designation pursuant to FESARecovery Plan 1994 Suggests that DWMAs be establishedBLM Crucial Habitat: Desert tortoise crucial habitat was first identified in the BLM’s1980 CDCA Plan (Map 4, CDCA Plan, 1980). The crucial habitat area was considered to be“…essential to the continued existence of the species.” The BLM (1987) described crucialhabitat as follows: “Crucial habitat includes portions of the habitats of officially designatedBLM sensitive species that if destroyed or adversely modified could result in their being listed asthreatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, asamended.”Within the planning area, the CDCA Plan recognized two areas of tortoise crucial habitat:(a) Western Mojave Desert Crucial Habitat, which included most of the proposed Fremont-Kramer DWMA, the western portions of the Superior-Cronese and Ord-Rodman DWMAs, andthe Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area; and (b) two small polygons located near the northernand central portions of the Johnson Valley Open Area (see Map 4, CDCA Plan).BLM Category I, II, and III Habitat: In 1992, the BLM and CDFG adopted aCalifornia Statewide Desert Tortoise Management Policy. The crucial habitat designation wasexpressly dropped in 1992 in favor of BLM tortoise Category I, II, and III habitat areas (BLMand CDFG 1992). This policy included management goals for Category I, II, and III tortoisehabitats, as follows: Category I: maintain stable, viable populations and increase populationswhere possible; Category II: maintain stable, viable populations; Category III: limit declines tothe extent possible using mitigation measures. In April 1993, the BLM amended the CDCA planto delineate these three categories of desert tortoise habitat on public lands (Map 1A, CDCAPlan, as amended, 1999).The BLM’s and CDFG’s long-range goals for the management of desert tortoises in thesethree categories were given as follows (BLM and CDFG 1992): (a) Restore and maintain stable,viable tortoise populations within designated Category I and II habitats in the species’ existingnatural range in the California Desert; (b) Minimize impacts to tortoises in Category III Habitatthrough humane, low-level mitigation and compensation requirements; (c) Reduce non-naturalmortality to the extent possible; (d) Prevent deterioration and promote restoration of Category Iand Category II habitats; (e) Acquire private lands within Category I and Category II habitatsthrough purchase or exchange and through compensation for habitat losses in Category I, II, andIII habitats; (f) Maintain and increase populations through translocation of wild tortoises intosuitable unoccupied or depleted habitats within the historic range; (g) Achieve interagencycoordination and demonstrate commitment necessary to maintain viable tortoise populations inthe California Desert; and, (h) Develop and implement a monitoring program to determineChapter 3 3-70
progress toward meeting the overall management goal of maintaining viable tortoise populationsin the California Desert.USFWS Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is defined as (a) the specific areas within thegeographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed on which are found thosephysical or biological features which are essential to the conservation of the species and whichmay require special management considerations or protection; and (b) specific areas outside thegeographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by theSecretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (FESASection 3(5)(A)). In 1994, the Service designated four critical habitat units in the planning area:Fremont-Kramer (518,000 acres), Superior-Cronese (766,900), Ord-Rodman (253,200), andPinto Mountain (171,700) units (USFWS 1994a) (see Table 3-11)ENTITYTable 3-11Desert Tortoise Critical HabitatACRES IN CRITICALHABITATPERCENT OF CRITICALHABITATFederal Government Department of the InteriorNational Park Service 27 mi 2 1%Bureau of Land Management 1,533 mi 2 59%Federal Government Department305 mi 2 12%of DefenseState of California 51 mi 2 2%Private 696 mi 2 26%TOTAL 2,612 mi 2 100%USFWS Recovery Units and Desert Wildlife Management Areas: The DesertTortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994b) established recovery goals andobjectives for six “recovery units.” The Western Mojave Recovery Unit is conterminous withthe West Mojave planning area. The Recovery Plan stated that recovery units are “...essential tothe long-term recovery, viability, and genetic diversity of the species.” The Recovery Plan alsorecommended that Desert Wildlife Management Areas be established within each recovery unit.DWMAs were characterized as areas in which “...recovery actions will be implemented toprovide for the long-term persistence of viable desert tortoise populations and the ecosystemsupon which they depend.”The Recovery Plan recommended that DWMAs should: (a) be “...somewhere between200 and 5,000 square miles...” with “...at least 1,000 square miles...recommended as the targetsize” (page 33); (b) have “…boundaries ... drawn to include the best examples of desert tortoisehabitat in specific vegetation regions ... heterogeneous terrain, soil types, and vegetation withinDWMAs will best provide protection for the entire ecosystem upon which healthy desert tortoisepopulations depend” (page 48); (c) contain “…the largest possible blocks of good tortoise habitatin an area, containing the most dense desert tortoise populations, should be included withinDWMA boundaries” (page 48); and (d) consist of “…round or square patches of habitat are moreChapter 3 3-71
Page 1 and 2:
CHAPTER THREEAFFECTED ENVIRONMENT3.
