United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office, Nevada April 1998 DRAFT Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat ^^T/tsr^'TW'W-'' BUM LiBf^H BLDG 50, DENVER FEDERAL CENTfctf P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER. GQIQBM2Q BLM Mission Statement The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation, range/a nds, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air and scenic, scientific and cultural values. BLM/EL/PL-98/012+ 1610 & i 7171 Un- united States Department of the Interior /Oil BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office P.O. Box 12000 * . . Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 74. S * ry * REPLY REFER TO: 1610 (NV-910) Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Caliente Management Framework Plan (MFP) Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the management of Desert Tortoise Habitat. This MFP amendment outlines goals and actions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. These goals and actions, recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approved Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan, would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely District. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. The document discusses several alternatives for the protection of desert tortoise habitat and recovery of the species. Public comments concerning the adequacy and accuracy of the Draft EIS and that your concerns have been considered in the planning process will be accepted until August 14, 1998, and must be submitted in writing to: Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 Public meetings to accept verbal and written comments have also been scheduled for the following dates, places and times: Date Time Location June 17, 1998 7:00 P.M. Texas Gambling Hall and Hotel 2101 Texas Star Lane North Las Vegas, Nevada 89036 June 18, 1994 7:00 P.M. Caliente Youth Center Caliente, Nevada 89008 Both written and oral comments received during the public comment period will be fully considered and evaluated for preparation of the Final EIS. If you would like any additional information, please contact Gene Drais, Project Manager at (702) 289-1880. Sincerely, Robert V. Abbey / ^flfl ^ State Director, Nevada* Enclosure <$gP Questions and Answers O*^ ftO^'^v-tf®.^ p.O- flf G°* QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE DRAFT TORTOISE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT Q. Why is the Bureau of Land Management preparing this document? A. This document is being prepared so that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Several steps led to the proposed land use plan amendment. The desert tortoise was listed as a Threatened Species on April 2, 1990. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) subsequently identified critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise on February 8, 1994. Some of the identified critical habitat included public lands in Lincoln County, Nevada, administered by the BLM. The Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan was issued by the USFWS on June 28, 1994. It provided management actions needed to protect the desert tortoise. Current direction for management of these lands is provided by a multiple use land use plan known as the "Caliente Management Framework Plan" (Caliente MFP), which was completed in 1983 (prior to listing of the desert tortoise). The BLM compared the management actions proposed for recovery of the desert tortoise and the existing land uses allowed under the Caliente MFP. The need to make changes in some land uses to protect critical desert tortoise habitat resulted in the Proposed Plan Amendment. Q. Is the Bureau of Land Management implementing everything included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan? A. Not all recommendations contained in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan are included for adoption in the Proposed Plan Amendment. The proposed action is an attempt to balance protection of desert tortoise habitat while minimizing adverse affects upon other traditional uses of the public lands. The Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan serves as a guideline to assist BLM in effective management of critical desert tortoise habitat, which will eventually contribute to recovery of the species. Q. What does this Proposed Plan Amendment do? A. The Proposed Plan Amendment delineates three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for desert tortoise and protects desert tortoise habitat through specific management actions, while minimizing adverse affects upon traditional uses. Q. Will any ranchers be put out of business if this plan is implemented? A. Yes. The Moapa Band of Paiutes currently holds a grazing permit for an allotment which would be closed to livestock grazing under the Proposed Plan Amendment. Two other grazing allotments are proposed for closure. The affected ranchers have negotiated fair market purchases of their ranching operations. Funds to be used for the purchase would come from the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan. Will any tax revenue be lost to Lincoln County if this Proposed Plan Amendment is implemented? If so, how much? A. Yes. Lincoln County annually assesses ranchers 28C per head for cattle (non-dairy), 750 per head for horses and 30C per head for sheep. Lincoln County could potentially lose up to an estimated $380.45 in tax revenues annually if the Proposed Plan Amendment is adopted (410 cattle = $114.80, 5 horses = $3.75 and 873 sheep = $261.90). The current situation, however, is less than the potential loss because the Rox-Tule and Beacon Allotments have been in non-use for the past several years. Therefore, they have not been taxed. The current estimated tax figures are: $100.91 (347 cattle = $97.16, 5 horses = $3.75 and 0 sheep = $0.00). Q. How will motorized recreational events be affected if this Proposed Plan Amendment is implemented? A. Vehicle travel would be limited throughout desert tortoise habitat to existing roads. Cross-country vehicle travel (off roads) would be illegal. Within ACECs, vehicle travel would be further restricted to those roads designated as "open" during a future public involvement process. The public process used to identify roads for vehicle travel within ACECs is intended to ensure continued access to meet public needs. Identification of "open" roads is intended to discourage "pioneering" or creation of new roads. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) organized events would also be limited to existing roads throughout desert tortoise habitat. No speed-based organized events would be allowed within ACECs, and non-speed organized events (or non-speed portions of speed events) would be allowed to pass through ACECs on roads designated within this plan. Q. Are there restrictions on other types of recreation? A. No. Q. Will citizen rights to bear and use firearms be affected? A. No. Q. How will mining be affected? A. Lands within the Kane Springs ACEC (which is thought to have low mineral potential and a high density of desert tortoise) will be closed to mineral entry. Mining activity within the Beaver Dam Slope and Mormon Mesa ACECs would be subject to approval of a mining plan of operations by the BLM and Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Q. Where can I review a copy of the "Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment For The Management of Desert Tortoise/Habitat Environmental Impact Statement"? A. At Bureau of Land Management Offices in Caliente, Ely, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Copies will also be sent to public libraries in Alamo, Caliente, Ely, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Mesquite, and Moapa and the Lincoln County High School library in Panaca. Q. How do I submit additional information to be presented in the final document? A. Mail written comments to: Project Manager, Desert Tortoise Plan Amendment, Ely District, Bureau of Land Management, HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, Nevada 89301 Q. What is the next step in the planning process? A. The public will be allowed 90 days for a comment period, which begins May 15, 1998. Public meetings to solicit comments will be held during the comment period in Caliente and Las Vegas. A final document will then be prepared, incorporating the public comments as appropriate. Q. When will the decision be made? A. The Record of Decision document is expected to be signed in early 1999. Q. What do I need to do to protect my right to protest the final decision if I am dissatisfied? A. To develop protest rights on a land use plan, the affected party must show they have participated in the process. This usually means that they have commented on the document as required. Q. How will we know when the desert tortoise is recovered? A. The objective of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan is to recover and delist the desert tortoise. To assist in this recovery and delisting, the recovery plan outlined delisting criteria for recovery. Desert tortoise populations are only capable of very slow growth. Therefore, delisting criteria state that if a desert tortoise population remains stationary or increases over a 25 year period (one desert tortoise generation) then delisting may be warranted. To achieve this stationary or increase in tortoise population size, sufficient habitat must also be protected along with regulatory mechanisms in place to allow for the recovery and long-term persistence of the desert tortoise. Delisting will considered on a recovery unit basis. Q. In Chapter 4 there is a wide range given for the estimated tortoise population in the Special Management Areas. Why is that? A. This is due to the survey techniques employed. Even though the best survey techniques available are used in the collection of population size and/or density information for wild animal populations, not all of the animals can be counted. This is especially true in the case of tortoise populations where the animals spend a lot of their time below ground. That is why desert tortoise densities are given in ranges. Q. Will allotment evaluations be conducted on allotments outside of the Special Management Areas? A. Yes, allotment evaluations will be conducted in the future on those allotments outside of the ACECs. CALIENTE MANAGMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT (X) DRAFT ( ) FINAL Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management County Directly Affected: Lincoln County, Nevada Environmental Impact Statement Contact: Correspondence on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be directed to: Gene Drais Project Manager Ely Field Office (702) 289-1800 Gene A. Kolkman, District Manager Bureau of Land Management Ely District HC 33 Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301-9408 Date Draft Environmental Impact Statement filed with United States Environmental Protection Agency: May 15, 1998. Date by which comments on this draft plan amendment and environmental impact statement must be received to be considered in the final environmental impact statement: August 14, 1998 ABSTRACT This Draft Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement for the Caliente Management Framework Plan would implement management goals and actions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. The Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) was listed as a threatened species in 1990, based on declining numbers in some areas of its range. These goals and actions, recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approved Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a), would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. This amendment is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover listed species within their administrative units. The accompanying EIS satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies analyze the environmental consequences of major undertakings. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely District. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. Official responsible for the plan amendment and the environmental impact statement: J (tfU^JLr, Robert V. Abbey State Director, Nevada V- /i ■ 92 Date ■ 225 SUMMARY The Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a threatened species in 1990 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, based on declining numbers in portions of its range and regional habitat loss and degradation. This Draft Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement for the Caliente Management Framework (MFP) proposes direction for implementation of goals and actions on desert tortoise habitat administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Lincoln County, Nevada. The MFP amendment complies with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover ESA listed species occurring within their administrative units. The proposed goals and actions herein are consistent with recommendations made in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (Recover Plan; USFWS 1994a) for assisting with recovery and delisting of populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The accompanying Environmental Impact Statement satisfies mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federal agencies to analyze environmental consequences resulting from proposed actions of significant magnitude. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely District. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. Purpose and Need The purpose of this amendment is to assist the recovery and delisting of the Mojave desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The plan is needed to implement site specific aspects from the recommended goals and actions in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. Proposed Action The Proposed Action would assist the desert tortoise recovery, while minimizing effects on human activities that occur on public lands. It includes recommendations derived from the Recovery Plan and public input, as well as management actions designed to be consistent with those proposed by adjacent BLM districts. The Proposed Action would: 1) designate three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); 2) implement management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat inside and outside of the ACECs; 3) ensure BLM participation in a USFWS-developed environmental education programs; and 4) implement a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. The three ACECs, totaling 212,500 acres, would protect 83 percent of designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Management prescriptions, designed to improve desert tortoise habitat, would modify or restrict some multiple uses, including livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle recreation, wildhorse and burro management, land use authorizations, and mineral development within the ACECs. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted with the USFWS on any federal action that might affect listed species. Alternatives Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) contains management goals and actions that are similar to the Proposed Action, with the exception of the management direction proposed for livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation. Under this alternative, three ACECs would be designated and managed. It would be unlikely that recovery of the desert tortoise through modifications of multiple use within those special management areas would occur because this alternative would not likely meet the nutritional needs of hatchlings and juveniles. Livestock grazing within the ACECs would be managed according to experimental forage production criteria. Recreation management direction would be modified to reduce restrictions on recreation use. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted with the USFWS on any federal action that might affect listed species. Mineral activities would be allowed in all management areas with management direction to minimize conflict with recovery efforts. ii SUMMARY Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) contains the management goals and prescriptions recommended in the Recovery Plan, with less emphasis on multiple use management of the public lands. Two special management areas, labeled Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs), would protect 52 percent of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. The DWMAs would contain approximately 307,000 acres and would be managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Management prescriptions would not authorize livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, mineral development, many land use authorizations, and some types of recreational activities within the DWMAs. No special management attention, other than required Section 7 consultation on federal actions that might affect listed species, would be directed to the approximately 454,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved Caliente MFP. Management recommendations from the Recovery Plan either would not be implemented or would not be systematically or comprehensively implemented. Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would continue to be conducted prior to the authorization of any federal action affecting listed species. Management direction would also be provided through the issuance of Biological Opinions by the USFWS through Section 7 consultation. Current management directions for livestock grazing and off-highway vehicle events were developed as a result of Biological Opinions issued to minimize effects on desert tortoise habitat. The No Action Alternative forms the baseline against which to assess the effects of the alternatives and is required for a comprehensive NEPA analysis. Issues and Impact Conclusions A number of important issues were raised for this environmental impact statement. These issues along with their impact conclusions are presented below. Impact conclusions include the implementation of mitigation measures that have been identified. These measures are presented in detail in Chapter 4 of this draft environmental impact statement. A summary and comparison of the environmental impacts for the proposed action and all alternatives can be found at the end of Chapter 2. Detailed discussions of impacts can be found in Chapter 4 of this draft environmental statement. TORTOISE HABITAT Issue: Increase protection of desert tortoise populations and habitat to assist with recovery goals outlined in the Recovery Plan. Conclusion: Proposed Action of the MFP Amendment directs development of three Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs) on which primary management emphasis will be for desert tortoise recovery. Land-use restrictions on ACECs benefitting the desert tortoise will generally allow other resource management to continue. GRAZING Issue: Loss of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) as a result of closing allotments to grazing. Conclusion: Loss of AUMs is being mitigated by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund (HCP), through a willing seller buy-out for those allotments that are within ACECs. LANDS Issue: Land Tenure Adjustments and Land Use Authorizations. Conclusion: The Proposed Action provides for retention of public lands within ACECs and designated critical iii SUMMARY habitat and also allows for disposal of public lands for community expansion, and agricultural development, in areas outside of the ACECs and designated critical habitat. Land Use Authorizations that envision surface disturbance will be denied or restricted within ACECs and designated critical habitat. RECREATION Issue: Provide corridors to allow organized OHV events to pass through desert tortoise habitat from population centers in Clark County into non-tortoise habitat to the north. Conclusion: The corridors suggested to allow events to pass through tortoise habitat to the north have been included in the Proposed Action to allow non-speed portions of OHV events access to points north. MINERALS Issue: Closure of lands from mineral entry and economic development. Conclusion: With the establishment of the special management areas (ACECs), mineral activities would be restricted but not closed in the Beaver Dam Slope and Mormon Mesa ACECs. The Kane Springs ACEC would be closed from mineral entry to protect higher tortoise habitat values. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES Issue: Effects that the amendment would have on economics in Lincoln County and also additional restrictions on use of public lands. Conclusion: No noticeable adverse economic effects are projected for the Lincoln County economy. Potentially, some additional costs may be borne by mineral operators, and some livestock operations would be reduced or curtailed. Several of the livestock operations have been inactive for a number of years; the active operations may be reimbursed by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan. WILD HORSES Issue: Use of public lands by wild horses and/or burros and the recovery of desert tortoise habitat. Conclusion: Grazing by wild horses and burros would be excluded from Special Management Areas in order to improve the habitat for desert tortoises. This would result in a reduction of 20-75 wild horses and 1-2 herd management areas. Preferred Alternative In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal agencies are required by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1502.14) to identify their preferred alternative for a project in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project. The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; it is rather an indication of the agency's preliminary preference. This alternative considered all the information that has been received and reviewed relevant to the proposed project. The agency preferred alternative is the Proposed Action as described in the environmental impact statement with all appropriate mitigation. IV SUMMARY Rationale The Proposed Action would most aid in recovery of the desert tortoise when compared to the other alternatives in that it meets 4 of the 5 delisting criteria in the Recovery Plan, while emphasizing desert tortoise recovery. It also allows multiple use objectives when compatible with desert tortoise recovery. Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Special Management Areas PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B Wildlife (desert tortoise and other special status species) Designate three areas of desert tortoise habitat as ACECs for a total of 212,500 acres or 83% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Manage desert tortoise habitat to assist the recovery and delisting of desert tortoise in the Northeast Recovery Unit. Maintain or improve habitat condition for desert tortoise and other special species. Designate Experimental Management zones as needed. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Participate in USFWS-developed environmental education program Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Identify two areas of desert tortoise habitat as DWMAs for a total of 307,000 acres or 52% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Authorize only those activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise habitat and other habitat. Establish barriers and underpasses for tortoise along heavily traveled roads and railroads. Designate up to 10% as Experimental Management Zones. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C No Special Management Areas would be designated. Prepare HMP's for desert tortoise and Gila monster. Protect habitat of desert tortoise and other special species through mitigative stipulations developed through the environmental (NEPA) process for each individual action. Program not developed. S-l Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Forestry and Vegetative Products Mgmt. Special Status Plant Species Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs, authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed or plant) except for salvage and research on case by case basis. Allow commercial sales outside of ACECs. Manage special status plant species to assure protection, maintainance and enhancement of habitat. Allotments or portions of allotments within Mormon Mesa, Kane Springs, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Grazing (cattle) allotments within the ACECs would be authorized if the following forage requirement was met: 288 lbs/acre of available tortoise forage. Sheep grazing (Beacon Allotment) within the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would be closed. Manage vegetative products in desert tortoise habitat for education, scientific purposes, sale and sustained yield. Same as Proposed Action Allotments or portions of allotments within the Mormon Mesa and Coyote Springs DWMA would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of the DWMAs would be open to grazing. Study, manage or allow sale of desert vegetation within planning area. Proceed issuance of authorization for surface disturbance with either free use or sale of vegetative products. Same as Proposed Action Conduct livestock grazing in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. (USFWS 1994c). Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing seasonal utilization limits. S-2 PROGRAM Wild Horse and Burro Management Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROPOSED ACTION The Mormon Mountains HMAwill no longer be managed for WH&B (0 AML), but will maintain its herd area status. For HMAs within desert tortoise habitat but outside of ACECs horse and burros would be managed with seasonal utilization limits. ALTERNATIVE A Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B Same as Proposed Action except with the addition of Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas where they existed at the passage of the WH&B Act of 1971 (PL- 92-195) Lands Retain all public lands Management within ACECs, and critical desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Allow disposal actions to occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. Allow land use authorizations outside of ACECs. Allow no new landfills within ACECs. Same as Proposed Action Retain all public lands and allow no disposal actions to occur within DWMAs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within DWMAs. Allow no land use authorizations within DWMAs that would cause any surface disturbance. Allow no new landfills within DWMAs. Provide public land for community expansion in the planning area as needed. Limit the transfer of public land for agriculture production to those areas that have been determined to have development potential. S-3 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Rights-of-Way Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Retain the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange (Aerojet) legislatively designated corridor. Designate three utility/transportation corridors as described on Map 2-7. Areas outside of corridors within ACECs would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas. Requests for new material site rights-of-way within ACECs, pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act, will be considered within a one-mile wide corridor along designated federal and county roads (Map 2-9). Material site rights-of-way outside of ACECs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Same as Proposed Action Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance within DWMAs. Do not authorize any activities associated with the transfer of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Locate and designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way exist. Consolidate all future communication site rights- of-way, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks. S-4 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE C Recreation Management OHV use in ACECs limited to designated roads & vehicle trails. ACECs closed to speed competitive OHV events. Non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events (or non-speed portions of speed events) may pass through ACECs on designated roads. OHV casual use and events, limited to existing roads and vehicle trails in desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. OHV use in ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. Speed competitive OHV events allowed to pass through ACECs on designated roads during tortoise inactive season (October 15 to March 15). Non-speed and non-competitive OHV events allowed to pass through without seasonal restriction. OHV designation outside of ACECs would remain open. OHV use within DWMAs limited to designated roads and limited speed. DWMAs closed to all competitive or organized events. Parking and camping within DWMAs restricted to designated sites No restriction of recreational use in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. OHV designations are mostly "open" with variations of "limited" in select areas. OHV events conducted in accordance with Biological Opinion for Las Vegas District Off-Road Events. Kane Springs Valley closed to competitive OHV events. S-5 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Minerals Kane Springs ACEC would Management be closed to fluid and non energy mineral leasables and operation under the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral materials disposal except one-mile wide corridors on designated federal and county roads. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to mineral entry with the following restrictions: ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ACECs remain open to the Mining Law of 1 872 subject to Plans of Operations. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices of operation for locatable minerals. Standard operating procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply. No surface use allowed in the planning unit for fluid minerals from March 15 October 15. Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. DWMAs withdrawn from mineral entry, closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral material disposal. Desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs remains open to mineral entry, fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, and mineral material disposal. ALTERNATIVE C All lands within the planning unit remain open to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing (except Mormon Caves), to operations of the General Mining Law, and to mineral material disposal. 1 . Under the General Mining Law of 1872 will be subject to Plans of Operation. ACECs closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. Planning unit remains open to non-energy mineral leasing with the same lease stipulation as oil and gas. S-6 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Management (continued) 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 1 5 to October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. S-7 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Management (continued) Outside ACECs 1. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices for locatable minerals. Standard Operating Procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply. 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. S-8 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Fire Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. Some suppression restrictions apply. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. S-9 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Total Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Management Prescriptions for Tortoise Habitat Outside of Special Management Areas Tortoise Population Trends Within Special Management Areas Ecological Status of Tortoise Habitat HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) 212,500 acres (28% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 203,700 acres (83% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 542,100 acres subject to Section 7 consultation plus additional proposed management. Upward. Number of AUMs reduced Maintain or improve within ACECs. Maintain outside ACECs. 2095 (Sheep) 3782 (Cattle) DESERT TORTOISE Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Maintain to downward trend. Maintain inside and outside ACECs. LIVESTOCK DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) 307,000 acres (41% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 126,700 acres (52% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 447,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation with no additional proposed management. Upward. 2095 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) Maintain or improve within DWMAs. Decrease outside of DWMAs. 0 (Sheep) 3688 (Cattle) 754,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation . Currently stable trend at Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots. Probable decline in trend in the future. Maintain S-10 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Number of allotments closed Number of allotments partially closed Current livestock use acres closed to grazing Current livestock non-use acres closed to grazing Appropriate Management Level (AML) for wild horses Number of Horses Removed 1 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 6 (Cattle) 50,600 161,900 0 for Mormon Mountains Herd Area; AML for Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 20 from outside of Mormon Mountains Herd Area. 1 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 5,600 0 WILD HORSES Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action 0 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 7 (Cattle) 92,300 214,700 0 for Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Areas; AML for Blue Nose Peak HMA to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 40 from Meadow Valley Mountains Herd .Area; 20 from outside of Herd Area boundaries. 0 0 None None AML for all three HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 20 from outside of HMA boundaries. S-ll Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention within SMAs Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention outside of SMAs Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Disposal Outside of SMAs ROWs: Cost to Customer Landfills Retain in public ownership all lands within ACECs (212,500 acres). Retain in public ownership 41,200 acres of designated critical desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs. 4,000 acres identified for potential disposal; additional disposals to be considered on a case-by- case basis. Least expense; due to ROW located in designated corridors where previous inventories, clearances, and disturbances have occurred. All unauthorized dumps will be closed and reclaimed. LANDS Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Retain in public ownership all lands within DWMAs (307,000 acres). Potentially dispose of critical desert tortoise habitat subject to Section 7 consultation. No acres specifically identified for disposal, however, disposals would be considered on a case-by-case basis for agricultural development and community expansion. Most expense due to least amount of management flexibility. Disposals to be considered on a case-by-case basis for agricultural development and community expansion. Less expense than DWMA Alternative, more expense than Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action S-12 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Recreation Access and OHV Use OHV Events HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) 212,500 acres within ACECs limited to designated roads and vehicle trails. 542,100 acres outside ACECs limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. 212,500 acres within ACECs closed to all speed competitive OHV events but, open to non-speed competitive & non- competitive OHV events on designated roads. 542,100 acres open to speed competitive OHV events on existing roads. RECREATION 212,500 acres within ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. 542,100 acres outside ACECs open. Emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 212,500 acres within ACECs open to speed competitive OHV events on designated roads during the tortoise inactive season. Non-speed competitive & non-competitive OHV events allowed on designated roads without seasonal restriction. 542,100 acres open to speed competitive OHV events on existing roads. 307,000 acres within DWMAs limited to designated roads. 447,600 acres outside DWMAs open; emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 307,000 acres within DWMAs closed to all competitive and organized OHV events. 447,600 acres open to competitive and organized events. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) 51,360 acres limited to existing roads and trails. 703,240 acres within planning area open; emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 754,600 acres open to OHV events in accordance with the current Biological Opinion. S-13 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM Minerals PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Kane Springs ACEC, 65,900 acres, closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal (except one-mile wide corridor on county and federal roads for maintenance under material rights-of-way and free use permits to local governments), and closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, 146,600 acres will be subject to a Plans of Operation requirement. MINERALS 0 acres closed to withdrawels. 754,600 acres open to locatable minerals only with restriction on 212,500 acres, subject to plans of operateration. 307,000 acres closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal, and to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. 307,000 acres closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal, and to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. 754,600 acres open to mineral entry. 0 acres closed to withdrawals. 0 acres open with restrictions. Outside ACECs, 542,100 acres, open to locatable mineral. Same as Proposed Action No special management outside ACECs. 0 acres open with restrictions. S-14 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT DWMA ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) (ALT B) ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Mineral Cont. Within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. 212,500 acres closed to mineral materials except one-mile wide corridor of designated roads and trails. Outside ACECs, 542,100 acres, open to mineral materials with Standard Operating Procedures. 688,700 acres open to non- energy and fluid leasable minerals with minor lease stipulations. Additional cost of operations and the loss of minerals to industry. 212,500 acres closed to mineral materials except one-mile wide corridor on designated roads. 542,100 acres open to mineral material with minor restrictions. Same as Proposed Action 542,100 acres will be open to non-energy and fluid leasable minerals with minor lease stipulations. Same cost of operation as the Proposed Action but no loss of mineral values would occur. No special management outside ACECs. No special management outside ACECs. Outside DWMAs, 447,600 acres, open to mineral entry with restrictions. Loss of minerals and potential values of minerals to the public and industry 0 acres open with restrictions. 0 acres open with restrictions. 2,880 acres closed to fluid mineral leasing. No additional cost of operations. S-15 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Fire Management Due to protection of habitat combined with minimizing surface disturbance, fire suppression and management will be more expensive due to the additional coordination and mitigation required. FIRE MANAGEMENT Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action S-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF MAPS ix SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (TABLE S-l) S-l SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (TABLE S-2) S-10 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1 LOCATION AND LAND STATUS 1-5 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS 1-5 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS 1-5 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 1-8 PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW 1-8 PLANNING CRITERIA 1-9 CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS 2-2 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 2-3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-8 PROPOSED ACTION 2-8 ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) 2-37 ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) 2-40 ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 2-54 AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2-61 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 2-62 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION 3-1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 3-1 SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES 3-8 FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS 3-20 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES 3-21 LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 3-21 WILD HORSES AND BURROS MANAGEMENT 3-21 LANDS 3-25 RECREATION 3-25 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 3-26 FLUID MINERALS 3-27 SOLID MINERALS 3-28 FIRE MANAGEMENT 3-29 SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES 3-30 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION 4-1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS 4-1 INCOMPLETE AND/OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION 4-2 REASONABLE FORESEEABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 4-3 PROPOSED ACTION (BLM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 4-5 ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) 4-29 ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) 4-37 ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 4-56 POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES 4-67 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-71 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 4-72 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-73 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 4-73 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-74 IMPACT ANALYSIS 4-101 CHAPTER 5-CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION INTRODUCTION 5-1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 5-1 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-7 LIST OF REVIEWERS 5-9 REFERENCES CITED R-l ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AA-1 GLOSSARY GG-1 INDEX 1-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (MOJAVE-SOUTHERN GREAT BASIN RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL) A-l APPENDIX B ACEC NOMINATION EVALUATION B-l APPENDIX C LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS C-l APPENDIX D OHV STIPULATIONS FOR SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS D-l APPENDIX E STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR LANDS & MINERALS E-l APPENDIX F ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY DATA F-l APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF FORAGE SPECIES CONSUMED BY TORTOISE G-l APPENDIX H GRAZING MANAGEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACECS H-2 Vll TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES TABLE S-l SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES S-l TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS S-10 TABLE 2-1 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY WITHIN ACECS 2-13 TABLE 2-2 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBER OF AUMS IN ACECS .... 2-17 TABLE 2-3 PROPOSED SEASON OF USE & NUMBER OF AUMS OUTSIDE OF PROPOSED ACECS 2-32 TABLE 2-4 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY WITHIN DWMAS 2-47 TABLE 2-5 CURRENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF AUMS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING WITHEST PROPOSED DWMAS 2-49 TABLE 2-6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 2-62 TABLE 3-1 SPRINGS IN THE PLANNING AREA 3-4 TABLE 3-2 RANGE CONDITION CLASSES (SERAL STAGE) 3-6 TABLE 3-3 ESTIMATED TORTOISE NUMBERS BY DENSITY CLASS 3-14 TABLE 3-4 ACTUAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS 3-14 TABLE 3-5 ALLOTMENT PERMITTED USE 3-23 TABLE 3-6 ALLOTMENT ACREAGE IN DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT 3-24 TABLE 3-7 LINCOLN COUNTY EARNINGS AND EMPLOYMENT 3-34 TABLE 4-1 PROPOSED ACECS WITH ACREAGE AND TORTOISE POPULATION 4-6 TABLE 4-2 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY IN PROPOSED ACECS 4-18 TABLE 4-3 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-PROPOSED ACTION 4-21 TABLE 4-4 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATIVE A 4-33 TABLE 4-5 PROPOSED DWMAS WITH ESTIMATED TORTOISE POPULATIONS 4-37 TABLE 4-6 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY IN PROPOSED DWMAS .... 4-47 TABLE 4-7 MK-JERAL MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATIVE B 4-50 TABLE 4-8 MINERAL MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATIVE C 4-61 TABLE 4-9 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 4-72 TABLE 4-10 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS-NORTHEAST RECOVERY UNIT . . 4-103 TABLE 4-1 1 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION NORTHEAST RECOVERY UNIT 4-104 TABLE 4-12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 4-119 TABLE 5-1 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-7 TABLE 5-2 LIST OF REVIEWERS 5-9 TABLE C-l POSSIBLE SALES, EXCHANGES, AND R&PP PATENT LOCATIONS C-4 TABLE C-2 POTENTIAL AIRPORT PATENT LOCATIONS C-5 TABLE F-l ECOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION F-2 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS MAP 1-1 NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT 1-2 MAP 1-2 GENERAL LOCATION OF PLANNING AREA 1-6 MAP 1-3 PLANNING AREA !"7 MAP 2-1 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 2-7 MAP 2-2 PROPOSED ACECS 2-9 MAP 2-3 PROPOSED ACECS AND CRITICAL HABITAT 2-10 MAP 2-4 GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND PROPOSED ACECS 2-14 MAP 2-5 CATTLE USE AREAS IN ALLOTMENTS/ACECS 2-15 MAP 2-6 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS/ACECS 2-19 MAP 2-7 PROPOSED UTILITY CORRIDORS/ACECS 2-21 MAP 2-8 PROPOSED DESIGNATED OHV ROUTES/ACECS 2-25 MAP 2-9 PROPOSED MINERAL MATERIALS CORRIDORS WITHIN ACECS 2-26 MAP 2-10 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS IN PLANNING AREA 2-33 MAP 2-11 PROPOSED DWMAS 2-41 MAP 2-12 PROPOSED DWMAS AND CRITICAL HABITAT 2-43 MAP 2-13 GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND PROPOSED DWMAS 2-45 MAP 2-14 CATTLE USE AREAS IN ALLOTMENTS/DWMAS 2-46 MAP 2-15 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS/DWMAS 2-48 a MAP 3-1 KEY AREA TRANSECTS IN CRITICAL HABITAT 3-7 MAP 3-2 CURRENT DESERT TORTOISE DISTRIBUTIONS 3-12 MAP 3-3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN PLANNING AREAS 3-22 MAP 4-1 NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT PROPOSED DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT AREAS 4-75 IX CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this plan amendment is to implement management goals and actions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. These goals and actions, recommended in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a), would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (Map 1-1). The amendment is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover listed species within their administrative units. Management direction for this plan amendment was also developed within the context of BLM's mandate from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to manage public lands under multiple use and sustained yield. In 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under the authority of the ESA, listed the Mojave population of the desert tortoise as a threatened species. The ESA calls for the preparation and implementation of recovery plans for those listed species that are likely to benefit from the effort. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to appoint recovery teams to prepare such plans. A recovery plan must establish recovery goals and objectives, describe site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve those goals, and estimate the time and cost required for recovery. A recovery plan is not self-implementing, but presents a set of recommendations, endorsed by an approving official representing the Department of the Interior (USFWS 1994a). "Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the [U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service" (USFWS, p. 1, 1994a). According to the USFWS, "recovery plans are only guides which provide possible options" and impose "no obligations on any agency, entity or persons to fulfill the various tasks listed in the Plan" (USFWS, p. 1, 1995a). The reader should be aware that BLM was represented on the recovery team, conducted an independent and extensive review of the Recovery Plan, and as a result, the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group (BLM State Directors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and the four State Wildlife Management Agency heads) concurred with the Recovery Plan. To be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, however, this environmental impact statement shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made (C.E.Q. 1502.2 (g)). In 1994, BLM signed a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 13 other federal agencies to improve implementation of the ESA. Under the terms of this MOU, cooperating agencies have agreed to use their authorities to conserve federally listed species and to cooperate in the implementation of recovery plan actions, Conservation Agreements, and other affirmative conservation actions developed by regional interagency groups. The USFWS issued the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (hereinafter Recovery Plan) in 1994. This plan identified specific recovery units, developed criteria for the recovery and delisting of the MAP 1-1 Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit Recovery Unit Boundary Caliente MFP Amendment Planning Area -Desert Tortoise Habitat 50 50 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using ArcyinfoGIS 1-2 CHAPTER 1 ^ INTRODUCTION species, and recommended actions to be implemented on federal lands to achieve those goals. The Recovery Plan stated that the Mojave population of desert tortoise would be considered eligible for delisting on a recovery unit basis when the following conditions were met: Criterion 1: As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically significant upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years (one desert tortoise generation). Criterion 2: Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the habitat and desert tortoise population must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability. Criterion 3: Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1.0 into the future. Criterion 4: Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoise and their habitat, such as those described in Sections II, D and E of the Recovery Plan. Delisting would be followed by a loss of protection under the ESA; therefore, adequate protection through alternative means is essential before delisting can occur. Criterion 5: The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under the ESA in the foreseeable future (USFWS, p. 43-44, 1994a). Additional Background Information: The desert tortoise is found throughout the Mojave, Sonoran, and Colorado Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Two distinct desert tortoise populations are recognized: the Sonoran population, located east and south of the Colorado River, and the Mojave population, found west and north of the Colorado River. Only the Mojave population has been listed as under the ESA. This plan amendment addresses the management of the public lands in Lincoln County, Nevada that provide habitat for Mojave desert tortoise populations. In 1980, federal management actions for tortoise decline was formally effected for a portion of the Mojave population occurring along the Beaver Dam Slope of Utah. Action by the USFWS resulted in listing the Beaver Dam population as threatened and designation of 35 mi2 as critical habitat. By the late 1980's, federal land management agencies were developing enhanced management actions to benefit desert tortoise habitat and populations. In 1988, the Desert Tortoise Habitat on Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan was published (BLM 1988). The Rangewide Plan called for BLM managers to categorize all habitat using four criteria based on: relative importance of habitat to support viable tortoise populations; conflict resolve with other land uses; and, tortoise population density and trend. In keeping with the Rangewide Plan, a Management Oversight Group (MOG), consisting of multi-agency representation of primarily federal and state governments, was established in 1988 to oversee implementation of Rangewide Plan objectives inclusive of interagency coordination of activities. Facilitated by the BLM, the MOG was empowered to develop both management policies and research funding priorities benefitting the desert tortoise. Current desert tortoise protection by Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah state wildlife agencies varies and centers on laws, regulations, and policies regarding collection, possession, trade, and transportation of individuals. The exception is with California which also has habitat authority through its endangered species act. Protection afforded by the states has changed over the decades. For example, collection or killing the desert tortoise was unlawful by the mid-1950's in Nevada. The Board of Wildlife Commissioners later acted on species 1-3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION classifications under authority of Nevada revised Statutes 501.110.1(d). Classifications were revised in 1978 and 1991 from Protected and Rare to Protected and Threatened, respectively (Nevada Administrative Codes 503.080). Similarly, the desert tortoise was elevated to a Threatened species by action of California's Fish and Game Commission on June 22, 1989. Both California and Nevada have adopted the desert tortoise as their State Reptile. Using the 240-day emergency rule of the ESA, the USFWS listed the Mojave population of the desert tortoise as endangered on August 4, 1989. Except for animals in captivity prior to the listing date, all desert tortoises were affected protection under the ESA. On April 2, 1990, the USFWS published its final ruling of the Mojave Population as Threatened based on several factors. Desert tortoise numbers have been declining in some areas, particularly in the western Mojave Desert. The declines have been attributed to habitat loss or degradation, direct and indirect human-caused mortality, and more recently localized predation, and disease. An estimated 21 million acres of habitat are occupied by the Mojave population of desert tortoise; of that total, 14 million acres are public lands administered by BLM (unpublished report to the MOG, June 1995). Habitat loss has been a consequence of urbanization, agricultural development, livestock grazing, mining, and road development. Other human activities, including the removal of tortoises from the wild for pets, have been implicated in the declining numbers. Because of historic increase in raven populations, localized tortoise population have experienced heavier predation pressure, particularly on juvenile recruitment. The importance of predation by other species is not well understood. An upper respiratory tract disease has been implicated as a significant factor for some tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert. (USFWS 1994a). While populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, which includes the desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, do not seem to be undergoing major changes in numbers or densities, population levels are considered to be dangerously low (written communication, Brussard 1994). The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Mojave population in 1994. Critical habitat designation includes "areas that contain the best remaining tortoise habitat" and "areas that contain essential habitat features (whether or not they are currently occupied by the listed species)" (Federal Register, p. 5828, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). It also identifies those habitat areas that may require special management attention. The designation of critical habitat "does not prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), nor does it have a direct effect on areas not designated as critical habitat " (Federal Register, p. 5821, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The USFWS conducts consultations under Section 7 of the ESA for actions that may affect listed species and their habitat. Section 7 consultation for critical habitat focuses on the effects of actions, whether or not that habitat is currently occupied by the listed species. Any action that may adversely modify critical habitat will trigger Section 7 consultation. "The requirement to consider adverse modification of critical habitat is an incremental Section 7 consideration above and beyond Section 7 review necessary to evaluate jeopardy and incidental take" (Federal Register, pg, 5834, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). In 1990, the Secretary of the Interior appointed a Desert Tortoise Recovery Team, consisting of eight members, generally academic scientists with expertise in desert tortoise biology, conservation biology, epidemiology, population dynamics, and desert plant communities. The team met 17 times between October 1990 and April 1994 in order to develop recommendations for recovery strategies. During development of the Recovery Plan, the team solicited input from the MOG. In June of 1994, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Team, with the concurrence of the MOG, issued the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan describes a strategy for the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population that includes: 1) identification of six recovery units within the Mojave Desert. region; 2) establishment of a system of special management areas (SMAs), identified as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) within the recovery units; and 3) development and implementation of specific recovery actions within the DWMAs. The proposed 1-4 II I IIHIilll H'lf IWIWIIIIIflllilllllllllllllimilMllHUI I III ■! I ■11111] CHAPTER 1 ^ ^^ ^ ^^ INTRODUCTION DWMAs would include a portion of the designated critical habitat, as well as other desert tortoise habitat not designated as critical (Federal Register, p. 5746-5768, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The final boundaries of the proposed DWMAs were to be determined by land management agencies, in consultation with the USFWS, "through a planning process that is coordinated with local government and interested members of the public" (Federal Register, p. 5833, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). In developing the proposed DWMAs, land management agencies would have the opportunity "to consider local custom and culture in their decision process" (Federal Register, p.5839, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The planning area for this amendment is managed under the Caliente Management Framework Plan (MFP), approved in February, 1982. Since many of the goals and objectives proposed to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would not be in conformance with direction contained in the approved MFP, an amendment to the MFP is needed. LOCATION AND LAND STATUS The Caliente Field Station, an administrative unit within the BLM's Ely District, is located in Caliente, Nevada and administers public land in the southern half of Lincoln County (Map 1-2). Approximately 3.4 million acres of public lands are contained within the Resource Area; desert tortoise habitat comprises approximately 754,600 acres of that total. The planning area for this amendment is defined as BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County; this habitat generally occurs at elevations below 4,000 feet (Map 1-3). No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS The Proposed Action or alternatives would amend the approved Caliente MFP for the planning area; no alternatives address the management of areas outside of the planning area. The Proposed Action or alternatives would be in conformance with the remainder of the decisions contained within the approved MFP. Neither the Proposed Action nor any alternatives proposed in this plan amendment contain direction that is inconsistent with approved activity plans for the planning unit. The Proposed Action or alternatives also conform to the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health recommended by the Mojave-Southem Great Basin Resource Advisory Council to the BLM Nevada State Director in 1996 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 12 1997. (Appendix A) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS Management of non-speed OHV events in the Proposed Action differs from adjacent BLM district plans. The Las Vegas District in Nevada proposes an array of restrictions including limiting numbers of events per year and per ACEC according to active or inactive season of the tortoise, requiring special recreation permits for small organized events, closing the ACECs for brief periods at the beginning and end of the tortoise active season, etc. The Arizona Strip Field Office in Arizona would close ACECs to non-speed events during the tortoise ' active season. The Dixie Field Office, Utah; Tonopah Field Office, Nevada; and Ely Field Office, Nevada will be consistent in restricting non-speed OHV events to designated roads without seasonal or other restrictions. The Proposed Action or alternatives are consistent with the approved resource-related policies and programs of other federal agencies and the State of Nevada. Approved land use plans for adjacent federal administrative 1-5 Caliente MFP Amendment for Management of Desert Map 1"2 Tortoise Habitat - General Location of the Caliente MFP Planning Unit N 20 20 40 60 80 Miles Lincoln County Caliente MFP Planning Unit i r Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/Info CIS 1-6 Caliente MFP Amendment for Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat - Planning Area Map 1-3 □ Planning Area (excluding all private lands) Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/Info CIS 1-7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION units include the Clark County MFP, the Esmeralda- Nye Resource Management Plan (RMP), Arizona Strip District RMP, the Virgin River MFP, the Nellis Air Force Range Resource Plan, and the Desert Wildlife Range Management Plan. Plans approved by adjacent counties include the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan (Nevada) and the Washington County (Utah) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Proposed Action and alternatives are also consistent with the Lincoln County Policy Plan for the Management of Public Lands, which recommends that federal land managing agencies "[i]dentify, protect, and preserve wildlife species and habitats on public lands "(Lincoln County Policy Plan, p. Ll-10, 1984). The Policy Plan also recommends that "[t]he Federal Government should continue to make public rangelands economically and realistically available for livestock grazing, where compatible with other multiple use objectives" (LI-7). Further, the Lincoln County Policy Plan endorses the management of off-highway vehicle use on public lands "to minimize negative environmental impacts" (LI-9). Management actions identified in the Proposed Action or alternatives would not be consistent with a resolution passed by the Lincoln County Commissioners on June 20, 1994. This resolution states that the Lincoln County Commission is "adamantly opposed ... to land exchanges or transfers that take land either off of county tax rolls or place land into a tax exempt status" (Lincoln County Commission Resolution #1994-10) (see Chapter 2, Lands Section). Several adjacent BLM administrative units are preparing land use plans or amendments in order to implement the recovery goals and objectives identified for the Mojave population of desert tortoise. The Las Vegas District (Las Vegas, Nevada), Tonopah Resource Area (Tonopah, Nevada), and the Dixie Resource Area (Cedar City, Utah) are preparing RMPs that address many of the issues analyzed in this plan amendment. The Arizona Strip District (Arizona) is amending the Arizona Strip District RMPs to accommodate management actions recommended by the Recovery Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO STATUES AND REGULATIONS The Proposed Action or alternatives are in accordance with applicable federal statutes and regulations, including the Taylor Grazing Act, the FLPMA, the ESA, the Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act, Congressional mandates, and Executive Orders. PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW The land use planning process, as mandated by FLPMA, requires BLM to solicit and incorporate public input in the management of public lands, while still complying with the laws and policies established by Congress and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Amendments to approved land use plans are developed using the planning process, following these basic steps. Identification of Issues Issues drive the plan amendment process and indicate concerns which the BLM and the public may have regarding the management of specific resources in a planning area. An issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem pertaining to the management of public lands and associated resources. Identification of issues orients the planning process so that interdisciplinary analysis and documentation are directed toward resolution of the issues. 1-8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The BLM is required to comply with the provisions of the ESA, as amended. This plan amendment constitutes a single issue planning document that will address the management of BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. It responds to the following planning questions: 1 . What management actions will be implemented to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit? 2. Where will SMAs be designated within the desert tortoise habitat of the planning area? 3. What constraints, if any, will be placed on other resource uses? Development of Planning Criteria Planning criteria are formulated to guide the development of a land use plan amendment. The criteria are derived from laws; Executive Orders; regulations; planning principles; BLM guidance; consultation with interest groups and the general public; and available resource information for the area. The planning criteria for this amendment are as follows: I . Comply with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. 2 Define the planning area as BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat within Lincoln County, Nevada. 3. Management direction within the existing Caliente MFP that pertain to lands outside desert tortoise habitat remain in effect and will be unchanged by this amendment. 4. Develop and implement management actions to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan in order to assist in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 5. Use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of public land management. 6. Weigh short and long-term benefits and detriments. 7. Coordinate BLM resource inventory, planning and management activities with the resource planning and management programs of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes, to the extent consistent with applicable laws. 8. Rely on available inventories and existing resource data in the planning area to reach sound management decisions. 9. Grazing permittees will receive compensation upon closure of the Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments through this Land Use Plan Amendment. 10. Desert Tortoise inactive season in the planning area is October 15 to March 15. I I . The USFWS will revise critical habitat designations in the planning area to be consistent with the designated special management areas for tortoise. 1-9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Inventory and Data Evaluation Using the planning criteria and focusing on the management of desert tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, BLM specialists reviewed and evaluated available data. These data included field examinations, published and unpublished studies, and consultations with individuals and staff from other agencies and organizations. Analysis of the Management Situation The Analysis of the Management Situation was prepared to describe the condition and capabilities of resources within the planning area. The analysis provides the database for developing and evaluating alternatives and is generally incorporated into the draft Plan Amendment as the Affected Environment, and to some extent, the No Action Alternative. Formulation of Alternatives On the basis of the issues, planning criteria, and concerns raised during scoping, the Proposed Action and three comprehensive alternatives were developed for consideration. The No Action Alternative (Alternative C) is required by law and represents a continuation of present activities. Each alternative must meet the purpose and need for action and address the issues, while emphasizing different management. Several alternatives were considered but were eliminated from detailed analyses; these are described in Chapter 2, with a discussion of why they were not further considered. Estimation of the Effects of Alternatives In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative are estimated, to allow for a comparative evaluation of impacts (Chapter 4). Site-specific environmental assessments (EAs) will be prepared for projects and proposals that implement the management guidance contained in the approved Plan Amendment. Selection of the Preferred Alternative The Ely District Manager recommended a Preferred Alternative to the Nevada State Director, based on the issues and information identified through the planning process; coordination and consultation with other entities; and the impact analyses of the alternatives. The Draft Plan Amendment/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is then distributed to the public, including other government agencies and interest groups, for a 90-day review and comment period. Selection of the Proposed Plan Amendment Following the public review and comment period, the Ely District Manager will recommend a Proposed Plan Amendment to the Nevada State Director. Based on an evaluation of the public comments, the BLM may retain the Preferred Alternative or select a different alternative from the range of alternatives identified in the Draft Plan Amendment. The Proposed Plan Amendment/Final EIS will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and distributed to the public for review. 1-10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation are conducted annually and at 5 year intervals for the plan amendment. These will be used to determine the effectiveness of the plan amendment in achieving the desired results; to ensure that mitigation measures are satisfactory; and to ascertain whether there have been changes in related plans of other Federal, State or local governments. Any information gained will be incorporated into future planning, including other amendments or revisions to the Caliente MFP. 1-11 ■■:.::v ■■■■■ ■ aaa«gafflBBafflrrnwTnrrn CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the Draft Plan Amendment, including the Proposed Action and three alternatives. The focus of the Proposed Action and alternatives is to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Each alternative contains objectives and directions or actions for the management of desert tortoise habitat; some management actions are the same for more than one alternative. The Proposed Action and alternatives represent a range of reasonable future management options. In making the final decision, the BLM may choose to combine portions of the alternatives. SMAs for desert tortoise are proposed as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in the Proposed Action and Alternative A and as DWMAs in Alternative B (DWMA Alternative). Both types of SMAs would protect tortoise habitat but would be subject to different management prescriptions and constraints. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed Action The Proposed Action focuses on desert tortoise recovery and delisting, while minimizing effects on human activities that occur in desert tortoise habitat. It is based on recommendations derived from the Recovery Plan, as well as management actions designed to be consistent with those proposed by adjacent BLM districts. The Proposed Action includes management objectives and goals intended to benefit desert tortoise habitat both within and outside of the proposed ACECs. Nominations for the ACECs were provided by interested groups or members of the public. The locations and boundary configurations for these areas were based on input received during public scoping for this plan amendment and field trips with the USFWS, adjoining BLM offices, and Fish and Game Agencies. Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. The actions and prescriptions in this alternative are consistent with balanced multiple use and ecosystem management. Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) contains management goals, objectives, and prescriptions that are similar to those described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of Livestock Grazing, Recreation Management, and Minerals Management. Under this alternative, multiple use would be modified by prescriptions for livestock grazing, minerals, and recreational uses within the three proposed ACECs. Section 7 consultation for any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) contains management goals, objectives, and prescriptions recommended by the Recovery Plan, with less emphasis on multiple use management. Boundary configurations for the proposed DWMAs were developed from maps and data contained in the Recovery Plan. Management prescriptions would be applied only within the proposed DWMAs, since the Recovery Plan states that "no active management is recommended" for desert tortoise populations outside of DWMAs, unless those populations are in jeopardy (USFWS, pg. 45, 1994a). Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Alternative C (No Action Alternative) Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved MFP and activity plan decisions. No management recommendations from the Recovery Plan would be implemented. Although the Caliente MFP was approved prior to the development of the BLM Rangewide Plan for Desert Tortoise (BLM 1988), the decisions contained in the MFP are consistent with that plan. The approved MFP decisions are also consistent with the designation of critical habitat, since that designation "does not offer specific direction for managing desert tortoise habitat " (Federal Register, pg. 5833, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). Section 7 consultations with the USFWS, required by the ESA, would continue to be completed for any federal actions that could affect a listed species or its habitat; prescriptions resulting from those consultations would provide BLM management direction for desert tortoise habitat. One important change since the approval of the Caliente MFP in 1982 has been the issuance of decisions that restrict livestock grazing within allotments in desert tortoise habitat during tortoise spring activity periods (March-June). A biological evaluation of livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat was submitted to the USFWS in 1991. The Section 7 consultation resulted in a Biological Opinion that contained a non-discretionary condition precluding livestock grazing from March 1 through June 14 of each year (USFWS, 1994c). The seasonal prescription on livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat is now part of the No Action Alternative. The BLM issued "full force and effect" decisions to the grazing permittees, based on that Biological Opinion. The decisions were appealed by the livestock operators. In November 1995, an Administrative Law Judge (ALF) for the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) upheld the BLM decisions. Subsequent to that ruling, the Desert Livestock Producers filed suit in Federal District Court seeking a permanent injunction against BLM to stay the Livestock Grazing decision that implemented the Biological Decisions. This case is currently pending. Following the USFWS designation of critical habitat in 1994, BLM reinitiated Section 7 consultation on livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat. Full force and effect decisions were issued to grazing permittees, based on the resulting Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. These decisions were also appealed. The livestock grazing portion of Alternative C (No Action Alternative) in the Draft Plan Amendment is based on the 1991 and 1994 evaluations and the resultant Biological Opinions. Another change in management direction since the approval of the Caliente MFP concerns Special Recreation Permits in the planning area. As a result of Section 7 consultation in 1995, the USFWS issued a programmatic Biological Opinion for speed-based off-highway vehicle (OHV) events in tortoise habitat, outside of designated critical habitat (USFWS, 1995c). The Biological Opinion limits the number of speed events that can be held in tortoise habitat on an annual basis and requires the routing of the events on previously used courses. The management direction for speed-based competitive events under Alternative C (No Action Alternative) is based on the 1995 Biological Opinion. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS: Public Scoping Recommendations Public scoping comments recommended two alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because they would not meet the purpose and need for the action. The first of these alternatives was a recommendation by the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission that BLM not implement any management actions to recover and delist the threatened desert tortoise in Lincoln County. As a federal agency, BLM is required to follow the mandates of all applicable public land laws, including the ESA. This act requires that federal land managing agencies take actions to recover and delist threatened or endangered species within their 2-2 HS^^^E^HBBB^nai^BBHBttaSHSBaiSBHBBl CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES administrative jurisdictions. An alternative that would not meet the purpose and need to aid in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would place the agency in violation of the law. This alternative was, thus, eliminated from detailed analysis. A second alternative was proposed by a member of the public during scoping that would have modified uses on public lands to eliminate all domestic livestock grazing, vegetation harvest, biological specimen collection, and many other human activities from desert tortoise habitat. Under this proposal, wild horses and burros would continue to be managed in herd management areas (HMAs) in desert tortoise habitat. Such an alternative would not meet BLM's mandate for multiple use management of the public lands. It would also not meet the purpose and need for action, because it would not provide an appropriate level of management for all grazing uses to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. For these reasons, the proposal was also eliminated from detailed analysis. Recovery Plan Recommendations The Recovery Plan recommends that wild horses and burros not be managed within any SMA established to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (USFWS, pg. we, 1994a). An analysis of the management situation indicated that the construction of fencing would be required, in order to restrict access by wild horse and burro herds into the proposed SMAs. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL 92-195, as amended) mandates that "[a]ll management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level..." (Sec.3 (a)). The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 4710.4 also states that "[mjanagement shall be at the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in the approved land use plans and herd management area plans". Based on this legislative and regulatory direction, BLM has discouraged the use of fencing or other man-made devices to control wild horse and burro movements. Therefore, any proposal requiring the use of fencing to control wild horses and burros was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The development of new water sources to manage wild horse and burro distributions (within HMAs but outside of proposed SMAs) was also considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. It is unlikely that BLM could obtain new water rights for this purpose, since the Meadow Valley watershed, within which the planning area is located, is fully adjudicated. This Plan Amendment will not further consider the development of new water sources as a management tool for wild horses and burros. During the planning process, BLM, in coordination with the USFWS, identified several management recommendations from the Recovery Plan that did not need to be included in the Proposed Action or alternatives. In some areas of desert tortoise habitat, uncontrolled dogs outside of vehicles and the unauthorized discharge of firearms on public lands can negatively impact desert tortoise populations located near large, urban areas (USFWS 1994a). Due to the rural, unpopulated character of the planning area, these activities have not been identified as threats within the SMAs proposed by this Draft Plan Amendment (USFWS, Appendix G, 1994a). For these reasons, the management recommendations from the Recovery Plan which addressed uncontrolled dogs and the discharge of firearms were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES: This section describes resource management guidance that is applicable, and therefore, common to the Proposed Action and all of the alternatives. Continuing management guidance includes laws, Executive Orders, regulations, Memoranda of Understanding, Cooperative Agreements, Department of the Interior manuals, BLM Instruction Memoranda, and other management practices and prescriptions that will not change or be proposed for change within this plan amendment. The Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health, developed by the 2-3 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1997, would also comprise management guidance common to the Proposed Action and alternatives (see Appendix A). The following resources will continue to be managed under valid existing management decisions contained in the approved Caliente MFP. The environmental impacts of land use actions not specifically covered in this plan amendment will continue to be analyzed in site-specific documents, as required by NEPA. Such analyses will be completed on a case-by-case basis. Proposed actions that are not in conformance with land use decisions in the Caliente MFP may be modified, denied, or evaluated through the plan amendment process. AIR RESOURCES All BLM and BLM-authorized activities will be managed to prevent air quality deterioration beyond the thresholds established by the Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards. Mitigation measures will be developed on a project-specific basis, through the NEPA and statutory or regulatory processes, to reduce impacts on air quality. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Soil and water resources will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as part of project level planning. Such evaluation will consider the potential impacts of the project and the sensitivity of soil and water resources in the area. Stipulations will be attached, as appropriate, to ensure protection of these resources. Soils Soils will be managed to maintain or improve rangeland productivity and to minimize potential wind and water erosion. Soils data will be used in project planning, with mitigation measures developed through the NEPA process to prevent deterioration or degradation of the soils resource. Water Resources Water quality will be maintained or improved in accordance with applicable federal and State of Nevada standards. Consultations will be undertaken with state agencies for proposed projects that could significantly affect water quality. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT If any areas are designated by Congress as Wilderness Areas, those areas will automatically be reclassified as Visual Resource Management Class I areas and will be managed accordingly. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT The BLM will continue to manage lands to meet the goals and objectives of any Recovery Plans and approved Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would continue to be conducted, as required by applicable law. Monitoring of desert tortoise populations will continue to be conducted, in cooperation with the USFWS and NDOW. Protection of sensitive species and their habitat will be considered in all BLM-authorized or initiated activities. The BLM will implement a monitoring program which will be approved by the MOG. 2-4 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Predator control will be authorized, as required, through the District Animal Damage Control Plan, in coordination with the USFWS, NDOW, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Protocols were formalized in an Interagency Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior-BLM and the Department of Agriculture in 1995 (60 FR 26045-48 5-16-95). The BLM will rehabilitate previously distributed areas, when and where possible. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Livestock grazing occurring within the planning area would be consistent with the standards and guidelines for rangeland health developed by the Mojave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT Wild horses and burros that establish home ranges beyond the boundaries of an HMA will continue to be removed. Wild horses and burros will continue to be removed from private lands, after a request from the private land owner is made and reasonable efforts to keep the animals off private lands have failed. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Cultural resources will continue to be managed to evaluate, conserve, and interpret the full array of archeological, historical, and socio-cultural values in the planning area. Federal laws, such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, as amended, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended, provide for the protection and management of these resources. These laws are implemented through Federal regulations, Programmatic Agreements, and BLM Manual guidance. Significant paleontological resources are protected under FLPMA. These values will continue to be managed through the issuance of permits. RECREATION MANAGEMENT A 14-day (consecutive) camping limit in any 28-day period will continue to be imposed at any one area on public lands. To protect resources, BLM may close any site to occupancy by posting notification. Emergency designations would be made, as needed, in response to potential resource damage. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS MANAGEMENT All actions on lands under wilderness review will be processed in accordance with the BLM Manual H-8550-1, entitled Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP), until Congress either designates those lands as Wilderness Areas or releases them for other uses. Should areas be released from wilderness consideration, management direction contained in this plan amendment would apply to these areas. 2-5 6\ H IT1 o T1 ^ D" > ^1 a c/i CI 50 cd 3 3, h r g m z -a H P 3 P S o o 3 1 0 o S o' 3 O T3 s rt Crq re 3 re 3 p o <' > w 2 S H o o p 3 a. a CO 12 ?. o a ^ <: 3 1 — ■ rt 3" fa o 3 3 pa CD 3 3 rt rt 3 O r+ 31 3 r. n 0 ct 3 B < P r? 3 C ft 3 CO 0 0 c» 3 CO l^ r1 3 £ o o 3 o n rt era 3^ p* o' 3 (I S3" CI B> T3 O 3 O P "8 •S a. 3 re w S e> o n n a y s >S & w ■8 3 s B ° 2 P S 3 3 co o B> _ 3 S oa 5 « B £& co ,_, T3 S S tt h M 2- a-, o a P ° ^ S y cd c go-3 o 2 3 O K CD 3 .3 §•>« c§33 3 g 3 ra S- < 3 ' F ,>* H fa H CO ?0 > r H to § > H h — I < M to 3 < < 5 < £ < Is c 3 O 5 >-< _a; 1/1 > M C s c 3 0 2 u BO < BO C c o Ki res c c C E "O 5 E 60 ra c i— « ^ ra C? H3 o 0) o a; x: n_ s S5 Q > UJ lT 1*1 |*g ■ S JJtah Nevada I c So IU 3t C O c °i 5 '+-> fO 0 ° at &. • U Z „, C! Q) — — - : _i*i ■H^= °b Desei Wildl CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION Objective: The objective is to amend the Caliente MFP to assist in the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population of desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. This alternative contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat inside and outside of ACECs; 3) participation in USFWS-developed and implemented environmental education program; and 4) implementation of the USF WS-approved interagency monitoring program. Three ACECs would be designated and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise (Map 2-2). These ACECs would encompass 212,500 acres or approximately 83 percent of the critical habitat designated by the USFWS for desert tortoise in Lincoln County (Map 2-3). Management direction is also proposed for desert tortoise habitat outside of the ACECs, in order to improve that habitat and be consistent with recovery efforts by other agencies. The BLM would participate in a USFWS-developed environmental education program and implement an interagency desert tortoise monitoring program, approved by the USFWS. The following description of the Proposed Action includes only those programs or resources for which new management objectives or direction are proposed; all other decisions from the approved Caliente MFP would remain valid. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS: The Recovery Plan recommended general areas where SMAs should be established within recovery units. Whenever possible, SMA boundaries were drawn to include the best examples of desert tortoise habitat in specific vegetation regions. In addition heterogeneous terrain, soil types, and vegetation within SMAs will provide protection for the entire ecosystem upon which healthy desert tortoise populations depend. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for Special Management Areas (SMAs) within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SMA(s) of 1,000 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. SMA selection and boundary delineation has been accomplished by land management agencies in coordination with the USFWS, and State wildlife agencies, after soliciting input from other interested parties. The design of the SMAs has met as many of the reserve design criteria as possible as outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). The Proposed Action would designate three ACECs, in Lincoln County, with a total acreage of approximately 212,500 acres. The proposed ACECs would be contiguous with other SMAs, either proposed or currently 2-8 N 20 Proposed ACECs Within the Planning Area Map 2-2 Desert National Wildlife Range J=LQ9?lp..-Goyn& Clark County Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-9 20 Proposed ACECs and Designated Critical Habitat MaP 23 Within the Planning Area Desert National Wildlife Range Clark County 20 Miles Critical Habitat Kane Springs ACEC ZJ Mormon Mountains ACEC II 1 1 1 1 Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Planning Area H Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-10 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) designated adjacent to the planning area. Appendix B describes the other resource values of these areas, as well as the relevance and importance criteria met by the proposed ACECs. 1. KANE SPRINGS ACEC: Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise and various sensitive species, including the banded gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum), chuckwalla (Sauromalus obsesus), and several species of bats and plants. Acreage: 65,900 acres Map 2-2 ACECS in DT-filler page 2. MORMON MESA ACEC: Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and other sensitive species including the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker (Castostomus clarki ssp.), Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace {Rhinichthys osculu spp.), and the Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus). Acreage: 109,700 acres 3. BEAVER DAM SLOPE (Nevada) ACEC: Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, and various sensitive species, including the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, and several bats and plants. Acreage: 36,900 acres MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR THE ACECS: Develop Management Plans for each ACEC. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES/WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT: Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to inventory desert tortoise habitat. Coordinate with the USFWS, NDOW, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services, to control desert tortoise predators when necessary. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW, in order to designate Experimental Management Zones (EMZs), as identified in the Recovery Plan, and to issue permits for experimental research activities (including intrusive research on desert tortoise) within those zones during the recovery period as appropriate. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW prior to the issuance of permits for research. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to develop approved translocation research projects, as necessary, for captive or displaced desert tortoises, as needed. Implement a USFWS-approved interagency (NDOW, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Biological Resource Division (BRD), and MOG) monitoring plan. 2-11 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Participate in USFWS developed environmental education programs when appropriate. Coordinate, whenever possible, with the Federal Highway Administration and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to include a stipulation in the Highway Easement Deed that would encourage the installation of tortoise-proof fencing and crossing culverts along U.S. 93. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to monitor special status animal and other wildlife species. Authorize population augmentation or enhancement activities for native wildlife species (e.g. desert bighorn, Gambel's quail), only if such actions would not create conflicts with habitat objectives for desert tortoise populations. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES MANAGEMENT: Cooperate with appropriate federal and state agencies to protect and manage special status plant species. Maintain an inventory of special status plant species habitat within proposed ACECs. FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT: Authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed and/or plants). Authorize desert vegetation salvage based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert vegetation harvest for educational/scientific research purposes through permits. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT: Management Areas (refer to Maps 2-4 and 2-5): Table 2-1 displays information on those allotments or portions of allotments located within the proposed ACECs. Management Direction: Close all allotments or portions of allotments within all of the ACECs to livestock grazing. 2-12 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-1. Allotments partially or entirely located within proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES OF ALLOTMENT IN ACEC PERCENTAGE OF ALLOTMENT IN PROPOSED ACEC MORMON MESA ACEC Breedlove 121,500 31,600 26 Ddamar 245,400 1,000 1 Gourd Springs 97,700 39,600 41 Lower Lake East 53,700 1,400 3 Mormon Peak 77,900 32,300 42 Rox-Tule 25,600 23,900 93 TOTALS 621,800 129,800 average 20 KANE SPRINGS ACEC Breedlove 121,500 400 3 Ddamar 245,400 41,400 17 Grapevine 34,200 12,200 36 Lower Lake East 53,700 11,900 22 TOTALS 454,800 65,500 average 14 BEAVER DAM SLOPE ACEC Sand Hollow (Beacon)** 41,200 36,900 89 (100) TOTALS "Beacon Allotment is located within the Sand Hollow allotment, a dual use area for cattle and sheep. (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station, 1996) 41,200 36,900 average 95 2-13 Grazing Allotments and Proposed ACECs Within the Planning Area Map 2-4 N Desert Nationa Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County 20 20 Miles Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F SandHollow C Beacon H Terry 1 Snow Springs 1 Lime Mountain K GardenSpring L White Rock M Henrie Complex N Jackrabbit O PulsipherWash P Flat Top Mesa Q Summit Spring R BoulderSpring S Delamar T Buckhorn U Lower Lake East V PahranagatEast w Pahranagat West X Lower Lake West Y Lower Riggs Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Aro'lnfoClS 2-14 Cattle Use Areas in Allotments Potentially Affected by ACEC Designations Map 2-5 Cattle Use Areas Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breedlove C Rox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F SandHollow G Beacon S Delamar U Lower Lake East Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using AfClnfoCIS 2-L5 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Season of Use No season of use would be authorized, as the following allotments would be closed to livestock grazing since they are located entirely within ACECs: Beacon Allotment Sand Hollow Allotment Rox-Tule Allotment No season of use would be authorized in portions of the following allotments that occur within ACECs, as those portions of allotments would be closed to livestock grazing: Breedlove Allotment Delamar Allotment Gourd Spring Allotment Grapevine Allotment Lower Lake East Allotment Mormon Peak Allotment RANGE IMPROVEMENTS: Construct improvements only as needed to facilitate multiple use and to exclude livestock from the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would be dropped for allotments or portions of allotments within proposed ACECs. Initial Stocking Level Current and proposed total number of AUMs of specified livestock grazing for allotments or portions of allotments within the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be as shown in Table 2-2. Make changes in total number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of specified livestock grazing for domestic livestock on allotments, using the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision processes and/or determination that livestock grazing is a factor in the non-attainment of rangeland health standards. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT: Management Direction: The Mormon Mountains HMA is the only HMA which overlaps an ACEC (Map 2-6). This HMA will no longer be managed for wild horses and burros. The entire area will lose its status as an HMA, but will maintain Herd Area (HA) status for future management consideration, should conditions change. Remove any wild horses and burros that establish home ranges within an ACEC. 2-16 ^^^^■■^^■m CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-2. Current and proposed total number of Animal Unit Months of specified livestock grazing within proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT CURRENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING (AUMs) WITHIN ACECS PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING (AUMs) Lower Lake East 0 0 Delamar 0 0 Grapevine 211 0 Breedlove 166 0 Rox-Tule 756 0 Mormon Peak 0 0 Gourd Spring 219 0 Sand Hollow 2,430 0 Beacon 2,095 0 (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data, 1996) 2-17 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Remove all wild horses and burros from the Mormon Mountains HA and surrounding non-HMA areas. Should animals from adjacent HMAs reestablish within the HA and ACEC following removal efforts, additionalremovals would be conducted as needed to remove those animals. LANDS MANAGEMENT: Disposal Allow no disposal of public land through FLPMA sales, exchanges, Desert Land Entries, Indian Allotment, Recreation and Public Purposes, Carey, or the Airport and Airway Improvement Acts. Allow no new landfills through Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) sale. Land Use Authorizations Authorize no airport leases (43 CFR 2911) or FLPMA leases (43 CFR 2920). Issue only FLPMA minimum impact permits (e.g. minimal surface disturbance, short duration), evaluating applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Issue no FLPMA film permits that require surface disturbance. Approve R&PP lease (43 CFR 2912) applications through evaluations of the applications on a case-by-case basis. Retain in federal ownership those public lands legislatively leased to private holders (formerly leased to the Aerojet Corporation) through Public Law 100-275, upon termination or relinquishment of those leases. Include those lands in the Kane Springs ACEC. Acquisitions Encourage local governments and private individuals to purchase environmentally sensitive private lands within ACECs that could be exchanged for public lands outside of ACECs (see Appendix C). Acquire lands legislatively transferred to private holders (formerly Aerojet Corporation) by Public Law 100- 275 through the appropriate authorities, should those lands become available. Include any lands acquired in the Kane Springs ACEC. Un-authorized Use Resolve unauthorized use so as to emphasize reclamation and title retention, rather than title transfer. Reclaim surface disturbances from unauthorized uses to pre-disturbance conditions, if possible. 2-18 Desert National Wildlife Range Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within Proposed ACECs Map 2-6 20 Lincoln.. Coyote Carle County 0 Herd Management Areas Mormon Mountains HMA Blue Nose Peak HMA Meadow Valley Mountains HMA ACECs Kane Springs ACEC _Zd Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 20 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using ArClnfoCIS 2-19 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Withdrawals Allow administrative withdrawals for the purposes of facilitating management and for construction of public information/environmental education facilities, on those lands within ACECs but outside of WSAs. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT: Utility/Transportation Corridors Retain the legislatively-designated (Public Law 100-275) corridor running north and south on the east side of U.S. Highway 93, through the private holdings (formerly Aerojet Corporation). Designate the following corridors (see Map 2-7): 1) A corridor 2,640 feet wide connecting to the Moapa Reservation-designated corridor at Moapa, running northeast to the Nevada-Utah state line. The corridor would be one-quarter mile on either side of the IPP 500 kV line and includes portions of the Kern River pipeline. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs and would link corridors proposed for designation in the Las Vegas District RMP and designated by the approved Dixie Resource Area RMP. 2) A corridor 1,000 feet wide, 500 feet on centerline of the existing telephone fiberoptics lines, beginning within T. US, R. 71E, Section 30, running easterly to the Arizona state line. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Beaver Dam Slope ACEC and would be consistent with the Arizona Strip District. 3) A corridor 2,640 feet wide extending northerly from the north end of the Aerojet designated corridor, following the centerline of the approved Southwest Intertie Power Project (SWIPP) right- of-way alignment. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Kane Springs ACEC. Corridor Terms and Conditions Require power distribution lines of voltage higher than 69kV, major pipelines, and cross country communication lines to be located in a designated corridor. Encourage double stacking of powerlines. Grant power distribution lines 69kV or less, local telephone, and cable lines outside of designated corridors on a case-by-case basis. Evaluate right-of-way applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Grant access roads to private parcels, federal oil and gas leases, and mining claims based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). 2-20 N Proposed Utility Corridors Through Proposed ACECs 20 Desert Nationa Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County S & 0 Map 2-7 Proposed Utility Corridors Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using ArtflnfoCIS 2-21 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Consider the following as avoidance areas (refer to Map 2-1): Delamar Mountains WSA (NV-050-177) Meadow Valley Range WSA (NV-050-156) Mormon Mountains WSA (NV-050-161) Fish and Wildlife #1 WSA (NV-050-201) Evergreen ABC WSA (NV-050-1R-16) Renew existing rights-of-way grants if they are still being used for their authorized purpose. Evaluate applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation for WSAs (or portions of WSAs) released by Congress for other uses. Consider areas outside of proposed corridors within ACECs as rights-of-way avoidance areas; applications will be evaluated based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas Consider all requests for new material site rights-of-way pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act within WSAs as inconsistent with this plan amendment. Consider any designated Wilderness Areas as right-of-way exclusion areas, unless otherwise stated in the enabling legislation. Areal Rights-of-Way Limit authorization of future communication site rights-of-way to existing, established communication sites. Make exceptions if the use of an established site is not technically feasible. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). Mineral Rights-of-Way Consider existing material site rights-of-way in ACECs (both developed and undeveloped) authorized under the provisions of the Federal Highway Aid Act as valid existing rights and consistent with the land use plan. Material sites will be authorized within the one mile corridor on state and county roads. These sites will be restricted to 10 mile separations. Grant rights-of-way to allow transport of oil and gas from producing oil or gas fields that might be developed. These rights-of-way would follow the most feasible route to an established pipeline or road system for further distribution. Encourage corridors, where feasible. 2-22 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). RECREATION MANAGEMENT: Casual Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Limit casual OHV use in ACECs to roads and vehicle trails designated for OHV use. A route inventory would be conducted. The public participation process would identify routes for designation or closure. A Federal Register Notice would be published, and after an appropriate comment period, BLM would: • Post entry portals or major intersections with signs that read Vehicle Travel Limited to Designated Roads and Trails • Close and rehabilitate extraneous routes • Sign all designated routes as Open • Sign designated routes to prohibit off road driving • Enforce the ban on off road driving Any roads that might be created following the designation process would be physically closed and rehabilitated as part of ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Organized OHV Use Close ACECs to all speed competitive OHV events. Allow non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events to pass through ACECs on roads designated and open to OHV use (see Map 2-8). Vehicle off-loading areas, if authorized within tortoise habitat, would be limited to areas of existing disturbance, and of sufficient size to accommodate the number of vehicles involved without expanding the disturbed area. Appendix D describes stipulations that would be attached to all Special Recreation Permits for organized OHV events in desert tortoise habitat. Non-OHV Organized Events Allow non-OHV organized and commercial events on a case-by-case basis. General Recreation Accommodate non-consumptive recreation uses (e.g. hiking, birdwatching, photography, and casual horseback riding) that do not disturb desert tortoise habitat. Establish sites for parking and camping, where appropriate and needed to recover and/or avoid resource degradation. Improve opportunities for non-motorized recreation, including the development of interpretive sites, kiosks, and wildlife guzzlers, where appropriate and consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise and BLM policy. Monitor for impacts to desert tortoise habitat from recreational uses. 2-23 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT: Continue to manage WSAs contained within ACECs according to the IMP. Should a conflict between the IMP and ACEC management prescriptions exist, manage according to standard which provides greatest protection for the desert tortoise and its habitat. Should Congress release WSAs within ACECs from further consideration as wilderness, manage those areas under the ACEC management prescriptions. Limit vehicle travel within WSAs to those routes (ways) that are designated as "open". Some routes (ways) may be signed as "closed" to achieve goals and objectives for desert tortoise habitat management and/or the management of wilderness values. MINERALS MANAGEMENT: Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn and/or closed from mineral entry under the following public laws: 1. General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 2. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented. 3. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended. 4. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. 5. Mineral Material Act of July 31, 1947, as amended. 6. Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Close the Kane Springs ACEC to mineral entry. Close the Kane Springs ACEC to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights; and closed to mineral material disposal, except a one-mile corridor on US 93 and Kane Springs Road, for county and federal highways maintenance (see Map 2-9). Locatable Minerals Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open to the operations of the General Mining Law of 1872, but would require a plan of operations, as outlined at 43 CFR 3809, for locatable mineral activities. Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing locatable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to be implemented for locatable minerals activities (see Appendix E). These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the completed reclamation is approved and the accompanying bond released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. 2-24 Proposed Designated Off-Highway Vehicle Routes through Proposed ACECs (for events only) Map 2-8 S 0 Hffl Proposed OHV routes for events Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Mesqu ite>^tP>. 1-15 20 20 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using ArtyinfoCIS 2-25 Proposed Mineral Materials Corridors Within Proposed ACECs Map 2-9 Proposed Mineral Materials Corridors Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Mesquite 20 20 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Art/lnfbCIS 2-26 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Fluid Minerals The Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will have lease operations conducted as described under the standard terms and conditions contained in the lease instrument. A stipulation to a lease is a provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and made part of the lease. Resource values are also protected through restriction or conditions attached to field operations, such as applications to drill and sundry notices. These restrictions can be placed on operations on a site-specific basis to protect other resources. Complete Section 7 consultation for application to drill proposing leasable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no drilling would occur. Standard practices and procedures for geophysical exploration and conditions of approval for application permits to drill under this alternative are described in Appendix E. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Under certain conditions, grant waivers, exceptions, and modification of lease stipulations. A waiver is a permanent exemption of lease stipulation. An exception is a one time exemption to a lease stipulation which is determined on a case-by-case basis. A modification is a change to the provision of a leased stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. Waivers, exceptions or modifications can only be approved by the Authorized Officer. Stipulations could not be legally attached to existing leases, without the consent of the lessee. The existing stipulations attached to the lease are retained as long as the lease is valid. If the acreage involved in these expired leases is re-offered for leasing, the new stipulations developed under this alternative would be attached to the new lease. Leasing stipulations are as follows: 1. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (timing limitations). No surface use is allowed from March 15 to October 15. This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities. 2. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (controlled surface use). Unless otherwise authorized, access to this leasehold, and operations will be limited to the existing roads and trails. A leasing notice providing guidance for plan development will be included on all leases. Section 7 consultation will be completed prior to any surface disturbance in desert tortoise habitat. Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing locatable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. 2-27 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Mineral Materials Close the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs to mineral material disposal except a one mile corridor, one half mile each side of the road on designated roads, for the disposal of mineral material through free use permits and Federal Highway material site rights of ways. These authorizations are for local, county and state governments. Existing pits and designations identified as not needed to meet current and future demand will be closed, and reclaimed. There will be a restriction of 10 miles between each mineral material site. Any authorizations through free use permits or Federal Highway material site rights of ways will be subject to operating procedures described in Appendix E. Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing mineral material activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mining would occur. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Non-Energy Leasable Minerals The Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to non-energy mineral leasing. Apply Standard Operating Procedures to prevent undue or unnecessary surface disturbance (see Appendix E). Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing leasable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mining would occur. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Leasing stipulations are as follows: 1. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (timing limitations). No surface use is allowed from March 15 to October 15. This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities. 2. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (controlled surface use). Unless otherwise authorized, access to this leasehold will be limited to the existing roads and trails. A leasing notice providing guidance for plan development will be included on all leases. Section 7 consultation will be completed prior to any surface disturbance in desert tortoise habitat. FIRE MANAGEMENT: Initiate full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbances to reduce loss of tortoise cover and to minimize the spread of exotic annual grasses. 2-28 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Require consultation with a qualified Resource Advisor for all wildfires within ACECs. Restrict OHV travel and the use of tracked vehicles to the minimum necessary to suppress wildfires in ACECs; obliterate all tracks to reduce possibility of future use. Authorize use of aerial retardant; foam or fugitive retardant is preferable to iron oxide retardant. Do not authorize burning out of unburned fingers or islands of vegetation. Establish fire camps, staging areas, and helispots in previously disturbed areas outside of ACECs, where possible, in consultation with a qualified Resource Advisor. Use prescribed fire or other tools consistent with recovery goals and objectives to help reduce the burn-reburn cycle. Provide all firefighters and support personnel with a briefing on desert tortoises and their habitat to minimize take, particularly that associated with vehicle use. TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS: Close and rehabilitate any existing roads within ACECs where no public or administrative need can be demonstrated (e.g. two roads that parallel each other to the same destination). Public participation process will be used to identify any road closures, with input solicited from all interested parties prior to the issuance of any decisions. Restrict the establishment of new permanent roads. Allow temporary upgrading of existing roads only to reduce impacts on tortoise habitat. Allow new access routes only on a temporary basis or if positive benefits to desert tortoise would occur. Require reclamation of any temporary roads. Reroute roads where feasible to improve manageability of habitat. Implement closure to vehicular access, with the exception of designated routes. Cooperate with USFWS, Lincoln County Road Department, and NDOT to identify any roads and trails that are the cause of tortoise mortality due to impacts from vehicles. Fence or otherwise establish effective barriers to tortoises along heavily-travelled roads. Install culverts where appropriate to allow passage of tortoises. MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT OUTSIDE OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS Objective: Maintain or improve existing habitat conditions for desert tortoise habitat to stabilize desert tortoise populations at existing trend levels. 2-29 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES: Management Direction: Coordinate with the USFWS, NDOW, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services to control desert tortoise predators when necessary. Participate in a USFWS developed environmental education program on special status animal species and their significance. Implement and/or participate in an approved interagency (NDOW, USFWS, BLM, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, BRD and MOG) monitoring program for special status animal species. FORESTRY AND VEGETATTVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT: Management Direction: Authorize commercial desert vegetation harvest of seed based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert plant salvage based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert plant harvest for educational or scientific purposes in desert tortoise habitat through scientific research permits. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES: Management objectives and direction would be the same as those described under Special Management Areas. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT: Management Areas: Those allotments or portions of allotments that are outside of the ACECs would remain open to livestock grazing (refer to Map 2-4). Management Direction: Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple-Use Decision processes and subsequent allotment management plans or equivalent activity plans. Table 2-3 displays proposed season of use and total AUMS outside of proposed ACECS. In the future, Section 7 consultation may occur on a case-by-case basis for grazing management through an allotment management plan or grazing system other than outlined in this plan. 2-30 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Grazing Management Actions Range Improvements: Construct improvements as needed to facilitate multiple use management. Initial Stocking Level Allotments or portions of allotments within desert tortoise habitat, but outside of ACECs, would remain at current stocking levels (see Table 2-3). Make changes in total numbers of AUMs of specified livestock grazing or domestic livestock on allotments, based on monitoring and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process in accordance with rangeland health standards. Conversions from cattle to sheep would not be allowed within the Planning Area. Constraints on Livestock Grazing For areas outside of the ACECs, livestock use may occur March 15 to October 15, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. Between October 15 and March 15, livestock use may occur as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs (USFWS 1991 as amended). These constraints would be applied to the allotments listed in Table 2-3. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for those allotments outside of ACECs. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustment for all allotments would be based on the results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT: Management Areas Existing HMAs within desert tortoise habitat include the Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs, with boundaries as depicted on Map 2-10. Management Direction: Continue to manage the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs for wild horses and burros and as HMAs. The existing Mormon Mountains HMA would no longer be managed for wild horses and burros, since there are no physical barriers to restrict the animals' movement into the Mormon Mesa ACEC. No facilities would be constructed to inhibit the wild and free-roaming nature of the wild horses and burros. The area will lose its status as an HMA, but will maintain Herd Area status, for future management consideration, should conditions change. 2-31 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-3. Proposed season of use and total numbers of animal unit months of specified livestock grazing (AUMs) outside of proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT SEASON OF USE TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING (AUMs) Boulder Spring 10-1 to 3-31 416 Breedlove 3-1 to 2-28 698 Buckhorn 3-1 to 2-28 3,370 Delamar 3-1 to 2-28 5,558 Flat Top Mesa *E *E Garden Spring 10-1 to 5-31 2,809 Gourd Springs 10-1 to 5-31 3,239 Grapevine 3-1 to 2-28 349 Henrie Complex 3-1 to 2-28 4,160 Jackrabbit *E *E Lime Mountain 10-1 to 5-15 6,754 Lower Lake East 3-1 to 2-28 640 Lower Lake West 3-1 to 2-28 1,247 Lower Riggs 5-1 to 3-24 1,408 Mormon Peak 3-1 to 2-28 600 Pahranagat East 8-1 to 5-31 511 Pahranagat West 10-1 to 5-31 2,144 Pulsipher Wash *E *E Snow Spring 10-1 to 5-15 3,567 Summit Spring 10-1 to 5-15 715 Terry 11-1 to 5-31 1,511 White Rock 10-1 to 5-31 2,880 *E-Ephemeral Allotment (see Glossary) (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data, 1996) 2-32 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within the Planning Area Map 2-10 20 Desert National Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County Blue Nose Peak HMA Meadow Valley Mountains HMA Mormon Mountains HMA Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoGI5 2-33 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Herd Size Establish appropriate management levels (AML) within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. No AML is established for the Mormon Mountains Herd Area and all wild horses and burros will be removed. Resource Constraints Wild horse and burro use within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs may occur between March 15 and October 15, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Between October 15 and March 15, wild horse and burro use within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs may occur as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs as modified by the BLM (USFWS, 1991 as amended). These utilization levels will be used in the establishment of AMLs for the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs. Should AMLs be exceeded, excess animals will be removed. Wild Horse and Burro Ranges No new wild horse and burro ranges are recommended for approval by the Director. Activity Planning Herd Management Area Plans will be developed for HMAs. The Mormon Mountains Herd Area will not have a Herd Management Plan developed, since the area is not established as a HMA. LANDS MANAGEMENT: Management Direction: Retain 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat for desert tortoise in federal ownership. Retain lands within desert tortoise habitat, except those needed for community expansion public projects, and are suitable for agricultural purposes (see Appendix C). Provide qualified applicants with land use authorizations, as demonstrated need arises and resource constraints are met. Provide support to other BLM resource programs by acquiring lands or rights in lands through appropriate authorities. Pursue segregation by withdrawal under the authority of Sec. 204 of FLPMA, for areas where resource protection is needed. 2-34 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Pursue trespass prevention, detection, abatement, and resolution consistent with appropriate laws and land use planning. Disposal of lands for community expansion or public projects through Section 7 consultations will be conducted for any land disposals within desert tortoise habitat. Entities purchasing these lands will be notified of their obligations under the ESA (specifically the need to comply with section 9) and referred to the Service for information on obtaining an incidental take permit under section 10 of the Act. Lands considered for disposal and agricultural lands are identified in Appendix C. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT: Management Direction: Management direction for rights-of-way in desert tortoise habitat would be the same as that described for ACECs, with the following exceptions. Material sites rights-of-way would be considered consistent with this plan. Areal rights-of-way applications would be considered based upon NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). RECREATION MANAGEMENT: Casual OHV Use Casual OHV use is limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. Organized OHV Use Allow speed and non-speed competitive events to occur on existing roads and trails. General Recreation Establish sites for parking and camping where appropriate and necessary to accommodate use or to reduce or avoid resource degradation. MINERALS MANAGEMENT: Locatable Minerals Management Direction: Complete Section 7 consultation for submitted plans of operations proposing locatable mineral activities within desert tortoise habitat. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. Operators submitting a 2-35 MIT' .-a-CTT— ran CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) notice for activities within desert tortoise habitat, but outside of ACECs, will be informed by BLM of their responsibilities to comply with specific provisions of the ESA. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as outlined in Appendix E, to be implemented for locatable minerals activities within desert tortoise habitat. Fluid Minerals Management objectives and direction would be the same as those described under Special Management Areas for the Proposed Action. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no drilling would occur. Mineral Materials Management Direction: Desert tortoise habitat would remain open for mineral material disposal. Require implementation of those Standard Operating Procedures for all mineral material activities in desert tortoise habitat (see Appendix E). Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing mineral material (salable) activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Management Direction: All desert tortoise habitat would remain open to non-energy mineral leasing, with stipulations as identified for the ACECs. Apply Standard Operating Procedures to prevent undue or unnecessary surface disturbance (see Appendix E). Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing locatable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. FIRE MANAGEMENT: Management Direction: Management direction would be the same as that for the ACECs, described under Special Management Areas for the Proposed Action. TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS: Install tortoise caution signs at entry points to desert tortoise habitat (e.g. Kane Springs Road, Meadow Valley Wash). 2-36 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) Objective: The objective for this alternative would be to assist the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population of desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, within the context of continuing multiple use management. Alternative A contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed ACECs; 3) participation in a USFWS-developed and implemented environmental education program; and 4) implementation of a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. Management Direction: This alternative contains management directions that are identical to those described under the Proposed Action, with the exception of Livestock Grazing, Common Minerals and Recreation Management. Forage consumption would be managed within the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs at a level that would meet the reproductive needs of adult tortoise and throughout desert tortoise habitat at a level that would maintain the existing populations in the short term. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails in the proposed ACECs. Vehicle use outside of the ACECs would remain open, consistent with approved OHV designations. Activity plans would be completed, as needed, to implement specific decisions. All ACECs will be open to mineral activities with restrictions. Management directions that are unique to Alternative A are described below: LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT: Management Areas: Map 2-4 displays those allotments or portions of allotments located within the proposed ACECs. Management Direction: Allotments or portions of allotments within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat would remain open to livestock grazing (cattle only), and closed to sheep grazing. Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process. Grazing Management Actions Range Improvements Construct improvements only as needt i to facilitate multiple use. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for allotments within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. 2-37 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) Initial Stocking Level Make changes in total number of AUMs of specified livestock grazing for domestic livestock on allotments through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision Process. Constraints on Livestock Grazing Within ACECs Manage livestock grazing according to the following criteria developed by (Tracy, pg. 14, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995): 1) Stock cattle only in years when food for tortoises is at least 2 times that necessary for full tortoise reproduction (e.g. 32 g/sq. meter, 320 kg/ha, or 288 lbs/acre). 2) Stock cattle at densities so that their consumption of forage never results in reductions of the biomass of spring annuals to levels below 16 g/sq meter (i.e. twice the level minimally necessary for the full reproduction by adult desert tortoises). 3) Stock at rates that protect the shrubs from being reduced in size from year to year. 4) Stock at rates traditionally specified to protect winter forage species for domestic grazers 5) Allow cattle to graze only under conditions in which ALL of the above criteria are met. If the above-listed criteria are met by March 1 5 and livestock grazing is authorized, manage livestock grazing so that forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs, between March 15 to October 15. Manage livestock grazing between October 15 and March 15 so that forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Outside ACECs: Manage livestock grazing outside of the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, but within desert tortoise habitat, to ensure that livestock forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs, between March 15 to October 15. Manage livestock grazing between October 15 and March 15 so that forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs in those same areas. In the future, Section 7 consultation may occur on a case-by-case basis for grazing management through an allotment management plan or grazing system. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustments for all allotments would be based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process in accordance with rangeland health standards. 2-38 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) RECREATION MANAGEMENT: Management direction for recreation management under Alternative A would be the same as that described for the Proposed Action with the following exceptions: Within ACECs: Casual OHV Use Designate ACECs as limited to existing roads and vehicle trails- for OHVs. Sign the perimeter of ACECs at access points identifying the areas as "limited to existing roads and trails" for vehicle use. Vehicle use outside of ACECs would remain open, as currently designated. Organized OHV Use Allow speed competitive OHV events to pass through on designated maintained roads (see Map 2-8) during the tortoise inactive season (October 15-March 15). Close ACECs to speed competitive events during the tortoise active season. Allow non-speed and non-competitive OHV events to pass through ACECs on the same designated, maintained roads without seasonal restrictions. MINERALS: Under this alternatives all of the ACECs would be open to mineral entry. Kane Springs ACEC would remain open to leasable, beatable and mineral material mineral entry. The locatable and fluid and solid minerals will be conducted with the same restrictions as described in the proposed action for the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACEC in the proposed action. Mineral materials would remain open to sales and free use operations. Complete Section 7 consultation for plans of operations proposing locatable mineral activities. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no mineral related activity would occur. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to be implemented for mineral materials activities (see Appendix E). These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. 2-39 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) Objective: The focus of this alternative is to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, in accordance with the management goals and prescriptions recommended by the Recovery Plan. This alternative emphasizes habitat protection with less regard for multiple use management of desert tortoise habitat. Alternative B contains three major components: 1) identification of two DWMAs with associated management prescriptions; 2) participation in a USFWS developed and implemented environmental education program; and 3) implementation of a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. Alternative B would identify two DWMAs, encompassing approximately 307,000 acres (Map 2-11). The DWMAs would include 52 percent (126,700 acres) of the critical desert tortoise habitat designated by the USFWS in Lincoln County (Map 2-11). Management prescriptions for the DWMAs were recommended in the Recovery Plan and these would emphasize habitat protection. A number of management recommendations from the Recovery Plan were not brought forward into this alternative, as a result of coordination with the USFWS. Activity plans would be developed, as needed, to implement specific decisions. The following describes only those programs or resources where changes in management objectives and direction from the approved Caliente MFP are proposed. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS: The Recovery Plan recommended general areas where SMAs should be established within recovery units. Whenever possible, SMA boundaries were drawn to include the best examples of desert tortoise habitat in specific vegetation regions. In addition, heterogeneous terrain, soil types, and vegetation within SMAs will provide protection for the entire ecosystem upon which healthy desert tortoise populations depend. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for Special Management Areas (SMAs) within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SMA(s) of 1,000 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. SMA selection and boundary delineation has been accomplished by land management agencies in coordination with the USFWS, and State wildlife agencies, after soliciting input from other interested parties. The design of the SMAs has met as many of the reserve design criteria as possible as outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). Map 2-11 shows the locations of the proposed DWMAs described below; total acreage would be approximately 307,000 acres in two areas. 2-40 Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Within the Planning Area Map 2-11 20 Desert National Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoGIS 2-41 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Designate approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including both designated critical habitat and non-critical habitat, as DWMAs, in the following areas (see Map 2-12): Coyote Springs DWMA- 9,600 acres Mormon Mesa DWMA- 297,400 acres COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA: Values: Habitat for federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, banded gila monster, chuckwalla, and many sensitive species, including several bats. The federally-listed endangered Southwestern Willow flycatcher and peregrine falcon may also occur in this area. Acreage: Approximately 9,600 acres MORMON MESA DWMA: Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise banded gila monster, chuckwalla. Other sensitive species, including the endemic fish species of Meadow Valley Wash and several species of bats, also occur in this area. Acreage: 291,200 acres MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR THE DWMAS: Develop Management Plans for each DWMA. Special Status Animal Species/ Wildlife Habitat Management: Authorize non-intrusive monitoring of desert tortoise habitat and population dynamics. Designate up to 10 percent of a DWMA as an EMZ where a variety of experimental research activities (including intrusive research on desert tortoise) may be permitted during the recovery period. Locate EMZs on the peripheries of the DWMAs. Authorize non-intrusive and non-manipulative biological and geological research. Authorize biological research and specimen collection only by permits after NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize the deposition of captive or displaced desert tortoise only through approved translocation research projects. Authorize population augmentation or enhancement activities for native wildlife species (e.g. desert bighorn or Gambel's quail). Authorize only those surface-disturbing activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise and other wildlife habitat, improve watershed conditions, or enhance opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Visitor centers, camping facilities, and wildlife guzzlers may be constructed, where appropriate. 2-42 20 Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas and Designated Critical Habitat Within the Planning Area Map 2-12 N Desert National Wildlife Range Linoo[n .County Clark County H Critical Habitat Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfbCIS 2-43 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Fence or otherwise establish effective barriers to tortoise along heavily traveled roads; install culverts that allow underpass of tortoises along U.S. Highway 93. Construct desert tortoise barrier fences and underpasses along the Union Pacific Railroad line. Implement a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring plan. Participate in USFWS developed environmental education programs. Forestry and Vegetative Products: Authorize desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) by permit only within DWMAs and after NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Livestock Grazing Management: Management Areas: Close those allotments or portions of allotments that are within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs to livestock grazing (Maps 2-13 and 2-14). Table 2-4 displays those allotments partially or entirely within the proposed DWMAs. Season of Use No season of use would be authorized for the following allotments or portions of the allotment within the DWMAs: Breedlove Delamar Grapevine Gourd Spring Henrie Complex Lower Lake East Mormon Peak Rox-Tule White Rock Grazing Management Actions: Range Improvements Construct improvements only as needed to facilitate multiple use management and to exclude livestock grazing from the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for allotments within DWMAs. 2-44 Grazing Allotments Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Uncpjn_£g Clark Co 20 20 Miles Map 2-13 ED Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox -Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring L White Rock M HenrieComplex S Delamar U Lower Lake East zn Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-45 Cattle Use Areas by Allotment Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Map 2-14 20 0 20 Miles Cattle Use Areas Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox - Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring L White Rock M Henrie Complex S Delamar U LowerLake East 3 Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using AtolnfoCIS 2-46 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Table 2-4. Allotments partially or entirely within proposed DWMAS. ALLOTMENT 1 TOTAL ACRES TOTAL ACRES OF ALLOTMENT ALLOTMENT IN DWMA "" ■"-" " "'"""■ PERCENTAGE Of ALLOTMENT WITHIN DWMA MORMON MESA DWMA Breedlove 121,500 114,100 94 Delamar 245,400 47,000 19 Grapevine 34,200 12,400 36 Gourd Springs 97,200 22,200 23 Henrie Complex 169,100 36,200 21 Lower Lake East 53,700 1,400 3 Mormon Peak 77,900 32,300 42 Rox-Tule 25,600 25,600 100 White Rock 33,000 6,200 19 TOTALS 858,100 297,400 average 35 COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA Delamar 245,400 4,900 2 Lower Lake East 53,700 4,700 9 TOTALS 299,100 9,600 average 3 2-47 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Initial Stocking Level Current and proposed total number of AUMs of specified livestock grazing for allotments or portions of allotments within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs would be according to Table 2-5. Make changes in total numbers of AUMs of specified livestock grazing domestic livestock through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process in accordance with rangeland health standards. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustments would based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process. Wild Horse and Burro Management: Management Direction: Continue to manage the Blue Nose Peak HMA for wild horses and burros (see Map 2-15). The existing Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HMAs would no longer be managed for wild horses and burros, since no physical barriers are present to restrict the animals' movement into the Mormon Mesa DWMA. No physical barriers will be constructed to restrict the wild and free-roaming nature of the wild horses and burros. These two areas would lose their status as HMAs, but will retain Herd Area status for future management consideration, should conditions change. Management areas, adjustment criteria, resource constraints, and management direction are the same as those described for Proposed Action, with the following exception: Herd Size Establish the AML for the Blue Nose Peak HMA, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. No AMLs are established for the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Areas and all wild horses and burros would be removed. Lands Management: Disposal Allow no disposal of public land through FLPMA sales, exchanges, Desert Land, Indian Allotment, Carey, or Airport and Airway Improvement Act. Allow no new landfills through R&PP Act sale. 2-48 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Map 2-15 N 20 Desert National Wildlife Range Lincoln County;, Clark County 0 20 Miles 1 : i Z! ra iC p ! : i Blue Nose Peak HMA ■ ft ft Meadow Valley Mountains HMA i> !N ;o !0> Mesquiti Mormon Mountains HMA Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Z Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-48a CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Table 2-5. Current and proposed total number of animal unit months of specified livestock grazing for allotments within proposed DWMAs. ALLOTMENT CURRENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING(AUMs) PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANTMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFffiD LIVESTOCK GRAZTNG(AUMs) Lower Lake East 0 0 Delamar 0 0 Grapevine 217 0 Breedlove 864 0 Rox-Tule 756 0 Mormon Peak 217 0 Gourd Spring 974 0 Henrie Complex 228 0 White Rock 432 0 (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station Data, 1996) 2-49 HBHHOHHHI CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Map 2-15 WHB HMA/DWMAs-filler page 2-50 H^i^H^^HUI^^iHi^^^BVBi CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Land Use Authorizations Authorize no airport leases (43 CFR 2911) or FLPMA leases (43 CFR 2920). Issue only FLPMA minimum impact permits, to be evaluated based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Approve R&PP Act lease applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Retain in federal ownership those lands leased to private holders (formerly the Aerojet Corporation) under Public Law 100-275, upon termination, expiration, or relinquishment of those leases. Include those lands within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. Acquisitions Encourage local governments and private individuals to purchase environmentally sensitive private lands within DWMAs that could be exchanged for public lands outside DWMAs. Acquire private lands or rights within DWMAs from willing sellers. Acquire private lands (formerly transferred to the Aerojet Corporation) through appropriate authorities in the Mormon Mesa DWMAs, should those lands become available. Un-authorized Use Resolve unauthorized use to retain lands as public lands. Reclaim surface disturbances from unauthorized uses to as close to pre-disturbance conditions as practicable. Withdrawals Allow administrative withdrawals or public land orders for the construction of public information/environmental education facilities on lands within DWMAs, but outside of WSAs. Rights-of-Way Management: Utility/Transportation Corridors Retain the legislatively-designated corridor (Public Law 100-275) that crosses the proposed Mormon Mesa DWMA. Corridors to be designated Do not designate new corridors within DWMAs. Corridor Terms and Conditions Do not grant new rights-of-way outside of corridors. 2-51 SB^BBSa^^^l^n^HHiHHHl CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Consider designated Wilderness Areas as right-of-way exclusion areas, unless otherwise stated in the enabling legislation. Areal Rights-of-Way Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance. Mineral Rights-of-Way Consider existing material site rights-of-way (both developed and undeveloped), issued under the Federal Aid Highway Act, as consistent with the land use plan and BLM policies. Do not authorize any activity associated with the transport of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Recreation Management: Designate all areas within DWMAs as limited to designated roads for OHV use. Routes designated as open would be signed and would be subject to a speed limit appropriate to the terrain. Routes designated as closed will be signed or obliterated or both. Close DWMAs to all competitive or organized events. Designate and construct as necessary appropriate areas for parking and camping and restrict such activities to those designated areas. Allow non-consumptive recreation uses, such as hiking, birdwatching, casual horseback riding and photography, that do not disturb desert tortoise habitat to continue within DWMAs. Improve opportunities for non-motorized recreation where appropriate and consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. This would include, but not be limited to, the construction of a visitor center and wildlife guzzlers in the Coyote Springs DWMA. Wilderness Management: Continue to manage WSAs within DWMAs under IMP. Where a conflict exists between IMP and DWMA management prescriptions, manage according to the standard that best protects the desert tortoise and its habitat. Should Congress release WSAs within DWMAs from further consideration as wilderness, manage those areas under the management prescriptions developed for the DWMAs. Limit vehicle travel within WSAs to those routes (ways) that are designated as "open". Some routes (ways) may be signed as "closed" to achieve goals and objectives for desert tortoise habitat management and/or for the management of wilderness values. 2-52 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Minerals Management: The Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs would be withdrawn from mineral entry under the following public laws: 1. General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 2. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented. 3. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended. 4. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. 5. Mineral Material Act of July 31, 1947, as amended. 6. Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Close the Coyote Springs and the Mormon Mesa DWMAs to mineral entry. Close the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights; and to mineral material disposal. Transportation/Public Access: Restrict establishment of new roads in DWMAs. Implement closure to vehicle access, with the exception of designated routes, including federal, state, and county maintained vehicle routes. Implement emergency closure of dirt roads and routes, as needed, to reduce human access and disturbance in areas where human-cause mortality of desert tortoises is a problem. Fence or otherwise establish effective barriers to tortoises along heavily-traveled roads. Install culverts that allow underpass of tortoises to alleviate habitat fragmentation. MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT OUTSIDE OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS: According to the Recovery Plan, no special management attention need be directed to desert tortoise populations or habitat outside of DWMAs, unless those populations are determined to be at risk. Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would, however, continue to be completed prior to the authorization of any activity within desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. The consultation would include consideration of potential impacts to the DWMAs from activities outside them. 2-53 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) Objective: Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management decisions and actions as approved in the Caliente MFP and approved activity plans. The MFP objectives and direction have been maintained and updated to conform with current BLM regulations and policy. The requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have also modified direction contained in the approved land use plan. This alternative, required by NEPA for comparative purposes, serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action or alternative. The following describes only those objectives and management directions by resource program that relate to desert tortoise habitat management. All MFP objectives and directions, as well as approved activity level plans for resource management outside of desert tortoise habitat, would remain in effect. Section 7 consultation would continue to be required prior to the authorization of surface-disturbing activities in desert tortoise habitat. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES/WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT: Objectives: Sponsor or conduct the research, studies, and inventories necessary to insure adequate data for decision-making relative to expansion, improvement and maintenance of wildlife habitat. Specific priorities include identification of the habitat for the following: Federal threatened or endangered species, and State rare and sensitive species. Re-establish native fauna on historic range or use areas and increase species diversity/distribution of desired animals throughout a variety of habitat types. Provide sufficient quantity and quality of food, cover, and shelter to satisfy the demands of all species utilizing habitat in the planning unit through habitat improvement methods. Maintain habitat conditions through surveillance, acquisition, or management decision to continue existing species populations until activity plans are developed. Management Direction: Prepare habitat management plans for desert tortoise and banded gila monster. Protect the habitat of desert tortoise and other reptiles through protective stipulations in the environmental process. Require the maximum utilization of existing roads and trails by competitive OHV groups and other intensive use groups and organizations. 2-54 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT: Objective: Study, manage, and allow sale of desert vegetation. Management Direction: Conduct inventories on cactus and other succulent vegetation in the Delamar Valley and upper Tule Desert (two major concentrations) to develop ecological and phenological database on desert plants. Complete inventories prior to the initiation of a desert vegetation sale program. Precede any proposed new materials sites, road rights-of-way, or vegetative manipulation sites within desert vegetation types with either free-use or vegetative sales to prevent total loss of that resource. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT: Objective: Continue to manage grazing of domestic livestock on the public lands for livestock forage as long as the grazing practices promote a healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystem. Increase livestock forage production and availability through vegetative treatment that provide for multiple use management. Encourage and assist the grazing permittees to develop range improvements that facilitate multiple use management and improve the condition of the rangeland ecosystem. Management Areas: All allotments or portions of allotments that are within desert tortoise habitat are open to livestock grazing. Management Direction: Initial Stocking Level Make changes in total numbers of AUMs of specified livestock. grazing (AUMs) for domestic livestock on allotments supported by monitoring and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process. Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through coordination and consultation and subsequent development of allotment management plans or in conjunction with development of grazing systems. For season of use guidelines, refer to the "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" section below. 2-55 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Constraints on Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing would be conducted in accordance with the Biological Opinions for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat (USFWS 1991, 1994c). The following grazing prescriptions are in effect for allotments in designated critical habitat: Prescription 1 guidelines allow livestock use between June 15 and October 14 as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs and from October 15 to February 28 as long as utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 40 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Livestock use will not occur from March 1 to June 14 (USFWS, 1991). The following allotments or portions of allotments would be grazed according to Prescription 1 guidelines: Beacon Breedlove Gourd Spring Grapevine Henrie Complex Lower Lake East Mormon Peak Rox/Tule Sand Hollow Snow Spring Terry Prescription 2 guidelines allow for livestock grazing to occur between March 1 and October 14, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs and between October 15 and February 28, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Period-of-use for the following allotments or portions of the allotment would be according to Prescription 2 guidelines: Boulder Springs Mormon Peak Delamar Pahranagat East Flat Top Mesa Pahranagat West Garden Spring Pulsipher Wash Gourd Spring Snow Spring Henrie Complex Summit Spring Jackrabbit White Rock Lime Mountain Lower Riggs Lower Lake West 2-56 i CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustment criteria for all allotments would be based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT: Objectives: Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas (Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas) where they existed at the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL-92-195) on December 15, 1971. Obtain information on wild horses and burros in the existing herd management areas through the use of inventories and studies. Maintain the wild, free-roaming characteristics of the wild horses and burros on the public lands. Management Areas Wild horse HMAs within the planning unit include the Mormon Mountains, the Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs (refer to Map 2-6). Management Direction: Herd Size Establish AMLs within the HMAs, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. Adjustment Criteria Remove wild horses and burros as expeditiously as possible from private lands, after a request has been made by the private landowner and reasonable efforts to keep the animal off private lands have failed. Remove wild horses and burros which have expanded beyond HMA boundaries, only if reasonable efforts to keep the animals within those boundaries have failed. Remove wild horses and burros in excess of an established AML in the HMAs. Resource Constraints Limit utilization by all herbivores on key perennial forage species at key areas within the HMAs in desert tortoise habitat to those utilization percentages identified by forage class and season of use as contained in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. 2-57 ^w..«.m-.«l CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Authorize the construction of fencing only when that fencing will not constrain the wild, free-roaming characteristics of wild horses and burros. LANDS MANAGEMENT: Objectives: Provide public land for urban or suburban expansion adjacent to the communities in the planning unit as needed. Provide public land for use by Federal (other than BLM), State, and local government agencies and non-profit associations for public projects. Limit the transfer of public land for agricultural production to only those areas (valleys) that have been determined to have development potential. Locate and establish/designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way currently exist. Management Direction: In cooperation with State of Nevada and the Lincoln County Commissioners, determine those lands to be suitable for agricultural production (regardless of location) that should be disposed of through the appropriate means. Consolidate all future communication site development, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks: Ella Mountain, East Mormon Mountains, Chokecherry Mountain, Highland Peak, and Pahranagat Range. Utilize existing routes for major utility systems (69kV or higher powerlines, pipelines, etc.), whenever possible. It is recognized that engineering problems and project design will require that deviations be made to allow for the construction and maintenance of future facilities. Coordinate with local and State governments in the planning unit to meet future needs for sanitary landfill sites by Lincoln County. RECREATION MANAGEMENT: Objectives: Protect important botanic, zoologic, geologic, and paleontologic values to assure that they are not lost, destroyed, or substantially altered. Provide adequate access to facilities for important sight-seeing and recreation use areas to assure their continued enjoyment by the public. Provide OHV use areas and trails for both competitive and non-competitive use by individuals and organized groups. 