BLM LIBRARY 88047396 RECORD OF DECISION QH 76.5 .C2 C344 1985 c.2 UST 1985 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management California California Desert District 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, California 92507 1600 (C-060.2) >'W 3 1 1985 Memorandum To: State Director (C-910) From: District Manager, California Desert Subject: 1984 Amendment Decision Enclosed is the Record of Decision for the 1984 Amendment Review of the California Desert Plan indicating my approval of the amendments. The enclosed document is provided for your review and concurrence. {jy^ujl Zt^jL* Enclosure I concur with the California Desert District Manager's amendment decisions attached. State Director, California Desert 0# # > o « o c < II ill §■ AMENDMENT ID JAWBQNE-BinTERBPEDT ACEC (NO. 20) Proposed Amendment Expand ACEC to include land in Cottonwood Creek and Kelso Valley areas. Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Reject proposed amendment Rationale Land exchanges in the area proposed for addition to the ACEC are planned for the coming year. Expansion of the ACEC to include this land is not appropriate at this time. Following land consolidation, the expansion may be presented for consideration. Implementation Needs None District Manager Date f* JAWBONE-BUTTERBREAD ACEC 20 "" Original ACEC boundary AMENDMENT 7^ Proposed addition 'I gjj BLM land Private land Scale 1:250,000 R34E R35E R36E R37E AMENDMENT IE SALE CREEK (DUMONT) ACEC (No. 18) Proposed Amendment Adjust boundary to include additional 100 acres in section 19, T18N, R7E, SEM. Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The land which will be added contains an old adobe structure and several mines and mine shafts, the remnants of gold mining activity during the last century. These structures have historical importance which closely ties in with several sites located within the original ACEC boundary. Acceptance of the amendment will result in more protective management of the additional historical resources, which will complement the cultural resources already present. Implementation Needs None & District Manager Date 10 SALT CREEK ACEC 18 __*_ Original boundary ■ Amended boundary V 11 AMENDMENT IF UPPER JOHNSON VALLEY YUCCA RINGS ACEC (No. 46) Proposed Amendment Adjust boundary to make it legally definable and inclusive of the largest clones and heaviest concentration of yucca rings (environmentally preferable alternative) . Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The original boundary was not definable in legal terms. The area is almost completely flat, making it extremely difficult to determine the ACEC boundary on the ground. The new boundary is legally definable and encloses the area containing the largest clones and the heaviest concentration of yucca rings. Implementation Needs None ~Lu>^ v K(M — - ^/n/zs- District Manager Date 12 "^ Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings ACEC 46 —,— Original boundary Amended boundary 13 AMENDMENT 1G AMARGOSA CANYON/GRIMSHAW LAKE ACEC (NO. 13) Proposed Amendment Modify boundaries and divide ACEC into two ACECs: the Amargose Canyon Natural Area ACEC and the Grimshaw Lake Natural Area ACEC (environmentally preferable alternative) . Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The revised boundaries more correctly reflect areas of highest resource sensitivity and will allow more effective management of those resources. The area will be managed as two separate ACECs rather than as one, because of somewhat differing uses and management prescriptions necessary for each area. Implementation Needs None } SWounij^s Private land * Desert . ' "Hot Spring? S^i ■■„■■ ,,. W?