Page 3 and 4:
The CDCA Plan assigns a “multiple
Page 5 and 6:
Desert Tortoise Research Natural Ar
Page 7 and 8:
closure to target shooting. Hunting
Page 9 and 10:
percentage of public land ownership
Page 11 and 12:
As of March 2004, BLM had acquired
Page 13 and 14:
Ripley Joshua Tree Woodland: The st
Page 15 and 16:
through “resource use” designat
Page 17 and 18:
Significant Ecological Areas: There
Page 19 and 20: Wildlife and Wildflower Sanctuaries
Page 21 and 22: Mojave River Forks Regional Park: A
Page 23 and 24: oriented commercial uses are expect
Page 25 and 26: HCP would include mitigation measur
Page 27 and 28: 3.1.3.12 City of RidgecrestThe City
Page 29 and 30: It is a goal of the town’s genera
Page 31 and 32: • Inyo California Towhee (April 1
Page 33 and 34: (i) The taking will be incidental;(
Page 35 and 36: handled, and number accidentally ki
Page 37 and 38: 3.1.5 California Endangered Species
Page 39 and 40: Obtaining an Incidental Take Permit
Page 41 and 42: Monitoring: Monitoring is often the
Page 43 and 44: is so restrictive that project dela
Page 45 and 46: excess moisture. A minus 4 is consi
Page 47 and 48: Air BasinsN190I n y o C o395Ridgecr
Page 49 and 50: Federal PM10 Planning AreasN190Owen
Page 51 and 52: POLLUTANTOzone (O 3 )RespirablePart
Page 53 and 54: AIRBASINAIR QUALITYDISTRICTPOLLUTAN
Page 55 and 56: subtraction of transported ozone in
Page 57 and 58: The general soil information and ma
Page 59 and 60: The Marine Corps Ground Combat Cent
Page 61 and 62: The most permeable basin-fill depos
Page 63 and 64: Surface water was and is the major
Page 65 and 66: A relatively small number of introd
Page 67 and 68: freshwater or alkali wetlands, or o
Page 69: 3.3.2 Desert Tortoise3.3.2.1 Regula
Page 73 and 74: “higher density” and “lower d
Page 75 and 76: several seasons (Esque 1994 in Aver
Page 77 and 78: Assistant District Manager Molly Br
Page 79 and 80: • Since 1975, federal land manage
Page 81 and 82: “52 mi 2 of higher density tortoi
Page 83 and 84: 1984 Tortoise Range and Density Map
Page 85 and 86: Higher Density Tortoise Sign Count
Page 87 and 88: When data for the three lowest sign
Page 89 and 90: Occurrence of Tortoises Relative to
Page 91 and 92: Regional Declines in the Four DWMAs
Page 93 and 94: Tortoise Distribution within the Re
Page 95 and 96: Boarman (pers. comm., Nov 2002) has
Page 97 and 98: tortoises are either extirpated (La
Page 99 and 100: sites surveyed by LaRue between 199
Page 101 and 102: aseline data are lacking. Grasses p
Page 103 and 104: Canine Predators: This includes coy
Page 105 and 106: The spatial distribution of 12 of 1
Page 107 and 108: Predation Versus Scavenging of Juve
Page 109 and 110: Table 3-20Prevalence of Tortoises i
Page 111 and 112: (Jacobson et al. 1991, Brown et al.