2-58 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Management Direction: Conduct speed-based OHV events within desert tortoise habitat under the mitigation measures and special stipulations contained within the 1 995 USFWS programmatic biological opinion for OHV events (refer to Appendix D). Establish the following competitive use OHV areas: 1) Tule Desert; 2) Lower Meadow Valley Wash; and 3) Delamar Valley. Close the Kane Springs Valley to competitive events and require OHVs to remain on existing roads and trails to protect the quail guzzlers. Limit OHV competitive events in desert tortoise habitat to existing roads and trails. Manage 51,360 acres as limited to existing roads and trails for all OHV use to protect desert tortoise habitat. Limit competitive OHV events to existing roads and trails on 16,900 acres to protect gila monster habitat. Provide facilities and/or protection necessary to ensure that OHV use is managed in such a manner as to avoid conflicts or damage to the unit's multiple use. Utilize existing roads and vehicle trails for competitive events whenever possible. Avoid and/or protect fragile soils through protective stipulation. Prohibit competitive events within 1/4 mile of known water sources. Prohibit pits or starting areas within 1/2 mile of known water sources and desert tortoise denning sites. All applications should be accompanied with a pit and spectator control plan. Provide adequate interpretive, educational, and directional orientation for visitors. Develop a self-guided OHV trail system, designed for individual, family, and small group use, providing both point-to-point and closed loop sight-seeing with overnight camping opportunities. Place interpretive or directional signs as necessary or when money and personnel exist to assist the public in awareness about the resource values in the planning area. Conduct intensive inventories in the East Mormon Barrel Cactus Area (T. 11 S, R. 69 and 70 E) to determine the nature and extent of the values. Upon completion of inventories, develop a Recreation Management Plan for the area. If values are found that are worthy of special protection, designate as a natural environmental area. Allow no wildlife vegetative manipulations in the area, pending review of values. Conduct an intensive speleological investigation of the Mormon Caves, T. US, R. 67E. and develop a Recreation Management Plan to protect and utilize the resources identified. Develop a Recreation/Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Mormon Mountains area. 2-59 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT: Manage WSAs under the guidance of the IMP so that these lands retain their wilderness characteristics until congressional designation to the National Wilderness Preservation System or release from further consideration. MINERALS MANAGEMENT: Locatable Minerals Objective: Encourage the search for and production of the locatable minerals in the planning unit. Consider mining to be the primary use of lands (especially around known mining districts) that are shown to contain valuable minerals in commercial quantities. Management Direction: Assure that exploration, development, and extraction are carried out in such a way as to minimize environmental and other resource damage. Assure the rehabilitation of lands affected by such operations. Fluid Minerals Objective: Encourage and facilitate the search for leasable energy minerals (oil, gas and geothermal) within the unit. Cooperate with developers to aid and expedite exploration and development activities while at the same time protecting other resource values by reasonable stipulations. Management Direction: All lands in the planning unit are open to oil and gas leasing, except Mormon Peak Caves (T. 1 IS, R. 67E, Sections. 17, 18, 19, 20 and T. US, R. 66E, Section 24 El/2). FIRE MANAGEMENT: Objective: Provide for the maximum safety of the visitor, for the protection of personal property, and for the quality of the natural environment through development of a sound fire management and suppression program. Management Direction: Develop a comprehensive fire management plan for the entire planning unit based on vegetative type, ecological relationships, the effect of different suppression techniques, and human use patterns. 2-60 — — —— — - -~^~"""Tmrr CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Fire suppression within WSAs should be accomplished by using non-mechanized forms or other means so as not to impair any wilderness characteristics that may exist until designation or release from wilderness consideration. TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS: Road maintenance is conducted based on the Caliente Resource Area Transportation Plan, in cooperation with the Lincoln Country Road Department. Maintenance activities on existing roads in desert tortoise habitat will continue to be conducted during the tortoise inactive season (October 15-March 15). Section 7 consultation will continue to be conducted prior to any road construction and maintenance activities in desert tortoise habitat. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS: No SMAs are designated in the MFP. AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal agencies are required by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1502.14) to identify their preferred alternative for a project in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project. The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; it is rather an indication of the agency's preliminary preference. This alternative considered all the information that has been received and reviewed relevant to the proposed project. The agency preferred alternative is the Proposed Action as described in the environmental impact statement with all appropriate mitigation. Rationale The Proposed Action would most aid in recovery of the desert tortoise when compared to the other alternatives in that it meets 4 of the 5 delisting criteria in the Recovery Plan, while emphasizing desert tortoise recovery. It also allows multiple use objectives when compatible with desert tortoise recovery. 2-61 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE. A" Special Management Areas Wildlife (desert tortoise and other special status species) Designate three areas of desert tortoise habitat as ACECs for a total of 212,500 acres or 83% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Manage desert tortoise habitat to assist the recovery and delisting of desert tortoise in the Northeast Recovery Unit. Maintain or improve habitat condition for desert tortoise and other special species. Designate Experimental Management zones as needed. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Participate in USFWS-developed environmental education program Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B Identify two areas of desert tortoise habitat as DWMAs for a total of 307,000 acres or 52% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Authorize only those activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise habitat and other habitat. Establish barriers and underpasses for tortoise along heavily traveled roads and railroads. Designate up to 10% as Experimental Management Zones. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C No Special Management Areas would be designated. Prepare HMP's for desert tortoise and Gila monster. Protect habitat of desert tortoise and other special species through mitigative stipulations developed through the environmental (NEPA) process for each individual action. Program not developed. 2- 62 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Forestry and Vegetative Products Mgmt. Special Status Plant Species Livestock Grazing Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A Within ACECs, authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed or plant) except for salvage and research on case by case basis. Allow commercial sales outside of ACECs. Manage special status plant species to assure protection, maintainance and enhancement of habitat. Allotments or portions of allotments within Mormon Mesa, Kane Springs, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Grazing (cattle) allotments within the ACECs would be authorized if the following forage requirement was met: 288 lbs/acre of available tortoise forage. Sheep grazing (Beacon Allotment) within the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would be closed. ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Manage vegetative products in desert tortoise habitat for education, scientific purposes, sale and sustained yield. Same as Proposed Action Allotments or portions of allotments within the Mormon Mesa and Coyote Springs DWMA would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of the DWMAs would be open to grazing. Study, manage or allow sale of desert vegetation within planning area. Proceed issuance of authorization for surface disturbance with either free use or sale of vegetative products. Same as Proposed Action Conduct livestock grazing in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. (USFWS 1994c). Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing seasonal utilization limits. 2-63 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Wild Horse and Burro Management The Mormon Mountains HMAwill no longer be managed for WH&B (0 AML), but will maintain its herd area status. For HMAs within desert tortoise habitat but outside of ACECs horse and burros would be managed with seasonal utilization limits. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action except with the addition of Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area. Same as Proposed Action Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas where they existed at the passage of the WH&B Act of 1971 (PL- 92-195) Lands Management Retain all public lands within ACECs, and critical desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Allow disposal actions to occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. Allow land use authorizations outside of ACECs. Allow no new landfills within ACECs. Same as Proposed Action Retain all public lands and allow no disposal actions to occur within DWMAs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within DWMAs. Allow no land use authorizations within DWMAs that would cause any surface disturbance. Allow no new landfills within DWMAs. Provide public land for community expansion in the planning area as needed. Limit the transfer of public land for agriculture production to those areas that have been determined to have development potential. 2-64 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Rights-of-Way Management Retain the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange (Aerojet) legislatively designated corridor. Same as Proposed Action Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance within DWMAs. Locate and designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way exist. Designate three utility/transportation corridors as described on Map 2-7. Areas outside of corridors within ACECs would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas. Requests for new material site rights-of-way within ACECs, pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act, will be considered within a one-mile wide corridor along designated federal and county roads (Map 2-9). Material site rights-of-way outside of ACECs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Do not authorize any activities associated with the transfer of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Consolidate all future communication site rights- of-way, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks. 2-65 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Recreation OHV use in ACECs Management limited to designated roads & vehicle trails. ACECs closed to speed competitive OHV events. Non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events (or non-speed portions of speed events) may pass through ACECs on designated roads. OHV casual use and events, limited to existing roads and vehicle trails in desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. OHV use in ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. Speed competitive OHV events allowed to pass through ACECs on designated roads during tortoise inactive season (October 15 to March 15). Non-speed and non-competitive OHV events allowed to pass through without seasonal restriction. OHV designation outside of ACECs would remain open. OHV use within DWMAs limited to designated roads and limited speed. DWMAs closed to all competitive or organized events. Parking and camping within DWMAs restricted to designated sites No restriction of recreational use in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. OHV designations are mostly "open" with variations of "limited" in select areas. OHV events conducted in accordance with Biological Opinion for Las Vegas District Off- Road Events. Kane Springs Valley closed to competitive OHV events. 2-66 Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Minerals Kane Springs ACEC would Management be closed to fluid and non energy mineral leasables and operation under the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral materials disposal except one-mile wide corridors on designated federal and county roads. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to mineral entry with the following restrictions: ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ACECs remain open to the Mining Law of 1 872 subject to Plans of Operations. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices of operation for locatable minerals. Standard operating procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply- No surface use allowed in the planning unit for fluid minerals from March 15 October 15. Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. DWMAs withdrawn from mineral entry, closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral material disposal. Desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs remains open to mineral entry, fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, and mineral material disposal. All lands within the planning unit remain open to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing (except Mormon Caves), to operations of the General Mining Law, and to mineral material disposal. 1 . Under the General Mining Law of 1872 will be subject to Plans of Operation. ACECs closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. Planning unit remains open to non-energy mineral leasing with the same lease stipulation as oil and gas. 2-67 PROGRAM M"*"*~HiIs f. anagement ('continued) PROPOSED ACTION 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 to October 15. Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. 2-6 8 PROGRAM Minerals Management (continued) Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Outside ACECs 1 . Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices for locatable minerals. Standard Operating Procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply. 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 1 5 October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. 2-69 PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Fire Management Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. Some suppression restrictions apply. Table 2-6 Summary of Alternatives ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. 2-70 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the environmental and resource management components of the planning area that are relevant to an analysis of the Proposed Action or alternatives. These include soils and water resources, special status species, livestock grazing allotments, wild horse and burro HMAs, lands actions, recreation, WSAs, minerals management, fire management, and socio-economic conditions. Much of the data contained within this chapter is drawn from the more detailed Caliente Resource Area Unit Resource Analysis Step 3) (BLM 1978) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Resource Area (BLM 1979a), available for public review at the BLM Caliente Field Station, located in Caliente, Nevada. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA GENERAL SETTING The planning area is defined as desert tortoise habitat on public lands administered by BLM in southeastern Lincoln County. This habitat occurs at elevations below 4,000 feet, at the northern extreme of the vast Mojave Desert, and totals approximately 754,600 acres. Southeastern Lincoln County is generally undeveloped and sparsely populated; the unincorporated town of Alamo (population 926 from the 1990 census) is the only population center within the planning area. Major highway access is provided by U.S. Highway 93 which runs north-south along the west side of the planning area and by Interstate 1-15 which traverses Clark County near the southeast margin of the planning area. The Union Pacific Railroad main line, State Route 317, and the unpaved Kane Springs and Carp-Elgin roads comprise travel corridors through the planning area. CLIMATE The planning area is located within the Mojave Desert, the smallest and most arid of the American deserts (MacMahon 1985). The region is characterized by low precipitation and high summer temperatures. Three major air masses influence the climate of the area: the tropical Atlantic (Gulf); the tropical Pacific, and the polar Pacific (BLM 1991). These air masses create a bi-seasonal climatic pattern, characteristic of much of the American Southwest. Most of the annual precipitation is received during two peak storm periods: winter (November to February) and summer (July to September). Winter rains can begin in October and continue through March, supplying the Mojave Desert with between 60 and 80 percent of its total annual rainfall (Reitan and Green 1968; Huning 1978). Summer rains are often very localized, intense, and of short duration. The eastern Mojave Desert receives more of its annual rainfall from these storms than does the western portion (Bailey 1981). The driest months are April through June and September. Precipitation readings taken at seven locations within the planning area indicate that regional annual precipitation amounts can be highly variable, ranging from less than 2 inches to more than 13 inches, with an average of approximately 5 inches (data on file, BLM-Caliente Field Station 1996). Plant growth and reproduction in the eastern Mojave Desert are triggered by precipitation events of greater than 25 millimeters or approximately 1 inch (Beatley 1974). The most predictable of these events generally occurs between late September and early December; these are the precursors of successful plant growth and reproduction during the following spring (Berry 1984a). Good annual vegetation growth can be predicted when both the winter and spring precipitation exceeds 125 percent of average or when winter moisture is near average and SaHHHH^H^^HB^^^^HM^^BHH^HaHMHHBHHI^Mi CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT spring exceeds 140 percent (BLM, p. 30, 1996a). Poor growth years occur when both winter and spring moisture is less than 75 percent. In this region, winters are mild, with daytime temperatures reaching an average maximum of 60 degrees F and nighttime temperatures averaging 35 to 45 degrees F. Summers are hot, with daytime maximum temperatures averaging 85 to 95 degrees F and nighttime temperature minimums ranging from 70 to 75 degrees F. PHYSIOGRAPHY The topography and drainage of southeastern Lincoln County are characteristic of the Basin and Range province, with internally draining basins separated by mountain ranges, hills, and mesas. The trend of the ranges is not always uniform, but a general north-south orientation is apparent. A notable exception is the Clover Mountains, located at the northern edge of the planning area. The orientation of this range is generally east-west, the result of extensional forces. The Grand Wash Cliffs, located a few miles to the south of Mesquite, Nevada, mark the boundary between the Basin and Range province and the Colorado Plateau province. The southeastern portion of Lincoln County lies within the Colorado River Basin and is externally drained by the Colorado River and its tributaries. GEOLOGY Southeastern Nevada has a complex geologic history, comprised of several episodes of sedimentation, igneous activity, orogenic deformation, and continental rifting. These past events have influenced the location and potential for economic mineral values in the planning area and can be summarized as follows. In the early Paleozoic Era, the region was a marginal coastal zone, with deposition of sediments occurring in a geosynclinal environment. A carbonate belt was deposited, with detrital coastal deposits to the east and deep ocean sediments to the west. The rock types consist of shales and limestones. This depositional environment continued until the Devonian Period. During the Middle Paleozoic, approximately 100 million years ago, the region experienced its first compressional event. A subduction zone was established to the west and a volcanic island arc developed. A foreland basin was created when mountainous terrain uplifted in the ocean, away from the coast line. Sediments were deposited into the basin from the adjacent land forms. Typically, clastic sediments (sand and silt) were intermixed with limestone deposits. During the Antler Orogeny, the Roberts Mountain thrust developed; coastal sediments and crust were compressed by at least 100 kilometers. With the accretion of the Sonomia landmass, a subduction zone was established in western Nevada. This subduction marks the beginning of the modern circum-Pacific orogenic system, as the Pacific Ocean sea floor's Kula Plate was subducted under the North American continental crust. North America changed its direction of motion relative to the western ocean sea floor plate by rotating clockwise. A thermal bulge, relating to volcanism, occurred along the Sonomia suture zone. Sediments were transported to the northeast. The volcanism ended in the Late Triassic; the highlands at the southern end of Nevada subsided and were again below sea level. At the onset of the Jurassic, events to the east set the stage for the modern geologic landscape. The Atlantic sea floor spreading center was developed and subduction to the west intensified, as a consequence of the breakup of the supercontment Pangea. During the early stages of the break up, sediments were deposited in the interior regions of North America, including the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. The western subduction zone experienced uplift in the Rocky Mountains, known as the Cordilleran Orogeny. Several major thrust belts are associated with this subduction zone, including the Sevier belt in Nevada. Crustal shortening was estimated to be 100 kilometers. Volcanic activity associated with subduction began between the Sierra Nevada Range and the Rocky Mountains. 3-2 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT From the middle Cenozoic Era to the present, extensional forces developed within the Basin and Range province. The high angle fault-controlled mountain ranges and intervening valleys are the result of regional extension. Volcanic activity increased with the extensional forces and accompanying thinning of the continental crust. Valley fill within the region contains the erosional remnants of the mountain blocks. SOILS Fan piedmont remnants are the major landform in the planning area. Soils have formed primarily in alluvial deposits and occupy positions on alluvial fans and terraces. Small areas of similar soils are found along narrow valley drains and as islands of residual soils on hills and mountains. Approximately 70 percent of the soils occur on alluvial fans, fan remnants, and terraces. These soils have developed in alluvial material, eroded from adjacent uplands. Soil development is slow due to the arid conditions. Such soils are very shallow to shallow over a hardpan. This hardpan, which generally has a high lime content, acts as a restrictive layer in the soil profile. A high percentage of rock fragments are found on the surface and throughout the profile; this rock cover aids in reducing susceptibility to soil erosion. Surface soil textures are primarily sandy loams. Slopes range from gently to strongly sloping. Soils found along narrow valley drains, such as the Meadow Valley Wash and Kane Springs, are deep and the most productive in the planning area. These soils have developed in alluvium and typically have loam and sandy loam surfaces. Slopes are level to gently sloping. Islands of residual soils occur within desert tortoise habitat on hills and low mountains, such as the Mormon Mountains. These soils are very shallow to shallow in depth and have developed primarily in sedimentary rocks. They exhibit a high percentage of rock fragments, including cobbles and stones on the surface and within the profiles of these soils. Slopes range from strongly sloping to very steep. Water erosion potentials within the planning area vary from slight to severe. A majority of the soils are in the slight category. The slight erosion potentials result from the low percentage slopes present and the high percentage of rock fragments found on the soil surfaces. Soil salinities are very slightly saline. Approximately 1,500 acres of strongly saline soils are found along lower Meadow Valley Wash. WATER AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES Eighteen springs with associated riparian areas are found in the planning area. These springs provide a very important source of water for the area. Table 3-1 lists the locations and discharge amounts for each spring source. A majority of these springs have ponded or standing water (lentic) riparian habitat associated with them. Riparian habitat areas are smaller than their potential areal size and are, to varying degrees, degraded below proper functioning condition. The degradation has resulted from overuse by grazing animals and the development of man-made facilities that removed the water supply from the riparian habitat. Water quality data has not been collected on the springs sources in desert tortoise habitat since the early 1980s. The Meadow Valley Wash traverses the planning area from north to south and is the only perennial stream, greater than one-half mile in length, within desert tortoise habitat. This stream is characterized by peak flows in February and March, when peak snow melt occurs. Mean annual flow, measured at the Rox gaging station, is recorded at 3.39 cubic feet per second. The Meadow Valley Wash has riparian habitat with lotic or moving water. The size and condition varies by location; this habitat has been grazed by domestic livestock since the mid- 19th century. 3-3 iiinTi-.iriTiiiriTrfii.ri CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-1. Spring sources in desert tortoise habitat. SPRING SOURCE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION DISCHARGE (in cubic feet per second) Grapevine Spring 9S 65E 27 0.1 Snow Spring 9S 70E 02 0.2 Jones Spring 9S 70E 18 NA Willow Spring 10S 64E 09 0.9 Unnamed Spring 10S 66E 16 NA Hackberry Spring 10S 66E 23 2.1 Old Well Spring 10S 69E 10 0.1 Summit Spring 10S 69E 15 0.0 Badger Spring 10S 69E 22 0.1 Tule Spring 10S 69E 26 0.5 Abe Spring 10S 69E 26 0.2 Unnamed Seep US 69E 27 1.0 Gourd Spring US 69E 29 0.3 N. Spring US 69E 29 0.3 S. Peach Spring US 69E 29 0.0 Unnamed Spring 12S 69E 32 0.1 Unnamed Spring 12S 65E 36 NA Mine Spring 12S 69E 04 1.6 (SOURCE: BLM, Caliente Field Station data.) VEGETATION COMMUNITIES All of the vegetation communities within the planning area are located within the Mojave Desert biome and can be characterized as follows. Southern Desert Shrub - The southern desert shrubs occur between 1,500 and 5,000 feet in elevation, where between 5 and 12 inches of precipitation can fall during the year. Vegetative types representing the southern desert shrub community are creosote, shadscale (Artiplex confertifolia), Joshua tree {Yucca brevifolia), and bursage. Other desert shrubs within this type include spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), Anderson thornbush (Lycium andersonii), and Fremont dalea (Dalea fremontii). All of these types are found in valley bottoms (BLM 1979b). Big galleta (Hilaria rigida), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandus), and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) comprise an average of 4 percent of the species composition of this community. Winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), and four-wing salt-bush (Atriplex canescens) constitute approximately 14 percent of the species composition. Annual grass and forb production is dependent on the amount and timing of precipitation and can range from zero to as high as 4,000 pounds per acre (BLM, pg. 33, 1996). 3-4 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Northern Desert Shrub - This community, sometimes known as the blackbrush formation, is characterized by a scattered growth of deciduous shrubs. The plants are woody, often very uniform in size, and, in denser stands almost cover the ground. In more typical areas, plants stand far apart and, except during the growth of annuals, the soil surface is visible. Representatives of this community are rabbitbrush {Chrysothamnus spp.), yuccas, (Yucca spp.), blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), bursage, and snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.). Blackbrush forms a broad, overlapping belt between northern and southern desert areas. Soils under blackbrush are usually free from harmful amounts of alkali. Large areas of blackbrush have been burned off and replaced by the mid- grass type three awn (Aristida spp.) in the Tule Desert. Snakeweed may occur on disturbed areas throughout the northern desert shrub area. Perennial grasses, including big galleta, Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, and three awn, can comprise approximately 9 percent of the northern desert shrub community. More than 80 percent of the plants are blackbrush, Mormon tea, or bursage. Annual grasses and forbs can increase production to a few hundred pounds per acres during periods of above normal precipitation; in dry years, such production is negligible. Annual grassland - This plant association, occurring between 2,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation, is the result of recurrent wildfires that have removed native shrubs and yuccas, such as the Joshua tree. Red (foxtail) brome (Bromus rubens) and Indian wheat (Plantago insularis) are currently the major species. Perennial grasses, like Indian ricegrass, three awn, and big galleta, make up about 7 percent of the species composition, while browse species, such as Mormon tea and winterfat, comprise about 6 percent. Exotic grasses, such as foxtail brome and Indian wheat, and native annuals, typify the remainder of the community. Annual production may range from between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds per acre during wet years to negligible production during dry periods. Red brome, an exotic annual grass, cures while standing. Unlike native species, this grass provides a continuous fuel source to carry wildfire. Most native desert plants are not well adapted to fire and are quickly killed by moderate or high intensity fires. Native shrubs require long time intervals for growth and may not have sufficient time to re-establish under the current wildfire cycle. ECOLOGICAL STATUS A limited Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was conducted during April of 1997 in designated critical habitat for desert tortoise within the planning area. The purpose of ESI is to determine ecological status within a site, with respect to its vegetative values and/or potential. Ecological status or range condition is the current state of vegetation and soil at an ecological site, in relation to the potential natural community (PNC) for that site (measured in terms of species composition by air dry weight). Data from ESI inventories provide important baseline information for the establishment of management objectives and monitoring the attainment of those objectives as conditions change. The quality or condition of desert tortoise habitat can also be determined through an evaluation of ecological status. ESI data were collected using the following methodology. Transects were located within Site Write Up Areas (SWA), the smallest delineated geographical unit used as a base for collecting vegetation data. Soils considered well suited for desert tortoise burrowing, as identified in the Draft Suitability for Burrowing Habitat by Desert Tortoise (NRCS 1997), and correlated with creosotebush or creosotebush-white bursage communities, were selected as the locations of the SWAs. In Lincoln County, 81 percent of tortoise sign was found where the creosote-bursage community was dominant. Karl (1981) also observed that tortoise density appeared to be positively correlated with creosote. At each transect, percent composition by weight of vegetation, ecological status, and total production was determined, using the double-sample weight estimate method described in the 3-5 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT National Range Handbook (SCS 1976) and the BLM Supplement to the Handbook (H-4410-1). Composition by weight, ecological status, and total production are related to Range Condition Class or Serai Stage. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the production or composition of the present plant community reflects that of the PNC (climax). The four classes are outlined in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Range Condition Classes (Serai Stage). Serai Stage or Ecological Status Percentage of Present Plant Community that is Climax of the Range Site Potential Natural Community (climax) 76-100 Late Serai 51-75 Mid Serai 26-50 Early Serai 0-25 Nine ESI Transects were conducted in three range sites dominated by creosote-white bursage and big galleta grass( Map 3-1). Two of the nine transects (DT-1 and DT-4) were located within the Sand Hollow and Coyote Springs permanent desert tortoise study plots. (See Appendix F for a complete description of the range sites.) Three transects were in a community rated to be in early serai stage, five transects were in mid serai stage, and one transect was located in a community at PNC. Eight of the transects were rated at a lower serai stage due to the high percent composition of red brome and the absence of desirable vegetation; earlier serai stages are considered lower quality tortoise habitat due to those factors. Serai stages and site potentials are based on the range site (ecological site) description, as defined by the PNC. Site potential of the inventoried areas was lowered by the invasion of non-native plants, especially red brome, cutleaf filaree, tumble mustard, Russian thistle, and Mediterranean grass. These non-native species thrive in many open deserts that have been or are grazed by livestock and/or disturbed by human activities. Non-native species, which are not adapted to germinate in thickly crusted desert soils, gain entry when these crusts are broken. As non-native plant species become established, some native perennial and annual plant species decrease or die out (D' Antonio and Vitousek 1992). For example, under pressure from livestock grazing, many native perennial bunch grasses have been replaced by red brome (Robbins et al. 1951). Native populations in disturbed habitats have been in a weakened condition for decades, and are more vulnerable to competition than at any other time in the historic past (USFWS 1994a). Recent drought conditions have placed additional pressures on native plants. The potential and frequency of wildland fires also increase as non-native species become established. Red brome is now very abundant in the planning area. In years of average to above average winter rainfall, red brome produces a high amount of biomass, fueling fires that can threaten the very structure of the desert as a shrubland. These hot fires damage native shrubs and can destroy cover which protects tortoises from predators and thermal exposure. Ironically, in years when high rainfall produces greater amounts of food for desert tortoise, fires often destroy suitable desert tortoise habitat. Burned areas are left more susceptible to the invasion of non-native plant species and the increased potential for reburning (USFWS 1994a). Livestock grazing and other human activities have altered the native vegetation communities in many areas. Moisture conditions and the presence of exotic annuals appear to control the rates at which ecological succession 3-6 Key Area Transects Within Critical Habitat Map 3-1 z CD c < r-f (U CU Q ^ Critical Habitat Key Area Transects (Ecological Status) E M PNC = Early = Mid = Potential Natural Community IS ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breedlove C Rox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F SandHollow G Beacon H Terry I Snow Springs S Delamar U Lower Lake East Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Acc/lnfoCIS 3-7 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT can occur. Oldemeyer suggests that "ecological condition may never improve as long as exotic annuals are a permanent component of the flora" . Increases in perennial-grass cover have been noted in areas protected from livestock grazing. (Oldmeyer, pg. 98, 1994) Improvements are projected to be very slow in desert environments, even after changes in livestock grazing management or reductions in livestock numbers. Some ecological sites will recover in the long term; others may never reach ecological site potential. The reader should be cautioned, however, that a late to PNC serai stage may not adequately reflect the condition important for desert tortoise survival, reproduction, and recovery. Refer to the upcoming discussion on desert tortoise nutritional and habitat requirements. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES The planning area provides habitat for special status species, including threatened or endangered species, as well as sensitive and state-listed species. It is BLM policy to manage the habitats of all special status species to prevent future listing of species and to ensure the recovery of listed species. Threatened or Endangered Species The Meadow Valley Wash and the Pahranagat Valley may provide nesting habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, a federally-listed endangered species. The potential also exists for the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), also a federally-listed endangered species, to visit the planning area, as a seasonal migrant. The desert tortoise is a threatened species in the planning area. The USFWS first placed the desert tortoise on the Endangered Species List on August 4, 1989, under the emergency authority of the ESA. On April 2, 1990, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the desert tortoise as a threatened species. The ESA mandates that all federal agencies must not authorize, fund or conduct any activity, including habitat destruction or adverse habitat modification, that could threaten the continued existence of a listed species. Approximately 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat occurs on BLM-administered public lands in Lincoln County (see Map 1-3). Desert Tortoise Life History The desert tortoise is the only naturally occurring tortoise in the Mojave Desert and is considered "an indicator species to measure the health and well-being of the ecosystem it inhabits" (Berry and Medica, pg. 135, 1995). The species is well adapted to living in a highly variable and often harsh environment. Desert tortoises spend the majority of their lives underground, in winter dens and summer burrows, where they are protected from the temperature extremes of the Mojave Desert. These underground shelters are susceptible to surface-disturbing activities that can collapse the entrances, trapping and suffocating the occupants. Individuals generally remain in winter dens between October and mid-March, emerging to feed and mate during late winter and early spring. They typically remain active through the spring. Tortoises use the summer burrows and shrub cover to escape the intense Mojave Desert heat. During the summer months, activity periods occur at sunrise and sunset, when the animals leave their burrows to feed. Desert tortoises also retreat to burrows or dens in order to lower their metabolic rates and minimize water loss during adverse conditions. Adult tortoises lose water so slowly that they can survive for more than a year without access to "free" (not derived from plants) water of any kind. While in burrows, individuals consume very little food. Desert tortoises apparently can tolerate large water and energy imbalances. This ability enables them to survive lean years and exploit resources that are only periodically available. During years of average or better than average precipitation and forage production, desert tortoises can balance their water budgets and have 3-8 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a positive energy balance, affording an opportunity for growth and reproduction. All of the mechanisms by which desert tortoise maintain their energy and water balances during periods of fluctuating resource availability are still not completely understood (USFWS 1994a) Long-lived, with a slow maturation rate, desert tortoises have low reproductive rates. Eggs and hatchlings are especially vulnerable; pre-reproductive adult mortality averages 98 percent (USFWS 1994a). Adults, however, are well protected against predators (other than humans) and other environmental hazards. Longevity helps the desert tortoise compensate for its variable annual reproductive success, which is correlated with environmental conditions. For more detailed information on desert tortoise life history, refer to Woodbury and Hardy (1948), Hohman and Ohmart (1979); Berry (1984b); Nagy and Medica (1986); Esque (1994); and Berry and Medica (1995). Desert Tortoise Nutritional Requirements Desert tortoises are vegetarians, consuming grasses, flowers, and succulent plants (Grover and DeFalco 1995). Food habits vary considerably among populations, based on the different vegetative composition of their habitats (Burge and Bradley 1976). In southern Nevada, recent studies have shown that tortoise depend primarily on forbs such as Camissonia munzii and moth langloisia {Langloisia setosissima) and small amounts of grass during the spring (Nagy and Medica 1986). After the forbs have dried up in mid-June, tortoises consume only dry grasses, such as red brome and Indian ricegrass. In August, dry langlosia is also an important food. In late September, Camissonia, red brome, and Indian ricegrass respond to summer rains by producing new green growth. Desert tortoises select these as food in October (Nagy and Medica, 1986). Earlier research conducted on the Beaver Dam Slope in Utah indicated that desert tortoise consumed cutleaf filaree {Erodium cicutarium), red brome, and bush muhly {Muhlenbergia ported) throughout the year (Coombs 1977). Island Indianwheat, shaggyfruit pepperweed (Lepidium lasiocarpum), beavertail pricklypear (Opuntia basilaris), blackbrush, Cryptantha spp., and Eriophyllum spp. were consumed by tortoises in the spring and summer. Tortoise also selected Tridens spp. in the fall and Indian ricegrass and galleta in fall and winter (Coombs 1977). For a more complete list of forage items consumed by desert tortoise, see Appendix G. The desert tortoise requires very little forage, surviving on approximately 23 pounds of vegetation per year. Larger grazing animals, such as domestic livestock, utilize substantially more forage. For example, a cow with a calf needs 10,000 pounds per year, consuming more in one day than a tortoise does all year (Holing 1986). In good precipitation years, vegetative production in the Mojave Desert, particularly annuals, can exceed 500 pounds per acre. During these good production years, it would appear that enough forage would be available for both the desert tortoise and livestock. Recent research has shown, however, that despite the periodic availability of abundant forage, the quality of this forage may not meet the tortoise's nutrient needs (Oftedal and Allen 1996). Forage quality is probably of greater importance than forage quantity. The quality and abundance of curing or senescent forage may be a critical determinant in tortoise nutrition (Oldemeyer 1994). Few forage species supply a good balance of nutrients; therefore, intake of a variety of forage items is important (Mayhew 1968). Spring is a critical time for tortoises to replenish fat reserves used during hibernation. Native forbs are particularly important for tortoises in the spring, since essential nutrients can be more easily obtained from them (Fowler 1976; Hohman and Ohmart 1980; Urness and McCulloch 1973). Perennial grasses may be important as a late summer source of water and nutrients. Without the perennial grasses, tortoises may become dehydrated in summer, resulting in a buildup of electrolytes, especially potassium ions (Coombs 1977; Woodbury and Hardy 1948). During years with a poor crop of spring annuals, perennials may be the main source for meeting these demands. In some areas, perennial grasses have been replaced by exotic species (Jarchow and May 1989). 3-9 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Competition between exotic and native annuals may have lowered the nutritional content of the native species. Jarchow and May (1989) have suggested that this may be a likely cause of malnutrition in the desert tortoise. Recent studies have shown that nitrogen and potassium are two important nutrients in desert tortoise physiology (Oftdal et al. 1994; Nagy and Medica, 1986; Christopher et al. 1996). Nitrogen is important to the desert tortoise for growth and reproduction. Potassium is a salt that the tortoise must excrete. Natural diets are high in potassium and low in nitrogen (Coombs 1977; Minnich 1979). When consuming plants with high potassium concentrations, desert tortoises must excrete excess potassium, in order to maintain electrolyte balance and avoid the potentially toxic effects of hyperkalemia (Nagy and Medica, 1986). Desert tortoises, unlike chuckwalla and desert iguanas, cannot excrete excess salts, and must rely on urate excretion to dispose of them (Nagy 1972). Urate excretion results in a substantial loss of nitrogen since uric acid is nearly one-third nitrogen (Oftdal et al. 1994; Christopher et al. 1996). By diverting nitrogen critical for growth and reproductive functions to remove excess potassium, the tortoise pays a high metabolic price to consume potassium rich plants (Oftdal et al. 1994). When captive tortoise were experimentally fed diets high in nitrogen and low in potassium, they grew very rapidly, reaching adult size in five years or less (Oftdal and Allen 1996). Oftedal and Allen (1996) concluded that desert tortoises: (1) avoid high-potassium foods when possible; (2) reduce food intake when they must eat high-potassium foods; (3) use nitrogen to excrete urate salts when they eat high-potassium foods; and (4) have reduced growth rates when they eat high-potassium foods. The adverse effects of potassium are likely to be exacerbated by water shortages and when foods are low in nitrogen. Oftedal and Allen (1996) predicted that the foraging choices made by tortoises in the desert reflect the need to avoid potassium, while maintaining water and nitrogen intakes. Dietary potassium can have a major effect on the amount of nitrogen that tortoises can use for growth and reproduction (Oftdal et al. 1994). To determine the relative value of plants as tortoise food, Oftdal and Allen (1996) developed an index. The Potassium Excretion Potential (PEP) index accounts for the ability of tortoises to use dietary water and nitrogen to offset the potassium loads in particular foods. A negative value implies that there is insufficient water and nitrogen in the food to excrete potassium. High positive values indicate that tortoises should be able to use excess nitrogen for growth, egg production, or other functions, or use excess water for replenishment of body stores. Highly-favored food plants, such as Plantago flower heads, filaree, legumes {Astragalus, Lotus, Lupinus), and globe mallow in spring, have high PEP indices, as do immature grasses and cacti. The abundance of high PEP plants may be a critical feature of tortoise habitat. In the eastern Mojave (including southern Nevada), tortoises have access to cacti and perennial grasses during drought years and after winter annuals and herbaceous perennials dry up in May and June. Most grasses develop negative PEP indices as early as May. Data on perennial grasses suggest that dried grasses achieve positive PEP indices after winter rains have leached out much of the residual potassium. This would indicate that perennial grasses could be an important food source the following year. Bush muhly is a remarkable exception in that, unlike other perennial grasses, it continues to have a positive PEP in summer and fall. Woodbury and Hardy (1948) concluded that bush muhly was "the chief source of food" for tortoises on the Beaver Dam Slope, supporting Coomb's (1979) assertion that the reduction in bush muhly associated with livestock grazing may have adversely affected tortoises. Desert Tortoise Habitat Requirements Soil physical properties, landforms, and vegetative community characteristics combine to create habitat that is suitable for desert tortoises. Since the desert tortoise spends 98 percent of its life underground, soil properties must be suitable for digging burrows to an average depth of 20 inches. Rock content, soil texture, pH, and depth to a restrictive layer (hardpan) are all physical characteristics of soil that would contribute to its suitability for 3-10 CHAPTER 3 ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT tortoise burrowing (Wilson and Stager 1989). Soil temperature is also an important consideration, since a soil that is either too hot or too cold on an average annual basis would not help the tortoise to regulate body temperature. Landforms create micro-environments that have varying degrees of suitability as habitat for desert tortoise. Dissected landforms, cut by drainages, create more diverse micro-environmental areas. Slope and aspect of the landforms also effect the quality of the habitat, with south-facing slopes being hotter and drier than those that are north-facing. The most productive Mojave Desert tortoise habitat is characterized by the creosote bush {Larrea tridentata)- bursage {Ambrosia spp.) community. This community occurs on open flats, gently sloping terrain, alluvial fans, along washes, and in canyons (Grover and DeFalco, 1995; Burge 1979). The soils which support the creosote-bursage community are generally suitable for tortoise burrow and den construction. In the eastern Mojave Desert, productive tortoise habitat is typified by desert pavement bisected by washes (Luckenbach 1982). Research in the planning area, within the Coyote Springs Valley, suggests that hills and washes are preferred habitat. Flat gravelly and rocky areas are poor tortoise habitat due to their limited burrowing potential (Garcia et al. 1982). Vegetation communities consisting of high densities of perennial and annual flora, a high percentage of cover, and a high biomass of annual spring flora are necessary to support high densities of tortoises (Berry 1975; Karl 1981; Luckenbach 1982; Schwartzmann and Ohmart 1978). In Nevada, tortoises are found in creosote, creosote- bursage, and creosote-blackbrush communities on bajadas, hills, or caliche washes (Lucas 1978, 1979- Tanner and Jorgensen 1963; Turner 1980). Desert tortoises within the planning area generally occupy habitat between 2,000 and 3,800 feet in elevation (Karl 1981). In Lincoln County, 81 percent of tortoise sign was found where the creosotebush-bursage community was dominant. Eleven percent of sign was found in the transition zone from creosote-bursage community to the blackbrush community. Eight percent of tortoise sign was identified in the blackbrush community. Tortoise density appears to be positively correlated with creosotebush; the upper limits of tortoise range (4,000 feet) correspond to those of the creosote community. Tortoise density is negatively correlated with the dominance of blackbrush and red brome (Karl 1980, 1981). The importance of the creosote community to the tortoise is attributed to the fact that it is the most stable and diversified vegetative cover, probably representing a climax community (Grover and DeFalco 1995). Trends in Desert Tortoise Populations Concern about the status of tortoises has increased greatly in the past 20 years (Berry 1984b; Desert Tortoise Council 1976 - 1985). Luckenbach (1982) stated that "a pronounced and steady decline" had been noted in some populations for several years. Berry (1989) asserts that across its range, tortoise numbers have declined dramatically and that many populations are now isolated. (See Map 3-2). Berry (1989) also speculated that until about 50 years ago large tortoise populations with densities exceeding 1,000 per square kilometer extended throughout parts of California, and probably into Nevada and Utah. In areas where habitat has been destroyed by urbanization or conversion to agriculture, tortoise populations are certainly extinct (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Tortoise densities have declined in areas where habitat has been degraded, e.g. by heavy off-road vehicle activity (Bury et al. 1977; Bury and Luckenbach 1986). In relatively undisturbed habitats, there is little reliable data prior to the 1970s to indicate how densities of current populations may differ from historical densities. 3-11 ■ - CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ptalic Ocasn Map 3-2: Current areas of desert tortoise population densities, compared to overall distributions and potential geographic range (after Berry, 1989). The BLM collects data on desert tortoise populations by employing two methods: strip transects and permanent study plots. The strip transect method consists of a pedestrian transect walked in a 1.5 mile triangular configuration (.5 mile per side). All sign of tortoise within approximately 15 feet of either side of the transect is counted. Tortoise sign includes tortoises (alive or dead) burrows, scat, egg shells, tracks, and courtship rings. The amount of sign per transect can be correlated with tortoise abundance by conducting transects in areas with known population levels. The relative abundance of tortoise in other areas can then be estimated by conducting tortoise transects. This technique generally indicates the relative abundance of larger tortoise and can differentiate good habitat from poor habitat (Turner et al. 1982). The number of juveniles and hatchlings in a populations are more difficult to accurately assess using transect methodology. Since 1979, more than 1,400 strip transects have been completed in Nevada, greatly increasing the scientific database related to desert tortoise distribution (NDOW 1990). The second method uses permanent study plots and a mark-recapture technique of inventory tortoise populations. Study plots are generally read every four years. Plot surveys consist of a 30 field-day capture period, followed by a 30 field-day recapture period, for a total of 60 field-days per study plot. There are 40 permanent study plots in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts: two in Utah, two in Arizona, north of the Colorado River; nine in Nevada; and 27 in California. The Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots are located within the planning area in Lincoln County, Nevada. Only a limited number of the permanent study plots have multiple years of observations (NERC 1990). 3-12 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Strip transect studies have identified approximately 5 million acres (7,812 mi2) as habitat supporting desert tortoises. An estimated 1,600 mi2 of suitable tortoise habitat occurs in Lincoln County. Results from these transects indicate that tortoise distribution is uneven or patchy (NDOW 1990). Approximately 300 of the strip transects were conducted within Lincoln County. In April of 1980, Karl (1981) conducted 52 of these transects. That survey indicated that only 1 to 3 percent of the total area surveyed evidenced tortoise densities of 100 tortoises per square mile. The northern Coyote Springs Valley and two sites northwest and southwest of the Mormon Mountains were included within these higher density areas. The remainder of the surveyed area had densities less than 50 tortoises/mi2 (see Table 3-3). In 1981, Garcia, Berry, and Schneider conducted 281 additional strip transects in the Coyote Springs Valley and Arrow Canyon of Lincoln County and Clark Counties, Nevada. Density estimates for this study indicated a wide variability of tortoise densities ranging from low (<10 tortoises) to high densities ( >140 tortoises) (Garcia et al. 1982). The Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow permanent study plots in the planning area have been read three and two times, respectively. Table 3-4 displays the results of those readings. Preliminary density estimates, using the 60- day methodology, tended to indicate relative stability in adult tortoise numbers recorded at the Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots (Medica et al. unpublished reports 1992 and 1995). Other study plots (e.g. Ivanpah Valley and Gold Butte) in the northeastern Mojave have exhibited declines (Berry and Medica 1995). While there was no apparent downward trend in relative abundance of adult tortoises in the eastern Mojave, there was a decrease in the relative abundance of juvenile tortoises (NERC 1990). Some researchers warn that while populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit "do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers or densities in most places, population levels are dangerously low" (written communication, Brussard 1994:1). During the late 1980s, the relative abundance of large tortoises apparently declined in the western Mojave; the relative abundance of large tortoises was stable or increased in the eastern Mojave during that period (Corn 1994). Other data indicated that juveniles and possibly adult tortoise were less numerous after 1985 in the western Mojave (NERC 1990). The largest decreases occurred in the Desert Tortoise Natural Area and adjacent areas in California, at the western most extent of the tortoise's range. In the eastern Mojave, numbers of juveniles were reduced in a few study plots, but the trends do not comprise a major decline in overall numbers. Adults appear to be stable in numbers, but individual sites differ widely (NERC 1990). Factors Influencing Desert Tortoise Numbers Declines in tortoise numbers can be attributed to a variety of causes, including disease, malnutrition, predation, and human activities. Biologists have identified two diseases that affect desert tortoise populations in Lincoln County. The first of these is osteoporosis or the thinning of bone mass. This condition is often exemplified by a concavity in the plates or "scutes" of the tortoise's shell. Jarchow (1987) has suggested that concave "sunken" scutes in young tortoises could be considered a sign of malnutrition, but data are still lacking to support that contention. Osteoporosis has been documented on all Nevada permanent study plots sampled between 1990 and 1992. The percentage of tortoises encountered exhibiting sunken scutes ranged from 12 to 50 percent. Shell abnormalities (lesions) have also been documented on all study plots sampled between 1990 and 1992. The percentage of captured tortoises observed to have shell abnormalities varied from 7 to 52 percent. Osteoporosis may make individual animals less able to withstand attacks by predators. It may also be symptomatic of an individual that has an increased susceptibility to other diseases or environmental stress. 3-13 mimmmmrmmm™BKmm' CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-3. Estimated tortoise numbers by density class (Karl, 1981). ESTIMATED TORTOISE PER SQ MILE NUMBER OF TRANSECTS PERCENTAGE OF ALL TRANSECTS ESTIMATED AREA IN SQ. MILES OCCUPEED BY EACH DENSITY CLASS 0-10 26 50 660 72 1-10 8 15.4 85 9 11-50* 17 32.6 165 18 51-100 1 2 10 1 TOTAL 52 100 920 100 Table 3-4. Actual numbers of animals in study plots recorded during the sampling period PLOT 1986 1989 1992 1994 COYOTE SPRINGS 78 89* 44 53 SAND HOLLOW 7 7 5 6 * - RtiiHv nlnt samnled t or 120 davs. The second disease causing desert tortoise mortalities is an upper respiratory tract disease (URTD) that is both highly contagious and often fatal. Caused by Mycoplasma agassizii, the disease was apparently introduced to wild populations through the release of captive tortoises (Berry and Medica 1995). The disease infects all age groups of tortoises, and can seriously impact small, isolated populations. Some researchers have hypothesized that habitat degradation and reductions in forage quality may be factors in the spread and severity of the disease (Jacobson et al. 1991; Dickinson et al. 1995). In some portions of the species habitat, the disease has... "caused the deaths of thousands of wild tortoises... during the last few years " (Berry and Medica, pg. 136, 1995). This condition has been documented within the permanent study plots in the Coyote Springs Valley of the planning area; none of the animals observed showed advanced or chronic signs of the disease. Malnutrition has been implicated as a direct or indirect cause of declining tortoise populations. Borysenko and Lewis (1979) have shown that malnutrition can cause immunosuppression and an increased susceptibility to disease. Several researchers have hypothesized that competition between domestic livestock and desert tortoises for forage, particularly during years of poor rainfall, can reduce the amount of forage available to tortoises (USFWS 1991; written communication Brussard 1994: 3). Tracy (Tracy et al. in press) has computed the forage needs of adult tortoises and developed recommended amounts of forage that must be available to maximize the potential for full tortoise reproduction (e.g. 288 lbs. per acre) (written communication Brussard 1994: 3). Insufficient amounts of forage could lead to malnutrition, low reproduction rates, and higher mortality rates. Others who h? e reviewed the published literature on desert tortoise forage needs have speculated that competition does not occur between domestic livestock and tortoises, since forage production (annuals and perennials) in the Mojave Desert is sufficient to provide for tortoise survival (Resource Concepts, unpublished 3-14 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT report 1988; Bostick 1990). These conclusions are generally dismissed by tortoise biologists who offer the following detailed analyses of tortoise nutritional and reproductive requirements. Tortoise researchers have noted that while sufficient forage may be available to desert tortoises, the forage lacks certain critical nutrients required by tortoise for optimum health and reproduction (Nagy and Medica 1986; USFWS 1991). Desert tortoise habitat in the Mojave Desert once consisted of native shrubs, interspersed with perennial bunchgrasses. These warm season native grasses were high in protein and phosphorus, important nutrients for desert tortoise growth and reproduction. As a consequence of many factors, including human activities, overgrazing by domestic livestock, and wild fires, the native perennial grasses have been largely replaced by annuals, including exotic species like red brome. Tortoises also rely on the high fiber content of perennial grasses to sustain their metabolic needs and reproductive processes after the spring ephemerals have died (Jarchow and May 1989). When high quality forage is not available, malnutrition or starvation can occur; starvation was reported as the cause of recent tortoise mortalities in Ivanpah Valley in California (USFWS 1991). Predation is also an important factor in desert tortoise mortality. Ravens (Corvus corax) are the primary predators, although golden eagles (Aquila chryaetos), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), burrowing owls {Athene cunicularia), and roadrunners (Geococcyx californianus) will also consume desert tortoises. Raven populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit have increased in tandem with urbanization and human activities. The birds forage in garbage dumps, along highways, and roost or nest on power transmission towers and power lines. The data are currently insufficient to quantify the effects of raven predation on desert tortoise populations in Lincoln County. However, observers in the western Mojave Desert have documented ravens killing live, healthy juvenile tortoises (BLM 1989). Based on data collected from California study plots between 1974 and 1987, Berry (1988) has suggested that raven predation is a significant cause of desert tortoise mortality, perhaps accounting for as much as 85 percent of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles. Excessive predation on juveniles can affect the adult breeding population and contribute to population declines. According to some researchers, excessive raven predation must be reduced if management efforts to recover the species are to be effective (BLM 1989). In 1989, a raven control program was initiated by BLM, in cooperation with the USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game, for the Mojave Desert of California; the program was suspended in response to public protests and litigation. Predation by coyotes {Cards latrans), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), badgers (Taxidea taxus), and feral dogs has also been documented (c.f. Woodbury and Hardy 1948; Mortimore and Schneider 1983; Berry 1988). These researchers have proposed that desert tortoise populations experience increased predation when primary prey, such as rabbits and rodents, decline in numbers. It has been suggested that "the most important limiting biotic factor on the desert tortoise is probably predation" (Resource Concepts, unpublished report 1988:7). Some mortalities have been attributed to the trampling of individual tortoises and tortoise burrows and/or dens by large grazing animals (USFWS 1994a). Grazing by domestic sheep and cattle has been ongoing in the planning area since the mid- 1800s; this use increased in intensity near the turn of the century and has declined since the end of World War II (Resource Concepts, unpublished report 1988: 1). Trampling by domestic sheep has been documented in some areas of the Mojave Desert, but not within the planning area. For example, during a one year study in California, Nicholson and Humphries (1981) noted that approximately 6 percent of tortoise burrows were damaged and 3 percent destroyed by 1,000 sheep grazing for 12 days. Berry (1988) cited 15 alleged incidences of the trampling of juvenile tortoise by domestic sheep between 1973 and 1987, also in California. A recent study sponsored by BLM in the western Mojave has indicated that sheep "can directly kill through trampling approximately 20 percent of juvenile tortoises with which they come into contact" (written communication Brussard 1994: 3). Domestic sheep generally herd (or are herded) in tight groups and consequently impact more surface area of the ground. 3-15 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Quantitative evidence on the effects of cattle trampling on tortoise mortality is less well documented, although some direct observations support the occurrence of such trampling (Duck 1991; Dickinson et al. 1995). No incidences of desert tortoise trampling by livestock have been documented in the planning area. Human activities, such as construction, mining, OHV use, vandalism, and illegal collection, also contribute directly and indirectly to tortoise mortality rates. Individual tortoises are injured or killed by vehicles and heavy equipment, both along highways and off road. Tortoise burrows containing egg clutches may be crushed by equipment or off-highway vehicular travel. Human "predation" or vandalism are also direct causes of desert tortoise mortality in some areas of its range. Berry (1986) has observed that approximately 3 percent of tortoise carcasses collected from the western Mojave Desert areas showed signs of gunshots received while the animals were still alive. The collection of desert tortoises for pets has been on-going for many decades throughout its habitat (USFWS 1994a). This practice has reduced tortoise numbers in many areas; captive tortoises released back to the wild may spread the URTD to previously unexposed populations, thereby increasing mortality rates. The indirect effects of these human uses include habitat loss and fragmentation that can affect mortality rates for specific populations. Some researchers have argued that the combined effects of human-caused mortalities and "the continued and escalating loss of habitat" as a result of human activities could result in the extinction of the desert tortoise, at least in the western Mojave Desert before the turn of the century (written communication Brussard 1994:3). Relationship Between Livestock Grazing and Desert Tortoise The relationship between domestic livestock grazing and desert tortoise is a controversial issue. According to the USFWS, possible direct impacts to tortoise from livestock grazing include trampling of both tortoises and shelter sites {Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 28, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994: 5824). Indirect impacts comprise adverse modifications to habitat including loss of plant cover, loss of suitable shelter sites, changes in vegetation, soil compaction, reduced water infiltration, and the provision of a favorable seed bed for exotic annual vegetation (Ibid). The degree of impacts are dependent on the local ecosystem, grazing history and season of use, and the density of the tortoise populations. Investigations into the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoises and their habitat have been ongoing since the late 1970s (Berry 1988; USFWS 1994c; Oldemeyer 1994; BLM 1996a). A number of researchers have implicated dietary overlap and habitat changes as two important variables in the relationship (Berry 1978; Nicholson and Humphreys 1981; USFWS 1990). Dietary Overlap According to Oldemeyer (1994:100), "the primary evidence that grazing by livestock harms desert tortoise relates to an overlap in food habits of livestock and tortoises". Two studies have suggested that tortoises and cattle consume many of the same plant species, especially during the spring (Hohman and Ohmart 1978; Hansen et al. 1976). Desert tortoise show a preference for grasses and forbs in their diets (Oldemeyer 1994). Although few detailed studies of livestock dietary preferences have been conducted in the Mojave Desert (cf. Oldemeyer 1994), grasses characteristically dominate cattle diets. In the Mojave Desert, these would include 3-16 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT the perennial grasses such as galleta, Indian ricegrass, bush muhly, squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), and sand dropseed and perhaps the annual grasses (e.g. six-weeks fescue (Vulpia octoflora), sixweeks grama (Bouteloua barbata) and others). Cattle also consume palatable shrubs, as well as perennial and annual forbs , depending on their availability (Hohman and Ohmart 1980; NERC 1990). In Piute Valley, Nevada, cattle diets principally consisted of shrubs during the dormant season and herbaceous annuals during the spring growing season. Fecal samples collected during the dormant season were dominated by white bursage, littleleaf krameria (Krameria spp.), galleta, blackbrush and Nevada ephedra. During the growing season, fecal samples contained filaree, six-weeks annual fescue, wooly plantain, red brome, desert globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua) and sixweeks grama. As the ephemeral plants disappeared during summer, cattle resumed a diet of perennial shrubs and grasses. Domestic sheep consume more forbs and shrubs than grasses (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Competition between tortoises and livestock can vary due to seasons of use, vegetative types, and rainfall, making it difficult to make precise interpretations. Coombs (1979) has suggested that the dietary overlap between tortoises and cattle would be much higher were it not for the browse species in the diets of the livestock. Hohman and Ohmart (1980) reported that overlap was greatest during the early spring, then decreases during the summer. Berry (1978) suggested that the early spring was a critical period for reducing livestock competition with tortoises for food. On the Beaver Dam Slope, Sheppard (1981) indicated a 60 percent dietary overlap in April, before annuals cured and livestock shifted to perennial forage. Annual grasses appeared to be a buffer for reducing competition, but only when annual densities were high. Hohman and Ohmart (1980) indicated that forbs averaged 39 percent of cattle diet and that dietary overlap averaged 40 percent, but ranged to 60 percent in early spring. (See Appendix G for species list). The dietary overlap between domestic livestock and tortoise could account for declines in tortoise populations, particularly during periods of below average precipitation (Dickinson et al. 1995). Tortoise populations are incapable of rapid growth, even under optimum conditions. The USFWS has concluded that "[a]t this time there are no data showing that continued livestock grazing is compatible with the recovery of the desert tortoise, although it appears that cattle grazing under certain circumstances can be compatible with desert tortoise survival" (USFWS, pg. 58, 1994a). Habitat Change Grazing by cattle and sheep has been implicated as a factor causing deterioration of desert tortoise habitat (cf. Berry 1978, Coombs 1979, Webb and Stielstra 1979). Desert ecosystems require decades to recover from disturbances, based on low precipitation rates. Livestock grazing has altered perennial vegetation in a number of ways. It has caused, or contributed substantially to, the reduction and loss of native perennial grasses (e.g. members of the genera Bouteloua, Hilaria, Stipa, Oryzopsis, Poa, Muhlenbergia, Sporobolus) in the desert (USFWS 1994a). According to some studies, perennial grasses such as needlegrass (Stipa), grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.), and fluffgrass (Erioneuron pulchellum) have been significantly reduced in number, as a result of livestock use (Berry 1984). Much of the western Mojave Desert has been altered from grassland to shrubland, and perennial bunch grasses have disappeared or have been severely reduced by grazing in many creosote communities (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Perennial grasses in many areas have been replaced by woody shrubs, often with an understory of non-native annual grasses introduced from Europe and Asia. In the late 1940s, Woodbury and Hardy (1948) noticed the decrease in perennial grasses in the Beaver Dam Slope of Utah and forewarned of the problems that would result from heavy livestock grazing. They observed that bush muhly was the most abundantly used and important food item for desert tortoises. This is no longer the case, as bush muhly is no longer a substantial part of the tortoise diet (Coombs 1977). 3-17 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Nish (1964) and Coombs (1977) noted that the cover and densities of perennial grasses on the Beaver Dam Slope were generally low, but were more abundant in less grazed areas. Tortoises showed a high preference for these less grazed areas. Tortoises also showed a high preference for bush muhly, even though it was only a minor portion of the diet. Perennial grasses are particularly important in the diets of desert tortoise, as they supply both water and nutrients during spring, summer, and fall. Because of the past 100 years of livestock grazing, perennial grasses are in shorter supply. These changes resulted in an overall deterioration in habitat quality for desert tortoises (Oldemeyer, 1992). Livestock also play an important role in the proliferation of non-native weeds such as filaree, Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), Arabian schismus (S. arabicus), brome grasses {Bromus spp.), and Russian-thistle (Salsola kali) (USFWS 1994c). The seeds of these species are transported to new areas by cattle and sheep, either on their coats or through manure. These introduced annuals now comprise much of the annual flora in grazed areas (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Introduced exotic annuals have a tolerance for soil compaction and can survive heavy grazing pressure better than can native species. They outcompete and replace the native species in heavily grazed areas (Webb and Stielstra 1979). Exotic species, such as red brome and filaree, have been correlated with low tortoise population density and low density of other annuals and are indicators of extensive grazing (Karl 1981). Livestock grazing has also changed the composition of shrubs used by desert tortoises for cover (USFWS 1994c). For example, sheep reduced some perennial shrubs by 65 to 68 percent in volume and by 16 to 29 percent in cover. In areas consistently and heavily grazed by sheep, cover of many species of shrubs was substantially reduced; creosote and weeds often became the predominant vegetation (Webb and Stielstra 1979). The following shrubs can be reduced in numbers and vigor in such grazed sites: burro bush (Hymenoclea spp.), goldenhead (Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus) , Anderson wolfberry (Lycium andersonii), Spiny hopsage, winter fat, and Mojave aster (Machaeranthera tortifolia) (USFWS 1994c). In those desert environments where livestock grazing has been eliminated, some changes in vegetative communities have been observed. For example, regrowth of bush muhly was noted in portions of Eldorado Valley and Piute Valley (Clark County) where livestock grazing has been eliminated (Oftdal and Allen 1996). Other studies (cf. Shreve and Hinckley 1937; Gardner 1950; Waser and Price 1981; Durfee 1988) have documented increases in native perennial grasses in desert areas protected from livestock grazing. The rates of change were noted as being very slow. The replacement of native annuals and once prominent perennials (such as bush muhly) could be an important factor in the decline of desert tortoise numbers. Exotic annuals, when consumed by desert tortoise, could cause a shortage of water and nutrients and complicate electrolyte elimination (Coombs 1979). Dietary stresses could account for increased incidences of malnutrition, greater susceptibility to disease, and lowered Redfitem Filaree 3-18 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT reproduction rates. Since desert tortoises live for many decades, these changes in habitat have occurred during the lifetime of individual animals. Their food and cover requirements have evolved over thousands of years of adaptation to the Mojave Desert environment. Tortoises lack the genetic capability to rapidly adapt to these new habitat conditions (Coombs 1979). A limited number of investigators have developed opinion papers that contradict the conclusions drawn by tortoise biologists and researchers. Bostick (1990) has proposed that the desert tortoise numbers have declined in tandem with decreasing livestock numbers grazed on the public lands. In an unpublished report, Resource Concepts (1988) suggested a parallel between reductions in sheep grazing pressure and declining tortoise populations. These conclusions are not generally accepted by those scientists who are currently engaged in desert tortoise studies. The preponderance of evidence generally indicates that livestock grazing negatively impacts both the desert tortoise and its habitat. Resource Concepts, Incorporated (RCI), 1996 published an annotated bibliography with 850 citations with a summary developed. These citations include professional publication, letters, personal communication, news articles, EISs, EAs, Federal Register notices, and other reports. There are 58 professional publications relating to the effects of grazing with summaries developed. Of these, 53 conclude and describe negative impacts to native desert vegetation communities, 2 indicate a no effect in their study, and 3 suggest positive impacts to the desert vegetation. Twenty-two of these citation specifically identify impacts to desert tortoise. One article suggests positive impacts of grazing on desert tortoise, 2 suggests that there is no impact on desert tortoise and 19 conclude and describe that there are negative impacts on desert tortoise from grazing. Habitat Management Under the ESA, the BLM is required to ensure that any activity which the agency authorizes, funds or conducts does not threaten the continued existence of a listed species. To evaluate the potential effects of proposed activities on listed species, BLM must consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA on any activities that may affect a listed species. Section 7 consultations have considered a variety of activities, including OHV events, rights-of way, mineral activities, and livestock grazing. Designated Critical Habitat The desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species in 1991 and critical habitat was designated by the USFWS in 1994. A total of 6.4 million acres of critical habitat were designated by the USFWS for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Federal Register, pg. 5820-5866, Vol. 59, No.26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). Critical habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as those habitat areas that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, whether or not the species is currently present in that habitat. Critical habitat is further defined as those areas that may require special management considerations or protection. Of the total designated critical habitat for desert tortoise, 1,224,400 acres (or 19 percent) are within Nevada. Designated critical habitat in Lincoln County totals 244,900 acres. The planning area contains 5 percent of the total critical habitat and 26 percent of critical habitat designated within Nevada. The USFWS will revise critical habitat in the future as land management plans, recovery plans, or other conservation strategies are developed and fully implemented reduce the need for the additional protection provided by critical habitat designation. 