«£jsjf' ; 19 AMENDMENT 1J SALT CREEK PUPFISH/RAIL HABITAT ACEC (NO. 60) Proposed Amendment Designate additional scattered parcels of public land as part of the ACEC. Presently, 2,503 acres of scattered tracts of public land have been designated as part of the ACEC; the amendment will incorporate several neighboring parcels (about 2200 acres) into the ACEC. Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment with the following modification. Only public lands will be included in the enlarged ACEC (environmentally preferable alternative). Rationale Expansion of the Acec boundary should benefit sensitive wildlife species found in this location. These include the desert pupfish, listed as endangered by the State of California, the Yuma Clapper Rail, listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service and rare by the State of California. Acquisi- tion of additional prime habitat on privately owned land may be considered in the future. Implementation Needs None 5/ ill 25- District Manaaer Date 20 r Salt Creek Pupfish/Rail Habitat AMENDMENT lj ACEC 60 T7S T8S Salton R12E SBM V ORIGINAL ACEC ACEC ADDITION 21 AMENDMENT IK LAKE CAHUILLA NO. 2 ACEC (NO. 65) Proposed Amendment Change management prescriptions restricting mineral extraction and development (Table 15 in Desert Plan) and prohibiting sand and gravel extraction (Appendix IV, Page 49). Remove "x" on Table 15 (in "restrict mineral exploration and development column) . Change Appendix IV prescription number five to read "Prohibit sand and gravel extraction except within the East Highline Canal Sand and Gravel Extraction Plan area. Within the Plan area, extraction activities would be guided by the provisions of the management plan." Other Alternatives Considered No action (environmentally preferable alternative). Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale This proposal will bring into conformance the recommendations of the CDCA Plan for sand and gravel extraction in ACEC 65 with those of the proposed East Highline Sand and Gravel Extraction Management Plan (EHSGEMP). The Desert Plan disallows extraction within the ACEC. The EHSGEMP sets forth guidelines for extraction in appropriate locations along the East Mesa of Lake Cahuilla, in a manner which would protect sensitive cultural resources. The EHSGEMP is a multi-disciplinary document that includes an analysis of cultural resources as well as wildlife, botanical, and sand and gravel resources. It is based on site-specific inventories which were not feasible in preparing the CDCA Plan. Implementation Needs None C/X^^- District Manager Page 22 Lake Cahuilla No.2 (East Mesa) AMENDMENT Ik ACEC 65 T14S East Highland Sand/ Gravel Activity Mgmt. Plan Study Area (L: low sensitivity) (H: high sensitivity) 'Mo$.V Excavated area T15S SBM 23 AMENDMENT 1L LAKE CAHUILLA NUMBER 5 ACEC (NO. 69) Proposed Amendment Change management proscriptions restricting mineral extraction and development (Table 15 in Desert Plan) and prohibiting sand and gravel extraction (Appendix IV, page 51). Remove "x" on Table 15 (in "restrict mineral exploration and development" column). Change Appendix IV prescription number four to read "Prohibit sand and gravel extraction except within the East Highline Sand and Gravel Extraction Management Plan area. Within the Plan area, extraction activities would be guided by the provisions of the management plan. Other Alternatives Considered No action (environmentally preferable alternative). Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale This proposal will bring into conformance the recommendations of the CDCA Plan for sand and gravel extraction in ACEC 69 with those of the proposed East Highline Sand and Gravel Extraction Management Plan (EHSGEMP). The Desert Plan disallows extraction within the ACEC. The EHSGEMP sets forth guidelines for extraction in appropriate locations along the East Mesa of Lal^e Cahuilla, in a manner which would protect sensitive cultural resources. The EHSGEMP is a multi-disciplinary document that includes an analysis of cultural resources as well as wildlife, botanical, and sand and gravel resources. It is based on site-specific inventories which were not feasible in preparing the CDCA Plan. Implementation Needs None District Manager Date 24 Lake Cahuilla No. 5 (East Mesa) AMENDMENT 11 ACEC 69 East Highland Sand/ Gravel Activity Mgmt. Plan Study Area (L: low sensitivity) (Ml: moderate sensitivity) ^oS.vi Excavated area 25 AMENDMENT 1M PILOT KNOB ACEC (NO. 73) Proposed Amendment Delete the western 1,410 acres of this 2,230-acre ACEC. The western border will follow the southern extension of Sidewinder Road. The northern border will abut Pilot Knob. Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The boundary of the ACEC will be modified to correspond to actual distribution of cultural resource values. Areas west of the Sidewinder Road extension lack heavily patinated desert pavement surfaces which mark the main areas of concern for this ACEC. Although some cultural resource values are present, they lack the significance of other values associated with this ACEC. Implementation Needs None -t^ujj ^jjuZ^^ S/nfcs- District Manager Date 26 27 AMENDMENT TWO EDCM HILL/WILLOW HOLE ACEC Proposed Amendment Designate approximately 1,760 acres in the Coachella Valley as the Edom Hill/Willow Hole ACEC (environmentally preferable alternative). Other Alternatives Considered No Action Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The ACEC will provide protection for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, the Least Bell's Vireo, and two federal candidate plant species. These sensitive species are being severely threatened by heavy recreational vehicle use in the area. Implementation Needs Develop and implement ACEC Management Plan. ~4s~&~*-e * ^Ot&s- S/nfos District Manager Date 28 AMENDMENT 2 Willow Hole Edom Hill ACEC W,-. • II _]|_BM 1334 Jl .![•. •• ' ■-_. ) """"^^Rp^SBM 29 AMENDMENT THREE PATTON"S IRON MOUNTAIN DIVISIONAL CAMP ACEC (NO. 52) Proposed Amendment Change the motorized vehicle access designation from "closed" to "limited". Vehicle access will be allowed only on routes to be designated in the ACEC management plan. Other Alternatives Considered No Action. Decision Accept Proposed Amendment Rationale The boundary fence of the camp and the fenced relief map are a full one- quarter mile within the closed area boundary. Continuing the closed designa- tion would preclude vehicle access to these areas. Changing the designation would permit travel on an approved route to a central entrance area within the old camp. Vehicular access would be provided from a single controlled point on the camp perimeter. Vehicular access is important, as many visitors will be older, and distances between landmarks may be as much as two miles. Implementation Needs None District Manager Date 30 Patton's Iron Mountain Divisional Camp AMENDMENT 3 ACEC 52 ACEC boundary Proposed/Approved routes of travel miYiiVii m. R16E Enclosed/Fenced area oJ Iron Mtn Divisional Camp 31 AMENDMENT POUR COSO UTILITY CORRIDOR Proposed Amendment Establish a one-mile wide, five-mile long utility corricor to connect the Coso Known Geothermal Resource Area with designated Utility Corridor A. Other Alternatives Considered No Action (environmentally preferable alternative). Decision Accept Proposed Amendment with the modification of adding a small wedge-shaped extension (38 acres) at