Page 113 and 114: 3.3.2.5.3 Older and Newer Die-off R
Page 115 and 116: Table 3-21Characteristics of Older
Page 117 and 118: Table 3-22Characteristics of Older
Page 119 and 120: of the Johnson Valley Open Area, an
Page 121 and 122:
Distribution of Recreational and Re
Page 123 and 124:
Tortoises and Burrows Crushed: Vehi
Page 125 and 126:
TypeYearsSignCount98-99-01Distance2
Page 127 and 128:
OHV Impacts to Soils: OHV use has r
Page 129 and 130:
Rodman DWMA. There were no higher d
Page 131 and 132:
of Dove Springs that has experience
Page 133 and 134:
Both inside and adjacent to open ar
Page 135 and 136:
3.3.2.6.6 Organized Competitive OHV
Page 137 and 138:
3.3.2.7 Current Effectiveness of Ex
Page 139 and 140:
Overall, one sees that 68% of the 3
Page 141 and 142:
off regions discussed herein. Black
Page 143 and 144:
ManixACECMojave fishhookcactusRainb
Page 145 and 146:
Range of Mohave Ground SquirrelN190
Page 147 and 148:
3.3.3.2.2 Seasonal ActivityThe MGS
Page 149 and 150:
1996). As herbaceous annuals appear
Page 151 and 152:
1998 Mohave Ground Squirrel Transec
Page 153 and 154:
Finally, the 84% success rate was a
Page 155 and 156:
LaRue characterized substrates at t
Page 157 and 158:
There were no MGS occurrences in 28
Page 159 and 160:
certain shrubs (e.g. winterfat) tha
Page 161 and 162:
NAWS China Lake 1993). As discussed
Page 163 and 164:
Cumulatively, one finds there to be
Page 165 and 166:
Citing Bury and Luckenbach (1977),
Page 167 and 168:
the MGS is restricted to about 7,00
Page 169 and 170:
Habitat Management Plans (HMPs) wer
Page 171 and 172:
Basic to the biology of bighorn she
Page 173 and 174:
3.3.6 Birds3.3.6.1 Bendire’s Thra
Page 175 and 176:
3.3.6.5 Golden EagleLife History: T
Page 177 and 178:
The towhee recovery plan establishe
Page 179 and 180:
Regulatory Status: Federal Endanger
Page 181 and 182:
3.3.6.15 Western Yellow-billed Cuck
Page 183 and 184:
Other major threats are flood contr
Page 185 and 186:
Population Status in the Planning A
Page 187 and 188:
on the inaccessible mountain slopes
Page 189 and 190:
3.3.8.8 Kern BuckwheatLife History:
Page 191 and 192:
Threats Affecting the Mojave Monkey
Page 193 and 194:
3.3.8.16 Red Rock PoppyLife History
Page 195 and 196:
populations show intergradation wit
Page 197 and 198:
3.4.1.1 Regional EnvironmentIn tota
Page 199 and 200:
Table 3-37Average Annual Units Cons
Page 201 and 202:
2002 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEMPLOYMENT
Page 203 and 204:
TABLE 3-382000 CENSUS DEMOGRAPHIC C
Page 205 and 206:
to undergo a dramatic reversal to t
Page 207 and 208:
3.4.1.5 Study Area Property Valuati
Page 209 and 210:
The supply of private property in t
Page 211 and 212:
ALLOTMENT NAME TYPE OF LIVESTOCK FO
Page 213 and 214:
Grazing AllotmentsNOlanchaDarwinTun
Page 215 and 216:
ALLOTMENT NAMEALLOTMENTACRESP. L. 1
Page 217 and 218:
3.4.3 Mineral Potential and Develop
Page 219 and 220:
Mineral Potential, Active and Inact
Page 221 and 222:
Mineral Potential, Active and Inact
Page 223 and 224:
development based on the results of
Page 225 and 226:
MANAGEMENT AREATable 3-46Potential
Page 227 and 228:
A third item, yttrium (on the USBM
Page 229 and 230:
the California Department of Conser
Page 231 and 232:
Table 3-49 shows the number of mini
Page 233 and 234:
produces about 75,000 tons per year
Page 235 and 236:
Table 3-50Most Important Deposits B
Page 237 and 238:
3.4.3.5 Coolgardie MesaThe Coolgard
Page 239 and 240:
Areas designated as regionally sign
Page 241 and 242:
Recreationists engage in activities
Page 243 and 244:
OPENAREADoveSpringsElMirageJawboneC
Page 245 and 246:
cycle engine motorcycles in OHV rid
Page 247 and 248:
One popular activity is dual sport
Page 249 and 250:
Compliance With Regulations: Compli
Page 251 and 252:
REGIONORCITYRidgecrestSanBernardino
Page 253 and 254:
REGIONORCITYVictorville /AppleValle
Page 255 and 256:
Rail: The West Mojave planning area
Page 257 and 258:
Arterials: Arterials are routes wit
Page 259 and 260:
Ridgecrest-Inyokern Sanitary Landfi
Page 261 and 262:
approximately 3 miles south of the
Page 263 and 264:
Trona-Agrus Transfer Station (SWIS
Page 265 and 266:
The BLM is an agency of the U.S. De
Page 267 and 268:
Route designations apply only to ro
Page 269 and 270:
Utility Maintenance: Many powerline
Page 271 and 272:
ACECNAME ANDNUMBERHarper Dry Lake(3
Page 273 and 274:
SUBREGIONAmboyBighornCoyoteEastSier
Page 275 and 276:
• All pipelines with diameters gr
Page 277 and 278:
3.6.2 Energy Generation PlantsEnerg
Page 279 and 280:
3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES3.7.1 Archaeo
Page 281 and 282:
seasonal movement from place to pla
Page 283 and 284:
RIDGECREST FIELD OFFICEPROPERTY NAM
Page 285 and 286:
ACECRose SpringFossil FallsLast Cha
Page 287 and 288:
have been dated by radiocarbon and
Page 289 and 290:
MYACENOZOICEPOCHTable 3-65Paleontol
Page 291 and 292:
In the southern area, fossils of la
Page 293 and 294:
At Twenty-Nine Palms, there is an u
show all

West Mojave Plan FEIR/S - Desert Managers Group

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?