3-19 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Ongoing Research Research related to long-term survival of the desert tortoise in its native habitat has been ongoing at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center, established by BLM in 1989. Located in Las Vegas, the Conservation Center has supported studies by researchers from the Smithsonian and other academic institutions on desert tortoise physiology, behavior, reproduction, and the causes and transmission of tortoise diseases. Sensitive Species Several sensitive species are known or predicted to occur in the planning area. The banded gila monster is a BLM sensitive species, as well as a State of Nevada protected and rare species. Often found in association with springs and ephemeral and perennial tributaries of the Colorado River, gila monsters have been observed in Meadow Valley Wash, the Pahranagat Valley, and the Tule Springs Hills. The species is also found on rocky slopes, in washes and riparian areas. Since the gila monster spends up to 90 percent of its time underground, observations are relatively infrequent. The chuckwalla lizard is another BLM sensitive species. These are large, herbivorous lizards, generally found at elevations below 5,000 feet, on rocky outcrops and slopes. Suitable habitat for chuckwallas includes most mountain ranges in southern Nevada. Other sensitive species that could be found in the planning area include various species of bats, fish, and amphibians. Some bat species that may be found within the planning area are the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Allen's big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), California leaf-nosed bat {Macrotus calif ornicus), Small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (M. evotis), fringed myotis (M. thysanodes), long-legged myotis (M. volans), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and the Pale Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii pallescens). These species may inhabit the planning area, with a greater potential for occurrence in the Mormon, Meadow Valley, and Delamar Mountains. The Meadow Valley Wash may provide habitat for sensitive fish species including the Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker (Castostomus clarki ssp.), Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace {Rhinichthys osculu spp.), and the Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus). FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS Desert Vegetation Although the Caliente Field Station has no formal program for the harvesting of desert vegetation, many species are made available to the public when destruction of these plants would occur as a result of project construction or facilities development (e.g. power line installations, mining activities, etc). The demand for native seeds and plants has increased over the past decade, as nearby urban areas, such as Las Vegas and St. George, have encouraged the use of drought tolerant plants in landscaping. To date, no permits for seed collection have been issued within desert tortoise habitat. A small number of permits for desert vegetation salvage were issued at the northern extreme of desert tortoise habitat, along Kane Springs Road. 3-20 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES No known threatened or endangered plant species occur within the planning area. The following is a list of sensitive species that may be found in the planning area (data on file, Caliente Field Station 1996): Nye milkvetch (Astragalus nyensis) Utah century plant (Agave utahensis) Coryphantha vivipara var. roseus Cedar Canyon phlox (Gilia ripleyi) Phlox gladifortnis Ferocactus acanthodes var. lecontei Meadow Valley sandwort (Arenaria stenomeres) LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Twenty-five livestock grazing allotments, totalling approximately 1,331,500 acres, are either partially or entirely contained within the planning area (Map 3-3). Of that total, approximately 245,000 acres are within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Most of the allotments are cow-calf operations. The Beacon Allotment, located within the Sand Hollow Allotment (a dual use area), has historically been used in March for one month to graze domestic sheep. Three allotments with domestic horse permits are licensed. Four allotments are managed by other districts. Three of the four allotments Flat Top Mesa, Jackrabbit and Pulsipher Wash are managed by the Las Vegas District and the Terry Allotment is managed by the Arizona Strip District. The Terry Allotment is managed as a pasture of the Scarecrow Peak Allotment in the Arizona Strip District. Table 3-5 displays data relating to the allotments within desert tortoise habitat; Table 3-6 shows allotment acreage. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT The Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs are located within the planning area (refer to Map 2-9). The Mormon Mountains HMA encompasses the entire Mormon Mountain range and is bounded on the northwest by Meadow Valley Wash. The wild horse herd within the boundaries of this HMA has historically been a small population of approximately 15 horses. Wild horses generally use only the northwest quarter of the HMA, where adequate water can be obtained from Meadow Valley Wash. Steep terrain reduces the amount of suitable grazing acreage, while the lack of accessible water make other portions of the HMA unusable for wild horses. Portions of the herd also utilize areas outside the HMA, including the eastern half of the Breedlove Allotment, where suitable foraging areas and accessible water can be found. The number of wild horses using areas outside of the Mormon Mountains HMA have historically been quite high. Burros and/or wild horses have also been reported along the Lincoln-Clark County boundary line. In October of 1993, the BLM removed 211 horses, mules, and burros from areas west of the Mormon Mountains and from the Meadow Valley Mountains HMA. The Meadow Valley Mountains HMA is located between Meadow Valley Wash and the Meadow Valley Mountains. Hackberry Canyon serves as the southern boundary of the HMA. Wild horse use is concentrated 3-21 Livestock Crazing Allotments Within the Planning Area Map 3-3 :\:\ Planning Area ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breedlove C Hox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F SandHollow G Beacon H Terry 1 Snow Springs 1 Lime Mountain K GardenSpring L White Rock M Henrie Complex N lack rabbit O PulsipherWash P Flat Top Mesa Q Summit Spring R BoulderSpring S Delamar T Juckhorn U\ Lower Lake East nV PahranagatEast W Pahranagat West X Lower Lake West Y Lower Riggs Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 3-22 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-5. Total number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of specified livestock grazing, kind of livestock, and season of use for the entire allotment. ALLOTMENT TOTAL NUMBER OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS (AUMS) OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING KIND OF LIVESTOCK SEASON OF USE Breedlove 864 Cattle & Horses 6-15 to 2-28 Boulder Spring 416 Cattle 10-1 to 3-31 Buckhorn 3,370 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Delamar 5,558 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Flat Top Mesa *E Cattle *E Garden Spring 2,809 Cattle & Horses 10-1 to 5-31 Gourd Spring 3,458 Cattle & Horses 10-1 to 5-31 Grapevine 560 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Henrie Complex 4,160 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Jackrabbit *E Cattle *E Lime Mountain 6,754 Cattle 10-1 to 5-15 Lower Lake East 640 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Lower Lake West 1,247 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Lower Riggs 1,408 Cattle 5-1 to 3-24 Mormon Peak 600 Cattle 6-15 to 2-28 Pahranagat East 511 Cattle 8-1 to 5-31 Pahranagat West 2,144 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 Pulsipher Wash *E Cattle *E Rox/Tule 756 Cattle 6-15 to 2-28 Terry 1,511 Cattle 11-1 to 5-31 Sand Hollow 2,430 Cattle 10-1 to 2-28 **Beacon 2,095 Sheep 6-15 to 2-28 Snow Springs 3,567 Cattle 11-1 to 5-31 Summit Springs 715 Cattle 10-1 to 5-15 White Rock 2,880 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 *E-Ephemeral Allotment (see Glossary) **Beacon Allotment is located within the Sand Hollow Allotment, a dual use are for cattle and sheep (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data) 3-23 ■■ .. : ::■■■ ■ ,:■: CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-6. Allotment acreage in desert tortoise habitat and critical habitat. ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES ACRES IN TORTOISE HABITAT ACRES IN CRITICAL HABITAT Breedlove 121,500 110,600 25,500 Boulder Spring 17,800 9,700 0 Buckhorn 80,700 2,400 0 Delamar 245,400 101,100 43,500 Flat Top Mesa 1,100 1,100 0 Garden Spring 39,200 22,200 0 Gourd Spring 97,700 93,500 44,800 Grapevine 34,200 30,200 12^00 Henrie Complex 169,100 84,700 0 Jackrabbit 6,200 6,100 0 Lime Mountain 21,000 2,800 0 Lower Lake East 53,700 41,700 14,400 Lower Lake West 65,200 13,300 0 Lower Rlggs 19,500 100 0 Mormon Peak 77,900 24,400 12,100 Pahranagat East 30,300 11,600 0 Pahranagat West 56,300 14,300 0 Pulsipher Wash 1,400 1,400 ffi Rox/Tule 25,600 25,500 23,900 Terry 31,500 30,500 22,000 Sand Hollow* (Beacon) 41,200 41,100 36,900 Snow Springs 44,400 44,000 6,600 Summit Springs 17,600 17,600 3,000 White Rock 33,000 24,70© 0 TOTALS 1,331,500 754,600 245,000 * Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments are a dual use area; Beacon Allotment t within designated critical habitat, with 2,095 AUMS permitted for domestic she included within the total acreage for the Sand Hollow Allotment. (Source: BLM Caliente Field Station data) otals 5,682 acres, all :ep. This acreage is 3-24 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT primarily in the southern two-thirds of the HMA, where adequate water can be obtained from Meadow Valley Wash and two perennial springs in Hackberry Canyon. The northern third of the HMA is utilized by wild horses, but not as frequently as the southern portions, due to the lack of perennial water. In 1993, a wildland fired burned substantial acreage within the HMA. An emergency removal of wild horses was conducted, during which 101 wild horses were gathered from the HMA; 17 horses were later returned to the HMA. The current population estimate is between 35-50 wild horses. Some interaction may occur between the wild horses of the Mormon Mountain HMA and those in the Meadow Valley Mountain HMA, generally at the accessible water in Meadow Valley Wash. As a result of this interaction, some of the horses may have established home ranges within both HMAs. The southeastern portion of the Blue Nose Peak HMA is contained within the planning unit. This HMA includes the south slope of the Clover Mountains, with Meadow Valley Wash forming the west boundary. The wild horse herd, estimated to number between 20 and 30 animals, concentrates its use in the northern half of the HMA, outside of desert tortoise habitat LANDS The planning area is comprised of public lands administered by BLM. Small tracts of private land are found along U.S. Highway 93 in Coyote Springs Valley and Pahranagat Valley and along the Meadow Valley Wash. No management direction proposed in this plan amendment would directly affect these private lands. A large tract of BLM-administered public land, totaling more than 13,000 acres, was conveyed to the Aerojet Corporation through legislative action in 1988 (Public Law 100-275). Of that total, approximately 7,370 acres were located within the Coyote Springs Valley of Lincoln County. These lands have recently been sold by Aerojet to Harrick Investments. The legislation also designated a mile-wide transportation and utility corridor through the private lands, paralleling U.S. Highway 93. These private lands are not included within the planning area; Section 10 of the ESA addresses the compliance requirements on private lands for listed species. Many land use authorizations have been granted in the planning area, including rights-of way for power and telephone lines, communication, and material sites; leases under the R&PP; and airport leases under the Airport Act. A number of applications for DLEs are also pending. The majority of existing authorizations are for linear rights-of-way, including power transmission lines, State and Federal highways, and gas transportation pipelines. The Intermountain Power Project's 500 kV transmission line and the Kern River natural gas pipeline bisect designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. Two utility lines and one granted (but as yet unconstructed) 500 kV transmission line for the SWIPP to cross the Coyote Springs Valley. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way follows the canyon of the Meadow Valley Wash. Several communication sites have been developed within the planning area. Local government entities and private individuals have expressed interest in acquiring public lands within the planning area. Lincoln County Commissioners have identified lands near Alamo and Ash Springs for community expansion. The City of Mesquite, located in Clark County, has been investigating the possibility of acquiring public lands in Lincoln County, in order to expand an existing landfill. All of the lands under consideration are within desert tortoise habitat. RECREATION The majority of recreational use within desert tortoise habitat is casual, dispersed use. Recreational opportunities in the area include hunting, trapping, hiking, primitive camping, photography, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and OHV use (both casual use and organized and/or competitive use). Overall, recreation use in the planning area is 3-25 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT very light. Total estimated annual recreational use within the planning area ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 visitor days (data on file, BLM, Caliente Field Station 1995). Hunting activities are generally concentrated at springs and artificial water sources (guzzlers) located throughout the area. Gambel's quail are the most important game bird in desert tortoise habitat. Mule deer and desert bighorn sheep hunting occurs but generally at higher elevations, outside of tortoise habitat. Coyote, bobcat, kit and gray fox, and mountain lion are trapped and/or hunted during the winter months. Hiking, primitive camping, photography, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and casual OHV use occurs throughout the year. Because the planning area is located a long distance from large population centers, much of the casual OHV use occurs in association with hunting, trapping, or other activities. Organized OHV use has also been very limited in the planning area, with only five permitted events in as many years. A total of 51,360 acres of the planning area is already designated as limited to existing roads and trails for all motorized OHV use to protect desert tortoise habitat. Another portion of the planning area, totalling 16, 960 acres, is designated to limit competitive events to existing roads to protect gila monster habitat. The designation for this habitat does not apply to casual OHV use. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS Portions of five WSAs are within or immediately adjacent to desert tortoise habitat. These are indicated on Map 2-1 and include Evergreen ABC WSA (NV-050-01R-16 ); Fish and Wildlife #1 (NV-050-201); Delamar Mountains WSA (NV-050-177); Meadow Valley Mountains WSA (NV-050-156); and the Mormon Mountains WSA (NV-050-161). Portions of the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains WSAs have been recommended to Congress as suitable for wilderness designation; the remaining three WSAs have been recommended as unsuitable. All five WSAs continue to be managed according to the IMP which generally prohibits surface-disturbing activities, including off-road vehicle travel. Evergreen ABC WSA was studied under Section 202 of FLPMA, following the April 1985 decision in Sierra Club v. Watt concerning certain lands that were deleted from wilderness review in 1982 and 1983. The WSA contains three small sub-areas, totaling only 2,694 acres, sandwiched between the USFWS Desert National Wildlife Range on the west and U.S. Highway 93 on the east. Primarily due to its location contiguous to the Wildlife Range (most of which was once recommended for wilderness designation), this area was reinstated as a WSA. Although no acreage was recommended for wilderness designation, the desert tortoise was identified as a special feature of the area and was considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Fish and Wildlife #1 WSA encompasses approximately 1 1 ,090 acres bordered by the Desert National Wildlife Range on the west and U.S. Highway 93 on the east. Only the northern portion of this WSA is within Lincoln County and the planning area. Like the Evergreen WSA, the Fish and Wildlife WSAs (#1, 2, and 3) were identified as WSAs in support of the USFWS recommendation that the majority of the adjacent Desert National Wildlife Range be designated as wilderness. This wilderness recommendation was later withdrawn. Since the WSA does not contain outstanding wilderness qualities on its own, no acreage was recommended for wilderness designation in the BLM Wilderness Report prepared for submission to Congress in 1990. The presence of desert tortoise was among the special features identified and considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Delamar Mountains WSA contains 126,257 acres located at the southern end of the Delamar Mountains. Elevations within the WSA range from 2,600 to 6,300 feet, consisting of a series of bajadas that generally surround a rugged mountainous interior. The majority of desert tortoise habitat is in the lower bajadas, on the southern and western fringes of the WSA. Numerous special features were considered in development of the 3-26 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT wilderness recommendation, including the presence of the desert tortoise. None of the WSA was recommended suitable for wilderness designation because of potential resource conflicts. The absence of physical barriers to limit incursions by OHVs into the WSA created manageability concerns that influenced this recommendation. Meadow Valley Mountains WSA is comprised of 185,744 acres, located between the Delamar Mountains and the Mormon Mountains WSAs. A total of 88,564 acres are recommended for uses other than wilderness, due to manageability concerns primarily associated with off-road vehicle use. This eastern portion of the WSA, generally below the 3,200 foot contour, is characterized by a low desert shrub vegetative community. The 97,180 acre portion recommended for wilderness designation is characterized by more rugged topography and includes pinyon and juniper woodlands. Presence of the desert tortoise within the WSA was not identified as a special feature considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Mormon Mountains WSA consists of 162,887 acres of public land and encompasses the Mormon Mountains. Elevations range from 2,200 feet to 7,500 feet and include low-desert bajadas and rugged mountainous peaks and ridges. The desert tortoise, which occur on the bajadas in the southern, western and eastern flanks of the WSA, were among the special features considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. A total of 123,130 acres were recommended for wilderness designation, while 39,757 acres were recommended for uses other than wilderness. Excluded from the wilderness recommendation were the bajadas that comprise habitat for the desert tortoise. The recommendation was, in part, based on the potential difficulty associated with limiting off-road vehicle use across the bajadas. Other bajada areas, considered inaccessible to off-road vehicle use, were recommended for wilderness designation. FLUID MINERALS Federally-owned minerals in the public domain are classified into specific categories. Fluid minerals are those being processed for their fluid material, either in the rocks or flowing through the rocks. Fluid minerals have been classified as a leasable mineral. Under current regulations, the following items are classified as fluid minerals: 1) oil and gas; 2) geothermal resources and associated by-products; and 3) oil shale, native asphalt, oil impregnated sands and any other material in which oil is recoverable only by special treatment after the deposit is mined or quarried. The leasing of these minerals is discretionary. Oil and Gas Few wells have been drilled in the planning area, with only one or two of the wells having oil and gas shows. Geophysical activity is continuing on a very occasional basis within the desert tortoise habitat. Based on the regional geology for the area, the U.S. Geological Survey published Eastern Great Basin and Snake River Downwarp, Geology and Petroleum Resources (Peterson 1988). This report presents information for developing oil and gas potential for the region and identifies two potential oil and gas plays for Eastern Nevada. A "play" refers to an exploration target that may have the potential for payable quantities of oil and gas. The planning area is covered by portions of two plays; these are identified as the "unconformity play" and the "Upper Paleozoic play". The planning area is contained within the Upper Paleozoic play, characterized as a possible stratigraphic trap between interbedded shaly seals, independent of the reservoir rock. The rocks are almost entirely marine and contain good potential reservoir and source rock in most of the stratigraphic section. The extensive interbedding of source rock and reservoir rocks with shale formations could produce small oil and gas reservoirs in the play. This type of trap is producing oil in the Blackburn field in Pine Valley, Nevada. Conversely, the tectonic and igneous activities of the area may have destroyed these traps and the oil potentially contained within them. 3-27 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The mountain regions of Nevada have not been drilled to the same extent as the valleys. Extensive interest has been expressed in the overthrust trap located in the northern portion of Lincoln County, outside of the planning area. Based on indirect geological and geophysical evidence, the oil and gas potential for the planning area is evaluated as moderate in the valley bottoms and thus, is prospectively valuable for fluid minerals. The mountainous regions have low potential, based on similar indirect evidence. Geothermal Resources Geo thermal resources within Lincoln County are located to the north in the Pahranagat Valley, the Caliente area, and near Panaca. Geothermal resources are not known to. occur within the desert tortoise habitat which comprises the planning area. The geologic history indicates faulting and igneous activity in the region but no geothermal resources have, to date, been identified. The potential for the occurrence of these resources in the planning area is low, based on indirect evidence. The temperatures of these springs and wells range from a high of 120 degrees (F) in Caliente to a low of 70 degrees F. SOLID MINERALS Minerals which are mined out of the ground and processed for the metallic or chemical nature of the rock are identified as solid minerals. These minerals have been divided by Congress into three groups: locatable, salable, and leasable minerals. Locatable minerals are those that have been described as "valuable mineral deposits". These include metallic minerals such as gold, silver, copper, lead, and nonmetallic minerals such as bentonite, gypsum, chemical grade limestone, and chemical grade silica sand. Uncommon varieties of mineral materials such as pumice, rock, and cinders are also managed as locatable minerals. Disposal of these minerals is not a discretionary action for the BLM. Salable minerals are common minerals and mineral materials and include sand and gravel, sand, and common clays. These have been identified as minerals not designated as leasable and locatable. Disposal of these minerals is a discretionary action for BLM. Non-energy leasable minerals are identified as specific minerals such as coal and phosphates. Leasable minerals are all minerals in specific locations, such as acquired lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. Disposal of these minerals is a discretionary action for the BLM. Locatable Minerals No operating mines are located within the planning area. Several exploration operations have been conducted, but no production has been reported. Two mining districts, the Gourd Springs District and the informal Tule Valley District, are located within the planning area. The Gourd Springs District has had very little historic production, most of which occurred during the 1920s. The district has two main deposits: the Amos Hunt manganese property and the Bruson tungsten property. The Hunt manganese shipped 60 if ^THfa tons of ore in 1929; no production has been reported J m^lH for the Bruson. The district has occurrence of tin, beryllium, barite, and the material mined manganese 3-28 CHAPTER 3 ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and tungsten. The Tule Valley District has been identified for the occurrence of moderately thick sequences of gypsum. Two main deposits, White Queen and the Snowhite, are found within the district. No production has been recorded for this district. Other notable prospects in the planning area include the Whitemore Mine (copper); the Iron Blossom prospect (iron oxides); the Bradshaw (vanadium); and the Johnston and Fitchett (perlite and some zeolites). These prospects are located in the Mormon and Meadow Valley Mountains. The Mormon Mountains appear to have three mineralized areas: a southern zone which is enriched with lead and copper; an east-trending northern zone which contains lead, silver, and copper; and a west-central third zone with tungsten. The locatable mineral potential for desert tortoise habitat and surrounding mountain ranges is identified as moderate, based on indirect geological and geophysical evidence. Salable Minerals Several types of salable minerals are found within the planning area. The most common is gravel that has resulted from alluvial and colluvial deposition. Other types of deposits include topsoil and decorative types of rock and sand. These salable minerals are widely distributed throughout the region. No major exploration is reported to be ongoing for salable minerals. Deposits of sand, sand and gravel, rock, and topsoil of unknown volumes have been identified throughout the planning area. Production of salable minerals is currently limited to an area along U.S. Highway 93, just north of the Clark-Lincoln County line. Most of the material is being produced for use as highway material for the maintenance of U.S. Highway 93. There are 17 NDOT material site rights-of-way totalling about 320 acres within desert tortoise habitat.. Large sand deposits are found south of Coyote Springs in small dunes along Highway 93. Deposits of other mineral materials in the East Mormon Mountains and the Meadow Valley Mountains have been identified but production has been limited. Liesegang banded rhyolite tuff is being produced in the Clover Mountains, outside of the planning area. Production of mineral materials on private lands in Coyote Springs Valley has been increasing, with this material being sold to markets in Las Vegas. The planning area has a moderate to high potential for saleable materials, based on direct and indirect evidence for mineral material resources. Solid Leasable Minerals Solid leasable minerals in the planning area include potassium and phosphates associated with Pleistocene-age lakes. When these lakes evaporated, mineral salts were precipitated. A mineral occurrence for phosphates has been reported in the Mormon Mountains. The planning area has low potential for solid leasable mineral resources, based on indirect evidence. FERE MANAGEMENT Surface-disturbing activities have altered the fire regime in the planning area. Where fire-resistant perennial shrubs were once abundant, exotic annual grasses, like red brome, now thrive. These exotic annuals provide a fuel source that encourages the spread of fire and increases the size of fires that occur in desert tortoise habitat (see discussion under Ecological Site Inventory in this chapter). From 1980 until 1992, 96 wildland fires were reported on public lands within the planning area, at an average rate of eight fires per year. These consumed an average of 582 acres per fire, for a total of 51,000 acres. Over 50 percent of the fires were caused by lightning. 3-29 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Current BLM fire suppression strategy is to determine an appropriate level of suppression, as determined by safety factors and resource values at risk. Suppression tactics in desert tortoise habitat emphasize the minimization of vegetative losses and surface disturbance. Tactical determinations are made by the Incident Commander, in consultation with Resource Advisors. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUES Economic and Social Conditions Because of the manner in which data is organized and made available, the affected environment, for purposes of economic and social analysis, must necessarily be defined to include all of Lincoln County. Analysis of potential effects must also be inferred from county-wide data. Population and Area Lincoln County, the third largest in the state, is rural and sparsely populated. With a total area of approximately 10,634 square miles, and an estimated 1996 population of 4,020 (State of Nevada, June, 1997), population density for the county is less than 0.4 persons per square mile. The county's population grew from 3,732 in 1980 to only 3,775 in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census); an increase of only 43 persons. This represents a rate of growth of 1.2 percent, the lowest in the state. The largest population center in the county, and its only incorporated city, is Caliente, with a reported census population of 1,111 in 1990 and a 1996 population estimate of 1,1 10. The balance of the county's population is concentrated in the unincorporated towns of Alamo, Panaca, and Pioche. Income and Employment Historically, mining and agriculture have been the most constant and dependable economic activities in Lincoln County. These industries were the county's original and primary source of income and continue to play an important role in the county's economy today. Many residents view livestock grazing and mining as the solid, stable and dependable bedrock of the economic base. Their relative importance in the overall economic picture has, however, become less significant in recent years. Table 3-7 shows earnings by place of work, and employment by major industrial sectors, for Lincoln County in 1995. Total personal income for the County, in 1995, is reported at $72,004,000; this includes earnings by place of work, personal contributions for social insurance, adjustments for residence, dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer payments. Earnings by place of work constituted $54,356,000 of that total. Total employment is estimated at 2,038. The service industries are the single most important employers and income producers for the County, with government providing the second largest source of income and employment. Civilian employment by private firms providing contractual services to the Nevada Test Site and other Department of Defense activities explains the high incidence of service industry income and employment. Together, the service industries and government account for 83.9 percent of wage and salary income, and 70.4 percent of employment in Lincoln County. The Lincoln County economy has been hard hit in recent years, largely due to reduced expenditures and employment in U.S. Department of Defense activities. County income from wages and salaries has declined from $57.0 million, in 1991, to $46.6 million in 1995; representing a total loss of income from employment of approximately $10.4 million. The number of jobs in the County has declined, as well, from a reported 2,395 in 3-30 CHAPTER 3 ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 1990 to 2,038 in 1995; a decline of 357 jobs. The Nevada State Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation reports that 300 Lincoln County residents lost jobs, since 1993, with the reduction of activities at the Nevada Test Site. Lincoln County unemployment was reported for the first quarter of 1997 at 100 persons, for an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent. This compares with data for the first quarter of 1996 which indicates 160 people unemployed and an unemployment rate of 13.5 percent. This decline in the number of persons unemployed, and in the unemployment rate, however, does not indicate the occurrence of any positive economic influence in the County. But rather an outward migration of persons seeking work in other counties, and the possibility that a number of people have removed themselves from the available work force and, at least temporarily, have abandoned an active search for employment. Annual per capita income figures for 1995 show Lincoln County, at $18,635, to be almost 24 percent below the average of $24,361 for the state's 17 counties. Economic Linkages The economic structure of Lincoln County is not large enough to support a wide variety of businesses; therefore, businesses and residents must rely on other counties for a large portion of the goods and services that they require. Lincoln County has available raw natural resources such as public rangeland forage for livestock. Businesses and residents of other counties utilize these Lincoln County resources. The Caliente-Panaca-Piochearea of Lincoln County is strongly linked to Iron and Washington Counties is Southwestern Utah. Cedar City in Iron County, and St. George in Washington County are regional trade centers where businesses and residents of Caliente, Panaca, and Pioche obtain goods and services unavailable in Lincoln County. Cattle ranchers obtain financing and purchase machinery, livestock, supplements, and fertilizers in Cedar City and St. George. Most of their calf sales are to Utah buyers. And, on the other hand, a large proportion of the public rangeland forage in the Caliente Resource Area is purchased and utilized by cattle ranchers from Southwestern Utah. The Federal Government represents a significant presence in the county, as illustrated by land ownership data. About 95 percent of the land area in Lincoln County, approximately 6,500,000 acres is under federal ownership. The Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site represent the most visible presence of the Federal government in the county. However, resident interest and concern is directed toward federal management of the lands for livestock grazing, mining, wildlife and wild horse management, wilderness, and land tenure. Social Setting, Attitude, and Values Several analyses of Lincoln County social attitudes, expectations, and lifestyles have been conducted by BLM and other agencies during the land use planning processes and for environmental analyses, (e.g. BLM 1978, 1979, 1989, 1993) Conclusions drawn from those prior studies remain appropriate. The majority of Lincoln County residents are pleased with their communities and lifestyles, and are unamenable to outside influences in their lives. Residents strongly value quality educational opportunities for their children, family life, friendship, personal honesty, and trust. Personal independence, responsibility, and self-reliance are particularly prized virtues. Economic development, industrial growth, and community expansion are favored, but the emphasis is on moderation. Personal status and environmental concerns receive little emphasis. Positive community attributes include such factors as (1) a good place to live and raise a family, (2) recreational opportunities, (3) and the quality of the physical environment. The lack of adequate hospital and medical care are principal' concerns. Social and political attitudes and expectations among county residents are generally conservative and modest. County residents typically appear to view each other as equals and in general do not discuss other residents in terms of social rank, racial, or ethnic origins. However, on an individual basis, those values having to do with origins, kinship, and religion are the common bond around which political and social influences coalesce. 3-31 -yjsaPKaw. CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The positive value placed on the small size of local communities; the positive aspects of a rural atmosphere; the appeal of clean air, and moderate weather; the easy access to outdoor recreation; the feeling of friendliness and sociability; the opportunities afforded of doing things as a family; and the belief in the natural order of things, particularly the belief that change will proceed modestly and gradually without altering the county's rural character, are the values that are consistently articulated by county residents. There prevails a very optimistic attitude toward the historical peak and valley employment patterns of the mining industry; area residents expect that the future will be "pretty much like the past," and many express hope for the possibility of further mineral development in the area as at least a partial solution to the county's economic and employment problems. Generally, businessmen, professionals, and influential community leaders are politically oriented toward change, while ranchers are politically oriented toward preserving the status quo. Change is a value seldom expressed by the general public. Even among those in the county who favor change, change is often qualified in terms of "progress" that will preserve, or at least not upset, the natural order. The ranching community cohesively exists as a single community that transcends the Nevada-Utah stateline. The economic and resource ties are strong, and they are part of the same religious community. For the ranching community, in general, ranching is seen as one of the few remaining ways of carrying on a family tradition where family members can all share meaningful work and responsibility. Ranching is perceived as a way of life that provides security and family stability, the opportunity to be self-sufficient, the opportunity to work out-of- doors, and the opportunity to be relatively free of outside supervision in their isolated work environment. Generally, ranchers resent the nationwide environmental trends of the last 20 years which they see as restrictive. Such initiatives are not perceived by the ranchers as being sufficiently elastic to permit management adaptations in response to various types of local conditions. In previous surveys, ranchers have strongly expressed their feeling that they cannot influence local BLM District Office planning decisions, since they feel that interpretation of the law and planning decision guidance is provided by the Washington BLM staff without regard to local conditions or local perspectives and experience. Ranchers view market prices for ranches in the area as strongly related to the relative mix of public and private lands of which a ranch is composed; any withdrawal of preferences on public lands from that mix can have serious and immediate implications for both the ranching community and the financial institutions which support that community. They feel that the ranching industry has been severely limited in recent years by ever- increasing governmental intervention, drought, and tight cost-price ratios in the national cattle market. In the national market, they view themselves as "price takers" rather than "price setters." Ranchers also feel that the constant turnover of BLM personnel does not serve their best interests. They perceive the lack of continuity created by new personnel as having a deleterious effect on communication and understandings that have been developed, and in BLM land management efforts as they apply to local circumstances and conditions. In an industry where long-term planning is considered essential, they feel that the frequent changeover of BLM personnel deprives the ranching community of consistency in interpretation and application of Bureau regulations and policies as they might apply to the local region. The above views, coupled with the ranching community's philosophical opposition to both government intervention in the industry and continued federal ownership of "Nevada lands," tends to sustain the potential for conflict between the Bureau and the community. Lincoln County residents and elected officials have consistently voiced opposition to proposed Land Tenure Adjustments that would result in either loss of tax revenue to the County, or loss of development opportunities. Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan In July 1995, Clark County entered into a long-term agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal, State, and municipal agencies (including the Bureau of Land Management), for a Desert Tortoise 3-32 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The purpose of this HCP is to establish rules, policies, and procedures which permit continued development in Clark County while providing extensive measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts which might result from the incidental taking of desert tortoise. This HCP imposes a $647 per acre mitigation fee on all land disturbed within Clark County below 5,000 feet in elevation, which is subject to permitting requirements of Clark County and the cooperating municipalities. These fees provide a fund for mitigation of impacts upon desert tortoise habitat. The HCP further provides for Clark County to negotiate with individuals for the purchase and exchange of grazing privileges to offset developed land and to achieve conservation objectives. The land area included for purchase and exchange of grazing privileges is not confined to the boundaries of Clark County, but is stipulated as, "within DWMAs," or Desert Wildlife Management Areas, as proposed in the USFWS, Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan, dated June 1994. Affected Sectors Livestock-oriented agriculture and mining are the major basic industries to be affected by management proposals to recover and delist the desert tortoise. Affected resources will include lands, corridors, and recreation. Agriculture Agricultural production in Lincoln County consists of cattle, sheep, alfalfa, and hay. Cash receipts from marketings in 1995 totaled $8,526,000, with $2,516,000 from livestock and livestock products, and $6,010,000 from crops. Total farm labor and proprietors' income is estimated at $2,183,171. Agriculture accounts for an estimated 3.4 percent of income in the county, but provides approximately 7.3 percent of county employment. However, agriculture contributes little indirect income to the county because most of the farm and ranch inputs are purchased outside of the county, in Cedar City and St. George, Utah. Wages and perquisites for farm labor are estimated at $913,000, and total net farm proprietors' income is estimated at $919,000 for 1995. Though not of major significance in the economy, cattle ranching is perceived by many county residents to be the bedrock of the economic base; and the viability and success of the industry remains tied to the public lands. Lincoln County assesses a tax on livestock at the rate of 28 cents per head, per year, for beef cattle, 75 cents for horses and 30 cents for sheep. Livestock operators have been authorized 116,763 AUMs within the lands administered by the Caliente Field Station, with a total of 48,453 AUMS authorized within allotments containing desert tortoise habitat. This accounts for approximately 42 percent of the total AUMs within the Caliente Field Station. There are 37 permittees in the planning area, with 29 active and 8 inactive. Of the 29 active permittees, dependency upon the public lands ranges from 12 percent to 100 percent. Nineteen of the 25 grazing allotments within the planning area are actively grazed at the present time. All but four are land-based properties. Because of the broad ranging variability and the small number of operations in the area, the seasonality of forage, and the high dependency upon ephemeral-perennial range, typical ranch budgets could not be developed. However, net ranch income is estimated at $4.80 per AUM. 3-33 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-7 Lincoln County earning and employment for 1995. EARNINGS EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIAL SECTOR $000 %OF TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS %OF TOTAL Agriculture 1,866 3.4 149 7.3 Agriculture Services 78 0.1 15* 0.7 Mining 248 0.5 18 0.9 Construction 556 1.0 36 1.8 Manufacturing 55 0.1 10* 0.5 Transportation and Public Utilities 2,324 4.3 59 2.9 Wholesale and Retail Trade 2,992* 5.5 256* 12.6 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 650 1.2 59 2.9 Services 28,322* 52.1 832* 40.8 Government 17,265 31.8 604 29.6 TOTAL 54,356 100.0 2,038 100.0 *BLM estimates (Source: USDC, 1997) Historically, the economic benefits derived by area ranchers from the use of public range have exceeded the fees they are charged. The existence of this market imbalance, or "consumer surplus" has meant that ranchers are willing to pay extra for the opportunity to use public lands, thereby causing the grazing permits to acquire a market value (Vale, 1979; Neilson and Workman, 1971). The permits can be bought or sold in the market place, or used as collateral for loans (Corbett, 1978). Although not officially recognized as real property, BLM permits have nonetheless become an integral element in the capital and credit structure of area ranchers. Currently, the market value of federal AUMs ranges from $25 to $60 per AUM. Recent appraisals in southern Lincoln County, by Pacific Agribusiness Service for the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan, have estimated the AUM values for several of these operations to range from $45 to $54 per AUM. This appraisal takes into consideration the existence of range improvements, and averages about $50 per AUM. Assuming an average market value of $50 per AUM, BLM grazing privileges, which total 48,453 AUMs in the affected area, contribute $2,422,650 to the wealth of area ranchers. Mining At the present time, mining is of very low economic significance in Lincoln County. In 1995, mining provided less than 1 percent of the county's income and employment. Earnings for 1995 are reported at $248,000, or 0.5 percent of the county's total earnings. Mining employment provided a reported 18 jobs, or 0.9 percent of the county's total employment. Since Lincoln County is seeking growth and development opportunities and an expanded income base, there is concern that placing additional encumbrances on mineral exploration and production represents economic opportunities foregone. 3-34 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Formerly, mining represented a significant economic activity in the County. The largest mining operation in recent years was the Tempiute Mine, which reopened in 1977, but closed several years ago. This operation employed 185 workers. The Bunker Hill Mine, near Pioche, produced silver, lead, and zinc until March 1978, when low zinc prices forced it to close. A payroll of $150,000 per month, and employment for 110 workers was lost. Lands Payments in Lieu of Taxes to Lincoln County amounted to $186,950 in 1994. The 10-year average, at that time, was $180,331. Corridors The Planning Area has three established major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study prepared by the Western Utility Group in 1986. These corridors total about 50 miles. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The third route is encumbered with a right-of- way that has been granted for a 500 kV power transmission line which is yet to be constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although it is likely that construction materials and a skilled workforce will be brought in from outside the area, Lincoln County would realize a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce and any incidental construction materials or equipment that might be locally purchased. The establishment of these corridors was designed to enable more efficient and cost effective planning for future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of designated corridors sustains high planning costs because of the number of alternatives that must be considered, and results in longer processing time for right-of-way applications. Designating the DWMAs/ACECs as avoidance areas, or requiring Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, could affect the efficiency of planning for proposed facilities. Additional planning and construction costs to utility companies and longer processing time to review the viability of rights-of-way applications could result. The proponent of the Southwest Intertie Project, a 500 kV power transmission line, estimates that Lincoln County would realize annual property tax revenues of $4,935 per mile. Recreation Expenditures for recreation in the planning area contribute to the regional economy through the purchase of lodging, services, equipment, fuel, and food. With an estimated 1000 to 2000 visitor days of recreation activities occurring in the planning area, recreation related expenditures are estimated at $50,000 per year. During the past 5 years, different OHV events, totaling five events on as many courses, have been permitted by BLM, averaging one event per year. These events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little economic benefit in either jobs or income to Lincoln County. Section 7 Consultation Costs Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on actions that may jeopardize a threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 directs agencies to submit to the USFWS a complete description of any proposed action and the anticipated effects (biological assessment). The USFWS then has up to 135 days (with an additional 60 day extension, when necessary) to review the proposal and prepare a biological opinion which may enable the 3-35 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT project to go forward and, in some cases, provide for incidental take of the subject species, while providing certain conditions of operation, or modification of plans, or means to mitigate adverse effects. Private individuals, companies, or corporations are frequently the proponents of projects or proposals to utilize the public lands; such as minerals developments, land exchanges or transfers, utility corridors, etc. While it is the responsibility of the federal agency initiating the proposed action to prepare the description of the action and the anticipated effects (the biological assessment), oftentimes the Bureau of Land Management does not have sufficient staff or funding to process a private party request in a sufficiently timely manner to meet the needs of the project proponent. In such cases, the project proponent may prepare the biological assessment, under BLMs direction, in order to facilitate initiation of the required consultation and expedite project scheduling. These documents may be quite simple or very complex, depending upon the nature and extent of the proposed public land use and the species involved. Private individuals sometimes hire a consultant, or consult an attorney, to shepherd them through the process. Large companies, or corporations, often employ an Environmental Coordinator, or a Project Manager on a permanent full-time basis for just these types of activities. If the proposed project is quite extensive, a third-party Environmental consulting firm may be employed to undertake the necessary studies and documentation. The costs of Section 7 consultation may be quite variable. Cost factors would include the nature of the project, the biological requirements of the species, the extent of analytical detail required, and the time and expertise employed in preparation of the analysis and documentation. Additional costs could result in the event that additional mitigation measures might be required to ameliorate potential effects on the species; and from any delays imposed on the initiation of project development. At the present time Section 7 consultation is required throughout the area covered by this Plan Amendment. The establishment of a framework for land-use proposals and management decisions, which is the purpose of this Amendment, will provide sufficient guidelines to effectively focus potential land-use proposals and ameliorate or reduce Section 7 consultation and mitigation costs. Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, requires that Federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that impact low income and minority populations as a result of Federal programs, policies, or activities. Demographic analysis comprises the first step in determining disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low income and minority populations. Such analysis includes defining the region of influence, census block groups, low-income populations, minority communities, and the thresholds for calculating a low-income or minority community census block group (USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). To identify minority communities, the four racial classifications recognized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census are used. These are (1) white, (2) black, (3) American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and (4) Asian or Pacific Islander. Hispanic is considered to be an origin, rather than a racial classification by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Proposed Action and alternatives provide management actions for public lands located in Lincoln County; the county comprises the region of influence for this Draft Plan Amendment/EIS. Census block groups are defined as clusters of blocks within the same census tract. The census block groups do not cross county or census tract boundaries and generally are comprised of between 250 and 550 housing units (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993; USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). For analytic purposes, low income populations are defined as individuals living within a census block group whose income is below the poverty level. Households are classified as being below the poverty level if the total family income or unrelated individual income is less than the poverty threshold specified for the applicable family size (Ibid). As an example, the weighted average 3-36 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT threshold for a 4-person family was $12,674 for the 1990 census (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994). Percentages of low-income and minority communities can be calculated within each census block group, using thresholds developed to avoid biasing the designation of poverty areas. According to recent demographic analyses conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy, Lincoln County contains eight census block groups. No census block groups in the county have low income or minority communities, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census classifications and thresholds described above (USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). 3-37 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the anticipated physical, biological, social, and economic consequences of implementing the Proposed Action or the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The discussion of the environmental consequences is in proportion to the significance of the anticipated impacts. The following are not present or would not be impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives: Air Quality; Cultural or Paleontological Resources; Farm Lands (prime or unique); Floodplains; Wilderness values; Wild and Scenic Rivers; Native American Religious Concerns or Traditional Lifeways Values; Hazardous or Solid Wastes; or Environmental Justice issues. The baseline for comparing impacts is Alternative C (No Action Alternative), which represents a continuation of the existing management situation. Impacts identified are those that could be expected to occur within 25 years, if no changes occur in the current management guidelines. The impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives are compared to this baseline. The analysis of environmental consequences includes identification and discussion of direct and indirect impacts. Cumulative impacts are also analyzed in this chapter. Impacts were analyzed for each of the following resources or management programs: special management areas such as ACECs or DWMAs; special status species and wildlife habitat; soils and water resources; riparian areas; forestry and vegetative products; livestock grazing; wild horses and burros; lands; recreation; minerals; fire management; and socio-economic values. An interdisciplinary approach was used to analyze the environmental consequences. ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS The following assumptions underlie the analysis: Funding and staffing will be adequate to fully implement all management actions associated with each alternative. As desert tortoise habitat is improved, tortoise populations will manifest upward trends. Regional human demographic trends will continue at current rates over the life of the plan. Local governments/municipalities within the planning area will require additional lands for community growth and public purpose development. Power, communication, and petroleum product transmission and distribution needs will increase in the future. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) will make more frequencies available to industry; more communication site locations will be required. Recreational use of the desert environment will continue to grow as a direct result of the increase in human populations and the increase in sales and use of OHVs. aKH^HHnsHiSMHnHaHn CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The BLM's full force and effect decisions implementing the biological opinion for livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat will be upheld in District Court. The TJSFWS will issue a biological opinion on the Proposed Caliente Plan Amendment that will address the management of land uses, including livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat, and assess the adequacy of the management proposals to achieve recovery and delisting objectives. Livestock operators will be able to manage their livestock through a variety of techniques including fencing, herding, and salt and water placement, so that grazing will not occur within the special management area boundaries. Permittees who receive compensation for closure of their allotments to livestock grazing will be compensated only for those portions of their allotment inside the special management areas. Areas proposed to be withdrawn from mineral entry will occur timely and will be approved by Congress. Section 7 funds will be available to aid in implementation of management actions. INCOMPLETE AND/OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 1502.22 mandates that agencies evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement must identify incomplete or unavailable information, if that information is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. Information is currently incomplete or unavailable from the planning area for the following issues: desert tortoise population trends; rates and causes of desert tortoise mortality; the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoise recovery; and the potential for recovery of native plant communities in the short and long term. Disagreements among professionals, conflicting data, or the lack of data characterizes many domains in tortoise biology. As Germano (pg, 187,1994) has asserted, "An obstacle to past and current research is the preponderance of unpublished literature and the lack of scientific hypothesis, especially on studies of desert tortoise (G. agaassizzi). Important management decisions have been made without adequate knowledge about the biology of the affected species". These issues are relevant to a reasoned choice among alternatives, since the development of appropriate management strategies to achieve recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise is dependent on a clear understanding of habitat needs and current trends in tortoise populations. Sufficient data on desert tortoise mortality and trends is available to indicate that populations in some areas of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery, especially near urban centers, are declining or failing to recruit sufficient juveniles and hatchlings. A reasoned choice among recovery strategies can be made with the available information. Information on the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoise and the potential and timeframes needed for recovery of native plant communities is not conclusive. In the professional judgement of biologists working for the USFWS, BLM, USGS-National Biological Survey, and other institutions (e.g. the Smithsonian), the best available scientific data and the preponderance of evidence indicates that livestock grazing negatively impacts the desert tortoise and its habitat. According to the Recovery Plan, livestock grazing should be prohibited in any special management areas designated for desert tortoise. The most credible scientific data on desert tortoise biology and habitat needs are described in Chapter 3 of this Plan Amendment. Based on the available information, the BLM evaluation of the impacts that could result from 4-2 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives are presented in the following sections of this chapter. REASONABLE FORESEEABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The following projections of future minerals activities were developed in order to identify and analyze impacts associated with minerals development in desert tortoise habitat. Locatable Minerals Exploration would continue at the present rate of between eight to ten operations per year for all types of locatable minerals. Operations would consist of small exploration projects that would comprise drilling operations. Surface disturbance would affect an average of 5 acres per project; a total of 50 acres of surface disturbance could be projected per year. Reclamation could require up to 25 years for native vegetation to reestablish. Such operations would be located throughout desert tortoise habitat. A small mining operation may occur for gypsum, located in the East Mormon Mountains or the Tule Springs Hills and would be projected to total approximately 75 acres in size. Fluid Minerals Initial geophysical surveys may be widespread throughout desert tortoise habitat, in an effort to analyze the regional geology. When geologic structures of interest have been located, intensive, repetitive surveys of specific areas could be anticipated. Between 25 and 50 miles of seismic line could be surveyed per year, disturbing up to 50 acres during that period. Disturbance would be typified by crushed vegetation and some soil compaction. Initial reclamation of these lines, either by natural recovery or efforts undertaken by the proponent, would be completed by year's end. Based on prior drilling patterns, most of the drilling will occur in valley bottoms. Oil discoveries in Nevada, to date, have been exclusively in valley bottoms, although oil companies are currently also exploring mountainous regions for overthrust plays. Drilling has been sporadic in desert tortoise habitat. It is estimated that one well may be drilled every other year. The operation would disturb approximately 5 acres, including access requirements. The drill pad and access route would require 25 years or more to be reclaimed, either through natural recovery or efforts undertaken by the proponent. For analytic purposes, it is estimated that one producing oil and gas field would occur within desert tortoise habitat. The average size of a producing field is 640 acres. Operations within the field would include maintenance of the production facilities and transportation of the oil and gas off site. Assuming that the field would be a small gas field, such as at the Kate Springs field in Railroad Valley, Nevada, a total of 1 14 acres of disturbance could be projected; surface disturbance would be related to the construction of well pads, service roads, pipelines, and gravel pits. Mineral Materials Mineral activity would continue and is expected to increase. Mineral material activity would remain concentrated along U.S. Highway 93 and would provide materials for the maintenance of that highway. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) will continue to hold 17 material site rights-of-way. Mineral materials for road maintenance are also needed by Lincoln County Road Department. There are six Free Use Permits proposed within the ACECs. Sales of mineral materials to the public are expected to increase in the future. The demand for sand and gravel in 4-3 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the metropolitan Las Vegas area could stimulate sales of materials in Lincoln County. These actions would be only allowed outside ACECs. We expect one pit per year to be established. Each pit would total approximately 5 acres in size; reclamation would be ongoing during the life of the pit. An estimated 25 years or more would be required to complete reclamation. NDOT Rights-of-Way and Free Use Permits will be allowed in the one-mile wide corridor for maintenance of designated Federal, State and County maintained roads. All pits in desert tortoise habitat that are not community or NDOT pits would be closed and fully reclaimed. There would be an expected 500 acres of disturbance over the 25 years of this plan. Non-energy Leasable Materials No known exploration activity for non-energy leasable minerals has occurred in the planning area. Such activity would be limited to the valley bottoms. During the 25 year period of desert tortoise recovery activities, one exploration prospecting permit could be issued. The operation would be for drilling and could disturb an estimated 20 acres; no production would be expected to occur. 4-4 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) PROPOSED ACTION (BLM Preferred Alternative) This proposal contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions inside and outside of ACECs; 3) participation in USFWS-developed and implemented environmental education program; and 4) implementation of a USFWS approved interagency monitoring program. Three ACECs would be designated and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise population. These ACECs would encompass 212,500 acres and approximately 83 percent (203,700 of the 244,900 acres) of the critical habitat designated by the USFWS for desert tortoise in Lincoln County (refer to Maps 2-2 and 2-3). Impacts were analyzed for each of the following resources or management programs: Special Status Animal Species; ACECs; soils and water resources; riparian areas; forestry and vegetation; livestock grazing; wild horses and burros; lands; recreation; minerals; fire management; and socio-economic values. Only those resources determined to be impacted are included in the following sections. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Designation of ACECs would directly benefit the threatened desert tortoise, assisting the recovery and delisting of the species in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Approximately 212,500 acres would be included within three ACECs and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. An estimated 83 percent (203,700 acres) of the designated critical habitat, considered by the USFWS to be areas essential for the conservation of the species, would be afforded the special protection of ACEC management prescriptions. This acreage also contains the highest densities of tortoise within the planning area. Current tortoise population densities within proposed ACECs are depicted in Table 4-1 ; these data have been collected from the Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow permanent study plots and strip transects, located in the planning area. Conflicting land uses would be eliminated, limited and/or mitigated, reducing both direct and indirect impacts on tortoise habitat. The prescriptions proposed for management of the ACECs, including the elimination of livestock grazing, would improve tortoise habitat and achieve upward tortoise population trends over the life of the plan. Management direction outlined for the ACECs would also have positive effects on the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, and other sensitive species. The establishment of Experimental Management Zones within the ACECs and the issuance of scientific research permits would provide research opportunities for several species. Mitigation measures developed during the preparation of management and activity plans would help to minimize conflicts with recovery objectives. Desert tortoise and other wildlife species could experience reductions in mortalities if tortoise-proof fences and crossing culverts along U.S. Highway 93 were installed. Coordination with USFWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Service, and the NDOW for control of ravens, coyotes, and other desert tortoise predators when necessary could substantially enhance recovery efforts, since predation is considered to be an important cause of tortoise mortality (Berry 1986, written communication Brussard 1994). Such actions would include periodic raven, coyote or other predator control programs, conducted within the ACECs to reduce the numbers of predators. The implementation of raven control programs alone could reduce 4-5 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) the mortality rates among hatchlings and juveniles by as much as 85 percent in some parts of their range. (Berry 1988). Table 4-1. Proposed ACECs with acreage and estimated current tortoise populations. ACEC NAME ACRES EST. TORTOISE NUMBERS PER SQ. MILE EST. TORTOISE POPULATIONS Kane Springs ACEC 65,900 25-75 2,575 - 7,723 Mormon Mesa ACEC 109,700 10-20 1,716 - 3,431 Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 36,900 5-15 288 - 864 ACEC Totals 219,600 4,579- 12,018 A higher recruitment rate of juveniles into the tortoise reproductive population would help to achieve upward trends in tortoise populations over the life of the plan. Participation in USFWS developed environmental education programs could increase public awareness of the Mojave Desert ecosystem and the effects of human activities in arid lands. Desert tortoises and other species could experience reduced rates of human-caused mortalities (e.g. gunshots, vehicular crushing) as a result of a public education effort. Illegal collection of desert tortoises would also be reduced by increased public awareness and law enforcement. A USFWS-approved interagency (NDOW, Nevada National Heritage Program, BRD, and MOG) monitoring program would be implemented in order to assess the effectiveness of the management actions proposed under this alternative. This program could provide additional data concerning desert tortoise population trends, causes of desert tortoise mortalities, and identify other factors important to the success of the recovery efforts. Such information could be used to support future modifications in the management direction of land use plans. Outside of ACECs The mitigation of land uses outside of ACECs would reduce the impacts on the tortoise and reduce habitat destruction or fragmentation on approximately 542,100 acres. Public education through road signing could reduce impacts related to human activities in habitat outside of ACECs. Tortoise populations in these areas could, at most, be maintained at current levels with some potential for decline. From Forestry and Vegetation Products Management Within ACECs By not authorizing commercial desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) within ACECs, mature plant species would remain to provide thermal cover and forage for the tortoise within 212,500 acres of habitat. The total annual production of seeds would be allowed to disseminate and germinate, helping to ensure that native plant species continue to be present within the plant communities. 4-6 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Outside of ACECs Outside of ACECs, the impacts of commercial desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plant) and desert plant salvage/harvest for education or scientific purposes would be mitigated through stipulations attached to the permit. Such mitigation like no travel off of designated roads or no use of mechanical means would minimize any effects on the desert tortoise and its habitat during these activities. From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs Under this alternative, approximately 212,500 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be closed to livestock grazing, benefitting the desert tortoise in the short and long term. Competition with domestic livestock would be eliminated, providing a greater amount of forage for the desert tortoise. Fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition and/or osteoporosis. Improved nutrition could reduce the susceptibility of individual tortoises to diseases, including the Upper Respiratory Tract Disease which currently impacts many wild tortoises in all age classes. In the long term, the elimination of livestock grazing should maintain or improve the current serai stage of the vegetative community. As native species gradually become part of the vegetative communities, tortoise would benefit from better quality forage and habitat conditions. The above-ground biomass of perennial grasses and forbs would increase, providing thermal and protective cover for hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. With improved cover, juvenile tortoises would be less susceptible to predation. Tortoises and their burrows would also be protected from trampling by livestock. This is particularly important in areas where sheep are grazed, since trampling of tortoises or burrows in California has been shown to be a contributing factor in tortoise mortalities (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Outside of ACECs Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be managed according to the seasonal utilization limits of 40 percent on key perennial grasses and shrubs (March 15 to October 15), 50 percent on key forbs, perennial grasses, and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs (October 15 to March 15) of annual growth. This limitation should maintain plant communities at their current serai stage. Possible negative impacts to tortoise, such as trampling and competition for forage, could continue on the 542,100 acres outside the ACECs. From Wild Horse and Burro Management Within ACECs Desert tortoise habitat would benefit from the management of the Mormon Mountains HA for zero horses and burros and the removal of animals which establish home ranges within the Mormon Mesa ACEC. Increased forage and cover would be available for tortoise and the possibility of trampling would be eliminated. Since the Mormon Mountains HA contains a relatively small wild horse herd (approximately 15 animals), the anticipated benefits to desert tortoise habitat within the Mormon Mesa ACEC would be minimal. 4-7 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Outside of ACECs The Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs would be managed at the established appropriate management levels; current wild horse and burro populations in these HMAs total less than 75 animals. Wild horse and burro use would continue in desert tortoise habitat, but with seasonal utilization limits. By limiting maximum utilization levels on key perennial species, plant communities would be maintained at current status, with some potential for improvement. Possible impacts to tortoise, such as trampling and competition for forage, could continue. Tortoise populations could also be expected to maintain stable trends outside of ACECs. From Lands Management Land Use Authorizations Within ACECs Discretionary land uses that result in surface disturbances would not be authorized within ACECs, thus minimizing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. The potential for "takings" of tortoise as a result of these activities would be minimized. The evaluation of minimal impact uses on a case-by-case basis would ensure that protective measures for the desert tortoise and habitat were included within the authorizations. Disposal Areas All of the designated critical habitat would be retained in federal ownership and managed to assist tortoise recovery efforts. The retention of a large land mass of designated critical tortoise habitat would prevent further habitat loss or fragmentation. Since this habitat is considered the best available habitat in the planning area, the retention of all lands within ACECs would positively enhance tortoise recovery efforts in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. New landfills would not be authorized through R&PP sales within ACECs. Landfills provide foraging opportunities for ravens and other tortoise predators; prohibiting landfill authorizations within ACECs would lessen this threat to tortoise populations in the long term. Acquisitions Local governments and private individuals would be encouraged to acquire environmentally sensitive lands or rights from willing sellers within ACECs. These lands would then be exchanged for public lands outside the ACECs. Such acquisitions, which could total approximately 1,500 acres, would help to protect additional habitat from loss or degradation and assist in meeting the delisting criteria for the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. This alternative recommends the re-acquisition of the legislatively conveyed and leased (formerly Aerojet Corporation) lands, should these become available. If successful, approximately 7,370 acres of desert tortoise habitat could be included within the Kane Springs ACEC and subject to the management prescriptions developed to recover and delist the desert tortoise. The inclusion of additional habitat within the ACEC would prevent additional habitat loss or destruction and minimize the potential for activities that are not compatible with other recovery initiatives. 