the south border of the corridor, adjacent to the Naval Weapons Center boundary. Rationale A corridor is needed to allow construction of transmission lines of 220 kv or above to transport electrical power from geothermal resources on BLM and Naval Weapons Center lands to powerlines in utility corridor A in Rose Valley. The modification conforms more closely to the natural topographic route out of the Naval Weapons Center. Environmental impacts would be as described in the Draft EA. Implementation Needs None District Manager Date 32 AMENDMENT 4\ POWERLINE CORRIDOR R37/2E AREA ADDED SINCE PUBLICATION OF EA R38E MDM 33 AMENDMENT FIVE REVISED WORDING IN LIVESTOCK GRAZING ELEMENT Proposed Amendment Delete the fifth paragraph of the section titles "Allocations" on page 69 of the Desert Plan and replace it with the following: "No adjustment was made for precipitation received during the survey period. While above normal in some areas in 1977-1978, it followed several drought years; therefore, plant vigor and density may not be normal. (Active) preference will be determined on the basis of range surveys, monitoring, and known conditions of forage productivity." Other Alternatives Considered No Action (environmentally preferable alternative) . Decision Reject Rationale Although plant vigor and density may or may not have been normal in 1977-1978, the Desert Plan surveys were not conducted until early 1979. By then, several years of above normal rainfall had occurred. Thus, no information exists which fundamentally refutes the present wording of the plan, that is, that due to "the above average rainfall. ..capacity estimates should be considered high." Interior Department policy now forbids the allocation of forage based on range survey data. Therefore, if the proposal were adopted, monitoring would remain the only one of the criteria proposed by the amendment which could be used to make future adjustments in active preference. This would represent no change from present management under the Desert Plan, which emphasizes monitoring as the means for future adjustments. It should be noted that since 1979, most allotments have had allotment management plans (AMPs) written and are, or soon will be, managed under those AMPs. It should also be noted that during years of heavy rainfall, the Bureau consistently has made ephemeral forage available on request to operators in excess of perennial preference. Implementation Nereis None District Manager Date 34 APPENDIX SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS GENERAL OVERVIEW The Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on the 1984 Amendments to the California Desert Plan was released for public review on December 12, 1985. The comment period extended to February 11, 1985. Twenty-one letters were received during this period. Oral hearings were not held, but the opportunity to comment was provided at the Desert District Advisory Council meetings in November and February in Lancaster and San Bernardino. The letters came from the following sources: ten from conservation or wildlife organizations, six from local, state, or Federal agencies (two letters each), three from individuals, one from a utility, and one from a business. Sixteen of the respondents were located in California, with equal numbers from the northern and southern parts of the state. Two letters came from the neigh- boring states of Arizona and Nevada, and the others were from Colorado and Washington D.C. The majority of respondents were in agreement with the Bureau's preferred alternatives on all of the proposed amendments. The principal emphasis was on protection of biological and cultural resources, though a few respondents favored more land for mineral extraction. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY AMENDMENT AMENDMENT ONE: ACEC BOUNDARIES AND MANAGEMENT The State of California's Department of Conservation (Division of Mines and Geology) requested more discussion of the impacts of boundary changes on mining and mineral resource conservation and development. The following units of the amendment were approved by all who mentioned them, but no specific remarks were made. A. Eureka Dunes C. Last Chance Canyon D. Jawbone-But terbredt B. DARWIN FALLS This boundary change was approved by the majority of commenters, although most of them, including the State Department of Fish and Game, wanted assurance that mining operations in the vicinity of Zinc Hill would not adversely affect wildlife or other sensitive resources within Darwin Canyon. E. SALT CREEK (DUMONT). The majority of respondents approved the amendment. However, the Goldfields Mining Corporation objected, claiming that mineral exploration would be unduly restricted in an area having gold potential. A-l F. UPPER JOHNSON VALLEY YUCCA RINGS This proposal was supported by all who commented on it. One organization wanted restrictions on mining and off road vehicle (ORV) use in the vicinity of yucca rings and a change to Multiple Use Class "L". They argued that unregulated ORV activity, while having little effect on mature yucca plants, could be fatal to young plants, thereby resulting in the death of entire clonal rings as the older plants die. G. AMARGOSA CANYON/ GRIMSHAW LAKE. The proposed division of this ACEC into two separate ACECs and change in the boundaries were supported by most of those who commented on this amendment. However, two respondents objected to these changes. In addition, the State Department of Fish and Game recommended barriers to motorized vehicle access to the Canyon and assurance that the National Outdoor Coalition's involvement in the Dumont Dunes Cooperative Management Agreement (CMA) with the BLM would be consistent with the management philosophy already established for this ACEC, H. WHITEWATER CANYON This boundary change was supported by all respondents who commented on it, because of its expected benefit to the bighorn sheep. The change is con- sistent with the Open Space and Conservation Programs of the General Plan of the County of Riverside. I. BIG MORONGO CANYON Approval of this proposal was identical with that for Amendment 1H. Again, the County of Riverside found it to be consistent with their General Plan. J. SALT CREEK PUPFISH/RAIL HABITAT. The majority of respondents supported expansion of this ACEC in order to protect the desert pupfish and other rare and endangered wildlife and vegeta- tion. The County of Riverside found the proposal to be consistent with its Open Space and Conservation Map and with its proposed Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan. Concern was shown over the large amounts of private land and the geothermal, oil, and gas potential within the expanded boundaries of the ACEC. The Gold- fields Mining Corporation suggested purchasing the private land before estab- lishing the ACEC. They agreed with the Bureau's statement that expansion of the ACEC would not interfere with geothermal development. On the other hand, the Yuma Audubon Society recommended withdrawal of desert pupfish habitat and all marsh zones from mineral and energy development. K & L. LAKE CAHUILLA ACECS 65 AND 69 These proposals were approved by approximately two-thirds of those who commented on them. Two opponents argued that the extraction of sand and gravel within the ACEC was inconsistent with the protection of cultural resources. They said this commodity is widespread and accessible elsewhere. A^2 The Natural Resources Defense Council questioned the legality of developing the East Highline Sand and Gravel Extraction Management Plan while the final Desert Plan (1980) prohibited extraction of sand and gravel within ACECs 65 and 69. M. PILOT KNOB Two-thirds of those who mentioned this amendment gave it a blanket endorsement with no comment. Opponents of this boundary change believed that cultural resources within the deleted area west of Sidewinder Road need the protection of ACEC status or, at least, a Class "L" designation. They requested protec- tion from winter visitors and from mineral development. AMENDMENT TWO: EDOM HILL/WILLOW HOLE ACEC Two-thirds of all respopndents commented on this proposal, and all supported it. The State Department of Fish and Game and the Coachella Valley Ecological Reserve Foundation requested that off-road vehicle use be prohibited within the ACEC. The latter group also proposed that the population of the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard in wind farm areas should be monitored, and that public access to significant natural areas should be allowed for nonconsumptive recreation. One respondent felt the Environmental Assessment should address the effect of wind energy development on the endangered species present. AMENDMENT THREE: PATTON'S IRON MOUNTAIN DIVISIONAL CAMP ACEC Five respondents addressed this proposed amendment - one opposed and the rest in favor. The Ecology Center of Southern California believed that opening the ACEC to restricted vehicle access would allow small dirt motorcycles carried in by recreationists to trespass into closed areas. Another commenter pro- posed an alternate vehicular access route which would utilize the powerline road and prevent the opening of new roads. AMENDMENT FOUR: C0S0 UTILITY CORRIDOR Four respondents endorsed this amendment with no comment. Two others recom- mended reducing the width of the corridor to 1/4 to 1/2 mile, saying that a one mile width was excessive. The Sierra Club stated that a ceiling of 200 kv would be appropriate for this geothermal development. Other respondents felt that the treatment of wildlife and visual resources in the Environmental Assessment was inadequate. AMENDMENT FIVE: GRAZING ELEMENT WORDING CHANGE All respondents who commented on this proposal agreed that it should be rejected. The following table lists specific comments, the commenters, and the BLM re- sponse. Where other commenters raised the same question, they are Identified in parentheses. A- 3 •a a s C M "0 -H rn _ (o ,e or 6 'S -2 -S " -S* bl, 3 II -H W -H o 3 <5e •H £ 3? is •H Q 3s A- 4 3 a 18 3 2*1 fill rf/'-g . s IS *S I * 'i i * C <« 4J "O +» *J 4) 4) 10 « $5 a" II §8 II u a .2 8 & ® H • r-( m Q ^« MS •H -rt 8? H H N of ■8 a '8 4> si*3 5] (B H Is m m (0 JIJ8j 0) 9 3 CN 8 S "8 ' S S 5 v H M a (0 a « 8 -o gi ** a) tt» +» S 5 1. CQ •si-5? 3 4) -H _ M 5 3 » 'till .-I 00 4) ■ * « S » » -3 8 $ 8 'alia* 1 ■ id 5 22 fl) Q, > -H -H M-l 2 M 0( *J N -h t-l O -H <> ^"3 »H 4J 3. o 3 sis «.s.s 0) -H > 05 -t -h « * 4» -H i» 4J f O 488. 3 ti-S D-h 2 £2 •H 8 s las A- 5 -• 41 5 8 » 3 3 •h Ja >+-i « -h •p u d) *j id eg 3 h c u a a S g 0 0 __ o 1 o -h S S Id h -P 09 ■p u cu q aS£.'l J'llll 5 § J « to o _ 5 in y< 4 a « o 3 u » co 8 *j g 4) J3 -P BitJ -p id » i 0> S3 ° • Ey -h a> O C S ^ 1 1 1, S * ° "3 * 0 in cs ^ -co o a>a S3 .affMM 'H t< H H U «4 id Q< — -ifg.il *JM ■P J3 -H 5 •H 3 * JS >1<4-l 4J w to x I till •p u to 04 Sir ■p 2 p 5 jjj I I (0 ^B.?3"&-2a8E,e.s £. -p ca -h & o'&jd mid en m >g -h g> 3 0 5iS 0 * Id -p «y tp m ** 0 Q S«3"|-S 0,88118 m m S "8 -P 2 >P +J J S CS £ J iO *J O CLE _ Oi $ H M-lWCTlM 2 0*i it-H OH o „. 3 S'o-dOrl-^-y *o §>S SsSsa at II a m co J3sa>aia> inb'.'0 id a) to « c^H >i>i g,eca> 1i> ■3 0 "Q to f> *J fl O 'd Q o atii^AtfO^ : C Id o ills, !**s a a >i a i4 o >i CO id -o "8 u {T-p a • •3+Jtt,dHbO id d * 0 3 3 -o &-H g> d) S2 a; •o u II 1 ^ H 7 o 0 4J-S ft 91 ffl id <-? |-| A- 6 d3 *.*?■ 0)0) $ -H .|| 3 .8 | •H1MH a iS-g OH 8 f 8*« I S88 .-5 a -h u +j g o 3 vh a) Q fi 8 P S1 at a h c b & jj "9 3 50'H OQ >i >i HO Jlfift 4J 4J en oq S vo 3 1 •H 0) <« •H ' 8 *Sg 5 ii-s i 3 <0 H -P ■8 8-2 B) vw jj •u S 5 *j 8 c> •a o 5j s u > *3 d> m >,pH +j 0) c S « v c e « 8M25.22 A- 7 k s 18 3 a 4J ca a; 10 o 0 £. jg HP'S 23 8 3 * 3 M 33 -H C 61 O M b JS 5 §i o <*-i m -h ig jj * 1 ***** 91 •h u o M >M <8 fH 2 _ li5lll tllJjfl 8fS«S? ilif* hi"! 8 p „ S £ a> o 33 • » • u £ ai -f-i a> 5|M! *"» +J S H -4J S «-i to Q) *>, a> a) ,c Ja ■U tJlTJ B 5 •H .■8 si £ id 10 >i rH *0 -H S 53 8 13-2 A- 8 ff3 9)3 « 3 SB'S" si .a r-j ^ -rt •H 4) m e o* u 0 § jj a> • 1 TJ 1 1 7 » g-s «,* 5 h | II HO w a) a> *j to 0 n "" i s .» 5 Q> CO UP' a> >i I 6 as •h 2 QJ tD C ttf u cp h £ 8 »hI jn W+) c « 3 SB8H*ft <3 H-rtJ) 1) lilies f s i a >,.s a • S 8 «' i{ rj 4J -h >,5J *.P 4-» 5 > sil"; On 5> *o +j 3 * 2; $ = *.c S __ <-* ;H HH ■H TJ 4) fti CPU to o 'O ' mi: '■ 0) o - m i i A- 9 i i! II i-u §''8 o> a X -u 9 0 -u -h s x (0 0< ^ ja a. -h m JtJ-Se a I Ills "1! sit 1 ate s* .3 3 «* "» u -a ■H M _ «Ti * ° 5 « 5? •h •■309 a» * 4) -5 rfl S -5 6 5 >, 2 yJf; ?«*■ £ril*j A- 10 ■8 8 en ! §3 1 3 i to u • (0 n: _ n $ og J u .* m a o> | fl,5u 0.3 8 u -h to ijj 9! £ H t-i 4 i a> o n •■-• •H *J 15 5 4-1 3 <0 l! is m to 4-1 3 0 a I» io9 0 < rH rH -H g «J cb id (0 a H M 3 4J -a « i:s8l« ■P P i1^ fi" CD y -h -h £ 3 ffl 2 41 q m •h , g u *J CD SioS-S .tJ3 g -h o co a «•»■* |S|* §•3 " 3 5 u t! •o £ o -3 ih £ m no v ti c (0 -h o a) Si 4j cd a z «> .g ».. I ai Q 3.-H tJ * Q y rH 579 3*J*4 o « .. P ■s is till 10 -H Q CO 8 "io fi 3m • w -h ff cu x H x l§ SUM A Bi-h "d S, 1*8553 2 °*5 *%* fi -a > u . V Dm 8 S-B ■ 8 c •H II ^ m > _ V S3 Q <0 U 41 -U >Q *J r-l i ■H id ,£ 0 !!1Pi 8 $ * 8>jl 8 C -Hi) £ 3 y a g, fs*i«j| fi 83 K . 0 -P C *J fl (0 fH aj 3 J ■ri y +> fc • n 1 k53 1 2, M-l iH O-H •5 OfN Dtl +3 _ h a 5 '5 ■ *S 5 ^ Q ^ U B ^ |^ it Hi J«ii ill 3 S^-2 1 $ "H & 5 q *> « a IV V CD 0) a *j ih O o o 0,3 ^2> T3 •g.s 3:i II ill 9 J 3 M q v « * IP +j ET ia •a si -a 4) liiiS •d 3 3 +3 -h •5^j iO a .* 8 _. o q n (0 TJ -H -3 3 3* Sol 1* * g 3 "J? 8 -H to jj CD w Tl JJ 1) 2 5 T> Q) jj m>3 d,k5 JO C ID CU U >, a, co jj o v, s S S* a O •3 <*-i to cq t I c M S 1 !S 8 « fi -. JZ C -H 0 <8g>oo • 0 Q » to 0) jj 0 p -.12 8 _ jj u -P j= U u U ID Q M 53 OH IS .2 S*8 8. A^SSU1°-5SS>'8fi a) co c j= p -h -h 53 m coS-H535jj>a) 0) -a g p i-i Viti jj vw 5 JJ «.aS,8.S,8l'8.2 8|b CD CD H -H Q JJ j= S jJ C 8 5 8.* ° 8, -° 8! S 5 [5 O1* rj ^lo « 3 i! H a! >+j u-i to u_r-j-H Q_-h I JJ 0 MJ -H s HO53idn530 :*i A-13 10 -U £ *J as .2 4) to 3 3£8$ ■S 8 8 in d 0,3 8 8s It 2L w &>y w •H o 288£ HMidO 10 M _ •H O 4J 01 30,6-8 4> Q44} i 8 u s -H 3 a> Hi 8 •h !3 -o -a 'a I CM a 5£ 2 -P 0) 4) 4-1 4J iJ JJ •h c m a h n J: a, cq U A- 14 A- 15 H WO, y * 3 cfl O - C 2. h -S -u 5T 0 o ± U 51 JO 4-> 2 8 "-8 i'J.. J Sis ■H 3 ffl Q 8 4) « j 3 v u i +j h tjl (0 ID o Q7-U 0) u 0 H 3 83*8 J g MO Ufl > Is CO -H to •rt _ 8 4J 8 . £ 8 -g z & & aA .3 I "8 «J 93 Q r-j H ^ M •J -lihlilS^s H. 5.8 D tn c ■- ' • 0" *n SO9C4J4Jio *>a)"a>A'6>9Sajo4S— i » 4J Q C co CD to >i 0 > 3 3 A- '5 5-3 0-h 8 A-16 J* & r w Q W W Z Q H W rnia to the ts of th W u E O Califo vision nendmen QH 76.5 .C2 C344 1985 c.2 U. S. Bureau of Land Management. California Record of decision to the 1QR4 nlan ampndmentR of thf BLM LIBRARY RS150ABLDG.50 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, CO 80225