4-8 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Unauthorized Use Resolving unauthorized use within ACECs to allow for title retention and reclamation of the site would be beneficial for the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. The parcels would remain in federal ownership and be managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Reclamation efforts would improve the quality of desert tortoise habitat in the long term. Withdrawals As recommended by the Recovery Plan, administrative withdrawals for public information/education facilities could be granted in ACECs. Through such facilities, the public would be provided with information on the desert tortoise and its habitat, as well as other resource values contained within the ACECs. Public awareness could benefit tortoises and other Mojave Desert species by reducing human-caused vandalism, unauthorized collection, and mortalities. Outside of ACECs Under this alternative, approximately 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat outside of ACECs would be retained in federal ownership to prevent further habitat loss or fragmentation. Since designated critical habitat is considered by the USFWS to be essential for the conservation of the species, the retention of this habitat outside ACECs would compliment other recovery efforts in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Approximately 4,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs have been identified for possible disposal. None of this acreage is designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. These lands would not be managed to assist the recovery and delisting of the species and could be subject to actions that would create additional habitat loss or fragmentation. These effects would be mitigated by the requirement that Section 7 consultations be conducted for any land disposals within desert tortoise habitat. Entities purchasing these lands would be notified of their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (specifically the need to comply with section 9) and referred to the USFWS for information on obtaining an incidental take permit under section 10 of the ESA. Surface-disturbing activities could be authorized on the 542,100 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs. Should such authorizations be proposed within those portions of the five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) located outside the proposed ACECs, these activities would be required to meet the non-impairment criteria. Leases and other instruments of a more permanent nature would only be authorized on these acres outside of the ACECs. Mitigation measures would be developed through Section 7 consultation and required in the terms and conditions of the authorization. The impacts on desert tortoise habitat from land use authorizations would be reduced to the maximum extent possible From Recreation Management Within ACECs Casual OHV Use Limiting casual OHV use to designated roads and vehicle trails would help to minimize the proliferation of new roads within the ACECs and the loss or fragmentation of desert tortoise habitat. This limitation could also leS!" the possibility for direct mortalities and the crushing of burrows, as a result of cross-country vehicular traffic i the 212,500 acres of the proposed ACECs. 4-9 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Organized OHV Events Closing ACECs to all speed competitive events would eliminate these events from 83 percent of designated critical desert tortoise habitat in the planning area. New trails would not be created and no widening of existing trails would occur. No direct tortoise mortalities would be caused by speed competitive events. Since fewer than three of these types of events take place annually in the planning area, the benefits from this closure are anticipated to be minimal in the short term. Non-speed organized events would be authorized to pass through the ACECs on designated routes, reducing impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat (Map 2-8). The designation of routes would reduce the potential for course widening, additional soil compaction, and the creation of new courses. The non-speed nature of events would minimize the potential for direct mortalities of tortoises. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur, because these would not be allowed within the ACECs Outside of ACECs Allowing speed and non-speed events within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs could result in impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat. By requiring that all future events be limited to existing roads and trails, the potential for further habitat destruction would be reduced. A potential would continue to exist for direct tortoise mortalities, possibly during speed events. Soil compaction and creation of new roads and trails by spectators might occur, causing the potential loss of very small amounts of habitat. The roads used for these events would remain open to all other uses; the addition of these organized events would have little, if any, effect on the condition of the roads or surrounding areas. Historically there has been about one such event per year. It is expected that from 1 to 5 events would occur per year during the life of the plan. Non-OHV Organized Events Non-OHV organized and commercial events such as trail rides and commercial sightseeing would only be allowed when consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise, creating little or no effect on the tortoise or its habitat. Allowing other non-consumptive and non-surface-disturbing recreational activities to continue throughout the planning area would not impact the tortoise or its habitat. General Recreation Improving opportunities for non-motorized recreation would neither benefit nor hinder recovery and delisting of the tortoise. Construction of wildlife guzzlers could increase other wildlife populations, stimulating additional hunting or trapping. Levels of casual OHV use could increase, in association with hunting and trapping. Most of this OHV activity would occur during the tortoise inactive season and would be unlikely to result in any direct tortoise mortalities. Impacts to tortoise habitat, including soil compaction and erosion, trampled vegetation, and crushed or collapsed burrows, could result from casual OHV use, however, these impacts would be minimal because the\ will only occur as a result of unauthorized off-road travel. 4-10 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Non-consumptive recreation activities, such as hiking, casual horseback riding, and nature photography, could increase during the life of the plan. Surface disturbances or impacts to desert tortoise could occur as a result of the increase in these types of recreational activities in desert tortoise habitat. According to the Recovery Plan, such activities are compatible with the objectives for desert tortoise recovery (USFWS 1994a). From Wilderness Management Within ACECs Approximately 105,500 acres of lands under wilderness review (Delamar, Evergreen ABC, Fish and Wildlife #1, Meadow Valley Range, and Mormon Mountains WSAs) are contained within the boundaries of the proposed ACECs. Until congressional release or designation as wilderness, this acreage would be managed under the Interim Management Policy (IMP) which mandates that proposed activities meet the non-impairment criteria. Desert tortoise recovery efforts would be enhanced by the IMP criteria, which restrict surface disturbances and vehicular access. Habitat loss or degradation and the possibility for incidental take would be minimized within the 105,500 acres managed under the non-impairment criteria. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, management would be completely consistent with the remainder of the ACECs as provisions of the IMP would no longer apply. Outside of ACECs Small portions of the five WSAs within the planning area are located outside of the ACECs. The non-impairment criteria of the IMP would benefit desert tortoise habitat by restricting many surface disturbing activities and imposing constraints on the creation of new roads. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, the potential for surface disturbance, degradation of tortoise habitat, and direct mortality of tortoises would be increased. From Rights-of-Way Management Within ACECs Approximately 39 miles of utility corridors would be designated through the proposed ACECs, with 12.6 miles being located in the Kane Springs ACEC, 8.8 miles in Mormon Mesa ACEC, and 18.25 miles in the Beaver Dam Slope (Nevada) ACEC. Impacts to the desert tortoise or habitat would be considered during Section 7 consultation and mitigation measures required through the terms and conditions of any right-of-way grant prepared. Any future projects sited within these corridors could create minimal impacts on desert tortoise populations and habitat. By concentrating powerlines in narrow corridors, raven perching sites would be localized, rather than dispersed throughout the ACECs. Overhead powerlines would provide additional perching sites for ravens along the 39 miles of proposed corridors. Roads for utility rights-of-way could provide access into the proposed ACECs and increase the potential for tortoise mortalities and habitat degradation. However, existing roads would be used for construction and/or maintenance unless otherwise authorized. These impacts would be reduced because areas within the ACECs (outside of corridors) would be designated as avoidance areas. The number of surface-disturbing activities authorized would be lessened, helping to protect desert tortoise habitat in the long term. New Federal Aid Highway material site rights-of-way would be excluded from the ACECs, unless they are within the one-mile wide corridor for free use permits and material site rights-of-way. In the Kane Springs 4-11 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) ACEC, the only ACEC in close proximity to a Federal Aid Highway, the tortoise would benefit from limitations on surface disturbances relating to material sites. Authorizations for new communication site rights-of-way would be limited to existing, established communication site developments. Exceptions would be made if the proponent can demonstrate that the existing sites are not technically feasible for a proposed use. Two developed communication sites with access roads and power are currently located within the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC; each site comprises less than 5 acres of total disturbance. The granting of additional communication site rights-of-way at those sites, even if new surface disturbance were to be authorized, would constitute a minimal impact to desert tortoise habitat. Outside of ACECs New Federal Aid Highway material sites would be authorized outside of the ACECs only after Section 7 consultation has been completed and appropriate mitigation measures developed. Applicants for communication sites within desert tortoise habitat would be encouraged to locate facilities at existing sites. All rights-of-way (linear and areal) would be subject to Section 7 consultation and the development of mitigation measures designed to minimize incidental take and reduce surface disturbance. These mitigation measures could include requirements for habitat rehabilitation and compensation for unmitigated impacts. No existing rights-of-way would be terminated as a result of the Proposed Action. From Minerals Management Within ACECs Kanes Spring ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Approximately 65,900 acres of desert tortoise habitat within the ACEC would be closed to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, and to mineral material disposal. The desert tortoise and its habitat would benefit from these closures, the potential for direct mortality, burrow crushing, and habitat loss would be eliminated under this alternative. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal, including habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise would be reduced. It is anticipated that the Nevada Department of Transportation would continue to hold 14 mineral material rights-of-way, with a potential of 3 more located within the designated corridor through the proposed ACECs. The Lincoln County Road Department could develop approximately 3 mineral material rights-of-way located in the designated corridor in the ACECs. However, over the life of the plan it is anticipated that no more than 500 acres of habitat loss would occur from these pits within the proposed ACECs. These would continue to be needed for highway and road maintenance. Continued use of free use permits and Federal Highway material rights of way would cause an estimated 2 acres of disturbance per pit annually over the life of the plan could result. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, and others developed through Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. These operations would be required to have a no jeopardy opinion decision from the USFWS. Locatable Minerals Mining, exploration, and other mineral developments would continue throughout the proposed Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Negative effects from mineral exploration and development could include direct mortality during mining activities, harassment, incidental take, and the loss and degradation of habitat. By requiring plans of operation for all mineral activities within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, the potential for these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. 4-12 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) It is anticipated that exploration would continue at a rate of from 8 to 10 activities per year, for all types of locatable minerals within the planning area. The operations would consist of small exploration projects, that would disturb an estimated 5 acres per project. These could result in up to 50 acres of disturbance per year. It is estimated that one small mining operation would be developed during the life of the plan, with a disturbance of approximately 75 acres in the planning area. This would constitute a minimal loss of desert tortoise habitat within the planning area. Fluid Minerals Fluid mineral exploration and development could continue throughout the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Impacts that could occur from these activities include loss and fragmentation of habitat, direct mortality of tortoises, and increased public access to habitat. By attaching the lease stipulations and conditions of approval, as outlined in Appendix E, and additional mitigation measures developed though Section 7 consultation, the impacts to desert tortoise habitat would be reduced to the extent possible. No habitat disturbance from seismic activities would occur within ACECs, since these activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails. One wildcat well per year would disturb up to 5 acres. Should oil be found, one oil and gas field could occur during the life of the plan, disturbing up to 640 acres. Mineral Materials Impacts associated with mineral material disposal include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential for incidental take of a tortoise. By closing the ACECs to mineral material disposal (with the exception of one-mile wide road corridors for free use and Federal Highway Act material rights of way), these impacts would be reduced. The majority of the mineral material pits required would be located along Highway 93; the Nevada Department of Transportation would continue to hold 14 material site rights-of-way, with the possibility of 3 more being developed. The Lincoln County Road Department may also have the need for 3 pits along the Kane Springs and Carp Elgin roads. Between Free Use Permits and NDOT Rights-of-Way there is an expected 500 acres of disturbance during the life of the plan. Non-energy Leasable Minerals Although no known exploration has taken place, it is anticipated that one exploration prospecting permit could be issued in either of the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. One drilling operation and an estimated 20 acres of disturbance could occur over the life of the plan. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. All disturbed areas would be reclaimed, according to standards in Appendix E. Reclamation All surface-disturbing activities would be required to reclaim the surface to the standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meet adjacent cover and diversity standards. These standards will be based on the site conditions and with coordination with USFWS. The reclamation will reduce impacts to the tortoise habitat over the long term. 4-13 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Outside of ACECs Locatable Minerals The impacts described above for locatable minerals could occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs during exploration under notices and development under 5 acres. Mitigation would only be imposed through plans of operation when the exploration and development exceeded 5 acres. Plans and notices would prevent undue and/or unnecessary degradation of desert tortoise habitat. Fluid Minerals Habitat disturbance associated with fluid mineral activities would take place in three phases: exploration, wildcat drilling, and oil field production. It is estimated that 25 to 50 miles per year of seismic lines could occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. This could result in up to 50 acres per year of disturbance from seismic activities. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, along with others developed through Section 7 consultation from mineral materials, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and reduce the potential for take. Mineral Materials The sale of mineral materials to the public would be expected to increase in the future, as population growth continues in the region. Mitigation measures, outlined in Appendix E, and those developed though Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. It is estimated that one new pit would be established every 5 years to meet public demand, disturbing an estimated 80 acres over the life of the plan. Reclamation All surface disturbing activities would be required to reclaim the surface to the standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meet adjacent cover and diversity standards, reducing impacts to tortoise habitat over the long term. From Fire Management Within and Outside of ACECs Wildland fires would have the potential to alter desert plant communities and encourage the proliferation of non- native plant species, especially red brome. Such fires could also destroy forage and cover, as well as cause wildlife mortalities through exposure to smoke and heat. Tortoises would be susceptible to being killed, particularly when caught in the open or in shallow burrows, as a wildfire moves past them. After a fire, tortoises may experience food shortages and inadequate cover. Individuals may be able to survive a short term forage loss, since tortoises are adapted to food shortages during drought years. The loss of thermal cover may be a more important impact, particularly on sites where rocks are not available. Hatchlings and juvenile tortoises could be more vulnerable to predation as a consequence of reduced cover. Fire suppression activities could also impact desert tortoise and their habitat. These impacts include vehicular crushing of live tortoises and the destruction of nests and burrows. The construction of firelines also has the potential to destroy nests and burrows. Off-road tracks created by suppression vehicles would be obliterated 4-14 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) under this alternative, thus minimizing the creation of new permanent roads and trails. Under the Proposed Action, full fire suppression tactics within desert tortoise habitat would reduce habitat loss. The use of suppression techniques to minimize surface disturbance and restrict off-highway vehicle travel would limit habitat destruction or degradation and reduce the potential for direct mortalities. Education of fire crews about the desert tortoise and its habitat could reduce effects associated with suppression activities. The use of Resource Advisors in the development of suppression tactics would further mitigate impacts to tortoise habitat. Habitat loss would be further minimized by locating fire camps, staging, and helispots outside of ACECs. The use of prescribed fires or other tools consistent with recovery goals and objectives may be implemented to help reduce the re-burn cycle. Many areas burn repeatedly, reducing the potential for desired perennial and shrubs to return. By using prescribed fires on these areas, temporary fire breaks could be designed to reduce future fire size. SOIL RESOURCES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Soil disturbance occurs as a result of grazing by domestic livestock, wild horses and burros, and wildlife. Disturbances include soil compaction and the destruction of protective surface crusts from trampling. When combined with the removal of vegetative cover by grazing animals, the effects can accelerate water runoff and erosion rates. Management prescriptions for the ACECs eliminate or minimize many activities that result in soil disturbances. The Proposed Action would not authorize livestock grazing in the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, reducing a total of 5,877 livestock AUMs. The Mormon Mountains HA would be managed at zero population levels for wild horses. The rate of soil erosion would decrease slightly, as a consequence of the removal of large grazing animals, with approximately 600 tons per year of soil not lost to erosion under this alternative. This reduction would represent a negligible decrease in soil erosion rates over the life of this plan. The proposed ACECs are located within the Colorado River Drainage System. An estimated 283,000 tons per year of salt is currently contributed to the Colorado River from the Nevada portion of the drainage system. The contributions from the proposed ACEC areas or the planning area are not known at this time. Under the Proposed Action, salt loading would be expected to decrease as those portions of allotments within proposed ACECs located along the Meadow Valley Wash are closed to grazing. Outside of ACECs Other actions, including restrictions on OHV casual and competitive uses and mining reclamation requirements, would benefit soils in the short and long term. Reductions in surface disturbances would represent a negligible decrease in soil erosion rates over the life of this plan. 4-15 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) WATER RESOURCES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Management actions proposed under the Proposed Action would remove livestock grazing from three allotments and portions of six additional allotments within proposed ACECs, eliminating a total of 5,877 AUMs. One HA within and overlapping the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC would be managed at a zero population level for wild horses; about 35 animals would be removed from within and adjacent to the HA. Since grazing animals concentrate use at water sources and associated riparian habitats, the removal of livestock and wild horses and buiTOS would positively impact three springs in the proposed ACECs. Trampling and heavy use would be eliminated at these sites. In some cases, riparian habitat would naturally regenerate or increase at two spring sources. Reduced numbers of grazing animals would benefit riparian zones along Meadow Valley Wash by improving stream bank stability. In the long term, sedimentation and salinity loading would decrease, water temperatures would be lowered, and peak flows moderated. Outside of ACECs Livestock and wild horses and burros management prescriptions would impose seasonal restrictions and seasonal utilization limits that could benefit three springs outside of ACECs. Trampling and heavy use would be lessened at these water sources. Riparian habitat would naturally regenerate or increase at some locations. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Grazing would not be authorized within the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, affecting the nine allotments displayed in Table 4-2. These allotments encompass 697,200 acres and 16,961 AUMs; approximately 212,500 acres and 5,877 AUMs are within ACECs. Total AUMS would be reduced by 5,877, as livestock grazing is eliminated within the ACECs. More than half of these 5,877 AUMs have been almost entirely unused in the past ten years. (Refer to the Socio-Economic impacts analysis in this chapter for further discussion about impacts to livestock AUMs). To keep livestock out of the ACECs, operators would use a variety of techniques including herding and placement of salt and water to manage livestock grazing outside of the ACECs. However, these practices would be labor and cost intensive and fencing some of the boundaries of the ACECs may be necessary. Based on current data, fences may need to be constructed and/or maintained in the Grapevine, Breedlove, Lower Lake East, Delamar, and Gourd Spring Allotments, in order to authorize livestock grazing on those portions of the allotments that are not within the ACECs. The construction of physical barriers, in some instances, could be precluded by the requirements of the non-impairment criteria for the Delamar, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Mormon Mountains SWAs. Additional fencing may be necessary at a later date, should monitoring indicate a need. 4-16 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Outside of ACECs Utilization limits would be applied to the following allotments (or portions of allotments) that are not within an ACEC: Boulder Spring Henrie Complex Pahranagat West Breedlove Jackrabbit Pulsipher Wash Buckhorn Lime Mountain Snow Spring Delamar Lower Lake East Summit Spring Flat Top Mesa Lower Lake West Terry Garden Spring Lower Riggs White Rock Grapevine Mormon Peak Gourd Spring Pahranagat East Lowered utilization limits could result in early removal of livestock from the allotments. (Refer to the Socio- Economic impacts analysis in this chapter for an analysis of livestock grazing economics). WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Prescriptions for the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC necessitate the management of the Mormon Mountains HA for zero wild horses (Map 2-6), since the proposed ACEC would overlap with the HA. In order to manage the Mormon Mountains HA at a zero population, approximately 35 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the HA. The wild horse herd within the adjacent Meadow Valley Mountains HMA could be subject to removals, since the herds could interact along the common boundary of the HMAs in Meadow Valley Wash. Any wild horses (or burros) that establish home ranges within the Mormon Mountains HA and/or Mormon Mesa ACEC would be removed. The existing Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way fence within Meadow Valley Wash would be maintained to control the movement of the horses between the HMAs. Outside of ACECs Wild horses would be managed in the Blue Nose Peak and Meadow Valley Mountains HMAs, located outside of the ACEC, at the appropriate management level (AML) established through resource monitoring; any wild horses and burros in excess of the AML or outside of the boundaries of the HMA would be removed. All of the adoptable age class wild horses and all age classes for burros would be placed into the adoption system. Any remaining animals would be relocated to another HMA, as mandated by BLM policy. Any relocation effort would impact the relocated horses since they would not know locations of reliable water sources or favorable foraging areas. Despite implementation of approved procedures, the relocation process could stress individual animals and a few individuals could die as a consequence of the relocation. The existing wild horses within the relocation HMA(s) would be subject to increased competition for forage and water supplies. 4-17 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Table 4-2. Allotments partially or entirely within proposed ACECs. ! ■ Allotment Within Proposed ACECs The Total Number of Animal Unit Months estock Grazing of Specified Li\ Allotment Total Acres Total Allotment Acres Use Allotment Area Total Within ACECs Percent Reduction within Allotment Acres Current Proposed MORMON MESA ACEC Brcedlove 121,500 31,600 10,400 864 166 0 19 Delamar 245,400 1,000 0 5,558 0 0 0 Gourd Springs 97,700 40,000 2,700 3,458 219 0 7 Mormon Peak 77,900 13,200 0 600 0 0 0 Rox-Tule 25,600 23,900 N/A 756 756 0 100 TOTALS 568,100 109,700 j 13,100 11,236 1,141 0 8 KANE SPRINGS ACEC Breedlove 121,500 400 0 864 0 0 0 Delamar 245,400 41,400 0 5,558 0 0 0 Grapevine 34,200 12,200 9,900 560 211 0 38 Lower Lake East 53,700 11,900 N/A 640 0 0 0 TOTALS 454,800 65,900 9,900 7,622 211 o 3 BEAVER DAM SLOPE ACEC *Sand Hollow (Beacon) 41,200 (5,600) 36,900 (5,600) 27,600 (5,600) 2,430 (2,095) 2,430 (2,095) 0 (0) 100 (100) TOTALS 41,200 36,900 27,600 4,525 4,525 o 100 *Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments are a dual use area; Beacon Allotment totals 5,682 acres, all within designated critical habitat, with 2,095 AUMs permitted for domestic sheep. This acreage is included within the total acreage for the Sand Hollow Allotment. (Source: BLM Caliente Field Station data) 4-18 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) LANDS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The prescriptions on land use authorizations would have minimal effects on management of the lands. Impacts would include: 1) additional costs for permitting, mitigation, and reclamation for surface-disturbing lands actions proposed within ACECs; 2) loss of development opportunities; and 3) additional costs per acre for off-site mitigation fees, as uses are displaced to locations outside of ACECs. Outside of ACECs Demand for land use authorizations could increase in other portions of the planning area, as activities are displaced to locations outside of the proposed ACECs. This displacement would comprise a minimal impact to lands management. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The designation of utility corridors (Map 2-7) within the proposed ACECs should result in lower costs and more timely granting of rights-of-way for utility companies and free use permits and Federal Highway mineral material sites, since the proposed corridors would follow the routes of existing granted or constructed facilities. The environmental compliance inventories and analyses have already been completed for these facilities; some of these data could be used to support compliance for new applications. Section 7 consultation would be completed prior to any new authorizations. Outside of ACECs Rights-of-way outside of proposed ACECs would be granted on a case-by-case basis, with Section 7 consultation completed and mitigation measures developed, as needed, prior to the granting of the ROW. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Casual OHV use Within ACECs Casual use would be limited to designated roads and vehicle trails within ACECs would encourage travel on roads. Hunters and trappers would be most impacted by this restriction, since they could no longer legally travel cross-country or through washes to retrieve game, set and recover traps, or access remote areas by motorized vehicle. Most other casual OHV users tend to ride on existing roads and trails and would not be affected by this use 4-19 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) limitation. Limiting use to designated roads would discourage the proliferation of new roads in desert tortoise habitat, potentially reducing access to recreation localities over the life of the plan. Outside of ACECs Casual OHV use would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. Impact on recreation use would be similar in scope to those described for the ACECs. Less compliance with this limitation could be anticipated, since the roads and vehicle trails would not be signed. The impacts on hunters and trappers would be the same, as cross-country travel would no longer be authorized. The possibility exists that new roads or vehicle trails could be created in non-compliance with this restriction. Road proliferation outside of ACECs could be anticipated to be less extensive under the Proposed Action than under Alternative C (No Action Alternative), due to public education initiatives and law enforcement. Over the life of the plan, from 1 to 4 miles of additional routes might be established, providing additional, unauthorized recreational access. Organized OHV Events Within ACECs Speed competitive OHV events would not be permitted within ACECs. Designated and maintained roads for OHV use within ACECs could still be used for non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events, allowing participants to pass through these areas. Speed based events would be modified to exclude any speed sections within ACECs, causing certain types of events to be excluded if promoters were unable or unwilling to conform to this restriction. From one to three events could be affected annually over the life of the plan. Outside of ACECs Speed competitive events would continue to be allowed on existing roads during the tortoise inactive season (see stipulations in Appendix D). This restriction could affect between one to five events per year and 100 to 800 visitor use days annually over the life of the plan. General Recreation Within ACECs Based on current and projected levels of use, it is unlikely that parking and camping developments would be needed. General recreation use would be unaffected. Should any parking or camping areas be developed, they would be intended to encourage use, and would not eliminate dispersed use. Development of sites would be likely to increase overall use of the area for recreation. Non-consumptive recreation activities that are not substantially surface-disturbing would continue to occur unrestricted throughout the plan area. Such activities are anticipated to increase slightly in numbers over the life of the plan. Outside of ACECs The impacts would be similar in scope to those described above within the ACECs. 4-20 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Within the Kane Springs ACEC, industry would not be able to explore or produce any minerals from the 65,900 acres (Table 4-3). Minerals with high to moderate potential would not be developed during the life of this plan. Existing valid mining claims would have valid existing rights and mining operations could occur in the ACEC in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Leases that have been issued within the ACEC would be allowed to operate under current lease terms. The operations would be required to have an approved application to drill or a plan of operations and have received a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS to start operations. Should mineral prices continue to rise, known deposits of gypsum and lead could become economically feasible to recover. These opportunities would be lost as a consequence of closure. Loss of mineral revenues would be experienced by the public. Royalties, payments and leasing rentals would not be paid to the federal government and these monies would not be distributed to the states. Within the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, the public lands would remain open to locatable, fluid, and leasable mineral entry, with minor stipulations. Table 4-3 displays acreages with mineral management prescriptions. Mineral materials would be closed to entry in the designated ACECs, except in the one-mile wide corridor for county and state governments to maintain their roads. Restrictions in lease instruments, plans of operation, and permits comprise an economic factor in the mineral industry's ability to Table 4-3. Minerals Management Acreage-Proposed Action. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 542,100 146,600 65,900 Leasables 0 688,700 65,900 Mineral Materials 542,100 0 219,600 explore for mineral resources, due to cost and timing of operations. Timing limitations under the Proposed Action could result in additional expenditures. If sufficient time is not available to complete exploration and drilling programs, detailed and necessary geologic information may not be acquired to support the next phase of the exploration plan. A mineral company could incur greater costs for the production of a mineral commodity, as a result of these restrictions. The requirement for plans of operations and Section 7 consultation for all locatable minerals within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before any operations could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding costs and expenses for operators. These requirements would render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. Outside of ACECs The requirement for Section 7 consultation during the approval process for plans of operation minerals could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. Operations would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS 4-21 ; ; : CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) before they could begin. The mineral material industry would incur higher haulage costs from specific pits. These actions could render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Mineral Materials Management Mineral material disposal would be restricted to within one-half mile either side of three road corridors identified within the ACECs (Hwy. 93, Kane Springs Road and Carp-Elgin Road on Map 2-9). This would force all mineral materials activities and disturbances to be conducted within the foreground of the viewshed for travelers through the area. Under normal circumstances, visual resource management would require these types of activities to be located so as to minimize the impacts to the visual resource, rather than concentrate the impacts in the viewshed foreground. Only the Highway 93 corridor receives even moderate use by travelers, and the viewshed already contains similar disturbances. The other three corridors receive very light use levels, but similar disturbances are rare within those corridor viewsheds. The VRM classification throughout the planning area ranges from Class II to Class IV. All mineral material activities proposed would be within the management objectives for these classes. Outside of ACECs There would be no change from existing management. FIRE MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within and Outside ACECs Pre-plan dispatch, resource advisor notification, and pre-season coordination would be used to meet resource objectives and prevent the loss of life, property, and unacceptable resource damage. As fire activity increases during the season, safety concerns would take precedence over the protection of other values. Implementation of suppression tactics that minimize vegetative losses and surface disturbance could increase the costs of fire suppression. SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs This alternative affects 12 livestock permittees on 9 allotments. However, only seven permittees with seven allotments have current active use. Of the seven permittees with current active use, only six, in four allotments, have active grazing use within the proposed ACECs. Two of these operators, utilizing the Gourd Springs Allotment would lose a total of 219 AUMs. This represents about seven percent of their total available AUMs or an estimated $985.50 in net ranch income, and $10,950 in capital asset value. These operators should be able to continue current operations because sufficient permitted AUMs would remain available to continue their five year average use. One permittee, utilizing the Breedlove and Grapevine Allotments would lose 377 AUMs of the total 1,428 AUMs available on these two allotments. This represents a loss of about 26 percent of the available forage, and a 4-22 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) potential loss in net ranch income estimated at $1696.50; capital asset value would decline by $18,850. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with a reduced herd size could make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. A fourth operator, utilizing the Rox-Tule Allotment, would lose 756 AUMs, or 100 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $3,402, and a loss of $37,800 in capital asset value. However, this allotment was, until recently, utilized by a third-party under a base property lease, and is currently not being grazed. Whether leased or owner-operated, the loss of 100 percent of their licensed AUMs would force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. With a total of 12,436 currently permitted AUMs available to grazing operators who are affected by the Proposed Action, the reduction of 1,352 AUMs represents an overall reduction of 10.9 percent, and a loss of capital asset value of $67,600. A decline in capital asset value affects the market value of the ranch property and the ability to obtain short-term operating loans. The total potential loss of net ranch income is estimated at $6,084. In addition, the sheep operation licensed for the Beacon Allotment would realize a substantial reduction in ranch wealth. The loss of 2,095 AUMs represents a potential market loss of $104,750 in capital asset value. However, these AUMs have not been utilized since 1988, so the economic viability of an existing operation is not imperiled. At present the above potential market loss of $104,750 in capital asset value, is being compensated for through a fair market buy out by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund. One other cattle operation licensed for the Sand Hollow Allotment would realize a substantial reduction in ranch wealth. The loss of 2,430 AUMs represents a potential market loss of $121,500 in capital asset value. Potential loss in net ranch income is estimated at $10,935. At present the above potential market loss of $121,500 in capital asset value, is being compensated for through a fair market buy out by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund. In summary, 3 livestock permittees with active grazing operations will be adversely affected; 2 of these permittees can continue to sustain their grazing and herd size, based on their 5 year average active use; their opportunity to expand their herd size will, however, be limited. The third permittee would suffer severe adverse effects and be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. This permittee does, however, have recourse to the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan to receive financial compensation for the licensed public land AUMs, which would serve, in some measure, to ameliorate the economic loss. Little economic impact would accrue to Lincoln County. Some very small reduction in livestock tax revenues might occur (estimated at about $100.00), but there will be no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchases and sales, or income and employment. Outside of ACECs Future constraints that might be imposed upon livestock grazing, designed to achieve habitat objectives for desert tortoise, could result in adverse economic impacts to individual livestock grazing operations. The potential occurrence or extent of these effects would be variable and dependent upon future vegetative conditions which cannot be hypothesized. The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch income (profit after all costs), and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset value. 4-23 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Lands Management Within ACECs Little or no economic benefit to Lincoln County would result from lands actions within ACECs under this alternative. A total of 212,500 acres of public lands within ACECs would be retained in federal ownership. Constraints on public land use and development would have the effect of diminishing any identifiable economic potential. The proper development and utilization of administrative land withdrawals for public information and education facilities coupled with public awareness, developed through advertising and dissemination of information, could lead to enhanced visitation and local expenditures on the part of tourists interested in, or curious about, the desert tortoise, its biological history and requirements, and the habitat the desert tortoise requires as well as the measures taken to protect it. This does hold at least the potential for a small local industry and the promise of economic reward for anyone who might embrace and develop the opportunity. Outside of ACECs No specific economic benefits can be identified. All lands actions would be subject to Section 7 consultation and mitigation, thereby potentially increasing the costs of any proposed land use or development. Economically viable Desert Land Entries would be permitted to occur. From Rights-of Way Management The existence of designated corridors enables more efficient planning of future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of such designated corridors, or the avoidance of existing corridors, engenders higher planning costs to utility companies and results in longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees could make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses. Often, such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and off-site mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. The planning area has three major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study done by the Western Utility Group in 1986. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The other is encumbered with a right-of-way that has been granted for a 500 kV transmission line that has not as yet been constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although construction materials and a skilled workforce will likely be brought in from out of the area, Lincoln County would experience a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce temporarily located there. The Southwest Intertie Project, which plans to build a 500 kV power transmission line through the planning area estimates that it would pay $4,935 per mile, annually, to Lincoln County in property tax. Even with the additional costs of Section 7 consultation and mitigation, this project is expected to be completed as proposed. These costs, associated with a power transmission line, are not likely to be nearly as expensive as the costs of planning and analysis, and the additional mileage that might be involved, for alternate routes. 4-24 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Recreation Management No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. Limitations and restrictions on casual OHV use would not preclude such recreation, which is already largely confined to existing roads and trails. Such restrictions may, however, encourage the displacement of some of those activities to adjacent public lands outside of the planning area. Formal OHV events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little, if any, economic benefit to Lincoln County in either jobs or income. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be of sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. From Minerals Management Within ACECs The Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. The Kane Springs ACEC has been identified to have low mineral potential. Nevertheless, any potential mineral development and production, with its attendant income and employment would be foregone throughout the period of closure. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open with minor stipulations, and closure to mineral materials with the exception of a one-mile corridor. Minerals development potential and economic effects would remain as discussed in Alternative C, except for mineral materials which would be restricted for commercial sales. Outside of ACECs Locatable Minerals Locatable minerals development is expected to proceed at a reduced rate, as compared to today. The requirement for plans of operations and compliance with Section 7 requirements to protect desert tortoise habitat would add additional costs to any of these operations. Cost increases may range from an additional 10 to 20 percent for environmental permitting and bonding. Fluid Minerals Fluid minerals development is expected to proceed as discussed in reasonable foreseeable development scenario. Leasing stipulations would add additional costs upon oil and gas exploration and development due to the constraints such restrictions impose on scheduling and operating efficiency. Industry sources indicate that these costs usually increase overall cost by 10 to 20 percent, depending upon the amount of stand-by time and scheduling of equipment. No evidence is available to indicate these additional costs are sufficiently prohibitive to discourage exploration; and no substantially adverse effects may be anticipated for oil and gas operations. 4-25 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Mineral Materials Mineral materials development is expected to proceed as discussed in the reasonable foreseeable development scenario. Disposal would be restricted to designated pits. Transportation costs would be affected if haul-distance is increased. Transportation costs increase by an estimated 25 percent for each doubling of the haul distance (Mine Cost Services, 1998). Distances range from 50 to 100 additional miles to available sources, with costs of 45 to 70 cents per mile. 4-26 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN MEETING THE DESERT TORTOISE DELISTING CRITERIA 1) As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years: The cumulative effects of closures to livestock, removal of wild horses and burros, mineral restrictions, and restrictions on other multiple uses within ACECs and outside of ACECs would help protect habitat and aid in desert tortoise recovery. In the long term the restrictions would help to maintain or improve the serai stage of the native plant communities. These improvements in habitat conditions over the life of the plan should enable desert tortoise populations to achieve statistically upward trends of long term stability within the ACECs and at most maintain populations with some potential for decline outside the ACECs. However, there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude upward population trends even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 2) Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit or the habitat and desert tortoise populations must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability: Under the Proposed Action 212,500 acres would be designated as ACECs. About 203,700 of these acres are designated critical habitat and account for 83% of the critical habitat within Lincoln County and the planning unit. None of the DWMAs/ACECs being proposed in other plans within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit contain 1,000 square miles of habitat. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for Special Management Areas (SMAs) within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SM A(s) of 1 ,000 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The USFWS July 24, 1996, memorandum found that "assuming reserve-level management is implemented, the proposed DWMA/ACEC configuration, combined with ACEC designation and additional acreage above the 1000 square mile minimum is, in the USFWS's opinion, adequate to offset the high level of fragmentation within this recovery unit and thus meets the intent of the Recovery Plan" (USFWS, 1997b). The ACECs proposed under this alternative account for 332 square miles out of the 1,783 square miles of proposed DWMAs/ACECs within the recovery unit. Connectivity is maintained between the ACECs in this planning unit and the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa ACECs in the Las Vegas BLM Field Office and the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC in the Arizona Strip and Cedar City BLM Districts. Despite reserve design and connectivity problems the DWMAs/ACECs within the Northeastern Recovery Unit are consistent with the Recovery Plan, given that most recoverable tortoise populations were included in the proposed DWMAs/ACECs and the relatively large acreage proposed in the recovery unit (USFWS, 1994a). 3) Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1.0. 4-27 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) The cumulative effects of closures to livestock, removal of wild horses and burros, mineral restrictions, and restrictions on other multiple uses within ACECs and outside of ACECs would help protect habitat and aid in desert tortoise recovery. In the long term the restrictions would help to maintain or improve the serai stage of the native plant communities. Predator control programs would aid in improving tortoise recruitment rates. The improvements in habitat conditions over the life of the plan should enable desert tortoise population trends to move upward within the ACECs and, at most, maintain population growth rates with some potential for decline outside of ACECs. However, there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude increases in population growth rates even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 4) Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoises and their habitat. Over the life of the plan habitat within the ACECs would be protected by management prescriptions from adverse modifications relating to land use authorizations that would be incompatible with recovery objectives. Lands within the ACECs would not be available for disposal, therefore, retaining them in federal stewardship. Restrictions on other land and right-of-way activities will help reduce or eliminate impacts from these activities. Closure of the Kane Springs ACEC to mineral entry, except for valid existing rights, would eliminate impacts on 65,900 acres, while restrictions and mitigation placed on mineral entry within the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would reduce impacts on the remaining 146,600 acres of ACECs. Restrictions on livestock and wild horse and burro grazing and other types of surface disturbances would help to maintain or improve the serai stage of native plant communities. The designation of roads and trails for casual OHV use and closure of the ACECs to speed OHV events and designated routes for non-speed OHV events would reduce impacts resulting from off-road travel, creation of new trails, and the potential for the direct take of tortoise. Management attention would also be directed to the approximately 542,100 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed ACECs. An additional 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat would not be available for disposal, thus retaining all designated critical habitat in Lincoln County under Federal stewardship. Modifications to other to multiple uses, including prescriptions for livestock and wild horse and burro grazing, OHV events, and mineral management would provide long term protection to desert tortoise and their habitat outside of ACECs. 5) The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under ESA in the foreseeable future. Monitoring will determine if protection under ESA is still needed after the life of the plan. 4-28 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) This alternative contains management objectives and direction that are similar to those described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of Livestock Grazing, Recreation and Mineral Management. Multiple use would be modified by prescriptions for livestock grazing, recreational uses, and mineral entry within the three proposed ACECs. Section 7 consultation for any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. Impacts anticipated to occur under this alternative would be the same as those analyzed for the Proposed Action, with the exception of the following: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs Sheep Under this alternative, approximately 5,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be closed to sheep grazing, benefitting the desert tortoise in the short and long term. In the short term, competition from sheep would be eliminated, providing a greater amount of forage for the desert tortoise. Fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition and/or osteoporosis. Improved nutrition for tortoise could reduce the susceptibility of individual tortoises to diseases, including Upper Respiratory Tract disease which currently impacts many wild tortoises in all age classes. In the long term, the elimination of the potential for sheep grazing should maintain or improve the current serai stage of the vegetative community. As native species gradually become part of the vegetative communities, tortoise would benefit from better forage and habitat conditions. The above-ground biomass of perennial grasses and forbs would increase, providing thermal and protective cover for hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. With improved cover, juvenile tortoises would be less susceptible to predation. Tortoises and their burrows would also be protected from trampling by sheep. This is particularly important in areas where sheep are grazed, since trampling of tortoises or burrows in California has been shown to be a contributing factor in tortoise mortalities (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Cattle Cattle grazing on the 212,500 acres under this alternative would be allowed if forage was reserved at twice the level necessary for full adult tortoise reproduction (288 lbs per acre) by March 1 of each year. This would eliminate competition during the spring and summer periods in poor production years and should maintain the present serai stage of the vegetative communities on eight grazing allotments (shown in Table 4-2). Grazing in this manner would be anticipated to maintain the present quality of desert tortoise population for adult tortoise in the short term. However, grazing under this prescription does not address the nutritional needs of juvenile or hatchling tortoise or the other needs of adult tortoise. This, in the long term, could result in a downward population trend. Even with the reservation of forage recent research has indicated that forage quality as opposed to forage quantity is more important (Oftdal and Allen 1996). An abundance of forage available to the desert tortoise may not be of sufficient quality to meet the tortoises' nutrient needs. Direct impacts to tortoise would continue (trampling). 4-29 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) From Recreation Management Within ACECs Organized OHV Use Under this alternative, speed events would be allowed to pass through the ACECs during the tortoise inactive season. The potential for impacts such as the creation of new trails and widening of existing trails would be reduced because the events would only be allowed on designated roads. The potential for direct mortality would be eliminated because the event would be held only during the tortoise inactive period. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur because these activities would not be allowed within the ACECs. Non-speed organized events would be authorized to pass through the ACECs on designated routes, creating minimal impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat. The designation of routes would reduce the potential for course widening, additional soil compaction, and the creation of new courses. The non-speed nature of events would minimize the potential for direct mortalities of tortoises. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur, because these would not be allowed within the ACECs. Casual Use Vehicle travel within ACECs would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails under this alternative. Some non-compliance with the designation could be anticipated, resulting in the creation of new roads or trails. Outside of ACECs The potential for off road travel would increase under this alternative since desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs would remain open, as currently designated. Impacts that could result from this designation such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, the proliferation of roads, harassment, vandalism, and direct mortality could occur. Over the life of the plan, an estimated 2 to 10 miles of new routes could be established, providing increased, unauthorized recreation access. This would differ from the Proposed Action, under which an estimated 1 to 4 miles of new routes might be created by casual OHV use. From Minerals Management Locatable Minerals Mining, exploration, and other mineral developments would continue throughout the proposed ACECs. Negative effects from the mineral exploration and development could include direct mortality during mining activities, harassment, incidental take, and the loss and degradation of habitat. By requiring plans of operation for all mineral activities within ACECs, the potential for these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. 4-30 . .,.:■ ■■ ";■/■ ..... ■■ ■ V CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) It is anticipated that exploration would continue at a rate of from 8 to 10 activities per year, for all types of beatable minerals within the planning ares. The operations would consist of small exploration projects, that would disturb an estimated 5 acres per project. These could result in up to 50 acres of disturbance' per year. It is estimated that one small mining operation would be developed during the life of the plan, with a disturbance of approximately 75 acres in the planning area. This would constitute a minimal loss of habitat within the planning area. Fluid Minerals Fluid exploration and development would continue throughout the ACECs. Impacts that could occur from these activities include loss and fragmentation of habitat, direct mortality of tortoises, and increased public access to habitat. By attaching the lease stipulations and conditions of approval, as outline in Appendix E, and those developed through Section 7 consultation, the impacts to desert tortoise habitat would be reduced to the extent possible. No habitat disturbance from seismic activities would occur within ACECs since these activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails. One wildcat well per year would disturb up to 5 acres. If oil is found, one oil and gas field could occur during the life of the plan, disturbing up to 640 acres. From Mineral Materials Impacts associated with mineral material disposed include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential incidental take of a tortoise. By closing the ACECs to mineral material disposal (with the exception of one-mile wide corridors on designated roads) these impacts would be reduced. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. From Non-energy Leasable Minerals Although no known exploration has taken place, it is anticipated that one exploration prospecting permit would be issued. One drilling operation and an estimated 20 acres of disturbance could occur over the life of the plan. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. All disturbed areas would be reclaimed, according to standards in Appendix E. Reclamation All surface-disturbing activities would be required to reclaim the surface to the standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meed adjacent cover and diversity standards. The reclamation will reduce impacts to the tortoise habitat over the long term. 4-31 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs When forage requirements are met domestic livestock grazing (cattle) would continue to be authorized within the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, except for the Beacon Allotment. The Beacon Allotment would be closed to grazing, resulting in a loss of 2,095 AUMs (sheep). It should be noted that these 2,095 sheep AUMs have not been used since 1988. The forage production requirements would affect 8 allotments: Breedlove, Delamar, Gourd Spring, Grapevine, Lower Lake East, Mormon Peak, Rox-Tule, and Sand Hollow. In the western Mojave, an average of 7 centimeters (approximately 3 inches) of annual precipitation would be required to produce sufficient annual biomass to satisfy the criteria for livestock grazing authorization (Tracy et al., unpublished draft manuscript 1995). Such a statistical relationship between winter rainfall and spring forage has not been developed for the northeast Mojave. However, based on available precipitation data, it is estimated that western Mojave would be met 7 years in 10 in the planning area. In addition to the production requirements, utilization limits would be in effect on the allotments. The production requirements and utilization limits would reduce management flexibility, which could result in livestock being removed from the allotment early, or not authorized at all. (Refer to the Socio-Economk Analysis for a further analysis of livestock grazing economics.) RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Organized OHV Use Within ACECs Speed-based OHV events would be allowed to pass through ACECs on designated, maintained roads during the tortoise inactive season and non-speed and non-competitive OHV events would be permitted to pass through ACECs on designated, maintained roads without seasonal restrictions under this alternative. This would help to meet the recreation needs of the OHV community to route events from the metropolitan Las Vegas and Mesquite areas to points north, through the planning area. An estimated three to eight OHV events could occur annually over the life of the plan. Casual Use Within ACECs Vehicle travel within ACECs would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails under this alternative. Hunters and trappers could be the most directly impacted by this limitation, since they could no longer travel legally cross-country or through washes to retrieve game, set and recover traps, or access remote areas by vehicle. 4-32 , ■■ ...■■ ■ •::■ :. ■ _. CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) Outside of ACECs Vehicle travel in tortoise habitat outside of ACECs would remain unrestricted. No impacts to casual OHV use would be sustained, since the management direction would remain the same as Alternative C (No Action Alternative). MINERAL MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open to locatable, fluid, and leasable minerals entry, with minor stipulations. Table 4-4 displays acreage with mineral management prescriptions. Mineral materials and locatable minerals would be open to entry and would require a plan of operation and section 7 consultation. Restrictions in lease instruments, plans of operation, and permits comprise an economic factor in the mineral industry's ability to explore for mineral resources, due to cost and timing of operations. Timing limitations under the Proposed Action could result in additional expenditures. If sufficient time is not available to complete exploration and drilling programs, detailed and necessary geologic information may not be acquired to support the next phase of the exploration plan. A mineral company could incur greater costs for the production of a mineral commodity, as a result of these restrictions. Table 4-4. Minerals Management Acreage-Alternative A. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 0 754,600 0 Leasables 0 754,600 0 Mineral Materials 0 754,600 0 The requirement for plans of operations and Section 7 consultation for all locatable minerals within Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before it could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding costs and expenses for operators. These requirements would render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. The requirement for Section 7 consultation during the approval process for plans of operation for minerals could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The mineral material industry would incur higher haulage costs from specific pits. These actions could render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. If no jeopardy opinion can be received operations could not occur on mineral resources would not be developed. One of the major economic factors for a project is the timing of the overall operations. The company must schedule equipment and services during operations. The cost of delay includes equipment waiting on 4-33 niTmsirrwRig"-^ CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) standby so they do not go to another project, based on the delay not being able to complete future projects because the field season ends and cost of storage of the equipment. The companies try to anticipate these delays based on the known environmental and other permitting requirements but additional delays beyond the anticipated dates are costly. The need for Section 7 consultation or an environmental impact statement is usually not an anticipated time factor. In order to offset these timing issues, companies will often hire third party contractors to provide the information and documentation, or prepare the appropriate reports and documents required to obtain approval. While some of these items are the responsibility of the BLM, due to time constraints, limited staff, and competing priorities, BLM is unable to prepare the necessary documents within sufficient time to meet the proponent's project goals. Therefore, companies do assume these additional costs in order to facilitate their project. SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs Closure of the Beacon Allotment to sheep grazing would result in a loss of capital asset value to this operation of $104,750. However, these AUMs have not been utilized since 1988, so the economic viability of an existing operation is not imperiled. All livestock grazing operators on the 8 allotments affected by the forage production requirements would be required to find alternative sources of forage or shut-down operations in each of the 3 years in ten for which it is estimated that precipitation may not be adequate. Many would consider abandoning the effort and shutting down operations completely. 3,782 AUMs may be affected by the shutdown, representing a direct loss in total net ranch income of $17,019. However, the total effect may actually be much greater, particularly for those operations where public land AUMs meet only a portion of their annual forage requirements. Without alternative sources of forage, some operators may be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. Outside ACECs Utilization limits may affect herd sizes and impose operating constraints upon current operations. The potential occurrence or extent of these effects would be variable and dependent upon future vegetative conditions which cannot be hypothesized. The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch income (profit after all costs), and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset value. From Recreation Management Within ACECs No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. The restriction of vehicle travel within ACECs to existing roads and vehicle trails would impose only incidental costs on recreationists, particularly hunters and trappers. Such costs are insignificant and will probably not even be perceived by most recreationists, except in terms of the additional time that might be required when short-cut routes are not available for use. 4-34 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ( Alternative A) Formal OHV events originate in Clark County, and proceed into Lincoln County and provide economic benefit to Lincoln County as a result of expenditures (gas, food, motel). Outside of ACECs No additional economic costs or benefits would derive from the continuance of unrestricted casual OHV travel. From Minerals Management Required mining plans of operations and section 7 consultation and mitigation would have a discouraging effect on smaller operations. However, in all such situations the decision to proceed would be based on estimated returns over costs. Such additional costs are usually incidental, not prohibitive, and may be found to exist, in one form or another, in most mineral exploration and development areas. Under this Alternative, minerals development within the Kane Springs ACEC would be allowed to proceed. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE A IN MEETING THE DESERT TORTOISE DELISTING CRITERIA. 1) As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years: The modification of management actions under this alternative for livestock grazing, recreation and mineral management from those under the Proposed Action would result in less habitat protection and potential for recovery. In the long term the ecological status of the plant community would not be improved but would be maintained. This maintenance of habitat conditions over the life of the plan could, at best, maintain population trends with a possibility of downward trends. Management prescriptions under this alternative, particularly in regards to livestock grazing, only favor the reproductive needs of adult tortoise and not the nutritional needs of hatchlings, juveniles, and other needs of adult tortoise. With the needs of hatchlings and juveniles not being met under this alternative the tortoise population trends could, at best, be maintained in the short-term but would most likely decrease in the long-term. In addition there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude upward population trends even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 2) Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the habitat and desert tortoise populations must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability: Same as the Proposed Action in that the same amount of acres are protected as ACECs. 3) Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1.0: Under this alternative the population growth rate has the potential to decline below a lambda of 1 .0. The modification of management actions under this alternative for livestock grazing, recreation and mineral management from those under the Proposed Action would result in less habitat protection and recovery. In the long term the ecological status of the plant community could be maintained. This maintenance of habitat conditions over the life of the plan would, at best, maintain lambdas at 1.0. Management prescriptions under this alternative, particularly in regard to livestock grazing, only favor the reproductive needs of adult tortoise and not the nutritional needs of hatchlings, juveniles, and other needs of adult 4-35 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) tortoise. With the needs of hatchlings and juveniles not being met under this alternative the recruitment of these age classes into the population could, at best, be maintained but could decrease. This could result in a long term population growth rate of less than 1.0. In addition there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude upward population trends even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 4) Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoises and their habitat. Management prescriptions under this alternative are the same as those under the Proposed Action except for livestock grazing, mineral and recreation management. Livestock grazing under this alternative would only be allowed when a minimum forage requirement was met. This would assure that forage is available to satisfy the reproductive needs of adult tortoise. However, the other needs of adult tortoise, hatchlings, and juveniles are not considered and recent research by Oftdal and Allen, 1996 has indicated that forage quality is more important that forage quantity. Mineral entry would be allowed within all of the ACECs and recreational management would be less restrictive under this alternative. 5) The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under ESA in the foreseeable future. Monitoring will determine if protection under ESA is still needed after the life of the plan. Based on the impact analysis, it is less likely that desert tortoise would meet recovery objectives and not need the protection of the ESA. 4-36 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) This alternative contains the management goals, objectives, and prescriptions specifically identified by the Recovery Plan except for those actions excluded through coordination with USFWS. A total of 307,000 acres in two DWMAs would be managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. These two areas include 126,700 acres (52 percent) of the designated critical habitat, considered by the USFWS to be essential for the recovery of the species, within Lincoln County. Conflicting land uses would be eliminated, limited and/or mitigated, reducing both direct and indirect impacts on tortoises. Boundary configurations for the proposed DWMAs were developed from maps and data contained in the Recovery Plan and through coordination with the USFWS. Management prescriptions would be applied only within the proposed DWMAs, since the Recovery Plan recommended that no special management attention need be applied to desert tortoise populations located outside special management areas unless those populations are in jeopardy (USFWS, pg. 45, 1994a). Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. Other management constraints, including IMP for Wilderness Study Areas, could limit the scope and intensity of impacts related to surface disturbance. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Management prescriptions developed for DWMAs would benefit desert tortoise and wildlife in general. Current estimated population densities are depicted in Table 4-5. Data on population densities were collected from permanent study plots and strip transects, within the planning area. The proposed Mormon Mesa DWMA is bisected by the Meadow Valley Wash. The western portion (Area B) of the proposed DWMA contains better quality desert tortoise habitat than the eastern area (Area A) and, as a consequence, higher tortoise densities; this difference is reflected in the data shown in Table 4-5. Management prescriptions under this alternative would allow for improvement of tortoise habitat and would encourage upward tortoise population trends during the life of the plan. Table 4-5. Proposed DWMAs with acreage and estimated current tortoise populations. DWMA NAME ACRES EST. TORTOISE NUMBERS PER SQ. MILE EST. TORTOISE POPULATIONS PER UNIT Coyote Springs DWMA 9,600 25-75 375 - 1,125 Mormon Mesa DWMA Area A 56,300 Area B 241,100 25-75 10-20 2,199 - 6,597 3,767 - 7,534 DWMA Totals 307,000 6,341 - 15,256 4-37 ;-■■• " :i~yv:\:.. CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Management direction outlined in this alternative for the DWMAs would improve desert tortoise habitat. By authorizing research within the DWMAs by permit, stipulations could be attached to the permit to help protect the tortoise and its habitat. The development and implementation of mitigations would ensure that population augmentation or enhancement of native species would not create conflicts with desert tortoise recovery. Experimental Management Zones could be established in which to conduct research relating to desert tortoise habitat and nutritional needs. The installation of crossing culverts would benefit tortoises and other wildlife species. This mitigation would require consent and cooperation from the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad. The lack of management direction to initiate predator control within the proposed DWMAs could impact the recovery of the desert tortoise. Predation by ravens and other predators is considered to be a significant impact on desert tortoise populations, accounting for as much as 85 percent of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles in the western Mojave Desert (Berry 1986, 1988). Failure to coordinate predator control with the appropriate agencies (NDOW, USFWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture) could lower recruitment rates among young tortoises and affect population trends. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs, as per the direction in the Recovery Plan. This could result in downward population trend. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. From Forestry and Vegetative Products Management Within DWMAs Not authorizing desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) within DWMAs would have a beneficial effect on desert tortoise habitat. Mature plant species sought after by the harvester would remain within the DWMAs to provide cover and forage for the tortoise; seeds would be allowed to disseminate and germinate providing cover and forage for the tortoise in the future. Commercial demand for seed or native plant salvage harvesting has historically been very low in the planning area. This restriction would preclude commercial collection or harvesting by an estimated two operators per year, over the life of the plan. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. 4-38 CHAPTER 4 From Livestock Grazing Management ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Within DWMAs Closure of the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs to livestock grazing would enhance recovery efforts in the long term. The elimination of 3,688 AUMs of cattle grazing would lessen competition between tortoises and livestock for forage. A greater amount and variety of forage would be provided for desert tortoises, maximizing their reproduction potential and lowering the incidence of malnutrition. The elimination of grazing over the long term should maintain or improve the current serai stage of the vegetative community. Improved vigor of tortoise populations would reduce the susceptibility of individuals to upper respiratory tract disease, osteoporosis, and other diseases. Reduced utilization levels would also improve thermal and protective cover for hatchling and juvenile tortoise, lessening their susceptibility to predation. The potential for trampling of tortoises and/or burrows by livestock would also be eliminated. Over the long term, improved nutrition and increased recruitment rates would provide for an upward trend in tortoise population and assist in their recovery. Outside of DWMAs Livestock grazing would be authorized on approximately 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMA. Impacts could include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows, increased forage competition, and reduced native plant diversity (USFWS 1994c). Grazing practices could maintain but would most likely decrease the current serai stage of the vegetative community, resulting in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. From Wild Horse and Burro Management Within DWMAs Desert tortoise would receive long-term beneficial impacts from the management of the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HAs for zero horses and burros. Increased forage and cover would be available for tortoise and the possible trampling of tortoise and burrows would be eliminated. Impacts associated with wild horse and burro grazing include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows and forage competition. Outside of DWMAs Wild horse and burro management would continue within HMAs in desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Impacts would include the trampling of tortoise and burrows, continued forage competition, and reduced native plant diversity (USFWS 1994a). This could result in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. 4-39 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) From Lands Management Disposal Areas Within DWMAs Approximately 307,000 acres within DWMAs, including a total of 126,700 acres of designated critical habitat, would be retained in federal ownership and managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Outside of DWMAs Portions of 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 1 18,200 acres of designated critical habitat, could be disposed of under appropriate authorities outside of DWMAs. This would contrast with the Proposed Action, where 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat outside of proposed special management areas (ACECs) would be retained in federal ownership. Disposal of habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs could result in the loss of federal protection for designated critical habitat and potential destruction or degradation of desert tortoise habitat. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would lessen the impacts. Land Use Authorizations Within DWMAs Land uses that result in surface disturbances would not be authorized within DWMAs. This would impact desert tortoises by eliminating habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and the potential of taking a tortoise. By authorizing non-surface disturbing land uses on a case-by-case basis, protective measures for the desert tortoise and habitat could be placed on the permit to ensure that the potential of take is eliminated. Outside of DWMAs Both non-surface and surface disturbing activities could be authorized. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, and the constraints of meeting the non-impairment criteria for WSAs would lessen the impacts. A total of 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be available for land use authorizations under this alternative. Acquisitions Within DWMAs By acquiring available private land or rights (such as easements) from willing sellers, those parcels could be managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Since the acquisition of any private lands would be dependent on private sector willingness and the support of the local governmental entity, the acreage and timing of such acquisitions cannot be predicted. Any acquisitions would help to meet the reserve design criteria for large blocks of habitat to be managed for desert tortoise and other Mojave Desert species. 4-40 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs Should the 7,370 acres of the legislatively-leased private property (formerly Aerojet) become available and be re-acquired, they would be included within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. The inclusion of this large block of habitat would help to meet the reserve design criteria recommended by the Recovery Plan. No other special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. Unauthorized Use Within DWMAs Resolving unauthorized use within DWMAs to allow for title retention and reclamation of the site would assist tortoise recovery. The parcels would remain in federal ownership and unauthorized use areas reclaimed; an unknown amount of habitat would be improved through reclamation. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Withdrawals Within DWMAs Administrative withdrawals would be authorized within the DWMAs for the development of public information/education facilities. Public education relating to the desert tortoise and the Mojave Desert ecosystem would be conducted at these facilities, possibly assisting the recovery efforts through greater public awareness and the fostering of a public land etiquette. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. Right-of-Way Management Within DWMAs New corridors would not be designated within DWMAs, benefitting desert tortoise and other species in the long term. Power and other types of utility lines would not proliferate in 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat, reducing habitat loss and predator perching localities within the special management areas. 4-41 ■: .' .. :, .' _.. .. . • - ' - CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs The remainder of the planning area (447,600 acres) would remain open to rights-of-way that could include surface disturbance of an estimated 118,200 acres of designated critical habitat. Utility rights-of-way could be granted in desert tortoise habitat outside DWMAs. Other management constraints, including the non- impairment constraints of the IMP, could limit or mitigate the scope and intensity of these impacts. Mineral Rights-of-Ways Within DWMAs By not authorizing mineral leasing rights-of-way within DWMAs, the impacts associated with these rights- of-ways would be eliminated on approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Outside of DWMAs The 447,600 acres outside DWMAs would remain open to rights-of-way that could include surface disturbance of 1 18,200 acres of designated critical tortoise habitat. Mineral leasing rights-of-ways could be granted in desert tortoise habitat outside DWMAs, subject to Section 7 consultation. From Recreation Management Casual OHV Use Within DWMAs Desert tortoise and other wildlife would benefit minimally by limiting vehicle travel to designated roads and limited speeds within the DWMAs. Impacts associated with off highway activities, such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, the proliferation of roads, harassment, vandalism, and direct mortality, would be minimized. Outside of DWMAs The above-described impacts could occur within 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs because the OHV designation would remain open allowing casual use to occur throughout the area without limiting travel to roads and trails. Organized OHV Events Within DWMAs Desert tortoise and other wildlife would benefit by prescriptions which would not authorize OHV events within DWMAs. The closure of the DWMAs to OHV events would eliminate the slight potential for habitat destruction and incidental take of a tortoise. Outside of DWMAs Within the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs, the above-described impacts could occur. Stipulations, developed through Section 7 consultation, would be placed on the permit to lessen the 4-42 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat. Non-OHV Organized Events Within DWMAs By not authorizing non-OHV and commercial events within DWMAs, the slight potential for taking of a tortoise or degradation of habitat as a result of these activities would be eliminated. Outside of DWMAs The approval of some types of non-OHV and commercial events within the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside the DWMAs has the slight potential of taking a tortoise or degradation of habitat. Stipulations developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat. General Recreation Within DWMAs If necessary, sites for parking and camping could be established where appropriate within DWMAs to reduce or avoid impacts to tortoise and/or habitat. By allowing only recreational activities within DWMAs that do not cause surface disturbances, the impacts to tortoise and their habitat would be reduced. Improving opportunities for non-motorized recreation would neither benefit nor hinder recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. By improving these opportunities, recreational use could increase slightly within the DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. From Wilderness Management Within DWMAs Approximately 245,500 acres of lands under wilderness review (Delamar, Evergreen ABC, Fish and Wildlife #1, Meadow Valley and Mormon Mountains WSAs) are contained within the boundaries of the two proposed DWMAs. Until congressional release or designation as wilderness, this acreage would be managed under the IMP which mandates that proposed activities meet the non-impairment criteria. Desert tortoise recovery efforts would be enhanced by IMP criteria, which restricts surface disturbance and vehicular access. Habitat loss or degradation and the possibility for incidental take would be minimized within the 245,500 acres managed under the IMP. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, management within DWMAs would continue to restrict surface disturbances and habitat degradation. 4-43 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs The non-impairment criteria of the IMP would benefit desert tortoise habitat outside of proposed DWMAs by restricting many surface disturbing activities and imposing constraints on the creation of new roads. The restrictions on human activities within WSAs would also minimize the possibilities for habitat fragmentation or loss. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, the protection provided under the IMP would be eliminated. More traditional multiple uses would be expected to occur within those areas with an increase of surface disturbance and habitat degradation. From Minerals Management Within DWMAs Approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat within the DWMAs would be closed to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, and to mineral material disposal. The desert tortoise and its habitat would benefit from these closures. The potential for direct mortality, burrow crushing, and habitat loss would be lessened under this alternative. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal, including habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise would be reduced. It is anticipated that the Nevada Department of Transportation would continue to hold 17 mineral material rights-of-way, some located within the proposed DWMAs. The only pits projected to be used within the DWMAs would be those along U.S. Highway 93. These would continue to be needed for highway maintenance. An estimated 2 acres of disturbance per pit annually over the life of the plan could result, totaling approximately 50 acres of habitat loss within the DWMAs. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, and others developed through Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. Outside of DWMAs Desert tortoise habitat would remain open to the operation of all applicable laws. Habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as direct mortalities, could continue on approximately 447,600 acres of public lands. Mineral material sales would increase in the future, resulting in an increased need for mineral material needs. These actions could be located in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise. It is estimated that one new community pit would need to be established every 5 years to handle this demand, disturbing a projected total of 20 acres of desert tortoise habitat over the life of the plan. From Fire Management Within and Outside DWMAs By minimizing surface disturbance during fire suppression within the DWMAs, the desert tortoise would benefit. Impacts from this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4-44 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) SOIL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Soil disturbance occurs as a result of grazing from domestic livestock, wild horses and burros, and wildlife. Disturbance includes soil compaction and the destruction of protective surface crusts from trampling. These impacts, combined with the removal of vegetative cover during grazing, expose the soil to an accelerated rate of runoff and erosion. This alternative would result in a reduction of 3,688 AUMs, as a result of management prescriptions for the proposed DWMAs. Two HAs within the DWMAs would be managed at zero population levels, resulting in the removal of approximately 75 wild horses. Soil resources would experience a positive impact from a reduced rate of erosion as soil disturbances are eliminated. An estimated 1,270 tons per year of soil would not be lost to erosion, as a result of the removal of grazing animals. The two proposed DWMAs are located within the Colorado River Drainage System. An estimated 283,000 tons per year of salt is currently contributed to the Colorado River from the Nevada portion of the drainage system. The contribution from the proposed DWMA areas is not known at this time. Salt loading due to impacts from grazing would be expected to decrease due to closure of allotments along the Meadow Valley Wash. Other management prescriptions, including the elimination of OHV competitive events, the closure to minerals entry and leasing, reclamation requirements, and restricted recreation activities, would also benefit soils by maintaining soil productivity in the DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed toward soil resources on the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat located outside of the proposed DWMAs. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts to habitat associated with project specific activities. Grazing by both livestock and wild horses and burros would continue outside of the proposed DWMAs, resulting in soils compaction. WATER RESOURCES/RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Actions under this alternative would affect a total of nine livestock grazing allotments and two HAs within the proposed DWMAs, resulting in a reduction of 3,688 AUMs. Since grazing animals often concentrate their use on and around spring sources, streams, and their associated riparian habitats, a reduction in the numbers of large grazing animals would positively impact water and riparian resources in the proposed DWMAs. Positive impacts to four spring sources and their associated riparian zones would result from the removal of trampling and heavy use. The water source to the riparian zones would return in some cases, allowing the riparian habitat to expand. Meadow Valley Wash would benefit from reduced use by grazing animals. Banks would stabilize, sedimentation, salinity loads, and water temperatures would decrease, and peak flows would be moderated along portions of the drainage. 4-45 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed toward water/riparian resources on the approximately 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts associated with project-specific activities. Grazing by both livestock and wild horses and burros would continue outside of the proposed DWMAs, resulting in impacts to water and riparian resources. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Grazing would be eliminated within the proposed Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs, affecting the nine allotments shown in Table 4-6. These allotments encompass 857,600 acres and 18,501 AUMs of which 307,000 acres and 3,688 AUMs are within DWMAs. The elimination of grazing would result in a loss of 3,688 cattle AUMs. The 7 allotments located partially within the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs would also be affected by the prescription to eliminate livestock grazing within the DWMAs, since no structural barriers (e.g. fences) are currently in place that would restrict livestock access to the proposed DWMAs. Fences would have to be constructed in the Grapevine, Delamar, Lower Lake East, Henrie Complex, White Rock, Mormon Peak and Gourd Spring Allotments, in order to authorize livestock grazing on those portions of the allotment that are not within the DWMAs. Constraints on the construction of some of these fences could be imposed by the requirements of the non-impairment criteria for the Meadow Valley Mountains and Mormon Mountains WSAs. Outside of DWMAs The 16 allotments located outside of the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs within the planning area, would not be affected by this alternative. WELD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs The Recovery Plan states that wild horses and burros should not be managed within DWMAs. In order to eliminate wild horses and burros within the Mormon Mesa DWMA, the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HAs would be managed for zero wild horse and burros (Map 2-15). The proposed DWMA would overlap over 80 percent of the Mormon Mountains HA. Approximately 25 percent of the Meadow Valley Mountains HA is located within the proposed DWMA; the only reliable water sources for the wild horses occurs within that portion of the HA located within the DWMA. Approximately 35 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the Mormon Mountains HA, while approximately 40 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the Meadow Valley Mountains HA. All of the adoptable age class wild horses and all age classes for the burros would be placed into the 4-46 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) adoption system. Any remaining animals would have to be relocated to another HMA, as mandated by BLM policy. This relocation effort could impact the relocated horses since they would not know where the reliable water sources and favorable foraging areas were located. A small number of individual animals could die as a result of the relocations. The resident horses within the relocation HMA(s) would be affected by the increased competition for forage and water supplies. Table 4-6. Allotments partially or entirely within DWMAs. Allotment Name Allotment Within Proposed DWMAs The Total Number of Animal Lnit Months of Specified Livestock Grazing Total Acres Total Allotment - i&crei-S" Use Area Acres Allotment Total Within DWMAs Percent Current Proposed Reduction within Allotment MORMON MESA DWMA Breedlove 121,500 114,100 54,100 864 864 0 100 Delamar 245,400 47,000 0 5,558 0 0 0 Grapevine 34,200 12,400 10,200 560 217 0 39 Gourd Springs 97,200 22,200 12,100 3,458 974 0 28 Hcnrie Complex 169,100 36,200 7,000 3,185 228 0 7 Lower Lake East 53,700 1,400 0 640 0 0 0 Mormon Peak 77,900 32,300 4,800 600 217 0 36 Rox-Tule 25,600 25,600 N/A 756 756 0 100 White Rock 33,000 6,200 4,100 2,880 432 0 15 TOTALS 857,600 297.400 9230 18,501 3,688 0 20 COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA Delamar 245,400 4,900 0 5,558 0 0 0 Lower Lake East 53,700 4,700 0 640 0 0 0 TOTALS 299,100 9,600 0 6,198 0 0 0 4-47 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs Wild horses would be managed in the Blue Nose Peak HMA at an appropriate management level (AML) established through the allotment evaluation process. Reliable water for these wild horses is located far enough from the proposed DWMA boundary so that the animals would not enter the DWMA. LANDS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Disposal Areas Within DWMAs Disposal would not be authorized within the two DWMAs totalling the 307,000 acres. Outside of DWMAs Up to 118,200 acres of designated critical habitat could be disposed, since no special management attention would be directed toward desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Should any disposal occur, the lands might not be managed to meet the recovery and delisting objectives for desert tortoise. Acquisitions Within DWMAs Alternative B proposes the acquisition of private lands or rights from willing sellers, for inclusion within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs. Should the 7,370 acres of the legislatively-leased (formerly Aerojet) property become available and be re-acquired, the acreage would be included within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. In the event that such acquisitions are completed over the life of the plan, a substantial block of public land would be managed for the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise, helping to meet the reserve design criteria recommended by the Recovery Plan. Since the acquisition of any private lands is dependent on private sector willingness and the support of local governments, such acquisitions cannot be scheduled nor predicted to occur. Outside of DWMAs No special management direction would be directed to acquisitions of tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. RIGETTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Utility corridors would not be designated within the proposed DWMAs. Rights-of-way authorizations requiring surface disturbance would not be granted. Avoidance of the DWMAs could increase the length of utility lines and, as a consequence of the increased distances, the construction costs for utility companies and rate payers. The requirements to avoid siting facilities within DWMAs would likely affect only a limited number of future 4-48 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) right-of-way projects. The local users and applicants would not be impacted since the regional population centers (Alamo and Mesquite, Nevada) are located outside of the DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs The requirements for Section 7 consultation prior to the authorization of rights-of-way in desert tortoise habitat could continue to impose time delays, unless a programmatic consultation were in place, and additional compliance costs on utility companies and rate payers. This would impact a limited number of future grants. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Casual OHV use All vehicles within DWMAs would be limited to designated roads and subject to speed limits. Since the designation of roads would be largely in response to public input, and intended to ensure all desirable public access, there would be very little impact to the recreational user. Most existing access would be maintained. Posting speed limits to encourage drivers to limit their speed would have little, if any, effect since travel over most of the roads within the DWMAs is limited by the condition of the road and surrounding terrain. Organized OHV events The DWMAs would be closed to all competitive and organized events, eliminating one OHV event per year and possibilities for expanded use in the future. Demand for organized OHV events within the area has been very limited, but could increase with the continued growth of surrounding metropolitan areas and increased sales of recreational vehicles. Non-OHV Organized events Closing DWMAs to all organized (non-OHV) events would eliminate the very slight potential for mortality or harassment of tortoises, and would eliminate the slight amount of habitat degradation that might occur as a result of these activities. Demand for organized non-OHV events would increase as regional populations expand and public lands uses are displaced from metropolitan Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. General Recreation Restricting all parking and camping to specific, designated areas would confine the relatively few users of the planning area to specific locations. Although it would not effect a large number of people, it would change their experience from one of freedom from regulation, to one where they must be aware of the regulations. Most users of this area choose to go there for the remoteness, and the primitive, unconfined recreational experience. This experience would be altered or degraded by the requirement of designated camping and parking areas. 4-49 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Industry would not be able to explore or produce any minerals from the 307,000 acres within the DWMAs (Table 4-7). Minerals with high to moderate potential would not be developed during the life of this plan. Should mineral prices continue to rise, known deposits of gypsum and lead could become economically feasible to recover. These opportunities would be lost as a consequence of closure. Loss of mineral revenues would be experienced by the public. Royalties, payments and leasing rentals would not be paid to the federal government and these monies would not be distributed to the states. Mineral material pits would not be authorized within DWMAs. The materials industry would be impacted to varying degrees, ranging from loss of income to irreversible and irretrievable losses of access to the mineral resource. Fair market value revenues from mineral material sales would not be available to the federal government. Overall, loss of access into the DWMAs would deny industry the ability to explore, discover, develop and produce mineral commodities. This loss would result in the economic loss of minerals produced and the loss of monies to governments. Outside of DWMAs Section 7 consultation would continue to be required for mineral plans of operations outside of DWMAs. Mitigation measures required as a result of Section 7 consultation could impose seasonal restrictions or other constraints on the development of mineral deposits and increase the costs of production. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before it could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding cost and expenses for operators. Table 4-7. Minerals Management Acreage-Alternative B. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 447,600 0 307,000 Leasable 447,600 0 307,000 Mineral Materials 447,600 0 307,000 FERE MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Pre-plan dispatch, Resource Advisor notification, and pre-season coordination would be used to meet resource objectives and prevent the loss of life, property, and unacceptable resource damage. As fire activity increases during the season, safety concerns would take precedence over other values. Increased fire management 4-50 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) intensity, including surface disturbance related to suppression activities, could result in tortoise habitat loss or degradation in D WMAs. Implementation of suppression tactics that minimize vegetative losses and surface disturbance could increase the costs of fire suppression. Outside of DWMAs Impacts to fire management would be similar to those described for Alternative C (No Action Alternative), since no special management attention would be directed to desert tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES From Livestock Grazing Management Within DWMAs This alternative affects nine livestock permittees on nine allotments. However, only six permittees with seven allotments have current active use. Of the six permittees with current active use, only five, in five allotments, have active grazing use within the proposed DWMAs. Two of these operators, utilizing the Gourd Springs Allotment would lose a total of 974 AUMs. This represents about 28 percent of their total available AUMs or an estimated $4383.00 in net ranch income, and $48,700 in capital asset value. These operators should be able to continue current operations because sufficient permitted AUMs would remain available to continue their five year average use. One operator, utilizing the Breedlove, Grapevine, and Henrie Complex Allotments would lose 1,195 AUMs of the total 2,399 AUMs available on these three allotments. This represents a loss of about 50 percent of the available forage, and a potential loss in net ranch income estimated at $5377.50; capital asset value would decline by $59,750. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with a reduced herd size could make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. A fourth operator, utilizing the Rox-Tule Allotment, would lose 756 AUMs, or 100 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $3,402, and a loss of $37,800 in capital asset value. However, this allotment was, until recently, utilized by a third-party under a base property lease, and is currently not being grazed. Whether leased or owner-operated, the loss of 100 percent of their licensed AUMs would force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. A fifth operator, utilizing the Henrie Complex Allotment, would lose 114 AUMs, or five percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $513, and a loss of $5,700 in capital asset value. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with such a small reduction in herd size should not make the operation economically untenable, and should not result in the abandonment or sale of the business. A sixth operator, utilizing the Mormon Peak Allotment, would lose 217 AUMs, or 36 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $976.50, and a loss of $10,850 in capital asset value. However, this allotment is currently not being grazed. The loss of 36 percent of their 4-51 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) licensed AUMs could force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. A seventh operator, utilizing the White Rock Allotment, would lose 432 AUMs, or 15 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $1944, and a loss of $21,600 in capital asset value. This operator should be able to continue current operations because, he has two other allotments in close proximity to the White Rock allotment with sufficient permitted AUMs available to continue his five year average use. With a total of 18,501 currently permitted AUMs available to grazing operators who are affected by Alternative B, the reduction of 3,688 AUMs represents an overall reduction of 19.9 percent, and a loss of capital asset value of $184,400. A decline in capital asset value affects the market value of the ranch property and the ability to obtain short-term operating loans. The total potential loss of net ranch income is estimated at $16,596. In summary, 5 livestock permittees with active grazing operations will be adversely affected; 4 of these permittees can continue to sustain their grazing and herd size, based on 5 year average active use; their opportunity to expand their herd size will, however, be limited. The fifth permittee will suffer severe adverse effects and be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. This permittee does, however, have recourse to the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan to receive financial compensation for the licensed public land AUMs, which would serve, in some measure, to ameliorate the economic loss. Additional temporary losses may occur if it proves necessary to limit grazing on those portions of these allotments which lie outside of the DWMAs until such time as fence construction can be completed. Actual losses in net ranch income would probably be much higher as ranchers would be forced to cut their herd size to cope with the lack of availability of seasonal forage. One operation would have no choice but to abandon the business. All would be forced to reconsider the feasibility of remaining in the cattle business. Little economic impact would accrue to Lincoln County. Some very small reduction in livestock tax revenues might occur estimated at about $198.00), but there will be no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchases and sales, or income and employment. Outside of DWMAs The 17 allotments outside of the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs are open to grazing without restriction. No adverse economic effects are identified. From Lands Management Within DWMAs Restriction imposed on land disposal actions could have adverse economic impacts on private individuals and public entities that have proposed or applied for transfer of these lands for suitable purposes. The agricultural entry laws would not apply within the proposed DWMAs, and no Desert Land Entry applications would be approved. 4-52 CHAPTER 4 Outside DWMAs ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) The additional acreage available for disposal under this alternative would not result in any direct or immediate economic benefit, but would enhance the possibility of future potential for economic development. The potential Desert Land Entry discussed in Alternative C would be permitted to occur. From Rights-of-Way Management Within DWMAs Designating the DWMAs as avoidance areas could affect the efficiency of planning for future energy, communication, and transportation facilities. Restrictions and route realignments would increase the costs of planning and permitting with longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Alternative routes are also likely to entail higher utility rates. The increased costs would be borne by consumers throughout the Western States. Such potential additional costs cannot be estimated except on a case-by-case basis. Some utility companies might choose less restrictive or less costly routes, which could result in a proliferation of utility lines. If such alternative routes were to avoid Lincoln County, substantial tax revenues could be lost. Outside of DWMAs Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses and in the establishment of their utility rates. Often such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. From Recreation Management Within DWMAs No economic gains or losses can be identified. No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and the employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. From Minerals Management Within DWMAs DWMAs would be closed to mineral entry. Within DWMAs any potential gypsum mine or producing oil field, as anticipated in Alternative C, could not occur. Any potential tax revenues would not be realized by Lincoln ' County, and the possible income and employment would not be generated throughout the period of closure. Mineral material pits would not be authorized and existing pits would be closed within DWMAs While also abundant in the area outside of DWMAs, the cost of hauling mineral materials could be substantially increased, 4-53 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) depending upon location and proximity to access and use. Transportation costs increase by about 25 percent for each doubling of the haul distance (Mine Cost Service, 1998). Distances range from 50 to 100 additional miles to available sources, with costs of 45 to 70 cents per mile. Outside of DWMAs Minerals development outside of the DWMAs could proceed as discussed in Alternative C. The potential gypsum mine and producing oil field could be developed in locations outside of the DWMA boundaries. Required mining plans of operations and section 7 consultation and mitigation would have a discouraging effect on smaller operations. However, in all such situations the decision to proceed will be based on estimated returns over costs. Such additional costs are usually incidental, not prohibitive, and may be found to exist, in one form or another, in most mineral exploration and development areas. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE B IN MEETING THE DESERT TORTOISE DELISTING CRITERIA. 1) As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years. The cumulative effects of closures to livestock, removal of wild horses and burros, withdrawal of minerals, and restrictions on other multiple uses within DWMAs would help protect habitat and aid in desert tortoise recovery. In the long term the restrictions would help to maintain or improve serai stage of the native plant communities. These improvements in habitat conditions over the life of the plan should enable desert tortoise populations to achieve statistically upward trends of long term stability within the DWMAs. However, there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude upward population trends even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 2) Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the habitat and desert tortoise populations must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability: Under Alternative B, 307,000 acres would be designated as DWMAs. However, this accounts for only 52% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County and the planning unit. None of the DWMAs/ACECs being proposed in other plans within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit contain 1,000 square miles of habitat. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for Special Management Areas (SMAs) within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SMA(s) of 1 ,000 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The DWMAs proposed under this alternative account for 479 square miles out of the 1,910 square miles of proposed DWMAs/ACECs within the recovery unit. However, connectivity is lacking with DWMAs/ACECs in adjoining planning units (BLM - Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, and Cedar City) resulting in three separate DWMAs which by themselves may not be large enough to contain viable populations of a minimum density of 10 adult tortoise per square mile. 4-54 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) 3) Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1.0. The cumulative effects of closures to livestock, removal of wild horses and burros, withdrawal of minerals, and restrictions on other multiple uses within DWMAs would help protect habitat and aid in desert tortoise recovery. In the long term the restrictions would help to maintain or improve serai stage of the native plant communities. The improvements in habitat conditions over the life of the plan should enable desert tortoise populations to increase population growth rates within DWMAs. However, there are events beyond the control of this plan (i.e. spread of disease or long term drought) that could preclude increases in population growth rates even with imposition of appropriate management controls. 4) Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoises and their habitat. Over the life of the plan habitat within the DWMAs would be protected by management prescriptions from adverse modifications relating to land use authorizations that would be incompatible with recovery objectives. Lands within the DWMAs would not be available for disposal, therefore, retaining them in federal stewardship. Restrictions on other land and right-of-way activities will help reduce or eliminate impacts from these activities. Closure of the DWMAs to mineral entry, except for valid existing rights, would eliminate impacts within the DWMAs. Restrictions on livestock and wild horse and burro grazing and other types of surface disturbances would help to restore native plant communities. The designation of roads and trails for casual OHV use and closure of the DWMAs to OHV events would reduce impacts resulting from off-road travel, creation of new trails, and the potential for the direct take of a tortoise. 5) The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under ESA in the foreseeable future. Monitoring will determine if protection under ESA is still needed after the life of the plan. 4-55 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved Caliente MFP and activity plan decisions. Management recommendations from the Recovery Plan would not be implemented. The MFP objectives and decisions have been maintained and updated to conform with current BLM regulations and policy. Biological opinions which have resulted from Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act have also modified management direction for livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, and OHV events in the MFP. This alternative, required by NEPA, serves as a baseline against which to compare the impacts of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES MANAGEMENT: From Special Management Areas By not designating special management areas for the desert tortoise, the benefits of the management prescriptions identified for these areas would not be obtained. These would include management of these areas to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate surface disturbances and conflicting land uses within 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat, of which 244,900 acres have been designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. From Forestry and Vegetative Products Management The sale of seed from desert vegetation would be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Mitigative measures would be placed on the permit to reduce the threat of taking a desert tortoise and reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat. From Livestock Grazing Management Implementation of grazing Prescription 1 would maintain present quality of desert tortoise habitat. Livestock would not be allowed to graze from March 1 to June 15 during the critical spring period for the tortoise. Tortoise would benefit by having more forage available without competition during critical spring period. According to Oldemeyer (1994), forage quality is probably of greater importance than forage quantity, as is the intake of varied forage (Mayhew 1968). Livestock grazing under Prescription 1 should maintain the present serai stage of the vegetative community. Without improvement in the quality of forage available for desert tortoise, recovery efforts might not be successful and population trends could decline. Implementation of grazing Prescription 2 would support the existing vegetative communities. By limiting maximum utilization levels at 40 percent (during spring and summer) of annual growth on key forage species, vegetative plant communities should be maintained at least at current serai stage. Possible impacts to tortoise, such as trampling and competition for forage, could continue (BLM 1991). From Wild Horse and Burro Management Wild horse and burros would be allowed to graze unrestricted in desert tortoise habitat. Impacts associated with wild horse and burro grazing include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows, increased forage competition, and alteration of perennial vegetation (USFWS 1994a). This could result in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. 4-56 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) From Lands Management Impacts to desert tortoise and their habitat from land uses, such as rights-of-way and other surface disturbing activities, could occur. Increased raven predation could occur as new powerlines and other facilities increase roosting and nesting locations. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur, as well as direct mortality during construction activities. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would minimize, but not eliminate, these impacts. From Recreation Management Casual OHV use Uncontrolled OHV activities could increasingly impact the desert tortoise and its habitat over the life of the plan. Although activity levels are currently very low in the planning area, due to the distances from major metropolitan areas. Use levels would be expected to increase as populations grow in Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada, as well as St. George, Utah. Many OHV uses could be displaced to Lincoln County, as other administrative units implement land use restrictions. Increases in use would be expected to remain small to moderate, due to the remoteness of the planning unit. Organized OHV events OHV use in desert tortoise habitat has been limited to approximately one organized event per year. Organized events have been limited to existing, maintained roads and restricted by the mitigation measures and special stipulations imposed under the USFWS Section 7 Biological Opinion on the Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits in the Las Vegas District (USFWS File #l-5-95-F-237, USFWS, 1995b). (Special stipulations/mitigation measures are attached as Appendix D.) At current level, based on data from prior OHV events, one tortoise could be killed approximately every 30 years, as a result of speed competitive events conducted within tortoise habitat (based on Section 7 Biological Evaluation #NV-054-95-009, 4/17/95 BLM, 1995). The monitoring data from previous OHV events may underestimate desert tortoise mortality. Other impacts to tortoise habitat associated with organized events would be expected to occur as a result of continued authorization. These would include soil compaction and erosion, creation of new roads and trails by spectators, and increased potential for harassment of tortoises. General Recreation By allowing permitted commercial events, organized non-OHV events, and unrestricted casual recreational use to continue within the planning area, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could increase in intensity. These impacts could include mortality of desert tortoises above and below the ground, crushing of burrows, and habitat deterioration by crushing or killing vegetation. Permitted commercial, or organized non-OHV events, and casual recreational use of the planning area have been very limited in number. Given the current growth of surrounding population centers, use levels in the planning area could increase, causing greater impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would reduce, but not eliminate, the impacts on the tortoise and its habitat. From Wilderness Management The non-impairment criteria under IMP would continue to provide habitat protection for the 312,500 acres currently under wilderness review in the planning area. Meeting non-impairment criteria would limit the scope and intensity of surface disturbing activities, until congressional designation or release from wilderness 4-57 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) consideration. Should these areas be released from further consideration as wilderness, increases in surface disturbing activities and vehicular use would be expected to occur causing degradation and fragmentation of tortoise habitat and increasing the potential for direct mortality due to these activities. From Minerals Management Exploration and extraction of locatable minerals, fossil fuels, geofhermal resources, and other types of mineral resources could occur within desert tortoise habitat. Impacts resulting from these activities could include cross- country travel by vehicles during exploration phase; construction of roads; habitat fragmentation; destruction of the soil surface and vegetation for access to the mineral resources, production of toxic products and byproducts; development of small towns and settlements to support large mines; temporary (short or long-term) oil and gas leases; permanent transfer of title of public lands to the private sector; refuse left from exploration and/or extraction; habitat loss/degradation; and direct mortality of desert tortoise both above ground and below ground by crushing burrows (USFWS 1994a). Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would be enacted (where in accordance with mining regulations) to lessen impacts on the desert tortoise and its habitat. From Fire Management Current fire suppression policy in desert tortoise habitat would include the use of Resource Advisors, but would not provide for special attention to the locations of logistical facilities (e.g. helispots, camps) or for special education of personnel relating to desert tortoise. Impacts to desert tortoise, including small amounts of habitat destruction, off road travel and the proliferation of new access routes, and the possibility of direct mortalities of tortoises could continue under this alternative. SOIL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Livestock Grazing and Wild Horse and Burro Management Soil disturbances occurring as a result of grazing by domestic livestock, as well as wild horses and burros, would continue. An estimated 28,000 tons per year of dissolved solids are currently contributed from the Muddy River basin in Nevada to the Colorado River; the contribution from the planning area has not, to date, been quantified. Approximately 283,000 tons per year of salt is currently contributed to the Colorado River from the Nevada portion of the drainage system; the contribution from the planning areas is not yet known. The amount of salt contributed to the Colorado River Drainage System from the desert tortoise habitat as result of grazing activities would continue at the present rate. Soil loss as result of OHV racing, mining actions would continue at current rates and possibly accelerate as a result of regional population growth and increased demands by public land users. WATER/RIPARIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Livestock Grazing and Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts to water and associated riparian resources would continue at the present level at 18 springs, as a result of continued grazing by large animals. Trampling and heavy use of springs and their associated riparian zones would continue at current levels. Degradation of sources and loss riparian habitat would continue at all unfenced springs in desert tortoise habitat. An unknown number of springs in desert tortoise habitat would be enhanced by fencing or other protective structures over the life of the plan; such activities would be dependent 4-58 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) on funding and resource management priorities. Sediment and salinity contributions from Meadow Valley Wash to the Colorado River Drainage System would continue at present rates. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized within desert tortoise habitat, in accordance with the USFWS Biological Opinions (1991, 1994c) or in accordance with any future Section 7 consultations. Current management does not eliminate or reduce AUMs for any of the grazing allotments within the planning area. Grazing is eliminated between March 1 and June 14 and utilization limits (see "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" in this alternative for utilization limits) are imposed on all or portions of the following allotments: Beacon Grapevine Rox-Tule Breedlove Henrie Complex Snow Spring Delamar Lower Lake East Terry Grapevine Mormon Peak Sand Hollow Gourd Springs Pahranagat East The remaining allotments (Boulder Spring, Flat Top Mesa, Garden Spring, Jackrabbit, Lower Lake West, Pahranagat West, Pulsipher Wash, Summit Springs and White Rock) within desert tortoise habitat do not have a seasonal restriction, but utilization limits are imposed (see "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" for utilization limits). Season of use restrictions and utilization limits impact management flexibility to promote a healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystem. The lack of flexibility could result in the permittees having to remove their livestock from the allotments or obtain forage elsewhere. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Wild horse and burro grazing would continue in the Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs at existing wild horse numbers until allotment evaluations are completed to establish AMLs, based on resource monitoring. Once AMLs are established, periodic removals would occur within the HMAs to maintain the herds at AML and manage wild horses and burros only within the boundaries of the HMAs. The capture and removal of wild horses and/or burros from outside of the boundaries of HMAs could be completed as needed over the life of the plan. LANDS MANAGEMENT From Lands Management Lands would be provided as needed for urban and suburban expansion adjacent to planning area communities. Desert Land Entry applications would be evaluated and classified for agricultural suitability. Those classified as suitable for agricultural purposes would be allowed entry and could go to patent. Activities that could adversely affect tortoises may be limited to the period between October 15 to March 15, when tortoises are in hibernation. Minimal impacts to lands management would be anticipated as a result of implementation of this alternative. 4-59 J: J:,.-. CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) This alternative could authorize the disposal of up to all designated critical tortoise habitat (244,900 acres), if the proposal conformed with direction contained in the Caliente MFP. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Casual OHV Use Data is generally unavailable on the types and intensity of casual OHV recreation uses in the planning area, but recreation use is estimated to be very light. Under this alternative, such uses would be anticipated to increase over the life of the plan, as regional metropolitan areas grow and recreational uses are dispersed to more remote locations. A total of 2,000 visitor days per year of casual OHV use is projected in the short term. A portion of the planning area is limited to existing roads and trails for casual OHV use; this designation would continue to have negligible impacts on recreational users, since the areas are not signed, no maps are available to indicate these locations, and agency presence in the area is very rare. Organized OHV Use Organized OHV use has historically been very limited in the planning area, with an average of one event permitted per year. An area in the Kane Springs Valley is designated to limit competitive events to existing roads for protection of the banded gila monster. This designation would continue to have minor impacts on users, potentially requiring course routing changes or other modifications. Section 7 consultation would continue to be completed for any organized OHV use not addressed by the USFWS Biological Opinion, developed for the issuance of Special Recreation Permits in desert tortoise habitat (USFWS 1995c). Stipulations attached to the Special Recreation Permits, as a result of Section 7 consultation, could require course changes or delays in the scheduling of events. General Recreation Use General recreation would be anticipated to continue at current levels and increase modestly over the life of the plan. The remoteness of the planning area from major urban centers would inhibit the growth of intensive recreational use. An estimate of 3,000 visitor days per year is projected in the long term; uses would continue to be casual, dispersed activities such as hunting, trapping, hiking, camping, horseback riding, and casual OHV riding. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Management direction under this alternative would encourage power distributions lines of voltage higher than 69 kV, major pipelines, and cross country communication lines to locate adjacent to existing rights-of-way. All rights-of-way applications would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Power distribution lines of less than 69 kV, local telephone and cable lines, and access roads to private parcels, federal oil and gas leases, and mining claims would be granted to qualified applicants. Nevada Department of Transportation would be provided with 4-60 J^I^MHBBHB JY--.- ■::," ..-, ■-■■,;.■ ■■■ CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) Federal Aid Highway Act material site rights-of-way. Material site rights-of-way would be granted throughout the planning area, including within designated critical habitat. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted prior to any surface-disturbing land use authorizations and mitigation measures developed as terms and conditions of the grant. Designated critical habitat adjacent to an approximate 8-mile section of U.S. Highway 93 would be expected to be disturbed as material sites are authorized for highway maintenance. This activity may result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of some designated critical habitat, as mitigated through Section 7 consultation. MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Approximately 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would remain open to mineral entry under standard terms and conditions and Standard Operating Procedures (Table 4-8). Leasing restrictions would apply only to the 2,880 acres near Mormon Peak Cave, as required by the approved Caliente MFP. Areas outside of any wilderness areas that might be designated by Congress would remain open to mineral entry. Section 7 consultations would continue to be required for any authorized surface-disturbing activities and mitigation measures developed to lessen any effects on desert tortoise and its habitat. Consultation requirements could cause delays in operations and could result in greater costs to proponents. This alternative would impose the fewest restrictions on mineral operations and would afford the greatest flexibility for minerals operations. Table 4-8. Minerals Management Acreage- Alternative C. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 754,600 0 0 Leasable 751,600 0 2,880 Mineral Materials 754,600 0 0 FIRE MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Full suppression tactics would continue to be employed, within the constraints imposed by IMP for wilderness study areas. Suppression costs would continue to be balanced with values at risk, in order to protect life, property, and resources. Fire management intensity and associated costs would not increase under this alternative. SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES From Livestock Grazing Management Future constraints that might be imposed upon livestock grazing, designed to achieve habitat objectives for desert tortoise, could result in adverse economic impacts to individual livestock grazing operations. The potential occurrence or extent of these effects would be variable and dependent upon future vegetative conditions and management decision criteria. The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net 4-61 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) ranch income (profit after all costs), and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset value. From Lands Management The acreage available for disposal under this alternative would not result in any direct or immediate economic benefit, but would enhance the possibility of future potential for economic development. Desert Land Entry applications would be evaluated and classified as to their suitability or unsuitability for agricultural purposes. The current consensus of professional opinion regards Desert Land Entries as uneconomic unless an entry is developed by the owner of an adjacent existing agricultural operation with sufficient equipment and irrigation facilities to expand the operation. In almost all cases, it has been determined that, at current prices for existing developed agricultural land in Nevada, it is more economic, more profitable, and more feasible to purchase an existing agricultural property than it is to spend the time, money, and labor to develop a new, raw property. Assume for purpose of analysis that one DLE may prove to have adequate soil suitability, availability of sufficient water for irrigation, sufficient arable land for production, and adequate financial and material (equipment) resources to successfully develop. Based on previous analyses, it is clear that, at least initially, the economic viability of a proposed operation may be marginal. But the net return over total costs must be sufficient to provide a profit. And such profit should be adequate to ensure the expectation of continued cultivation. Major considerations include initial capitalization for land and irrigation development costs and the possibilities of cash-flow problems. Problems related to the availability of sufficient cash when necessary are a matter of financial management skills, timing of events, and the entrepreneurial utilization of short-term borrowings. An additional, and potentially prohibitive, cost for this operation would be the necessary Section 7 consultations and mitigations for the protection of the Desert Tortoise. Even those entries that indicate a potential for economic viability demand good management and hard work to succeed. Such an application would bring at least 200 acres into production of an alfalfa crop, yielding about 4 tons per acre. A net return of about $72.50 per acre, after costs, which would include a reasonable return for proprietor and hired labor, would be economically viable. This would yield a total net return of about $14,500, which would be sufficient to assure continued cultivation and allow a margin for error to cover any additional annual amortization costs that might be necessary for land and irrigation development. This operation would yield one full-time job within the county, and provide for the modest sustenance of one small family. However, in many such cases, one or more of the family members retains another full or part- time job. Lincoln County would realize some additional tax revenues from this enterprise, but oftentimes the tax revenues generated are not equal to the cost of community services and infrastructural requirements, such as schooling, that the agricultural family may require. Economic benefits to the county would likely be very small. Most of the tools and equipment would probably be purchased in St. George, Utah; and local expenditures would be incidental. Nevertheless, such an agricultural entry would provide one increment of development in an area where such development is regarded as useful and beneficial to the community. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and development of a Desert Land Entry more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Other land disposals, as well, throughout the planning area would have to bear the additional costs associated with Section 7 consultation and mitigation requirements. In some cases these additional costs could be prohibitive to the proposal. From Rights-of-way Management The existence of designated corridors enables more efficient planning of future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of such designated corridors, or the avoidance of existing corridors, engenders 4-62 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) higher planning costs to utility companies and results in longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses. Often, such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. The planning area has three major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study done by the Western Utility Group in 1986. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The other is encumbered with a right-of-way that has been granted for a 500 kV transmission line that has not as yet been constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although construction materials and a skilled workforce would likely be brought in from out of the area, Lincoln County would experience a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce temporarily located there. The Southwest Intertie Project, which plans to build a 500 kV power transmission line through the planning area estimates that it would pay $4,935, per mile, to Lincoln County in property tax. Even with the additional costs of Section 7 consultation and mitigation, this project is expected to be completed as proposed, These costs, associated with a power transmission line, are not likely to be near as expensive as the costs of planning and analysis, and the additional mileage that might be involved, for alternative routes. From Recreation Management No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. Very limited restrictions on informal OHV use would not preclude such recreation, which is already largely confined to existing roads and trails. Such restrictions may, however, encourage the displacement of some of those activities to adjacent public lands outside of the Planning Area. Formal OHV events might encourage some limited spectator recreation in the area, but this is undocumented. These events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little economic benefit in either jobs or income to Lincoln County. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be of sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. From Minerals Management Locatable Minerals For locatable minerals, there are 412 open mining claims, with little mining activity. And the distance to potential markets renders production from such deposits with only marginal economic viability. Section 7 consultation and mitigation could add additional costs to any operation in the planning area, as well. However, the demand for construction materials due to booming development in the Las Vegas area offers a strong 4-63 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) potential market for gypsum for fabrication of wallboard. Gypsum sells for about $30 per ton, with a profit of about $3 to $5 per ton. Exploration is ongoing in the planning area at the rate of 8 to 10 operations per year for all types of locatable minerals. And, for purposes of analysis it is assumed that a small mining operation for gypsum may occur, totaling surface disturbance of approximately 75 acres. Exploration activities would begin with 2 men and 1 truck, and include research and mapping. Exploratory drilling requires about 10-20 holes, and would take about 1 week to delineate parameters of the deposit. Drilling requires a separate crew of 4 people (1 driller, 2 steelmen, and 1 helper). The initial exploration and drilling crews are most likely to be the companies regular employees from outside the local area. The drill rig is truck mounted; equipment would also include one water truck and one access pick-up truck. Local area economic benefits would derive only from incidental expenditures for fuel, food, entertainment, and possibly lodging. Open pit production for gypsum would last 2-3 years for a 75-acre pit. No construction would be involved in an open-pit operation, and all equipment is portable or semi-portable. Equipment would probably include one 3- trailer dump truck, two front-end loaders, and one bulldozer. The number of employees on-site would range from 7 to 9, and include one supervisor, one welder\repairman, one bookkeeper\office manager, and four to six equipment operators. All employees would most likely be the companies regular employees that are retained from operation to operation, and would live in trailers on-site, possibly returning to Las Vegas each weekend. It is possible that some local hiring in Lincoln County could result, but most of these mining operations prefer to retain, and provide work for, their regular hires. Local purchases would be minimal, consisting of gasoline, diesel fuel, and incidental tools and equipment. Some local expenditures would occur for food and entertainment. But economic benefits to the local area would be small. The state would collect up to a 5 percent Net Proceeds of Mines Tax, and Lincoln County would receive revenues from tax on possessory interest but there would probably be no property tax revenues to the county because there would be no capital improvements. Fluid Minerals The 26 oil and gas leases in the planning area, based on a broad favorable potential for oil and gas, have remained without exploration activities, either ongoing or proposed. However, for analytic purposes it is assumed that geophysical exploration would occur and that one producing oil and gas field would be developed. Section 7 consultation and mitigations could add costs to any operations in the planning area. Very little, if any, direct local employment results from oil and gas exploration and development. All of the work entails considerable investment, planning, and preparation, and requires employees with specialized education, skills, and experience. Some of the workforce are regular full-time company employees, primarily supervisory; others may be consultants or contract-hires employed through the exploration companies' established sources. However, very real, but small, indirect local income and employment may result from field crew expenditures for food and lodging, gasoline and tire purchases, and vehicle maintenance. Industry sources estimate daily local expenses to be $200-$300 per day. Geological exploration usually occurs during a three-month summer field season, and may, on average, consist of three crews of from one to three geologists, each, doing general field and site specific evaluations. Geophysical exploration may occur throughout the year, and consists of two distinct data gathering and analysis phases. The first, seismic acquisition, generally requires a crew of from 15 to 20 people, who will intensively 4-64 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) work in the local area for two to three weeks. The second phase, gravity and magnetic acquisitions, involves a smaller crew, generally two men, and requires three to four months in the field. From time to time,' the magnetic survey crew may need to hire a local pilot and aircraft. Expenditures in the local community are estimated to average about $500 per day. Exploratory drilling is conducted as a 24-hour per day operation, and generally requires two crews of five men each (1 driller, 3 assistants, and 1 "mud-logger"), plus a support group consisting of a "tool-pusher" and a company supervisor. The exploratory drilling crew, too, are non-local hires brought in with the equipment. These crews may or may not require local food and lodging, depending upon the location and conditions of the particular operation. Expenditures for food and lodging are estimated by industrial sources at $500 per day for each crew. Production royalties to the Federal Government are 12 1/2 percent of gross (priced at the well-head), with 50 percent of those proceeds distributed to the State of Nevada. The State would also receive taxes from net proceeds of mines, while the County would collect a tax on possessory interest. Based on potential production outlined in the development scenario, this would add an estimated $3000 per year to County revenues. Drilling a well may take anywhere from 3 weeks to (in extreme cases) 3 months to complete; with 1 in 10 to 1 in 16 wildcat wells successfully producing significant amounts of oil and gas. The development, or production, phase generally employs two people who remain on-site on a 24-hour basis. One of these employees, the Pumper, may be hired locally; the other, the sales-representative (or bookkeeper) is ordinarily a company representative. The majority of all equipment needs for the above operational phases are purchased non-locally from regional equipment suppliers to the industry, located in Bakersfield, California; Vernal, Utah; Denver, Colorado; or Rock Springs or Evanston, Wyoming. Incidental tool and equipment requirements may, of course, be purchased locally. Generally, for the reclamation effort, the operators would employ temporary local labor and custom workers who possess the necessary heavy equipment to conduct the reclamation work attendant to abandonment of a site. Estimated costs for reclamation range from $4,000 to $10,000 per well pad. The population, direct income, and employment effects of oil and gas operations in the local area, then, may be seen to be moderate, and insignificant in terms of the local economy. Local expenditures for food, lodging, entertainment, vehicle maintenance, gasoline, incidental tools, equipment, and supplies are also not sufficient to represent a significant contribution to the local economy; but do represent a part of the everyday transfer of goods and services that contribute to the regions economic health and viability. To individual operators of motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc., such expenditures may represent an important increment of their incomes. Mineral Materials Four minerals materials sites, for sand and gravel, are currently operating in the planning area. One pit is utilized to provide material for the maintenance of Highway 93. A private operation is conducted on a contract of sale basis, for which BLM receives a royalty on production. Contracts of sale are issued for a specific amount of materials to be extracted within a specified period of time. Local community use is assessed at 50 cents per ton, and free use is provided for public purposes. Sole source contracts are awarded for separate pits for periods up to 10-years. The current private operation 4-65 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) extracts about 30,000 tons per month for sale in the Las Vegas area. Free-use permits, for public purposes, and community pits are usually separate pits, but free-use operations may, from time -to-time, utilize the community pits. The State receives 4 percent of the revenues from sand and gravel sales for the State School Fund. Sand and gravel sources are distributed widely throughout the planning area. It is projected that one new source would need to be developed, to satisfy growing demand, every 5 years, for a total of 5 additional pits over the 25-year period covered by this amendment. Should the sand and gravel requirements necessary to support the burgeoning growth of the Las Vegas area make it necessary to utilize mineral material sites in Lincoln County, it is estimated that up to $1 million in sales could result. EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE C IN MEETING THE DESERT TORTOISE DELISTING CRITERIA. 1) As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years. Management prescriptions within the planning unit would remain as they are at the present time. This would at best maintain present serai stage and afford only limited habitat improvement potential within the planning area. Although, as indicated by the study plots, the tortoise populations appear to be stable at this time, long term stability or upward trends may not occur and, in fact, may decline due to the limited potential for habitat improvement. 2) Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the habitat and desert tortoise populations must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability: Under this alternative no DWMAs/ACECs are proposed. A lack of DWMA/ACEC designation in this planning unit would result in a lack of connectivity between the adjoining BLM planning units (Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, and Cedar City) creating distinct separate DWMAs/ACECs. This could result in these DWMAs/ACECs not being large enough to support a viable population of a minimum density of 10 adult tortoise per square mile. 3) Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1.0. With minimal habitat improvement expected over the long term population growth rates may be able to be maintained at 1.0 but the potential for them to drop below 1.0 is a distinct possibility. 4) Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoises and their habitat. Under this alternative management prescriptions would continue as they are at present time. Livestock grazing would continue throughout the planning unit with the exception of spring rest within prescription 1 habitat. Wild horse and burro grazing would continue within HMAs that overlap the planning unit. Lands would be available for disposal. Mineral entry would continue throughout the planning unit without any additional restrictions or mitigation and OHV use would also continue with no restrictions. 5) The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under ESA in the foreseeable future. Monitoring will determine if protection under ESA is still needed after the life of the plan. 4-66 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING Mitigation Measures: Issue: Water loss in tortoise habitat for other wildlife species from closure of grazing allotments. Mitigation Measure 1: Construct wildlife guzzlers or catchments with tortoise exclusion devices to mitigate loss of water. Effectiveness: This measure would provide water for wildlife species to offset the closure of grazing stock water locations. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action and Alternative B. Impacts: Small amount of habitat loss due to construction of guzzler, no other impact. Mitigation Measure 2: Maintain range improvements. Effectiveness: This measure would provide for current range projects to be maintained and not removed from the area. These water sources would continue to be available wildlife species. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Loss of tortoise from drowning in water developments. Mitigation Measure 3: Retrofit existing wildlife guzzlers and catchments with tortoise exclusion devices to prevent drowning. Effectiveness: This would reduce the mortality of desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Loss of desert tortoise habitat Mitigation Measure 4: Implement immediate removal of wild horses and burros that establish home ranges within designated special management areas for desert tortoise. Effectiveness: The removal of wild horses is needed to protect tortoise habitat. Removal of wild horses immediately would allow immediate recovery of desert tortoise and their habitat. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action and Alternative B. Impacts: No additional impacts. 4-67 I ill II 1 1 III 11^^^— CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES i ■ m imiiiin-innmii^ninpn. .■■—,■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■»■. ii. Mitigation Measure 5: Where possible, linttl future disturbances to previously disturbed areas. Effectiveness: The reduction of the amount of disturbance to habitat will protect desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 6: All disturbed areas will be reclaimed to provide for desert tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Offset the loss of surface disturbance activities with the reclamation of the site. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: There will be cases where the cost of reclamation could out weigh any habitat reclamation benefits received. Timing and low success probabilities may be an undue cost burden for bond holders. Management discretion and flexibility would be impaired if rigidly held to this standard in all cases. Mitigation Measure 7: Assess remuneration fees for disturbance or loss of desert tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Offset the loss of habitat from surface disturbance activities with monies to be used in preserving desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Vegetation Mitigation Measure 8: Aerial seed native species of tortoise preferred vegetation during periods of winter moisture within special management areas in suitable tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: The seeding will allow native species to grow with moisture and provide forage vegetation to tortoises during active periods. However, this measure would be limited since the probability for seeding success is very low in desert ecosystems. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action, Alternative A and Alternative B Impacts: Possible increase in forage for desert tortoise. Mitigation Measure 9: Establish EMZs where management techniques are developed to replace non-native annuals with native perennials. Effectiveness: The removal of non-native vegetation would allow better forage habitat for the desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action, Alternative A and Alternative B. 4-68 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Predators Mitigation Measure 10: Install effective anti-perching devices on all transmission towers and pole line structures within tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Eliminate perching areas from which avian predators can prey on tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 11: Wildlife Service performs predator control within areas of known tortoise predation problems when requested. Effectiveness: Removal of predators would reduce the numbers of tortoise to be lost to predation.. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts expected. Mitigation Measure 12: BLM will clean up and close illegal dumps. Effectiveness: Reduce food sources for predators that could prey on tortoises during the active periods. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: Additional surface disturbance as result of clean up. Mitigation Measure 13: Work with operators of landfills to establish measures that would prevent raven and coyote use as a food source. Effectiveness: Reduce the number of predators that could use tortoise as a prey. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 14: Work with county and state highway departments to clean up dead animals, e.g., jackrabbits along roads and highways in order to make this food source unavailable for ravens and coyotes. Effectiveness: Reduction of alternate food sources that support predators during tortoise inactive season. This would reduce the number of tortoise killed for prey. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives 4-69 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Education Mitigation Measure 15: Education of workers for events and construction projects in tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Protection of the tortoise would occur from enhanced overall understanding of the recovery program. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Fire Mitigation Measure 16: Use green-stripping and/or firebreaks in or around critical tortoise habitat to help prevent spread of wildfire. Effectiveness: Reduce the amount of acreage that can be damaged from wildfire. More forage available for tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: Short term losses of cover. Increased costs for revegetation. Limited success of revegetation due to precipitation. Temporary habitat disturbance if drilling is used. Mitigation Measure 17: Rehabilitate wildfires with native species that are desirable for desert tortoise forage. Effectiveness: The seeding will allow native species to grow with moisture and provide forage vegetation to tortoises during active periods. However, this measure would be limited since the probability for seeding success is very low in desert ecosystems. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: Cost of this measure would be high relative to the limited success anticipated. Monitoring: Monitor tortoise populations and habitat conditions. Monitor OHV uses and effects on tortoise and habitat. Census wild horse and burro populations in planning area. Monitor livestock grazing. Monitor effectiveness of mitigation. 4-70 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of the desert tortoise habitat protection measures and the potential mitigation measures identified earlier would reduce most adverse impacts that would result from the Proposed Action or alternatives. Those unavoidable adverse impacts that would remain are summarized below. Table S-2 provides a summary comparison of impacts among alternatives. Soils No unavoidable adverse impacts. Vegetation No unavoidable adverse impacts. Wild Horses and Burros Required management for zero wild horses and burros on 1-2 herd areas, depending on the alternative selected, resulting in the permanent loss of 20-75 wild horses and burros. Land Uses Closure of grazing allotments, depending on the alternative selected. Reduction of up to 5,877 AUMs of livestock use within the planning area, depending on the alternative selected. Closure of up to 92,300 livestock use acres depending on the alternative selected. Closure of up to 214,700 livestock non-use acres depending on the alternative selected. Retention of up to 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat within SMAs from public land disposal, depending on the action alternative selected. Retention of up to 41,200 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat outside SMAs from public land disposal, depending on the action alternative selected. Loss of 4,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of SMAs through land disposal. Minerals Closure of 65,900 acres to mineral entry and development under Proposed Action. Closure of 307,000 acres to mineral entry and development under Alternative B. 4-71 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Designation of ACECs or DWMAs could result in either the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of certain resources. Irreversible commitment of resources for the purposes of this section has been interpreted as a term that describes the loss of future options. Irretrievable commitment of resources has been interpreted to mean the loss of production, harvest or use of natural resources, or those resources once committed to the proposal would continue to be committed until the desert tortoise population is recovered. For example, livestock forage production within a Special Management Area is lost irretrievably (as livestock forage) while the area is being managed for the benefit of desert tortoise. That forage loss is irretrievable but the action is not irreversible. When the tortoise population recovers, it may be possible to resume livestock forage production. These commitments are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Resource Irreversible Impacts Irretrievable Impacts' Explanation Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species No No Habitat destruction would not be allowed in SMAs and mitigated outside SMAs. Forestry and Vegetative Products No Yes Annual production of Vegetative products could not be harvested within SMAs. Livestock Grazing Management No Yes Livestock grazing would not be allowed in SMAs. Forage resources could not be utilized by livestock grazing in SMAs. Conversion from cattle to sheep will not be allowed within the planning area. Wild Horse Burro Management No Yes Horses removed and AML set at zero in SMAs until Desert Tortoise population recovery. Forage resources could not be utilized in SMAs. Lands Management No Yes Exclusion of residential, business, agricultural and public infrastructure development within SMAs and highly restrictive outside SMAs. Right-of-Way Management No Yes Routes and corridors would be restricted within SMAs. Material sites would be unavailable within SMAs. Recreation Management No Yes Organized events restricted and routes limited. Wilderness Management No No WSAs will be managed in accordance with IMP. Minerals Management No Yes Mineral material sales will be restricted within SMAs. Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Fire Management No No Prescribed fires may be allowed within SMAs. 1 These resources have irretrievable impacts only to the extent that the SMAs require restrictions. Once the tortoise populations recover it is possible that some of the restrictions will be lifted or lessened, hence be reversible. 4-72 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Short-term is defined as the life of the plan (25 Years); long-term is 25 years). Lessened predation expected from an increase in escape cover. Tortoise nutritional needs more adequately met which would likely lead to more reproduction and better tolerance to diseases. 4-126 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue URTD Past Actions Present Actions Probably introduced to the populations of wild tortoise by release of infected pet tortoise. Habitat Acquisition None Public education efforts to prevent spread of the disease to wild tortoise. Research into the prevention of the disease. Habitat is being secured through funds generated through HCPs. Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Public education and law enforcement efforts. Secure habitat as opportunity allows. Future Actions Continued public education and law enforcement. There is very limited opportunities for habitat acquisition in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit since the proposed Special Management Areas are virtually all public lands. Cumulative Effects URTD would continue to be endemic in the tortoise population and contribute to mortality. Should be less transmission of the disease with fewer pet tortoise released into the wild, and less relocation of wild tortoise. Any habitat acquisition would protect habitat from development and enhance tortoise recovery. 4-127 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects OHV Use Mining Historical increase in OHV use throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Little to no regulation. Little surface disturbance from mining activities within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Use concentrated around population centers. Close regulation of competitive events. High interest in mineral materials to serve the needs of the expanding communities. OHV use closed, or limited to existing roads and trails within all DWMAs/ACECs. Some roads and trails closed to limit public access. No competitive events within DWMAs/ACECs. Require Plans of Operation within ACECs and/or withdraw DWMAs from mining. Increasing OHV use throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Protection of the ACECs/DWMAs from OHV use through road closures, law enforcement and public education. There would be an estimated 6,000 acres of surface disturbance from mining activities throughout the Northeastern Recovery Unit during the life of the plan. Minimal disturbance of tortoise habitat within the ACECs/DWMAs. Increasing disturbance outside of the management areas from casual OHV use. Tortoise habitat would be impacted by surface disturbance from projected mining activities. Required reclamation would help to minimize this impact. 4-128 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Utilities Powerlines, transmission lines and telephone lines constructed throughout the Recovery Unit, often with an developed maintenance road. Maintenance of existing structures, lines and roads. Expansion of the utility network. Avoidance of the Special Management Areas in routing of new lines, and/or the attempt to confine lines to designated corridors. Continued expansion of the utility network to serve the growing population needs. Continued existence and expansion of the utility structures from which predatory birds can predate on tortoise and build nests, in an otherwise generally treeless desert. Maintenance roads for the utilities would continue to provide public access into the backcountry. 4-129 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Wilderness Designation of over 1.5 million acres within the Recovery Unit as Wilderness Study Areas. Maintenance of the wilderness characteristics of the WSAs through application of the Interim Management Policy. Not Applicable. It is unknown when the wilderness designations will take place. It is also unknown which portions of the WSAs, or even lands outside of the WSAs will be designated as wilderness. Portions of the Recovery Unit will be designated as wilderness. Portions will also be released from wilderness consideration. Interim protection of the desert tortoise habitat that is within the WSAs. Perpetual protection of the desert tortoise habitat that is included within the designated wilderness. 4-130 CHAPTERS CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the consultation, and coordination activities conducted during the preparation of the Draft Caliente MFP Tortoise Plan Amendment/EIS. Comments on the Draft Amendment/EIS and responses will be included in this chapter in the Final Amendment/EIS. The Amendment/EIS was prepared by a interdisciplinary team of specialists from the BLM Caliente Field Station, Ely District Office, and the Nevada State Office. Technical review and support were provided by individuals from BLM and other federal and state agencies and local governments. Tables 5-1 displays the list of preparers; Table 5-2 lists those individuals who reviewed the draft document. Writing of the Caliente Plan Amendment began in December of 1994 at a Environmental Assessment level. In March of 1995, BLM determined that the scope of the plan amendment necessitated the preparation of an EIS. In the course of preparing these documents, formal and informal efforts have been made to involve the public, a variety of special interest groups and organizations, other federal agencies, and state and local governments in the planning process. Several steps of the planning process require that the public be provided the opportunity to participate. The actions taken to encourage public participation are described in the following sections. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY Public Scoping Two public scoping periods, totaling 145 days, were held during the preparation of Draft Plan Amendment/EIS. Public scoping was initiated on December 5, 1994 and continued until March 7, 1995. Over 300 letters were sent out to individuals, interest groups, and other agencies requesting input and issue identification. Legal notices announcing the scoping period were placed in newspapers serving Lincoln County and Las Vegas (Nevada), as well as St. George, Utah. A news article in the Lincoln County Record newspaper provided information on the plan amendment process for local residents. A Notice of Intent to prepare a plan amendment was published in the Federal Register (pg. 5694, Vol. 60, No. 19, Monday, January 30, 1995). In March of 1995, BLM determined that the scope of the plan amendment necessitated the preparation of an EIS. An additional scoping period was initiated on April 4, 1995. Over 700 letters were sent to individuals, organizations, and governmental entities notifying them of the change and requesting their input or concerns. All who were contacted during the initial scoping period and those who indicated interest in this planning process were contacted during this second request for public participation. Legal notices were again published in newspapers in Lincoln County, Las Vegas, and St. George. A second Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register (pg. 19761, Vol. 60 No. 76, Thursday, April 20, 1995). In November of 1997, inquires were sent to individuals, organizations, and/or groups who had indicated their interest during the scoping period and to individuals, organizations, and/or group on the Ely District mailing list who had indicated interest in activities occurring in Lincoln County to determine if they were still interested in the process and wanted to receive a copy of the draft EIS. This inquiry was sent to approximately 1,200 individuals, organizations, and/or groups, with 230 indicating that they were still interested. 5-1 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Public Meetings The public meetings were held to gather public input, identify issues, and develop alternatives for consideration in planning process. Those in attendance were also asked to recommend configurations and boundaries for any special management areas that might be proposed to assist desert tortoise recovery and delisting. These meetings were held in Caliente, on February 21, 1995 and in Las Vegas, on February 22, 1995. A total of 44 individuals attended the meetings: 34 in Caliente and 10 in Las Vegas. The public meeting in Caliente was attended primarily by livestock permittees. Many of those who commented expressed opposition to any special management for desert tortoise or changes in multiple use management on public lands. Several commenters recommended possible configurations for special management areas that would minimize the impacts on public lands users. The meeting in Las Vegas was attended by representatives of OHV groups, mining interests, and livestock permittees. Participants suggested boundaries for special management areas and recommended OHV race routes that should be designated through any special management areas that might be proposed for desert tortoise. Written Comments The two scoping periods for the Caliente MFP amendment/EIS generated 53 written comments. All correspondence relating to the amendment are available for review at the Caliente Field Station in Caliente, Nevada. The written comments can be summarized as follows. Two commenters expressed concerns relating to mining issues and the continued access to public lands for mineral exploration and development. General opposition to any special management actions for desert tortoises on public lands was expressed by 19 commenters. Two individuals providing written comments expressed support for actions to recover the desert tortoise. Five individuals expressed concern that OHV use might be eliminated or constrained on public lands in desert tortoise habitat. Three commenters were opposed to restrictions on land uses. A total of 10 individuals expressed concerns that livestock operations would be constrained or restricted in desert tortoise habitat. Two individuals provided comments expressing concern over restrictions on the management of wild horses and burros on public lands. One individual asked for additional information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) while eight others requested to be placed on the mailing for this planning process. Inquiries were received from two U.S. Senators regarding the scope and intent of the plan amendment. CONSULTATION The Tribal Council of the Moapa Band of Paiutes was consulted during the preparation of this plan amendment. The Moapa Band of Paiute hold grazing privileges on the Rox-Tule Allotment, located on public lands within the planning area. Coordination meetings were also held with representatives of the Tribal Council and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to discuss issues and concerns relating to the plan amendment. As mandated by Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS prior to the authorization or implementation of any project which may affect any federally listed species or their habitat. Several consultations have been conducted on various versions on the draft: 1) informal consultation on the Preliminary Draft MFP Amendment/EIS on August 8, 1995; 2) technical comments on the Draft Cumulative Impact Analysis of the Desert Tortoise Land Use Plan Amendment to the Caliente Management Framework Plan on June 5, 1996; and 3) informal consultation on the Proposed Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit on October 19, 1995. This consultation was 5-2 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION requested by the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group (MOG) of the various land management agencies in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (BLM, National Park Service, USFWS) to provide information relating to future management of desert tortoise habitat in this recovery unit and; 4) informal consultation on the internal Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat/Draft Environmental Impact Statement on October 9, 1997. Meetings with the USFWS have also been held to discuss the amendment. Comments and information received from these consultation and meetings were used to help develop and finalize the EIS. A formal consultation will be conducted on the Proposed Action and the USFWS will provide a Biological Opinion, within the context of total management by all entities within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. COORDINATION Coordination, as defined in this section, refers to efforts to achieve consistency with other Federal, state, and local land use plans. Public scoping represents initial efforts to coordinate with other entities. The public meetings were attended by representatives from local and state entities. A coordination meeting was held with the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission, the Lincoln County Commissioners designated representatives, to inform them of the contents of the EIS and provide them instructions on how to provide comments on the EIS during the public review period. The Mojave-Southem Great Basin Resource Advisory Council was provided with status updates during this planning process. They were also provided an internal review of the document prior to issuance of the draft and a coordination meeting was held with them on February 27, 1998. Coordination with the adjacent BLM Offices (Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, Cedar City and Battle Mountain), USFWS and NDOW has been ongoing throughout the planning process to ensure that our plan was consistent, to the extent possible, with the similar planning efforts that these districts are also going through. These included a few face-to-face meetings and numerous telephone conference calls. A preliminary draft was provided in July 1997, for review to the USFWS, NDOW, National Biological Service, Clark County Government, the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, and adjacent BLM Districts (Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, Cedar City, and Battle Mountain). An additional internal review was made available in February 1998, to the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, USFWS, NDOW, and adjacent BLM Districts (Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, Dixie Field Office, and Tonopah Field Station). After a period of review, additional coordination meetings were held with Lincoln County Public Lands Commission on February 12 1998, and NDOW and USFWS on February 26, 1998. Verbal comments were received from Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council, USFWS, and NDOW during the coordination meetings. These comments were used to finalize the draft Amendment/EIS for public review. No written comments were received on this draft internal review by the requested date of March 13, 1998 5-3 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT The Amendment/EIS has been sent to and comments requested from the general public and the following: Federal Government Agencies Arizona Strip District, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, BLM Cedar City District, BLM Battle Mountain Field Office, BLM Bureau of Indian Affairs U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey, National Biological Service State Government Agencies Nevada State Clearinghouse Nevada Division of Wildlife Nevada Division of Minerals Nevada Division of State Parks Nevada Division of Conservation District Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Nevada Division of State Lands Nevada Division of Agriculture Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses Local Governments Lincoln County Commission Lincoln County Public Land Commission Lincoln County Conservation District Alamo Town Board Lincoln County Game Board Tribal Governments Moapa Band of Paiutes Nongovernmental Organizations Best-In-The-Desert Wyoming Advocates for Animals Groundshaker Motorcycle Club Wild Horse Commission Mohave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Motorcycle Racers Association of Southern Nevada Southern Nevada Off Road Racing Enthusiasts Silverdust Racing Assoc. Wild Horse Organized Assistance 5-4 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Nevada Bighorn Unlimited Nevada Woolgrowers Association Animal Protection Institute Fraternity of Desert Bighorn Friends of Nevada Wilderness Nevada Cattlemen's Association State Multiple Use Advisory Commission for Federal Lands The Wildlife Society, Nevada Chapter Congressional Honorable John Ensign Honorable James A. Gibbons Honorable Richard Bryan Honorable Harry M. Reid Interested/ Affected Individuals Livestock Permittees Amendment/EIS Availability Copies of this Amendment/EIS will be available for public inspection at the BLM offices listed below: Washington Office of Public Affairs 18th and C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Blvd. Reno, NV 89502-7147 Ely District Office 702 North Industrial Way Ely, NV 89301-9408 Caliente Field Station U.S. Highway 93 Caliente, NV 89008-0237 Copies of this Amendment/EIS will be available for public inspection at the public Libraries and High Schools listed below: Lincoln County Library P.O. Box 330 Pioche, NV 89043 5-5 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Alamo Branch Library P.O. Box 239 Alamo, NV 89001 Caliente Branch Library P.O. Box 306 Caliente, NV 89008 White Pine County Library Lori Romero, Director 950 Campton St. Ely, NV 89301 Panaca High School Library P.O. Box 268 Panaca, NV 89042 University of Nevada-Las Vegas James R. Dickinson Library Documents Department 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV 89154 Clark County Library 1401 E. Flamingo Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89109 University of Nevada-Reno Getchell Library Government Publication Dept. Reno, NV 89507 Las Vegas Public Library 1726 E. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89104 Moapa Valley Library P.O. Box 387 Overton, NV 89040 North Las Vegas Library 2300 Civic Center North Las Vegas, NV 89030 5-6 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Table 5-1. List of Preparers Name Responsibility Qualifications Hal Bybee Gene L. Drais Dawna Ferris Joe Freeland Brenda Linnell Sheree Luttrell Michael Main Paul Myers Daniel Netcher Jacob Rajala Alan Shepherd Shawn Smith Kyle Teel Renewable Resources (1994 - 1997) Project Manager Team Leader, Cultural Resources (1994 - 1997) Fire IRM/Editor GIS Michael McGinty Real Estate, Right-of-ways EIS, Soils Socioeconomic Mineral Resources NEPA Review, Cumulative Impacts Wild Horse & Burro Range Wildlife, T&E B.S. Range Management, B.S. Animal Science 21 years BLM B.S. Zoology 20 years BLM, 4 years BOR M.A. Anthropology 1 1 years BLM Progressing towards range degree 3 years USFS, 10 years BLM Business Degree (1 yr.) 7 years BLM B. S. Biology, M.S. Wildlife Management 7 years BLM B.S. Forest Management 20 years BLM B.S. Range Management 13 years BLM B.S. Economics 18 years BLM B.S. Geology 15 years BLM M.A. Anthropology, M.S. Forestry and Range Management, B.A. Anthropology 21 years BLM B.S. Range Management, B.S. Wildlife Management 8 years BLM, 2 years USFS B.S. Wildlife Management 6 years BLM B.S. Agriculture (Wildlife) 10 years BLM 5-7 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Table 5-1. List of Preparers Name Responsibility Curtis G. Tucker Richard Waldrup Native American Consultation External Affairs Recreation, Wilderness, VRM Qualifications B.S. Forestry 26 years BLM B.A. Sociology, M.E.D. Outdoor Recreation 8 years BLM 5-8 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Table 5-2. List of Reviewers Name Program/Title/ Agency Review Responsibility Robert Brown William Dunn Brian Amrae Brad Hines Dave Pulliam Steve Smith Larry Steward Kenneth Stowers Margaret Wolf Arizona Strip District Las Vegas District Lincoln County Public Lands Commission Mohave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council Nevada Division of Wildlife Tonopah Field Station United States Fish and Wildlife Service Ely Field Office Ely Field Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Nevada State Office Wild Horse and Burros Fire Management NEPA/Planning Range Management Wildlife Management Wilderness Minerals Realty Recreation Complete Document Complete Document Complete Document Complete Document Complete Document Complete Document Complete Document 5-9 REFERENCES Bailey, H.P. 1981. Climatic Features of Desert. Pages 13-41 in D.D. Evans and J.L. Thames (eds.), Water in Desert Ecosystems. US/IBP Synthesis Series, Vol. 1 1 . Dowden Hutchinsons, and Ross: Stroudsburg, Pa. Beatly, J.C. 1974. Phenological Events and Their Environmental Triggers in Mojave Desert Ecosystems. Ecology 55:856-863. Berry H.B. and P. Medica. 1995. Our Living Resources. A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior-National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. Berry, K.H. 1975. Desert Tortoise Relocation Project: Status Report for 1973. Contract F-9353. State of California, Division of Highway, Desert Tortoise Project. Berry, K.H. 1978. Livestock Grazing and the Desert Tortoise. North American Wildlife and Natural resources Conference Trans. 43:505-519. Berry, K.H. 1984a. Rainfall Patterns in the Southwest and the Desert Tortoise. Appendix 9. In Berry, K.H. (ed.). The Status of the Desert Tortoise in the United States. Report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service From the Desert Tortoise Council on Order No. 1 1310-0083-81. Berry, K.H. 1984b. The Distribution and Abundance of the Desert Tortoise in California From the 1920's to the 1960's and a Comparison With the Current Situation. Pages 118-153. In K.H. Berry, ed. The Status of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in United States. Report to the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service on Order No. 11310-0083. Berry, K.H. 1984c. Status of the Desert Tortoise in the United States. Report From the Desert Tortoise Council. Berry, K.H. 1986. Incidence of Gunshot Deaths in Desert Tortoises in California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:127- 132. Berry, K.H. 1988. The Status of Desert Tortoise Populations in the Western Mojave Desert. A Briefing Paper for the Tortoise Sheep Technical Review Team. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Desert District, Riverside, California. Berry, K.H. 1989. Gopherus agassizii, Desert Tortoise. Pages 5-7. In I.R. Swingland and M.W. Klemens, eds. The Conservation Biology of Tortoises. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 5. Kelvyn Press, Inc., Broadview, 111. 203pp. Berry, K.H., and L.L. Nicholson. 1984. A Summary of Human Activities and Their Impacts on Desert Tortoise Populations and Habitat in California. Pages 61-117. In K.H. Berry, ed. That Status of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the United States. Report to U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service on Order No. 11310-0083. Borysenko, M. and S. Lewis. 1979. The Effect of Malnutrition on Immunocompetence and Whole Body Resistance to Infection in Chelydra serpentina. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 3:89-100. Bostick, V. 1990. The Desert Tortoise in Relation to Cattle Grazing. Rangelands 12(3). Brussard, P. 1994. Letter from Leader, Desert Tortoise Recovery Team to Dave Harlow of the United States Fisl and Wildlife Service. REFERENCES Burge, B. L. 1979. A survey of the Present Distribution of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in Arizona. Contract No. YA-512-CT8-108. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Burge, R.B. and W.G. Bradley. 1976. Population Density, Structure, and Feeding Habits of the Desert Tortoise {Gopherus agassizii), in a Low Desert Study Area of Southern Nevada. Proceedings of the 1976 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1976 March 23-24; Las Vegas, NV: 51-74. Bury, R.B., et al. 1977. Effects of Off-Road Vehicles on Vertebrates in the California Desert. Wildlife Research Report 8. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 223 pp. Bury, R.B., and R.A. Luckenbach. 1986. Abundance of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in Natural and Disturbed Habitats. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 24 pp. Carrier, W. Dean and Czech, Brian. 1996. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Livestock Interactions. Chapter 4. Rangeland Wildlife 1st edition. Denver, Colorado, Society for Range Management, pg 39-47. Chambers Group, Inc. 1990. Final Cumulative Impacts Study on the Desert Tortoise in the Western Mojave Desert. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Christopher, et. al. 1996. Desert Tortoises {Gopherus agassizii) Prefer Diets that are High in Nitrogen and Low in Potassium. Symposia of the Comparative Nutrition Society, No. 1, p 21-23, 1996. Coombs, E.M. 1977. Wildlife Observations of the Hot Desert Region, Washington County, Utah, with Emphasis of Reptilian Species and Their Habitat in Relation to Livestock Grazing. Report From the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Coombs, E.M. 1979. Food Habits and Livestock Competition With the Desert Tortoise on the Beaver Dam Slope, Utah. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1979:132-147. Cooperrider, Allen Y., David S. Wilcove and Contributors. 1995. Defending the Desert: Conserving Biodiversity on BLM Lands in the Southwest, pp. 148. Corn, P.S. 1994. Recent Trends of Desert Tortoise Populations in the Mojave Desert. Biology of North American Tortoises. Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. Of the Interior, National Biological Survey, 1994. P. 85-93. Crandall, W. Dean and Hamilton, Michael M., 1985. Availability of Federally Owned Minerals for Exploration and Development in Western States: Nevada. Bureau of Mines, Spokane, WA. D'Antonio, CM. and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the Grass/Fire Cycle, and Global Change. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23:63-87. Desert Tortoise Council. 1976-1985. Proceedings of the 1976-1985 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium. Desert Tortoise Recovery Team. 1994. A Companion Document to the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Providing Detailed Information. Prepared for Regions 1, 2, and 6 of the USFWS. Dickinson et. Al. 1995. Health Studies of Free-Ranging Mojave Desert Tortoises in Utah and Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Technical Report Number 2 1 . R-2 REFERENCES Dombeck, Michael. 1995. From Commodity to Community: A Common Sense Approach to Understanding Ecosystem Management. Distinguished Lecture Series III. Sponsored by The Glatfelter Pulp Wood Company, Spring Grove, Pennsylvania. Duck, TA. 1991. Report to BLM and USFWS on Trampling of a Desert Tortoise. Duck, TA. 1996. Proposed Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, BLM, Arizona Strip District, June, 1996. Durfee, LA. 1988. Response of Mojave Desert Communities to Release from Grazing Pressure. M.S. Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 28pp. Esque, T.C. 1994. Diet and Diet Selection of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Northeastern Mojave Desert. MS Thesis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins. The Environmental Professional. 1991. Cumulative Impact Analysis Under NEPA: Recent Legal Developments. Volume 13 pp. 100-106. Fowler, M.E. 1976. Respiratory Diseases in Captive Tortoises. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council, 1976:89-98. Gardner, J.L. 1950. Effects of Thirty Years of Protection from Grazing in Desert Grassland. Ecology 31(l):44-50. Garside, Larry L, 1974. Geothermal Exploration and Development in Nevada Through 1973. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 21, Macky School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Garside, Larry J. And Schilling, John FL, 1979. Thermal Waters of Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 91, Macky School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Garside, Larry J., 1988. Oil and Gas Developments in Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 104, University of Nevada-Reno, NV. Garcia, J., Berry, K.H. And P.B. Schneider. 1982. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in Coyote Springs Valley, Nevada. Proc. 1982 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, California. Germano, David J., and R. Bruce Bury. 1995. Research on North American Tortoises: A Critique With Suggestions for the Future. Grover, M. And L. Defalco. 1995. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): Status-Of-Knowledge Outline with References. U.S. Department of Agriculture, General Technical Report Int-Gtf-316. Hansen, R.M., et. al. 1976. Foods of The Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), in Arizona and Utah. Herpetologica 32:247-251. Hitchcock, A.S. 1935. Manual of Grasses of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication 200:1-1040. Hohman, J.P., and R.D. Ohmart. 1978. Historical range use of the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona, and its possible effects on the desert tortoise population. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1978: 1 16-125. R-3 REFERENCES Hohman, J.P. and R.D. Ohmart. 1979. Field Studies of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) West of Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Hohman, J.P. And R.D. Ohmart. 1980. Ecology of the Desert Tortoise on the Beaver Dam Slopes, Arizona. Contract Ya-510-Ph7-54. Report for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip District Office, St. George, UT. Holing, D. 1986. Losing Ground: Fast Times for the Desert Tortoise. Amicus Journal. 7(3): 28-33. Huning, J.R. 1978. A Characterization of the Climate of the California Desert. USDI, Bureau of Land Management California Desert Plan Program, Riverside. Contract CA-060-Ct&-2812 Report. Jacobson et. Al. 1991. Chronic Upper Respiratory Tract Disease of Free-Ranging Desert Tortoise (Xerobates agassizii). J. Wildlife Diseases 27:296-316. Jarchow, J.L. 1987. Report on Investigation of Desert Tortoise Mortality on the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona and Utah. Rept. For Arizona Game and Fish Dept, Utah Div. Of Wildlife Resources, and Arizona Strip and Cedar City Districts, Bureau of Land Management. 20pp. Jarchow, J.L. And C.J. May. 1989. Report on Investigation of Desert Tortoise Mortality on the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona and Utah. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bureau of Land Management (Arizona Strip and Cedar City Districts), and Utah Divisions of Wildlife Resources. Karl A. 1980. The Distribution and Relative Densities of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), in Nevada. Proceedings of the 1980 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1980 March 22-24; Riverside, CA. 75-87. Karl, A. 1981. The Distribution and Relative Densities of the Desert Tortoise, (Gopherus agassizii) in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. Contract No. YA-512-CT9-90. Unpublished Report, 61pp. Labarr, Charles. 1998. Senior Biologist, Southern Nevada Environmental. Personal Communication, April 7 and 8, 1998. Las Vegas Review Journal. 1995. Tortoise Relocation Sought. Newspaper Article. Las Vegas Review Journal. 1998. "Join Forces Against Federal Steamroller". Editorial, March 23, 1998. Legislative Committee on Public Lands. 1996. Minutes of January 26, 1996 Meeting, Bunkerville, NV. Lincoln County Commissioners. 1994. Resolution #1994-10. Resolution to deny any land holding agency to transfer lands from Lincoln County Tax Base to non-taxable status to protect local stability, tax base and economy. June 1994 Lucas, P. 1978. State report-Nevada. Proceedings of the 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1978 April 1-3; Las Vegas, NV: 46-47. Lucas, P. 1979. State Report-Nevada. Proceedings of the 1979 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1979 March 24-26; Tucson, AZ: 95-96. R-4 REFERENCES Luckenbach, R.A. 1982. Ecology and Management of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in California. In: R.B. Bury (ed), North American Tortoises: Conservation and Ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Res. Report 12. P. 1-37. MacMahon, J.A. 1985. Deserts. The Audubon Society Nature Guides. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 838 p. Mayhew, W.W. 1968. Biology of Desert Amphibians and Reptiles. Desert Biology. Vol. 1. 1968. New York: Academic Press: 195-356. Medica, P.A. 1992 and 1995. Desert Tortoise Population Trends in Nevada. Unpublished Reports. Miller, M. 1994. Fire Effects on Desert Tortoise Habitat - Eastern Mojave Desert, Discussion Paper and Trip Report. Bureau of Land Management, Division of Fire and Aviation Policy and Management, Boise, Idaho. Minnich, J.E. 1979. Comparison of Maintenance Electrolyte Budgets of Free-Living Desert and Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus agassizzii and Gophems polyphemus) . Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council, 1979: 166-174. Mortimore, C. and P. Schneider. 1983. Population Studies of the Desert Tortoise {Gopherus agassizii) in the Piute Valley Study Plot of Southern Nevada. Rept. to Nevada Department of Wildlife. 78 pp. Nagy, K.A. 1972. Water and Electrolyte Budgets of Free-Living Desert Lizard, Sauromalus obesus. Journal of Comparative Physiology. 79(2):39-62. Nagy, K. and P. Medica. 1986. Physiological Ecology of Desert Tortoises in Southern Nevada. Herpetological, 42(1), 1986, 73-92. National Biological Service, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center. 1995. Ecology of the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave Desert, Desert Tortoise Research Project. 18 pp. National Ecology Research Center. 1990. Assessment of Biological Information for Listing the Desert Tortoise as an Endangered Species in the Mojave Desert. National Ecology Research Center. Fort Collins, Colorado. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Suitability for burrowing habitat by desert tortoise. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Nevada. Nevada. 1995. State of Nevada, Table of Population of Nevada's Counties and Incorporated Cities, Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada State Demographer, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, College of Business Administration, University of Nevada, Reno, 1995. Nevada County and Cities of Nevada, the State Land Use Planning Agency of the Division of State Lands, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Nevada. 1985. Lincoln County Policy Plan for public lands as amended, adopted by Lincoln County Commissioners December 5, 1984, Pioche, Nevada. Nevada Division of Wildlife. 1990. Assessment of Status and Population Trend of the Desert Tortoise in Nevada. Nevada Division of Wildlife, Las Vegas, NV. Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands. 1996. Minutes of the Meeting Held 1-26-96. Includes Desert Tortoise Issues From USFWS, BLM, Clark County. R-5 REFERENCES Nicholson, L. and K. Humphreys. 1981. Sheep Grazing at the Kramer Study Plot, San Bernardino County, California. In: K.A. Hashagen and E. St. Amant (eds.). Desert Tortoise Council Proc. 1981 Symp. Riverside, California, p. 163-194. Nish, D.H. 1964. The Effects of Water Development Upon Populations of Gamble's Quail in Southwestern Utah. Utah State Department of Fish and Game Publication No. 65-5. Federal Aid Project W-103-R. 135pp. Oftdal et. al. 1994. Nitrogen, Urates, and Desert Survival, Potassium and the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). 1994 Proceedings American Association of Zoo Veterinarians, p. 308-313. Oftdal, O.T. and M.E. Allen. Nutritional Studies on the Desert Tortoise. 1996 Progress Report. Oldemeyer, J.L. 1992. The Effects of Livestock Grazing on the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave Desert. A Research Proposal to the Bureau of Land Management. Oldemeyer, J.L. 1994. Livestock Grazing and the Desert Tortoise in the Mojave Desert. Biology of the North American Tortoises. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Survey, 1994; 95-103. Orians, G.H. 1995. Thought for the morrow: cumulative threats to the environment. Environment: Vol. 37, no. 7 (1995): p. [6]-14, 33-35. Peterson, J. 1988. Eastern Great Basin and Snake River Downwarp, Geology and Petroleum Resources. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 88-450-11. Reitan, C.H. and C.R. Green. 1968. Appraisal of Research on Weather and Climate of Desert Environments. Pages 21-92 in W.G. Mcginnies, B.J. Goldman, P. Paylore (eds.), Deserts of the World. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. Resource Concepts, Inc. 1996. Desert Tortoise Situation Review. Prepared for County of San Bernardino, California and other participating Local Governments. Resource Concepts, Inc. 1988. Livestock Grazing and the Desert Tortoise. A briefing paper. RCI, Carson City, NV. Revegetation Innovations. 1992. Fighter Weapons Center Range Complex Biological Assessment for the Desert Tortoise. Prepared for The Department of Defense, United States Air Force Fighter Weapons Center/Environmental Management, Nellis Air Force Base, NV. Robbins, W., M. Bellue, and W. Ball. 1951. Weeds of California. State of California, Printing Division (Documents and Publications), Sacramento, California. 547 pp. Science Applications International Corporation Desert Research Institute. 1986. Special Nevada Report. Cooperating Agencies, Department of the Army, Department of Energy. Current and Proposed Defense-Related Activities in Nevada. Schwartzmann, J.L. and R. D. Ohmart. 1978 Quantitative Vegetational Data of Desert Tortoise {Gopherus agassizii) Habitat in the Lower Sonoran Desert. Proceedings of the 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, 1978 April 1-3; Las Vegas, NV. R-6 REFERENCES Sheppard, G.P. 1981. Desert Tortoise Population of the Beaver Dam Slope in Northwestern Arizona. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1981:25-47. Shreve, F., and A.L. Hinckley. 1937. Thirty Years of Change in Desert Vegetation. Ecology 18(4):463-478. Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Slone, Sidney. 1997. Wildlife Biologist, Las Vegas Field Office. (Personal Communication) Stakhiv, Eugene Z. 1988. An Evaluation Paradigm for Cumulative Impact Analysis. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA. Stewart, John H., 1980. Geology of Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno, Nevada. Tanner, W. W. and C. P. Jorgensen. 1963. Reptiles of the Nevada Test Site. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biology Series. 3(3): 1-31. Thomas, Jack Ward, and Jared Vemer. 1992. Accommodation With Socio-economic Factors Under the Endangered Species Act-More Than Meets the Eye. Trans. 57th N. A. Wildl. & Nat Res. Conf. (1992). Tingley, J.V., and Bohnam, Harold F. Jr., 1986a. Sediment-Hosted Precious-Metal Deposits of Northern Nevada, Report 40, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno, Nevada. Tingley, J.V., and Bohnam, Harold F. Jr., 1986b. Precious-Metal Mineralization in Hot Springs Systems, Nevada-California, Report 41, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno, Nevada. Tortoise Group. 1994. The Organization for the Protection of Nevada's Resident Tortoises, Inc. A Flyer. Las Vegas, NV. Tracy. 1995. Analysis of Competition Between Cattle and Desert Tortoises. Unpublished Draft Manuscript, 1995:14). Tracey. et. al. A Preliminary Assessment of the Importance of Cattle Grazing to the Persistence of Desert Tortoise Populations in the Mojave Desert.. Draft. Turner, et. al. 1982. "An evaluation of the Transect Technique for Estimating Desert Tortoise Density at a Prospective Power Plant Site in Ivanpah Valley, California". Proc. Desert Tortoise Council Symp. pp. 134- 153. Turner, F.B., and K.H. Berry. 1984. Methods Used in Analyzing Desert Tortoise Populations. In: Berry, K.H. (ed.). The Status of the Desert Tortoise in the United States. Report to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service From the Desert Tortoise Council on Order No. 11310-0083-81. Turner, R.J. 1980. State report-Nevada. Txchanz, CM., and Pampeyan, E.H., 1970. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Lincoln County, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 73, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada. United States of America. 1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Sec. 302. Management of Use, Occupancy, and Development. Sec. 603. Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study. Sec. 702. R-7 REFERENCES Repeal of Laws Relating to Homesteading and Small Tracts. United States Bureau of Census. 1993. U.S. Department of Commerce, Tiger/Line Census Files, 1992, Technical Documentation, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1992. United States Bureau of Census. 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, County and City Data Book, 1994, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1994. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1978. Unit Resource Analysis, Step 3. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1979a. Final Environmental Statement Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Area. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1979b. Draft Environmental Statement Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Area. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Public Land Withdrawal Nellis Airforce Bombing Range Nye, Clark and Lincoln Counties. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1988a. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: a Rangewide Plan. Bureau of Land Management. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1988b. Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1988c. Fish and Wildlife 2000. National Strategy Plans. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management. Bureau of Land Management, Washington D.C. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1989. Interim Category Map. Proposed Categorization of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the Las Vegas District. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Instruction Memorandum No. NV-90-435. Cumulative Impact Analysis Requirements. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Biological Evaluation for Managing Livestock Grazing in Desert Tortoise Habitat. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Draft, Stateline Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Battle Mountain District, Tonopah Resource Area, Tonopah, NV. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Supplement to the Draft Stateline Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Stateline Resource Area, Las Vegas, NV United States Bureau of Land Management, and United States Forest Service. 1994c. Rangeland Reform '94. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. R-8 REFERENCES United States Bureau of Land Management. 1994d. Instruction Memorandum No. CDD 94-52. Transmittal of Environmental Assessment and Decision Record for Experimental Program to Shoot Ravens and Request for Assistance. Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District Office. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1994e. Washington Office Information Bulletin No. 94-310. Guidelines For Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. United Sates Bureau of Land Management. 1994f. Guidelines for Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts. WO-IB-94-310. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Biological Evaluation for Off-Road Events in the Las Vegas District. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1995b. Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan Accomplishments, BLM, Nevada. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1995c. West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan , California Desert District, May 1995. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1996a. Proposed Arizona Strip District Resource Management Plan Amendment for Mojave Desert Tortoise Habitat Management/EA. Arizona Strip District. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1996b. The Desert Tortoise Conservation, an Information Flier About the Center, BLM Las Vegas, NV. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1996c. Progress Report on the Implementation of the Interim Rangewide Biological Opinion (FWS #1-5-94-107) on Livestock Grazing Within Tortoise Critical Habitat and Request for Reinitiation of Formal Section 7 Consultation. Memo, August 23, 1996 United States Department Of Agriculture. 1995. Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), Status-of-Knowledge Outline with References. Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report (INT-GTR-3 16). U.S. Forest Service. United States Department of Energy. 1996. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and off- Site Locations in the State of Nevada. USDOE, Las Vegas, Nevada. United States Department of the Interior. 1983. Fish and Wildlife and Cumulative Impacts: Is There a Problem? Prepared by Dynamic Corporation, Fort Collins, CO United States Department of the Interior-National Biological Service. 1995. Our Living Resources, a Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. US Department of the Interior-National Biological Service, Washington DC. United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. 1981. Cumulative Effects to be Considered Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Memo to Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. United States Executive Office of the President. 1986. Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington DC. United States Executive Office of the President. 1994. Cumulative Effects Analysis Handbook for NEPA R-9 REFERENCES Practitioners, Final Draft. Prepared by President's Council on Environmental Quality. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Methodological Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Fish and Wildlife. Prepared by Dynamic Corporation, Fort Collins, CO. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Problem Analysis and Planning for the FWS Cumulative Impacts Program: August 1984 Workshop Proceedings. Biological Report 85(11.1) United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Preparing a FWS Cumulative Impacts Program: January 1985 Workshop Proceedings. Biological Report 85 (11.2), Fort Collins, CO. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Annotated Bibliography of Ecological Cumulative Impacts Assessment (Biological Report). USFWS, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. Federal Register 55(63): 12178-12190. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Biological Opinion for the Proposed Livestock Grazing Program within Desert Tortoise Habitat in Southern Nevada. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Economic Impact Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population). USFWS Portland, Oregon and Reno, NV. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Desert Tortoise (Mojave population) Recovery Plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 73 pages plus appendices. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas for Recovery of the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise, a Companion Document to the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994c. Biological Opinion for the BLM Interim Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat (1-5-94-F-107). USFWS, Portland, Oregon United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise. (Federal Register/Vol.59, No. 26) United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Desert Tortoise Management Area Report of Activities. Lake Mead Recreation Area. Subpermit #ONEIA-3. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Desert Tortoises. Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR 97232. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995c. Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Proposed Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits for Speed-Based Off-Highway Vehicle Events in the Las Vegas District and Tonopah Resource Area. Memo to Las Vegas District, BLM, Las Vegas, NV. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995d. Public/Agency Review Draft of the Recovery Plan for the Aquatic and Riparian Species of Pahranagat Valley. September 12, 1995 Reviewer Letter, Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV. R-10 REFERENCES United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995e. Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan Accomplishments July 27, 1995. BLM, Las Vegas, NV District Office. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995f. Memorandum. Intra-Service Biological Opinion on Issuance of Section 10 (a) (1) (B) Wildlife Permit Application Number PRT-801045. July 14, 1995. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Formal Consultation for Proposed Amendment to the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan (EA AZ-010-95-01). Memo to Field Manager, Arizona Strip District, Bureau of Land Management, St. George, Utah. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. Biological Opinion for the Interim Livestock Grazing Program Proposed by the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat (1-5-96-F-296R). Memo to State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California. University of Nevada Reno. 1994. Letter to David Harlow, USFWS, Reno, NV. Desert Tortoise Recovery Team Meeting Results and Recommendations. Urness, P.J. and McCulloch, C.Y. 1973. Deer Nutrition in Arizona Chaparral and Desert Habitats. Part II: Chemical Analysis and in Vitro Digestibility of Seasonal Deer Forages. Spec. Rep. 3. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Proj. W-78-R. Utah State University. 1995. Conflicts in Natural Resources Management, Integrating Social and Ecological Concerns. College of Natural Resources, Utah State University. Waser, N.M., and Price, M.V. 1981. Effects of Grazing on Diversity of Annual Plants in the Sonoran Desert. Oecologia 50:407-411. Washington County Commission. 1995. Desert Tortoise Incidental Take Permit Application/Documents. Washington County, UT. Webb, R.H. and S.S. Stielstra. 1979. Sheep Grazing Effects on Mojave Desert Vegetation and Soils. Environmental Management. 3(6):517-529. Wilson, R. W. and Stager, R. D. 1989. Association Between Soils and Desert Tortoise Population Densities and Distribution, Piute Valley Nevada. Las Vegas, NV: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 17p. Witmer, G. 1966. What are Cumulative Impacts All About. Environmental Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Portland Oregon Woodbury, A.M. and R. Hardy. 1948. Studies of the Desert Tortoise, (Gopherus agassizii). Ecol. Monogr., 18:145-200. R-ll ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACEC Area of Environmental Concern AML Appropriate Management Level AUM Animal Unit Month BLM Bureau of Land Management BRD Biological Resource Division DOE Department of Energy DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Area EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESI Ecological Site Inventory FCC Federal Communication Commission FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act HA Herd Area HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HMA Herd Management Area HMP Habitat Management Plan IMP Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review MFP Management Framework Plan MOG Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation NDOW Nevada Division of Wildlife NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service NRA National Recreation Area OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PEP Potassium Excretion Potential PNC Potential Natural Community R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act RMP Resource Management Plan SMA Special Management Area SWA Site Write Up Area TMA Tortoise Management Area URTD Upper Respiratory Tract Disease USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSA Wilderness Study Area IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals ALJ Administrative Law Judge EMZ Experimental Management Zone SWIP Southwest Intertie Power Project NTS Nevada Test Site DLE Desert Land Entry AA-1 GLOSSARY ACTIVE PREFERENCE: The total number of AUMs of forage that can be licensed. AIR QUALITY: A measure of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air, often derived from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating substances. AIR QUALITY CLASS I AND II AREAS: Regions in attainment areas where maintenance of existing good air quality is of high priority. Class I areas are those that have the most stringent degree of protection from future degradation of air quality, such as National Parks. Class II areas permit moderate deterioration of existing air quality, such as lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). ALLOTMENT: An area of land designated and managed for grazing of livestock. ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP): A documented program developed as an activity plan, consistent with the definition at 43 U.S.C. 1702(k), that focuses on, and contains the necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on specified public lands to meet resource condition, sustained yield, multiple use, economic and other objectives. ALTERNATIVE: One of at least two proposed means of accomplishing planning objectives. ANALYSIS: The examination of existing and/or recommended management needs and their relationships to discover and display the outputs, benefits, effects, and consequences of initiating a proposed action. ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM): The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent (one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 5 goats, over the age of 6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands administered by BLM) for a period of 1 month. ANNUAL PLANT: A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in 1 year or less. ARCHAEOLOGY: The scientific study of the life and culture of the past, especially ancient peoples, as by excavation of ancient cities, relics, artifacts, etc. AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC): An area of public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life/provide safety from natural hazards. AVOIDANCE AREA: An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way would be granted only in cases where there is a prevailing need and no practical alternative location exists, and then only with appropriate provisions to protect the sensitive environmental components. BACKFIRING: A fire set along the inner edge of a control line to consume fuel in the path of a fire. BURNING OUT: Setting a fire inside a control line to consume fuel between the edge of the fire and the control line. Burning out removes the danger of fuel near the line burning at a later date when no one is around, or when conditions are such that flareups near the line would spot across the line. GG-1 GLOSSARY CANDIDATE SPECIES: Any species of plant or animal listed in the for consideration to be listed as threatened or endangered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services under the Endangered Species Act. Definitions for Categories 1 and 2 candidate species, excerpted from the Federal Register, are as follows: Category 1: Taxa for which the USFWS currently has on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support the appropriateness of proposing to list them as endangered or threatened species. Presently, data are being gathered concerning precise habitat needs, and for some of the taxa, concerning the precise boundaries for critical habitat designations. Development and publication of proposed rules on these taxa are anticipated, but, because of the large number of such taxa, could take some years. Also included in category 1 are taxa whose status in the recent past is known, but that may already have become extinct. Category 2: Taxa for which information now in possession of the USFWS indicates that proposing to list them as endangered or threatened species is possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not currently known or on file to support the immediate preparation of rules. Further biological research and field study usually will be necessary to ascertain the status of the taxa in Category 2, and some of the taxa are of uncertain taxonomic validity. It is likely that some of the taxa will not warrant listing, while others will be found to be in greater danger of extinction than some taxa in category 1. CLASS OF LIVESTOCK: Ages and/or sex groups of a kind of livestock. CORRIDOR: A strip of public land forming a passageway between two points in which transportation and/or utility systems exist or may be located. A designated corridor is the preferred location for existing and future rights-of-way grants that has been identified by law, by Secretarial Order, through land use planning, or by other management decision. CRITICAL HABITAT: Any air, land, or water area including elements thereof, which have been determined (and published in the Federal Register) to be essential to the survival of wild populations of an endangered or threatened species or to be necessary for their recovery to a point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING (CRMP): A resource planning process, an approach to solving resource problems. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Those resources of historical and archaeological significance. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: Additional and interactive combinations of activities that are not necessarily individually quantitatively different, but together require different management techniques and applications. Cumulative impacts occur when there are multiple infringements on the same values. DESERT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA: Designated areas in which protective management actions would be implemented to provide for the long-term persistence of viable desert tortoise populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend. DESIGNATED RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR: A parcel of land, either linear or areal, that has been identified by las, by Secretarial Order, through the land use planning process, or by other management decision, as a preferred location for existing and future rights-of-way grants and suitable to accommodate more than one type of right-of-way or one or more rights-of-way which are similar, identical, or compatible. GG-2 GLOSSARY ECOLOGICAL CONDITION: The present stage of vegetation of a range site in relation to the climax (natural potential) plant community for that site. Condition is expressed as excellent, good, fair, or poor. ECOLOGICAL SITE: A kind of rangeland with a specific potential natural community and specific characteristics, differing from other kinds of rangeland in its ability to produce vegetation and to respond to management. Ecological sites are defined and described with soil, species composition, and production emphasis. Ecological site is synonymous with range site and ecological type (FS). ECONOMIC IMPACT: The change, positive or negative, in economic conditions (including distribution and stability of employment and income in affected local and regional economies) that directly or indirectly result from an activity, project, or program. ECOSYSTEM: A complex self-sustaining natural system which includes living and nonliving components of the environment and the circulation of matter and energy between organisms and their environment. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): A concise public document for which a Federal agency is responsible that serves to: (a) briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact; (b) aid an agency's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when no environmental impact statement is necessary; (c) facilitate preparation of a statement when one is necessary. An EA includes brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by SEC. 102 (2) of NEPA, of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE: A temporal or spatial change in the human environment caused by an act of man. The change should be (1) perceptible, (2) measurable, and (3) relatable through a change agent to a proposed action or alternative. A consequence is something that follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent). Consequences are synonymous with impacts and effects. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A written analysis of the impacts on the environment of a proposed project or resource management plan. ENDANGERED SPECIES: Any animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range. These species are listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR: A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries, that is being used as the locations for one or more rights-of-way. EXPERIMENTAL MANAGEMENT ZONES: Area within a tortoise Special Management Area (a maximum of 10 percent) where certain prohibited activities (e.g., intrusive research on desert tortoises may be permitted on an experimental basis during the recovery period). FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 (FLPMA): Public Law 94-579, which gives the BLM legal authority to establish public land policy, to establish guidelines for administering such policy and to provide for the management, protection, development and enhancement of the public land. FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN: An activity plan developed to support and accomplish resource management objectives and applicable land-use decisions authorized in BLM Resource Management Plans. Establishes basic direction for the fire management program, identifies priorities for execution, and determines levels of fire resources (personnel, engines, aircraft, and facilities), including an economic analysis. GG-3 GLOSSARY FORAGE: Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. FORB: (1) Any herbaceous plant other than those in the Gramineae (true grasses), Cyperaceae (sedges), and Juncaceae (rushes) families_i.e., any nongrass-like plant having little or no woody material on it: or (2) a broadleaved flowering plant whose above-ground stem does not become woody and persistent. GRASS: Any plant of the family Gramineae. GRAZING ALLOTMENT CATEGORIES: Direction under which all grazing allotments are categorized for management purposes into three groups. The overall objectives are: M-maintain the current resource conditions; I-improve the current resource conditions; and C-custodial manage the existing resource values. GRAZING PERMIT: A document authorizing use of the public lands within an established grazing district. Grazing permits specify all authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorized for grazing use, or both. GRAZING PERMIT VALUE: BLM allocated AUMs may be transferred from one operator to another. The dollar value given by one operator (buyer) to induce a present permit holder (seller) to transfer his permit is known as the 'permit value" of an AUM. This "permit value" may have a significant bearing on the rancher's capital value. GRAZING PREFERENCE or PREFERENCE: A superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee. GRAZING SYSTEM: A prescribed method of grazing a range allotment having two or more pastures or management units to provide periodic rest for each unit. HABITAT: A specific set of physical conditions that surround the single species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, and living space. HAZARDOUS WASTE OR MATERIAL (HAZMAT): Any substance that poses a threat to the health or safety of persons or the environment. These include any material that is toxic, ignitable, corrosive, or radioactive. HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP): A plan for a geographic area of public lands which identifies wildlife habitat management actions to be implemented to achieve specific objectives. HERD MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN (HMAP): A written and officially approved plan for a specific geographical area of public land which identifies wild horse (or burro) herd use areas and habitat, identifies population and habitat objectives, establishes the sequence of actions for achieving objectives, and outlines procedures for evaluating accomplishments. IMPACT: Synonymous with effects. Includes ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental (adverse) effects. Impacts may be considered as direct, indirect, or cumulative: Direct: Impacts caused by an action and occurring at the same time and place. GG-4 GLOSSARY Indirect: Impacts caused by the proposed action and occurring later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative: Those which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. INTERIM MANAGEMENT POLICY (IMP): An interim measure governing lands under wilderness review. This policy protects Wilderness Study Areas from impairment of their suitability as wilderness. INVENTORY: The systematic acquisition and analysis of information needed to describe, characterize, or quantify resources for land-use planning and management of the public lands. KEY FORAGE SPECIES: (1) Forage species whose use serves an indicator of the degree of use of associated species. (2) Those species which must, because of their importance, be considered in the management program. KIND OR CLASS OF LIVESTOCK: Kind: The species of domestic livestock-cattle and sheep. Class: The age class (i.e. yearling or cows) of a species of livestock. LAMBDA: Is a numerical number associated with the growth rate of a population. For example if the Lambda of a population is 1.0 then that population is mamtaining a stable population size. If lambda is less than 1.0 the population is declining and if it is greater than 1.0 then that population in increasing. LAND DISPOSAL: A transaction that leads to the transfer of title of public lands from the federal government. LAND USE PLAN: A plan that reflects an analysis of activity systems and a carefully studied estimate of future land requirements for expansion, growth control, and revitalization or renewal. The plan shows how development in the area should proceed in the future to ensure the best possible physical environment for living, the most economic and environmentally sensitive use of land, and the proper balance in use from a cost revenue point of view. The land use plan embodies a proposal as to how land should be used in the future, recognizing local objectives and generally accepted principals of health, safety, convenience, economy, and general living amenities. LEASABLE MINERAL: A mineral such as coal, oil, shale, oil and gas, phosphate, potash, sodium, geothermal resources, and all other minerals that may be developed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended. LIVESTOCK or KIND OF LIVESTOCK: A species of domestic livestock- cattie, sheep, horses, burros, and goats. LIVESTOCK PERMITTEE: A person or organization legally permitted to graze livestock on public lands. LOCATABLE MINERAL: Any valuable mineral that is not saleable or leasable including gold, silver, copper, uranium, etc., that may be developed under the General Mining Law of 1872. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN (MFP): A land use plan for public lands administered by BLM which provides a set of goals, objectives, and constraints for a specific planning unit or area; a guide to the development of detailed plans for the management of each resource. This form of plan is now being replaced with Resource Management Plans. GG-5 GLOSSARY MINERAL ENTRY: The location of mining claims by an individual to protect his/her right to a valuable mineral MINERAL MATERIALS: Refer to saleable minerals. MINERAL POTENTIAL: High: Those lands currently producing oil or gas or having high current industry interest. Moderate: Those lands which have had oil and gas shows in favorable geologic environments. Low: Those lands where either the geologic environment appears to be favorable for the accumulation of oil and gas, or where little or no information is available to evaluate the oil and gas potential. MINERAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE: The amount of surface disturbance that is needed to complete the project only. No additional surface disturbance is authorized. The amount of disturbance is project specific. MINERAL WITHDRAWAL: A withdrawal for public lands which are potentially valuable for leasable minerals. This precludes the disposal of the lands except with a mineral reservation, or unless the lands are found to not be valuable for minerals. MITIGATING MEASURES: Constraints, requirements, or conditions imposed to reduce the significance of or eliminate an anticipated impact to environmental, socioeconomic, or other resource value from a proposed land use. Committed mitigating measures are those measures BLM is committed to enforce, i.e., all applicable laws and their implementing regulations. MULTIPLE USE: Multiple use is the management of public lands and their various resource values so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people. Relative values of the resources are considered. Multiple use does not necessarily result in the combination of uses that will give the greatest potential economic return or the greatest unit output, nor does it mean that every use will occur on every acre. Multiple use management includes management for traditional uses such as mining and livestock grazing, as well as management for wilderness, T&E species, and other resource values. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) OF 1969: A law enacted on January 1, 1970, that established a national policy to maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. It established the Council on Environmental Quality for coordinating environmental matters at the federal level and to serve as advisor to the President on such matters. The law made all federal actions and proposals which could have significant impact on the environment subject to review by federal, state, and local environmental authorities. NON-SPEED: In the context of an off-highway vehicle event, non-speed has been considered 25 miles per hour, or less, for management of most previous events through desert tortoise habitat. This would be the intended maximum speed for OHV events through ACECs. NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT: This recovery unit is found primarily in Nevada, extending into California along the Ivanpah Valley and into extreme southwestern Utah and Northwestern Arizona. GG-6 GLOSSARY OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES (OHV): Considered the same as Off-road vehicle, as defined in 43 CFR 8340.0-5. Generally, "any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain..." (5 exceptions listed in CFR). OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS: Defined at 43 CFR 8340.0-5 to include; (f) Open area means an area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in subparts 8341 and 8342 of this title. (g) Limited area means an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions. (h) Closed area means an area where off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the authorized officer. PERMITTEE: A person or organization legally permitted to graze livestock on public lands. PLAN OF OPERATION: A plan of mining exploration and development that an operator must submit to ELM for approval when more than five acres a year will be disturbed or when the operator plans to work in an area of critical environmental concern, wild and scenic river, wilderness study area, or wilderness. An MPO must document, in detail, all actions the operator plans to take from exploration through reclamation and present all information needed for preparing a NEPA document. PLANNING AREA: One or more planning units for which Management Framework Plans are prepared. PLANNING ISSUE: (Bureau Manual 1616.1). Multiple use conflicts which usually are long-term and cannot be resolved by administrative action only. A planning issue must have two or more of the following characteristics: (1) concern expressed by public land users, State or local government, or another Federal agency; (2) existing or potential serious deterioration of public lands or resources; (3) possible significant impacts on and sometimes off public lands; (4) proposed uses which may not be in the best public interest or which may be in serious conflict with other uses. In addition, a planning issue must be mappable, decisions which could resolve it must be discretionary, it must not require resolution before planning is completed, and there must be alternative means of resolution. Resource management programs are not, by themselves, planning issues. PLANNING UNIT: A geographic unit within a BLM district that includes related lands, resources and use pressure problems which are considered together for resource inventory and planning. POTENTIAL NATURAL COMMUNITY (PNC): The biotic community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without interference by human beings under the present environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development. PNCs can include naturalized non-native species. PRESCRIBED FIRE: Controlled application of fire to natural fuels under conditions of weather, fuel moisture, and soil moisture that will allow confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and, at the same time, will produce the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to accomplish certain planned benefits to one or more objectives to wildlife, livestock, and watershed values. The overall objectives are to employ fire scientifically to realize maximum net benefits at minimum environmental damage and acceptable cost. GG-7 GLOSSARY PRESCRIPTION 1 GRAZING GUIDELINES: Livestock grazing may occur between June 15 and October 14 as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs and from October 15 to February 28 as long as utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs forage species. Livestock use will not occur from March 1 to June 14. PRESCRIPTION 2 GRAZING GUIDELINES: Livestock grazing may occur between February 15 and October 14, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial .grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Between October 15 and February 14, forage utilization shall not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. PERMITTEE: One who holds a permit to graze livestock on public land. PREDATOR: An animal that preys on one or more other animals. PUBLIC LANDS: Means any land and interest in land outside of Alaska owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, except lands held for the benefit of Indians. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The process of attaining citizen input into each stage of development of planning documents. It is required as a major input into the BLM's planning system. RANGELAND: Land dominated by vegetation that is useful for grazing and browsing by animals. "Range" and "rangeland" are used interchangeably. RECOVERY PLAN: A document prepared by the USFWS which outlines objectives for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT (R&PP): The Act of June, 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869,869-4). Allows the disposal of public lands to any state, local, federal, or political instrumentality or nonprofit organization for any recreational or public purpose, at the discretion of the authorized officer. RESOURCES: All of the products and physical values produced or contained within public lands. They include the values which are known as natural resources (i.e., timber, coal, oil, etc.). RESOURCE AREA: A manageable geographic subdivision of a BLM District consisting of one or more planning areas. RESOURCE ADVISOR: A resource specialist who provides guidance to fire overhead personnel in the development of fire suppression strategy and tactics to minimize the expected impacts of the fire and the fire suppression actions upon natural and human resources. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: The legal right for use, occupancy, or access across land or water areas for a specified purpose or purposes. Also, the lands covered by such a right. A right-of-way is usually linear, but may include non-linear sites for communication facilities, etc. RIPARIAN HABITAT: Riparian habitat is defined as an area of land directly influenced by permanent (surface of subsurface) water. They have visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lake shores and stream banks are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. GG-8 GLOSSARY RIPARIAN VEGETATION: Plants adapted to moist growing conditions along streams, waterways, ponds, etc. SALABLE MATERIALS: Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. Included are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay. SERAL COMMUNITY: One of a series of biotic communities that follow one another in time on any given area. Serai community is synonymous with successional community. SERAL STAGE: The developmental stages of an ecological succession; synonymous with successional stage. SENSITIVE SPECIES: Species not yet officially listed but that are undergoing status review for listing on the Fish and Wildlife Service official threatened and endangered list; species whose populations are small and widely dispersed or restricted to a few localities; and species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that official listing may be necessary. SHRUB: A plant that has persistent woody stems and a relatively low growth habit, and that generally produces several basal shoots instead of a single bole. It differs from a tree by its low stature, less than 5 meters (16 feet), and nonarborescent form. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES: Wildlife and plant species either federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, state-listed or BLM determined priority species. STIPULATION: A requirement, usually dealing with protection of the environment, that is made a part of a lease, grant, or other authorizing document. In the case of oil and gas leases, a provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and made a part of the lease. STOCKING RATE: The number of livestock animals permitted on an allotment, usually expressed in animal unit months or number of animals for a period of time. THREATENED SPECIES: Any animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of a significant portion of its range. These species are listed by the USFWS. UTILIZATION: The percentage of forage that has been consumed by livestock, wild horses and burros, wildlife and insects during a specified period. The term is also used to refer to the pattern of such use. VIBROSEIS: A seismic method in which a vibrator is used as an energy source. Vibrators or drop weight are mounted on trucks and are driven cross country to provide energy. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASSES: Management classes are determined on the basis of overall scenic quality, distance from travel routes, and sensitivity to change. Class I: Provides primarily for natural ecological changes only. It is applied to wilderness areas, some natural areas, and similar situations where management activities are to be restricted. Class II: Changes in the basic elements caused by a management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape, but the changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the existing character. Class III: Changes in the basic elements caused by a management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape, but the changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the existing character. GG-9 GLOSSARY Class IV: Changes may subordinate the original composition and character but must reflect what could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic landscape. WILDCAT WELLS: Speculative exploration well drilled in an unproven oil and gas terrain. WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA): Areas under study for possible inclusion as a Wilderness Area in the National Wilderness Preservation System. WILDFIRE: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response. WILD HORSE: All unbranded and unclaimed horses and their progeny that have used public lands on or after December 15, 1971, or that do use these lands as all or part of their habitat. WITHDRAWAL: An action which restricts the use or disposal of public lands, segregating the land from the operation of some or all of the public land and/or mineral laws and holding it for a specific public purpose. Withdrawals may also be used to transfer jurisdiction of management to other federal agencies. GG-10 INDEX Alternative A: ii, 2-1, 2-37, 4-29 Alternative B: iii, 2-1, 2-40, 4-37 Alternative C: iii, 2-2, 2-54, 4-56 Assumptions: 4-1, 4-77 Casual OHV: S-5, S-13, 2-23, 2-39, 2-52, 2-58, 3-25, 3-35, 4-9, 4-19, 4-25 4-30, 4-32, 4-34, 4-42, 4-49, 4-57, 4-60, 4-95, 4-112, 4-124, 4-128 Consultation and Coordination: 5-1, 5-2, 5-3 Fire Management: S-9, S-16, 2-6, 2-28, 2-36, 2-60, 3-29, 4-14, 4-22, 4-44, 4-50, 4-58, 4-61, 4-97, 4-116, 4-125 Fluid Minerals: S-6, 2-27, 2-36, 2-39, 2-60, 3-27, 4-3, 4-13, 4-14, 4-21, 4-25, 4-30, 4-33, 4-44, 4-61, 4-64 Lands Management: iii, S-3, S-12, 2-18, 2-34, 2-46, 2-58, 3-25, 3-35, 4-8, 4-19, 4-24, 4-40, 4-48, 4-52, 4-57, 4-59, 4-62, 4-71 Livestock Grazing: iii, S-2, S-10, 2-5, 2-12, 2-16, 2-30, 2-31, 2-37, 2-44, 2-55, 3-16, 3-21, 4-7, 4-16, 4-22, 4-29, 4-32, 4-39, 4-46, 4-51, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-76, 4-97, 4-114, 4-126 Locatable Minerals: S-6, 2-24, 2-35, 2-39, 2-60, 3-28, 3-34, 4-3, 4-12, 4-14, 4-21, 4-25, 4-30, 4-33, 4-44, 4-50, 4-61, 4-63, 4-71, 4-94, 4-110, 4-128 Mineral Materials: S-6, 2-22, 2-28, 2-36, 2-39, 2-50, 4-3, 4-14, 4-21, 4-22, 4-26, 4-42, 4-61, 4-65, 4-94 Mitigation/Monitoring: 1-11, 4-67, 4-70 Organized OHV: S-5, S-13, 2-23, 2-39, 2-52, 2-58, 3-25, 3-35, 4-10, 4-20, 4-25, 4-30, 4-32, 4-34, 4-42, 4-49, 4-57, 4-60, 4-95, 4-112, 4-117, 4-128 Predation: 4-99,4-113,4-120 Proposed Action: ii, 2-1, 2-8, 4-5 Rights-of-Way: S-4, 2-20, 2-35, 2-51, 4-11, 4-19, 4-24, 4-41, 4-48, 4-53, 4-60, 4-62 Socio Economic Values: iv, 3-30, 4-22, 4-34, 4-51, 4-61 Special Status Animal Species: 2-4, 2-11, 2-30, 2-42, 2-54, 3-8, 4-5, 4-29, 4-37 Utilities: 2-20, 2-49, 4-91, 4-99, 4-116, 4-123, 4-129 Wilderness Study Areas: 2-5, 2-23, 2-52, 2-60, 3-26, 4-11, 4-43, 4-57, 4-101, 4-111, 4-130 Wild Horses: iv, S-3, S-ll, 2-5, 2-16, 2-31, 2-48, 2-57, 3-21, 4-7, 4-17, 4-39, 4-46, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-71 1-1 APPENDIX A MOJAVE-SOUTHERN GREAT 5ASIN AREA PREAMBLE The Standards and Guidelines for grazing administration on BLM lands in south- ern Nevada apply to livestock grazing. The Mojave-Southem Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) intends that the Standards and Guidelines will result in a balance of sustainable development and multiple use along with progress, over time, toward attaining desired rangeland conditions. Standards are expressions of physical and biological conditions required for sustaining rangelands for multiple uses. Guide- lines point to management actions related to livestock grazing for achieving the Standards. Guidelines are options that move rangeland conditions toward the mul- tiple use Standards. Guidelines are based on science, best rangeland management practices, and public input. Thus Guidelines indicate the types of grazing methods and practices for achieving the Standards for multiple use, are developed for func- tional watersheds and implemented at the allotment level. The Mojave-Southem Great Basin Resource Advisory Council recognizes that it will sometimes be a long-term process to restore rangelands to proper functioning condition. In some areas, it may take many years to achieve healthy rangelands. The Resource Advisory Council may be requested by any party to assist reaching agreement in resolving disputes. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES STANDARD I. SOILS : Watershed soils and stream banks should have adequate stability to resist acceler- ated erosion, maintain soil productivity, and sustain the hydrologic cycle. Soil indicators: • Ground cover (vegetation, litter, rock, bare ground); A- 2 • Surfaces (e.g., biological crusts, pavement); and • Compaction/infiltration. Riparian soil indicators: • Stream bank stability. All of the above indicators are appropriate to the potential of the ecological site. GUIDELINES: 1.1 Upland management practices should maintain or promote adequate vegetative ground cover to achieve the standard. 1 .2 Riparian-wetland management practices should maintain or promote sufficient re- sidual vegetation to maintain, improve, or restore functions such as stream flow energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge, and streambank stability. 1.3 When proper grazing practices alone are not likely to restore areas, land manage- ment practices may be designed and implemented where appropriate. 1.4 Rangeland management practices should address improvement beyond this stan- dard, significant progress toward achieving standards, time necessary for recovery, and time necessary for predicting trends. STANDARD 2. ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS: Watersheds should possess the necessary ecological components to achieve state water quality criteria, maintain ecological processes, and sustain appropriate uses. Riparian and wetlands vegetation should have structural and species diversity charac- teristic of the stage of stream channel succession in order to provide forage and cover, capture sediment, and capture, retain, and safely release water (watershed function). Upland indicators: • Canopy and ground cover, including litter, live vegetation, biological crust, and rock appropriate to the potential of the ecological site. • Ecological processes are adequate for the vegetative communities. Riparian indicators: • Stream side riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, large woody debris, or rock is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows. • Elements indicating proper functioning condition such as avoiding accelerating erosion, capturing sediment, and providing for groundwater recharge and release are A~ j determined by the following measurements as appropriate to the site characteristics: Width/Depth ratio; Channel roughness; Sinuosity of stream channel; Bank stability; Vegetative cover (amount, spacing, life form); and Other cover (large woody debris, rock). • Natural springs, seeps, and marsh areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation is present to facilitate water retention, filtering, and release as indicated by plant species and cover appropriate to the site characteristics. Water quality indicators: • Chemical, physical and biological constituents do not exceed the state water quality standards. The above indicators shall be applied to the potential of the ecological site. GUIDELINES: 2.1 Management practices should maintain or promote appropriate stream channel morphology and structure consistent with the watershed. 2.2 Watershed management practices should maintain, restore or enhance water quality and flow rate to support desired ecological conditions. 2.3 Management practices should maintain or promote the physical and biological condi- tions necessary for achieving surface characteristics and desired natural plant community. 2.4 Grazing management practices will consider both the economic and physical environment, and will address all multiple uses including, but not limited to, (i) recreation, (ii) minerals, (iii) cultural resources and values, and (iv) designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. 2.5 New livestock facilities will be located away from riparian and wetland areas if they conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian and wetland functions. Existing facilities will be used in a way that does not conflict with achieving or maintaining riparian and wetland functions, or they will be relocated or modified when necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on riparian and wetland functions. The location, relocation, design and use of livestock facilities will consider eco- nomic feasibility and benefits to be gained for management of lands outside the riparian area along with the effects on riparian functions. A- 4 2.6 Subject to all valid existing rights, the design of spring and seep developments shall include provisions to protect ecological functions and processes. 2.7 When proper grazing practices alone are not likely to restore areas of low infiltration or permeability, land management practices may be designed and implemented where appropriate. Grazing on designated ephemeral rangeland watersheds should be allowed only if (i) reliable estimates of production have been made, (ii) an identified level of annual growth or residue to remain on site at the end of the grazing season has been established, and (iii) adverse effects on perennial species and ecosystem processes are avoided. 2.8 Rangeland management practices should address improvement beyond these standards, significant progress toward achieving standards, time necessary for recovery, and time necessary for predicting trends. STANDARD 5- HA5ITAT AND 5IOTA: Habitats and watersheds should sustain a level of biodiversity appropriate for the area and conducive to appropriate uses. Habitats of special status species should be able to sustain viable populations of those species. Habitat indicators: • Vegetation composition (relative abundance of species); • Vegetation structure (life forms, cover, height, and age classes); • Vegetation distribution (patchiness, corridors); • Vegetation productivity; and • Vegetation nutritional value. Wildlife indicators: • Escape terrain; • Relative abundance; • Composition; • Distribution; • Nutritional value; and • Edge-patch snags. The above indicators shall be applied to the potential of the ecological site. A- 5 GUIDELINES: 3.1 Mosaics of plant and animal communities that foster diverse and productive ecosystems should be maintained or achieved. 3.2 Management practices should emphasize native species except when others would serve better, for attaining desired communities. 3.3 Intensity, frequency, season of use and distribution of grazing use should provide for growth, reproduction, and, when environmental conditions permit, seedling establishment of those plant species needed to reach long-term land use plan objectives. Measurements of ecological condition, trend, and utilization will be in accordance with techniques identified in the Nevada Rangeland Handbook. 3.4 Grazing management practices should be planned and implemented to provide for integrated use by domestic livestock and wildlife, as well as wild horses and burros inside Herd Management Areas. 3.5 Management practices will promote the conservation, restoration and mainte- nance of habitat for special status species. 3.6 Livestock grazing practices will be designed to protect fragile ecosystems of limited distribution and size that support unique sensitive/endemic species or communities. Where these practices are not successful, grazing will be excluded from these areas. 3.7 Where grazing practices alone are not likely to achieve habitat objectives, land management practices may be designed and implemented as appropriate. 3.8 Vegetation manipulation treatments may be implemented to improve native plant communities, consistent with appropriate land use plans, in areas where identified Standards cannot be achieved through proper grazing management practices alone. Fire is the preferred vegetation manipulation practice on areas historically adapted to fire; treatment of native vegetation with herbicides or through mechanical means will be used only when other management tech- niques are not effective. 3.9 Rangeland management practices should address improvement beyond this standard, significant progress toward achieving standards, time necessary for recovery, and time necessary for predicting trends. A- 6 GLOSSARY Definitions are taken from "A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management" developed through the Society for Range Management or Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference or from the Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics except where noted. Other definitions are from Grazing Administration Regulations Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 43 Sec. 4100.0-5. Defini- tions also include meanings that were developed by the Mojave Southern Resource Advisory Council to understand their intent in the Standards and Guidelines. A Annual Growth. The amount of production of new above ground plant biomass for a given site during a given year. B Biodiversity. The diversity of organisms in a region; made up of species diversity in individual community-types and the turnover of species across different community-types. Biological (Cryptogamic) Crust. Community of non- vascular primary producers that occur as a "crust" on the surface of soils; made up of a mixture of algae, lichens, mosses, and cyanobacteria (bluegreen algae). Biotic. Refers to living components of an ecosystem, e.g., plants and animals and microorganisms. C Canopy. (1) The vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation, usually expressed as a percent of the ground so occupied. (2) The aerial portion of the overstory vegetation. Canopy Cover. The percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural spread of foliage of plants. Small openings within the canopy are included. (BLM Technical Reference 4400- 7) Climate. The average or prevailing weather conditions of a place over a period of years. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-7) Conservation. The planned management of natural resources; the retention of natural balance, diversity and evolutionary change in the environment. The use and management of natural resources according to principles that assure their sustained economic and/or social benefits without impairment of environmental quality. Cover, a. ( 1 ) The plants or plant parts, living or dead, on the surface of the ground. Vegetative cover or herbage cover is composed of living plants and litter cover of dead parts of plants. (2) The area of ground cover by plants or one or more species. b. ( 1 ) the combined aerial parts of plants and mulch, and (2) shelter and protection for animals and birds. (BLM Manual 4400) c. ( 1 ) plant material, living (vegetative Cover) and dead (litter cover) on the soil surface; (2) the area of ground covered by the canopy projections of a particular plant species, expressed as a scale or as a percentage of total ground surface area. Cultural Resources. A broad, general term meaning any cultural property and any traditional lifeway value. (BLM Manual 8100) Cultural Property. A definite location of past human activity, occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory (survey), historical documentation, or oral evidence. (Manual 8100) D Desert Pavement. A cemented, hydrophobic layer of rocks or small pebbles that occurs over time on desert soil surfaces; prevents water infiltration into soils and wind/ water erosion of the soil; often covered with a chemical varnish layer. Desired Natural Plant Community. The type of plant community which is desired for a particular ecological site. This could include native and non-native species depend- ing on the desired land use, but as a natural plant commu- nity it must have native species adapted to the climate and soil type as dominants or co-dominants in the community. Desired Plant Community. Of the several plant communi- ties that may occupy a site, the one that has been identified through a management plan to best meet the plan's objec- tives for the site. It must protect the site as a minimum. A- 7 Diversity. (1) the absolute number of species in a commu- nity; species richness; (2) A measure of the number of species and their relative abundance in a community; low diversity refers to few species or unequal abundances, high diversity to many species or equal abundances. E Ecological Processes. Natural functions including the hydrologic cycle, the nutrient cycle, and energy flow, (see also 43 CFR 4180.1(b)) Ecological Site. The kind of land with a specific poten- tial natural community and specific physical site charac- teristics, differing from other kinds of land in its ability to produce vegetation and to respond to management. (BLM Manual 4400) Edaphic. Refers to the soil. Endemic Species. Native to, and restricted to, a particular geographical region, community type, or specific habitat. Ephemeral Rangelands. Rangelands characterized by low, highly seasonal and often episodic rainfall, resulting in annual plants comprising a significant proportion of annual primary production. Erosion, (v.) Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by the action of water, wind, ice or gravity, (n.) The land surface worn away by running water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents, including such processes as gravita- tional creep. Exotic. An organism or species which is not native to the region in which it is found. Synonym non-native: Not native; alien; a species that has been introduced into an area. F Forage. The plant material actually consumed by (or available to) grazing animals. Fragile Ecosystems. Uncommon ecosystems of limited distribution and size that support unique sensitive/endemic species or communities; ecosystems that have low resilience to environmental stress or to disturbance. Frequency. The ratio between the number of sample units that contain a species and the total number of sample units. A quantitative expression of the presence of absence of individuals of a species in a population. It is defined as the percentage of occurrence of a species in a series of samples of uniform size. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-4) G Grazing Distribution. Dispersion of livestock grazing within a management unit or area. Ground Cover. The percentage of material, other than bare ground, covering the land surface. It may include live and standing dead vegetation, litter, cobble, gravel, stones and bedrock. Ground cover plus bare ground would total 100 percent. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-4) Ground Water. Subsurface water that is in the zone of saturation. The top surface of the ground water is the "water table." Source of water for wells, seepage, springs. H Habitat. The natural abode of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and edaphic factors affecting life. Hydrologic Balance. The balance between hydrological inputs (infiltration of incident precipitation, run-on) and hydrological outputs (run-off, deep drainage) for an ecological site. I Infiltration. The flow of a fluid into a substance through pores or small openings. It connotes flow into a substance in contradistinction to the word percolation. The process by which water seeps into a soil, as influenced by soil texture, aspect and vegetation cover. Infiltration Rate. Maximum rate at which soil under specified conditions can absorb rain or shallow impounded water, expressed in quantity of water absorbed by the soil per unit of time, e.g., inches/hour. Integrated Use. To merge the use of each type of public land use through a series of land management practices. L Land Use Plan. Land use plan means a resource manage- ment plan, developed under the provisions of 43 CFR part 1600, or management framework plan. These plans are developed through public participation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and establish management direction for resource uses of public lands. (43 CFR 4100) Litter. The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface; essentially the freshly fallen or slightly decomposed vegetal material. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-4) A- 8 M N Management Objective. The objectives for which range- land and rangeland resources are managed which includes specified users accompanied by a description of the desired vegetation and the expected products and/or values. Management Plan. A program of action designed to reach a given set of objectives. Marsh. Flat, wet, treeless areas usually covered by standing water and supporting a native growth of grasses and grasslike plants. Monitoring. The orderly collection, analysis, and interpreta- tion of resource data to evaluate progress toward meeting management objectives. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-7) Monitoring. Monitoring means the periodic observation and orderly collection of data to evaluate: (1) Effects of management actions; and (2) Effectiveness of actions in meeting management objectives. (43 CFR 4100.0.5) Morphology. The form and structure of an organism, with special emphasis on external features. Multiple Use. The management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return of the greatest unit output. (Federal Land Policy and Management Act) Native Species. A species which is a part of the original fauna or flora of the area in question. Indigenous; living naturally within a given area and was part of the areas flora or fauna prior to human settlement of the region. Naturalized Species. An exotic or introduced species that has become established and exhibits successful reproduction in an ecosystem. P Percolation. The flow of a liquid through a porous substance. Productivity. The potential rate of incorporation or generation of energy or organic matter (biomass) by an organism, population or trophic unit per unit time per unit area; plant productivity is termed primary production, and animal productivity is termed secondary production. Proper Functioning Condition. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filer sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood- water retention and ground-water recharge; develop root masses that stabilized streambank against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. (BLM Technical Reference 1737-9) R Range Improvement. Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed to improve production of forage; change vegeta- tion composition; control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the condition of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term includes but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means. Residual Vegetation. Amount, cover, and species composi- A-9 tion of the vegetation on a site after it has been grazed for a period of time. Resource. Any component of the environment that can be utilized by an organism. Riparian- Pertaining to, living or situated on, the banks of rivers and streams. 'Xeroriparian' refers to being situated on dry washes (ephemeral streams). S Seep. Wet areas, normally not flowing, arising from an underground water source. Soil. ( 1 ) The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. (2) The unconsolidated mineral matter on the surface of the earth that has been subjected to and influenced by genetic and environmental factors of parent material, climate (includ- ing moisture and temperature effects), macro- and micro- organisms, and topography, all acting over a period of time and producing a product -soil- that differs from the material it was derived in many physical, chemical, biological, and morphological properties and characteristics. Soil Productivity. The organic fertility or capacity of a given area or habitat. Species. A taxon of the rank species; which is the basic unit, and lowest principal category, of biological classifica- tion; in the hierarchy of biological classification, the category below genus; a group of organisms formally recognized as distinct from other groups. Species Composition. The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. It may be expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc. Synonym Vegetative composition. Surface Characteristics. The amount of bare ground, litter, rock and basal cover of live vegetation, which may include cryptograms. (Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook) Sustained Yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use. (FLPMA) Traditional Lifeway Values. The quality of being useful in or important to the maintenance of a specified social and/or cultural group's traditional systems of (a) religious belief, (b) cultural practice or (c) social interaction, not closely identified with definite locations. Another group's shared values are abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed ideas that one cannot know about without being told. (BLM Manual 8100) Trend. The direction of change in ecological status or resource value rating observed over time. Trend in ecologi- cal status should be described as toward, or away from the potential natural community, or as not apparent. (BLM Technical Reference 4400-4) U Upland. Terrestrial ecosystems located away from riparian zones, wetlands, springs, seeps and dry washes; ecosystems made up of vegetation not in contact with groundwater or other permanent water sources. V Vegetative Life Form. The characteristic structural features and method of perennation of a plant species, e.g., annuals, perennial forbs, shrubs, trees and succulents. W Watershed. ( 1 ) A total area of land above a given point on a waterway that contributes runoff water to the flow at that point. (2) A major subdivision of a drainage basin. Wetlands. Areas characterized by soils that are usually saturated or ponded, i.e., hydric soils, that support mostly water-loving plants (hydrophytic plants). In areas of arid low lying land that is submerged or inun- dated periodically by water, and is characterized by hydric soils that support mostly water-loving (hydrophytic) plants. A-10 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management STANDARD AND GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS It is a requirement that grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and conditions that ensure conformance with the approved Standards and Guidelines. The implementation process for Standards and Guidelines will occur under two separate processes as described below: 1. During the supervision and/or monitoring of an allotment, if it is determined that the existing terms and conditions of a grazing permit are not in conformance with the approved Standards and Guidelines and that livestock grazing was determined to be a significant factor in the non- attainment of a standard, then as soon as pos- sible, or no later than the start of the next grazing year, the terms and conditions of the permit/lease will be modified to ensure that the grazing management practices or the levels of the grazing use will be in conformance with the Standards and/or Guidelines. The modification of the terms and conditions of the permit/lease will be implemented by agree- ment and/or by decision. 2. The allotment evaluation process will continue to be the process used to determine if existing multiple uses for allotments are meeting or making progress towards meeting land use plan objectives, allotment specific objectives, Range- land Program Summary objectives and land use plan decisions, in addition to the Standards and Guidelines for grazing administration. Additionally, allotment specific objectives may have to be developed or amended, objectives in the land use plans further quantified at the allotment specific level, and terms and condi- tions of permits changed or revised to reflect the Standards and Guidelines. Allotment evaluations will continue to be completed based on district priorities. a. The allotment evaluation consists of or involves: 1 ) The evaluation of current grazing use by all users (livestock, wild horses, wildlife) based on monitoring data analysis and interpretation; 2) Recommendations to change or adjust grazing systems; 3) Recommendations to change or adjust stocking levels; and 4) Establishment of stocking levels for wild horses. b. The allotment evaluation also serves as the basis for either issuing multiple use decisions, agreements, or a no change deter- mination. Multiple use decisions are prepared subsequent to completion of land use plans and are based on the attainment or non- attainment of objectives established in the land use plans and allotment evaluations. During the evaluation process, the existing terms and conditions of a permit will be evaluated to determine if they are in conformance with the approved Standards and Guidelines. If it is deter- mined that the existing terms and conditions are not in conformance and that livestock grazing was a significant factor in the non-attainment, A-ll then as soon as possible or no later than the start of the next grazing year, the terms and conditions of the permit/lease will be modified to ensure that the grazing management practices or the levels of grazing use will be in conformance. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the multiple use decision process will continue to be used to establish: 1 ) The terms and conditions of the grazing permits; 2) The appropriate management level for wild horses and burros that occur within the allotment; and 3) Any recommendations for wildlife popula- tions or habitat management actions required if it is determined that these actions are necessary. The preamble to the final regulations contains additional information regarding implementation. The following preamble language is found on page 9956 of the Federal Register notice: ". . . The Department intends that failing to comply with a standard in an isolated area would not necessarily result in corrective action. "The Department recognizes that it will some- times be a long-term process to restore rangelands to proper functioning condition. The Department intends that Standards and Guidelines will result in a balance of sustainable development and multiple use along with progress towards attaining healthy, properly functioning rangelands. For that reason, wording has been adopted in the final rule that will require the authorized officer to take appropriate action upon determining that existing grazing management practices are failing to ensure appropriate progress toward the fulfillment of standards..." "In some areas, it may take many years to achieve healthy rangelands, as evidenced by the fundamentals, established standards, and guide- lines. The Department recognizes, that in some cases, trends may be hard to even document in the first year. The Department will use a variety of data, including monitoring records, assess- ments, and knowledge of the locale to assist in making the "significant progress" determination." The acceptance of progress toward reaching the desired end state is also addressed in the regulatory text in 43 CFR 4180.1 Fundamentals of Rangeland Health which includes the "making significant progress toward" language in each of the four fundamentals. The concept of "making progress toward" is a specific consideration when determining a course of action during implementation. Deter- mining whether a standard is being met is a distinctly different concept from determining whether progress is being made toward or away from the standard. Determining a course of action is then dependent on a variety of factors, one of which is whether progress is being made toward the standard. With regard to actions, it is the BLM's policy and intent to work in a collaborative manner to achieve or maintain the Standards necessary for healthy, productive rangelands. It is not the policy or intent of the BLM to arbitrarily and immediately remove all livestock from an entire allotment based solely on finding a range site that is not meeting a standard. As a practical matter the BLM has neither policy, intent, desire nor capability to arbitrarily remove all livestock where acceptable progress is being made toward meeting the Standards. A-12 NEVADA STATE OFFICE State Director: Ann Morgan Associate State Director: Jean Rivers-Council 850 Harvard Way (89502-2055) PO Box 12000 Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 7:30 am to 4:15 pm weekdays 702-785-6400 • FAX (702) 785-6411 National Wild Horse & Burro Center at Palomino Valley P.O. Box 3270 Sparks, Nevada 89432-3272 702-475-2222 • FAX (702) 475-2053 BATTLE MOUNTAIN FIELD OFFICE District Manager: Jerry Smith 50 Bastian Rd. PO Box 1420 Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820-1420 7:30 am to 4:30 pm weekdays 702-635-4000 • FAX (702) 635-4034 Tonopah Field Station Manager: Ron Huntsinger Bldg. 102, Military Circle PO Box 911 Tonopah, Nevada 89049-0911 7:30 am to 4=30 pm weekdays 702-482-7800 • FAX (702) 482-7810 CARSON CITY FIELD OFFICE District Manager: John Singlaub 1535 Hot Springs Road , Carson City, Nevada 89706-0638 7:30 am to 5:00 pm weekdays 702-885-6000 • FAX (702) 885-6147 ELKO FIELD OFFICE District Manager: Helen Hankins 3900 E. Idaho St. Elko, Nevada 89801 7:30 am to 4:30 pm weekdays 702-753-0200 • FAX (702) 753-0255 ELY FIELD OFFICE District Manager: Gene Kolkman 702 North Industrial Way HC33 Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301-9402 7:30 am to 4:30 pm weekdays 702-289-1800 • FAX (702) 289-1910 Caliente Field Station PO Box 237 U.S. Highway 93 Caliente, Nevada 89008-0237 7:30 am to 4:15 pm weekdays 702-726-8100 • FAX (702) 726-8111 LAS VEGAS FIELD OFFICE District Manager: Mike Dwyer 4765 W Vegas Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89108-2135 7:30 am to 4:15 pm weekdays 702-647-5000 • FAX (702) 647-5023 Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area 702-363-1921 • FAX (702) 363-6779 WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE District Manager: Ron Wenker 5100 E. Winnemucca Blvd. Winnemucca, Nevada 89445 7:30 am to 4:30 pm weekdays 702-623-1500 • FAX (702) 623-1503 Approved Feb. 1 2, 1997 BLM/NV/PT-97/01 1 +4000 : -■ -:' ■•-■■ ■-• ■-' " 1-13 APPENDIX B ACEC NOMINATION EVALUATION NAME: North Mormon Mesa ACEC LOCATION: Southeast Lincoln County, North of 1-15 SIZE: 256,175 acres NOMINATED BY: The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resource Defense Council RATIONALE: Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species. RELEVANCE (MUST CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING): 1. Significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? Agave roasting pits, rock shelters, rock art in Mormon Mountains 2. Fish and wildlife resource? None unique to the area; desert tortoise habitat 3. Natural process or system? None unique to the area 4. Natural hazard? None known IMPORTANCE (characterized by one or more of the following): 1. Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource? Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species. This area is part of the Mormon Mesa-Beaver Dam Slope genetic subunit of the desert tortoise Gopherus (Xerobates) agassiui. 2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change? Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species; some evidence of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease Syndrome in the tortoise population. Following sensitive plants, classified as threatened, may occur in this area: A. Phlox gladiformis - Musky phlox B. Agave utahensis - Utah agave C. Ferocactus acanthodes var. lecontii - Miners compass 3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA? Yes, under Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 4. Has qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare? None known. 5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property? Not known. RECOMMENDATION The area meets the relevance and importance criteria, and although the Endangered Species Act provides an adequate level of protection for the biological values of the area, special management attention is needed to ensure the "recovery" of the desert tortoise. B-2 ACEC NOMINATION EVALUATION NAME: Sand Hollow ACEC LOCATION: Southeast Lincoln County North of 1-15 SIZE: Approx. 122,000 acres NOMINATED BY: The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resource Defense Council RATIONALE: Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species. RELEVANCE (MUST CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING): 1. Significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? None known 2. Fish and wildlife resource? None unique to the area; desert tortoise habitat 3. Natural process or system? None unique to the area 4. Natural hazard? None known IMPORTANCE (characterized by one or more of the following): 1. Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource? Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species. This area is part of the Mormon Mesa-Beaver Dam Slope genetic subunit of the desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii. 2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change? Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species; some evidence of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease Syndrome in the tortoise population. 3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA? Yes, under Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 4. Has qualities which warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare? None known. 5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property? Not known. RECOMMENDATION The area meets the relevance and importance criteria, and although the Endangered Species Act provides an adequate level of protection for the biological values of the area, special management attention is needed to assist the recovery of the desert tortoise. B-3 ACEC NOMINATION EVALUATION NAME: Coyote Springs Valley ACEC LOCATION: Southeast Lincoln County SIZE: Approx 191,000 acres NOMINATED BY: The Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resource Defense Council RATIONALE: Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species. RELEVANCE (MUST CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING): 1. Significant historic, cultural, or scenic value? None known 2. Fish and wildlife resource? None unique to the area; desert tortoise habitat 3. Natural process or system? None unique to the area 4. Natural hazard? None known IMPORTANCE (characterized by one or more of the following): 1. Has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource? Habitat for a federally listed threatened species. This area Category 1 habitat for a portion of the Mormon Mesa-Beaver Dam Slope genetic subunit of the desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii. 2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change? Habitat for a federally listed, threatened species; some evidence of Upper Respiratory Disease Syndrome in the tortoise population. Four sensitive plant species may occur within this area: Endangered: Astragalus nyensis - Nye milk-vetch Threatened: A. Agave utahensis - Utah agave B. Coryphantha vivipara - Cloky pincushion cactus C. Gilia ripleyi - Ripley gilia 3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA? Yes, under Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 4. Has qualities which warrant highlightir in order to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public welfare? None known. 5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to proper /? Not known. B-4 RECOMMENDATION The area meets the relevance and importance criteria, and although the Endangered Species Act provides an adequate level of protection for the biological values of the area, special management attention is needed to ensure the "recovery" of the desert tortoise. B-5 APPENDIX C LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS Introduction: Possible land tenure adjustments by acquisition or disposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Acquisition of lands by the BLM will occur via exchanges, gifts, donations, or purchase using Land and Water Conservation funds. Disposal of federal lands may be accomplished by exchange, FLPMA Sec 203 sales, R&PP patent, Desert Land Entry Act, Carey Act or Airport Patent. Disposal through any of the aforementioned means will be in accordance with the appropriate Code of Federal Regulations. Review Process: No landownership adjustments will be implemented without a feasibility study, site-specific environmental analysis, and determination that the transfer is in the public interest. LAND DISPOSAL CRITERIA Lands To Be Retained: The following lands will be retained in federal ownership: lands withdrawn from the public land laws; lands within Wilderness Study Areas; lands contained in designated ACECs/DWMAs; lands with mining claims of record, under section 314 of FLPMA. Other Factors Considered: The following conditions will be evaluated during the review process for proposed land transfers. The degree to which any of these conditions apply to a proposed land tenure adjustments may or may not make the lands suitable for disposal or acquisition: mineral values; location of the lands in relation to ACECs/DWMAs, WSAs or other areas of special management designations; importance of the lands for wildlife resources, such as habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered, or special status species; location of cultural resource sites included or eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places; all other elements identified as Critical Elements of the Human Environment in BLM NEPA Handbook H- 1790-1, Appendix 5. C-2 LANDS POSSIBLY SUITABLE FOR DISPOSAL Sales, Exchanges, and R&PP Patents The lands identified in Table C-l may be suitable for disposal under section 203 of FLPMA, exchange, or patent under the R&PP Act. These lands potentially meet criteria identified at 43 CFR 2710.0-3 because they are isolated and uneconomical to manage or because they have the potential to meet important public objectives. These lands are close enough to population centers to potentially receive interest from a qualified applicant for conveyance through the R&PP Act. Lands identified within desert tortoise habitat, but outside of designated ACECs/DWMAs, may only be conveyed for community expansion and public projects. Lands can be conveyed to local governmental entities (municipal or county) without a USFWS-approved Habitat Conservation Plan that addresses mitigation for the loss of desert tortoise habitat. However, the HCP need to be prepared prior to development of the land. Unsurveyed lands must be surveyed prior to any disposal action; these lands will be noted as protracted descriptions. All disposal actions will be made subject to valid existing rights. Desert Land Entry and Carey Act The Desert Land Entry (DLE) and Carey Act authorize the conversion of arid public lands to agricultural production. Agricultural development is inconsistent with the goals and objectives to recover and delist the Mojave desert tortoise through habitat conservation and enhancement on public lands. Therefore, applications for DLEs will not be considered. No new DLE applications will be accepted or evaluated in desert tortoise habitat. Airport Patents: Requests for Airport Patents, pursuant to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act on existing airport leases within desert tortoise habitat, but will be evaluated. Lands in the vicinity of the City of Mesquite, where that municipality has identified the need for an airport, will also be evaluated for an Airport Patent or for FLPMA sale. The following must be met for any lands to be considered: The lands are located outside of designated ACECs/DWMAs or critical habitat for desert tortoise. The airport lease is located in an area managed under by a USFWS-approved Habitat Conservation Plan, containing measures that mitigate loss or fragmentation of desert tortoise habitat. C-3 Table C-l. Possible Sales, Exchanges, and R&PP Patent Locations. Twp. Range Mer. Section Subdivision Acres 6S. 61 E. MDM 6 Lots 5,6 and 7, E'/iSWW, SEW, SEWNWWNWW. 400 7 NEW.NEWNWW. 200 31 S'ASEVa 80 7 S. 60 E. MDM 1 E'A (protracted) 320 12 NEW (protracted) 160 7S. 61 E. MDM 5 NEWSEW. 40 6 SW'4, NV4SEW, SWWSEW. 280 7 NVi.WViSEM. 400 8 S'/iSWWNWW, WV&SWW, SEWSWW, NEW NEW. 180 9 WV&. 320 18 NEW NEW. 40 17 NWW. 160 12 S. 71 E. MDM 17 EV4NWW, NWWNEW, NEW SW'4, NWWSEW. (protracted) 200 TOTAL 2780 C-4 The lands identified in Table C-2 may be suitable for disposal under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. Requests for Airport Patents, that are not existing leases, adjacent to existing leases, or located in the vicinity of the City of Mesquite (and identified by that municipality), will be considered as inconsistent with this plan amendment. After receiving a letter of request for a patent, the BLM Authorized Officer will notify the Secretary of Transportation in writing that such request would be contrary to the public interest and inconsistent with the purposes for which these lands are being managed. Table C-2. Potential Airport Patent Locations Acres 160.00 160.00 156.20 156.93 320.00 320.00 640.00 640.00 160.00 2713.13 POSSIBLE FUTURE ACQUISITIONS Land acquisitions opportunities are dependent upon a landowner being willing to sell or exchange lands based on appraised land value. In the spirit of collaborative decision-making, BLM will seek local government participation and, whenever possible, concurrence in any acquisitions. Land acquisitions actions will be pursued in priority order; any acquisitions that benefit listed species or other at risk resources will generally be a high priority. Because they are dependent upon a private sector willingness, land acquisition opportunities cannot be identified or processed on a specific time schedule. The following are land acquisition that the BLM-Ely Field Office will pursue, should the opportunity arise. Private lands within the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs may be acquired from willing sellers for the enhancement of desert tortoise habitat management. Lands may be acquired through exchange authorities, gifts, donations or purchase with Land and Water Conservation funds, as available or appropriate. Acquire legislatively transferred private holdings (formerly Aerojet Corporation lands) through the appropriate authority. These lands would be included in the Kane Springs ACEC, should they become available. Acquire by exchange approximately 35 acres, located within T. 12 S.,R. 71 E., Sec. 16, SW^NWVi, from the City of Mesquite (Clark County), in support of an exchange to facilitate future expansion of the existing regional landfill. rwp. Range Mer. Section Subdivision 7S. 60 E. MDM l 12 SEW. NEW. 7S. 61 E. MDM 6 7 Lots 6 and 7, EViSW'4 Lots 1 and 2, EViNW'i 12 S. 70 E. MDM 25 26 34 35 36 W/4 (protracted). S'/4 (protracted). All (protracted). All (protracted). NWV4 (protracted). TOTAL C-5 APPENDIX D OHV Stipulations for Special Recreation Permits 1. Entrants, pit crew members, crowd control officials, race monitors, checkpoint personnel, and clean-up crews shall be informed, either through a presentation or a pamphlet, of the occurrence of desert tortoises in the race area, and the threatened status of the species. All such personnel shall be advised of the definition of "take," the potential for impacts to the desert tortoise, and the potential penalties (up to $25,000 in fines and 6 months in prison) for taking a threatened species in a manner not permitted in the incidental take statement. The permit holder shall provide a written statement for signature acknowledging receipt of information regarding the desert tortoise and amy special stipulations in place for tortoise protection from all entrants. All race monitors and check-point personnel shall be provided the race stipulations and the procedures for reporting permit violations. Minors and responsible adults participating in mini-events shall be informed that they shall not ride their ATV's or motorcycles in the desert after they finish a mini-event. This includes the open desert as well as roads and trails. Failure to comply with this condition by any child associated with a particular rider shall result in the disqualification of that rider. 2. If a vehicle breaks down, it will be moved to the side of the race course, avoiding damage to vegetation to the extent possible. Participants who stop to rest will pull over onto side roads or areas devoid of perennial vegetation. Riders who retire from the race will either wait along the course for their crew to pick them up, or travel along the course to a pit area. Chase crews will be limited to retrieving vehicles that are broken down along the course. All chase vehicles must have a pit pass. 3. Spectator areas for viewing and vehicles will be allowed in designated spectator areas only. Within ACECs, spectator areas will not be allowed. Within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs, spectator areas will be confined to existing disturbance areas. If disturbed areas are not available, new areas will be placed in areas with the least impact to tortoise and their habitat. Within critical habitat, temporary or permanent fences/boundary markers shall be installed around spectator areas to clearly delineate the boundaries of these areas from adjacent desert habitat. The promoter will be required to mark the boundaries of the spectator area so that spectators can readily tell where the boundary is located. Rope or wire with warning triangles or other similar sturdy materials shall be used. A monitor will be placed at each spectator area, to ensure spectators remain within the designated boundary. Anyone found outside of the designated area will be subject to citation by a Bureau law enforcement officer. 4. Pit crews will use only authorized pit areas. No pit areas will be allowed within ACECs. Whenever possible, pits shall be confined to existing disturbed areas. The pit area boundaries will be clearly marked to delineate the pit from the surrounding desert. This barrier will be made from rope or wire with warning triangles, temporary fencing, or other similar sturdy materials. On buggy races with pits, pit areas will be marked with a sign stating that a pit pass is required. A maximum of 10 pit pass will be issued to each entrant. Pit passes will have the name and date of the event and will be affixed to the windshield of the vehicle. If not removed, vehicles without pit passes will be towed at the owners' expense. 5. All event-related vehicular activities will be confined to authorized vehicle routes and the course itself, and will not stray into vegetated areas. All major access routes leading into restricted areas will be monitored, or marked closed and bannered off. Road markers, vehicle barricades, or signs will be installed either the day of the race or the day before the race. Personnel shall be stationed at these areas, as appropriate, to enforce access restrictions. Directional signs to spectator and pit areas will be posted at D-2 all main access points. Race-in-progress signs will be posted at each location where the race crosses another road. Other disqualification or hazard zones will be monitored periodically during the event. 6. Bureau staff will be present during daylight hours of the event to check for compliance with stipulations of the race permit. The importance of staying on the race course will be stressed to all participants by the Bureau and promoter. 7. A sufficient number of monitors and crowd control officials, as determined by Bureau staff at the event (number 6 above), will be present to enforce compliance with stipulations of the race permit. During the race, a monitor shall be stationed at all disqualification or hazard areas to record any violations. 8. Permittees shall be responsible for trash and litter clean-up along the course and in spectator and pit areas. Stakes, flagging materials, temporary facilities, litter, and all other event-related materials shall be removed from the course and pit, parking, and spectator areas, The race courses and parking areas shall be restored, at a minimum, to pre-race conditions within 15 days after the event. Garbage and food will be removed from the site of the event and will be disposed of in authorized sanitary landfills. 9. To reduce casual use of the race course, the race area will be legally closed to casual use on the day of the race. The promoter will be required to station monitors and/or post sign at road intersections, prohibiting public access, where the general public is likely to access the race course. A Federal Register notice providing authority to close race areas in the Ely and Las Vegas Districts will be issued on an as- needed basis. This will allow Bureau law enforcement officers to enforce regulations. A legal notice will be published in the local newspapers, or other appropriate publication, before the permitted events take place. 10. During race activities, any desert tortoises found on or adjacent to the race course shall be moved into undisturbed desert within 1,000 feet by Bureau personnel experienced and trained in the handling of tortoises or Bureau contractors experienced and trained in the handling of tortoises according to current approved protocol. This protocol is found in Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises During Construction Projects (Desert Tortoise Council, 1994). Tortoises shall be deliberately moved solely for the purpose of moving them out of harm's way. Desert tortoises shall not be placed on lands not under the ownership of the Federal Government without the written permission of the landowner. All personnel involved in tortoise capture shall obtain appropriate permits from the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) prior to handling any desert tortoise. 11. Mitigation measures 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 shall apply to publicity runs and mini-events. Because mini-events are held in conjunction with larger race events, mitigation measures 3, 5, 7, and 15 already will be in effect. On publicity runs, event-related vehicular activity will be confined to authorized routes and the course itself, and will not stray into vegetated areas. 12. To the extent possible, the race course shall be cleared of all unauthorized vehicles and personnel prior to each race. 13. A representative shall be designated who will be responsible for overseeing compliance with the reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions, reporting requirements, and reinitiation requirements contained in the Biological Opinion. The designated representative shall provide coordination among the permit holder, the Bureau, and the Service. 14. Participants in each race who violate any stipulation for that event shall be disqualified from the race. D-3 Additionally, failure to comply with the above stipulations by any member of the support team or spectators associated with a particular driver or rider shall result in the disqualification of that driver or rider. 15. To help control spectators, the event promoter will station at least one person at the primary entrance to the spectator area for at least 2 hours before the start of the race and one hour after the start of the race. This individual will stop all cars coming into the area, give the occupants information on the limits of the spectator area, and advise them where they can and cannot park. 16. All road repair and course cleanup crews shall be accompanied by Bureau personnel or their designee to ensure that no tortoises or tortoise burrows are harmed during repair and cleaning operations. 17. Participants will be informed that passing on buggy, ATV, and motorcycle courses will be limited to the disturbed areas of roads, trails, and washes and will not occur in vegetated areas adjacent to the course. If Additional stipulations or modifications may be required based on terms and conditions in the biological opinion issued for a particular event (or programmatic opinion valid at the time of the event). D-4 APPENDIX E ANDARD OPERATING PROCEI FOR LANDS AND P S AND CONDITIONS OF S Permitting 1. The operator shall furnish a map showing where the exploration and/or operation will take place. The map shall be of a minimum scale of 1/2 inch to the mile. 2. All areas that are going to receive surface disturbance from the operation must have a tortoise inventory, conducted by a consulting biologist approved by the Authorized Officer. Inventory will be conducted as follows: a) All appropriate Nevada Division of Wildlife permits for handling desert tortoises and their parts must be acquired by the tortoise biologists before construction and prior to handling any desert tortoise or part. b) All construction sites, access routes, staging areas, fence line, etc., will be cleared by a qualified biologist before the start of construction. The parcel shall be surveyed for desert tortoise using survey techniques which provide 100% coverage. During the tortoise active season, the preconstruction clearance shall be no more than 3 days before initiation of construction. During the tortoise inactive season (October 15 through March 15) the preconstruction clearance shall be within 10 days before work begins. c) Tortoises and nests found on the project area shall be relocated by a qualified tortoise biologist in accordance with USFWS approved protocol (Desert Tortoise Council 1994). Burrows containing tortoises or nests will be evacuated by hand with hand tools to allow removal of the tortoise or eggs. d) Tortoises that are moved off-site and released into undisturbed habitat on public land, must be placed in the shade of the shrub, in a natural unoccupied burrow similar to the hibernaculum in which it was found, or in an artificially constructed burrow. e) Desert tortoises moved in the winter (i.e., October 15 through March 15) or those in hibernation regardless of date must be placed into an adequate burrow; if one is not available, one will be constructed utilizing the protocol for burrow in section B.5.f. of the USFWS approved guidelines (Desert Tortoise Council 1994). 4. Consultation with the USFWS is required per Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act before the project can be approved if the bureau determines that the proposed action may affect the desert tortoise. If consultation determines that an adverse impact to the desert tortoise or its habitat will occur, the proposal must be modified or denied per appropriate regulations. 5. Operators submitting a notice for activities within desert tortoise habitat will be informed by BLM of their responsibilities to comply with specific provisions of the Endangered Species Act. 6. The operator of mineral actions will conform to all Federal and State laws and regulations, including terms and conditions of biological opinions. 7. Prior to the issuance of any material contract, free use permit, material site right-of-way, letter of authorization to conduct sampling and testing, FLPMA right-of-way or Land Use Authorization, all E-2 applicants could pay a Section 7 fee for the on-site and off site mitigation of desert tortoise habitat or rehabilitated desert tortoise habitat. The fee amount will be determined by the Authorized Officer. 8. Temporary road for explorations and operations will be closed to the public by use of gates, signs or other barrier of entry. These roads will be reclaimed once use is over. Exploration 1. Unless otherwise authorized, access to mineral operations will be limited to the existing roads and trails. Any cross country travel will have a qualified biologist monitor for tortoise and move them as needed. 2. Flagging, wire, and other debris will be removed at the end of operation. Trash and debris will be controlled to insure no digestion from desert tortoise. No oil or other fluid materials shall be drained onto the ground surface. 3. Vibriosis, drill hole shot or surface shot will not be completed within 100 yards of known tortoise burrows. 4. Unless authorized, construction or maintenance of roads within designated ACECs is prohibited. Additional roads, if needed, shall be kept to an absolute minimum and the location of the routes must be approved by the Authorized Officer prior to construction. 5. Geophysical, mineral materials and non-energy minerals activity and explorations will be allowed from October 15 to March 15. 6. Geophysical exploration will be allowed only on existing roads and/or trails within designated ACECs. 7. No blading or other dirt work will be allowed without prior approval of the authorized officer. 8. Access road construction for exploration should be planned such that a permanent road can later be constructed in the event of development. Operations 1. No class III land fills will be allowed within any designated ACECs. 2. All surface disturbing mineral operations will be fenced with tortoise proof fence. 3. A portable mud pit shall be used when drilling with fluids. 4. All proposed surface disturbance and vehicular travel will be limited to the approved operation plan and access route. 5. Petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, helicopter fuel, and lubricants will be containerized in approved containers. Hazardous materials shall be properly stored in separate containers to prevent mixing, drainage, or accidents. 6. Prior to starting operations each day on any lands or energy and minerals operation which has not been totally enclosed by tortoise proof fencing and cattle guards, the operator will be responsible for assuring a desert tortoise survey is conducted by qualified desert tortoise biologists using techniques approved by the E-3 USFWS and BLM to make an inspection to determine if any desert tortoises are present. The inspection will be conducted as follows: a. around and under all equipment; b. in and around all disturbed areas to include stockpiles and reject materials areas; c. In and around all routes of ingress and egress; d. In and around all other areas where the operation might expand to during that day. If a tortoise is discovered during this inspection or later in the day, the Operator will immediately cease all operations in the immediate vicinity of the tortoise and will immediately notify the Authorized Officer. The tortoise will be left unharmed and will not be touched. Operations will remain stopped until approval to proceed is granted by the Authorized Officer. 7. All trash, flagging, lath, etc. will be removed and hauled to an authorized disposal site. No oil or lubricants shall be drained onto the ground surface. Trash will be retained in portable trash cages. Burning will not be allowed on the well site. 8. Upon determination of an impending field development, a transportation plan will be requested to reduce unnecessary access roads. 9. Companies controlling new road segments may be required to restrict access to the general public. This access could be in the form of closed gates and these restrictions will not apply to legitimate, authorized agents of the operator or their subcontractor(s), the land managing agency and other agencies with a legitimate need. Reclamation 1 . Reclamation will normally be accomplished with native seeds only. These will be representative of the indigenous species present in the adjacent habitat. Rationale for potential seeding with selected non natives must be documented. Possible exceptions could include use of non-natives for a temporary cover crop to out compete weeds. Where large acreages are burned by fire and seeding is required for erosion control, all native species can be cost prohibitive and/or unavailable. In all cases seed mixes will be approved by the authorized officer prior to planting. 2. Seeding will occur during November 15 to March 15 to insure a greater chance of success. 3. Reclamation release criteria is as follows: 100% of the perennial plant cover of selected comparison areas, normally like adjacent habitat. If the adjacent habitat is severely disturbed, a range site description may be used as a cover standard. Cover is normally crown cover as estimated by the point intercept method. Selected cover can be determined using a method as described in Sampling Vegetation Attributes, Interagency Technical Reference, 1996, BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730. The reclamation plan for the area project should identify the site specific release criteria and associated statistical methods in the reclamation plan or permit. No noxious weeds will be allowed on the sites for reclamation release. Any noxious weeds that become established will be controlled. A list of Nevada noxious weeds is attached. 4. All available growth medium will be salvaged and stockpiled prior to disturbance. Stock piles will be seeded if left for more than one growing season. All disturbance areas will be recontoured to blend as nearly as possible with the natural topography prior to revegetation. All compacted portions of the disturbance will be ripped to a depth of 12 inches unless solid rock. An adequate, fine grain, seed bed must E-4 be established to provide good seed to soil contact. Large blocks and clumps of soil with deep pockets should be avoided. This normally requires some type of tillage procedure after ripping. 5. All portions of access roads not needed for other uses as determined by the authorized officer will be reclaimed. 7. Mulching of the seed-bed following seeding may be required under certain conditions, such as severe erosion. 8. The success of the vegetative growth on a reclaimed site may be evaluated for release no sooner than during the third growing season after earthwork and planting have been completed. Where it has been determined that revegetation success has not been met, the agencies and the operator will meet to decide on the best course of actions necessary to meet the reclamation goal. Construction 1. The project applicant shall notify the Authorized Officer at least 10 days before initiation of the project. Notification shall be made to the wildlife staff at (702) 726-8100 or (702) 289-1842. 2. The Authorized Officer and the USFWS must be notified of any desert tortoise death or injury due to the project implementation by close of business the following business day of which the incident occurred. The BLM point of contact is the wildlife staff at (702) 726-8100 or (702) 289-1842. 3. A litter control program shall be implemented, by the applicant, to minimize predation on tortoises by ravens. This program will include the use of covered, raven proof trash receptacles, removal of trash from construction site following the close of each workday. Trash must be properly disposed of in an approved solid waste disposal facility. 4. If possible, overnight parking and storage of equipment and materials, including stockpiling, shall be in previously disturbed areas within the designated area. 5. All vehicle traffic will be restricted to existing access roads where possible. New access roads will be created only when absolutely necessary and only when approved by the Authorized Officer and the Service. Cross-country vehicle travel is not allowed unless there is no other alternative. 6. The construction site will be clearly marked or flagged at the outer boundaries before the onset of construction. All activities shall be confined within the designated areas. 7. During construction activities, tortoise burrows should be avoided whenever possible. 8. If a tortoise is found during construction or operation and is located in harms way, all potentially harmful activity shall cease until the tortoise moves out of harms way. It can be moved in accordance with terms and conditions of the biological opinion, which requires a qualified tortoise biologist. 9. Blading of vegetation shall be confined to that area designated and only to the extent necessary. 10. Proposed actions will not require fencing unless otherwise identified in the NEPA process. 11. The project applicant must submit in writing a report within 30 days of completion of the project showing the number of tortoises moved (including out of harms way), injured, or killed (total take) during project implementation. E-5 12. A qualified biologist must be present during construction from March 15 through October 15 to insure that desert tortoises are not inadvertently harmed. The biologist must check construction areas immediately before construction activities. 13. During construction, if trenches or holes are to remain open overnight during the period of March 15 through October 15, they will be checked for tortoises at the end and beginning of each workday. The trenches or holes shall also be checked immediately prior to backfilling. 14. Construction and maintenance of right-of-ways road would occur on existing roads unless otherwise authorized by the Land Management Agency. Mitigation Fees 1 . All surface disturbance could require a compensation fee for disturbance of tortoise habitat. Alternative compensation measures are sometimes accepted on a case-by-case basis. E-6 NOXIOUS WEEDS NEVADA STATE WEED LIST Rorippa austriaca Sphaerophysa salula Alhagi camelorum Hypericum perforatum Conium maculatum Cicuta douglasii Solarium elaeagnifolium Solanum carolinese Centaurea diffusa Centaurea repens Euphorbia esula Glyeyrrhiza lepidota Salvia aethiopis Elymus caput-medusae Tribulus terrestris Sorghum halepense Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica Cardaria draba Lepidium latifolium Cirsium arvense Carduus nutans Onopordum acanthium Sonchus arvensis Centaurea iberica Centaurea calcitrapa Centaruea solstitialis Austrian fieldcress Austrian peaweed camelthorn St. Johnswort * poison hemlock * waterhemlock * white horsenettle Carolina horsenettle diffuse knapweek * Russian knapweed * leafy spurge wild licorice * Mediterranean sage medusahead puncturevine * Johnsongrass dalmation toadflax * hoary cress (whitetop) * tall whitetop (pepperweed) * Canada thistle * musk thistle * Scotch thistle perennial sow thistle Iberian starthistle purple starthistle yellow starthistle * * Known to occur within the Ely District ELY DISTRICT WEED LIST Centaurea virgata var. squarrosa Centaurea maculosa Tamarix ramosissima squarrose knapweed spotted knapweed saltcedar (Tamarisk) INJURIOUS PLANTS WITHIN THE ELY DISTRICT Halogeton glomeratus Bromus rubens Bromus tectorum Iya axillaris Arctium minus Cuscuta Senecio jacobaea halogeton red brome cheatgrass povertyweed burdock field dodder tansy ragwart Additional Plants of Concern within the Ely District Salsola iberica Sisymbrium altissimum Russina thistle tumble mustard E-7 APPENDIX F Table F-l. Ecological Site Information ECOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION PRESENT SITUATION SITE ■ . ■ POTENTIAL5' Key Spp Serai Key Spp % Stage % Comp By Study Transect Ecological Key Comp (% of Weight Plot Location Site No. Species By Weight PNC)* At PNC DT-1 T8S 030XB005NV BRRU26 17 58 R71E HHU ■y7/ Mid T-8" Sand Sec. 29 MUP02 — T-8U Hollow ORHY T T-81' Allotment STSP3 ERPU8 AMDU2 LATR2 EPNE AAFF* 19 29 13 T-817 T-8U 25-50 10-25 T-5 T-5 DT-2 T12S 030XB019NV BRRU2 20 79 _ M.w6l£ HBRI — Mid T-5" Breedlove Sec. 16 ORHY — T-5" Allotment ERPU8 LATR2 AMDU2 KRAME AAFF T 64 10 5 T-527 65-80 5-25 T-5 T-5 1/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 8% in aggregate. 2/ Allow no more than 2% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 3/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 4/ Serai stage is based on plant community composition as well as percentage of PNC. Ecological sites listed here can be referred to from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions. These key areas lack forage composition of key species within the range site (ecological site) so serai stage is lower than the percentage of PNC indicates, except for DT-4. 5/ This is the percent composition and serai stage that would have the desired vegetative characteristics to optimize production, quantity, quality and variety to provide the greatest desert tortoise habitat values. 6/ BRRU2 is a undisirable annual grass which is indicating a deteriating ecological site. II Trace - is less than one percent of composition by weight. 8/ Total annual forb composition by weight. F-2 Table F-l. Ecological Site Information ECOLOGICAL ST1 T: INFORMATl ION PRESENT SITUATION SITE POTENTIAL5' Key Spp Serai Key Spp % Stage % Comp By Study Transect Ecological Key Comp (% of Weight Plot Location Site No. Species By Weight PNC)47 At PNC DT-3 T12S 030XB001NV BRRU2 30 57 R66E ERPU8 1 Mid 2-5 Breedlove Sec 17 HIRI 1 T-5 Allotment ARIST STSP3 ORHY AMDU2 LATR2 KRPA AAFF T 30 33 2 2 T-53' T-53' T-53' 50-60 5-20 2-5 T-10 DT-4 T11S 030XB019NV BRRU2 T 97 R63E HIRI — PNC T-527 Delamar Sec 9 ORHY — T-5* Allotment ERPU8 LATR2 AMDU2 KRAME AAFF 83 13 2 T-5* 65-80 5-25 T-5 T-5 1/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 8% in aggregate. 2/ Allow no more than 2% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 3/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 4/ Serai stage is based on plant community composition as well as percentage of PNC. Ecological sites listed here can be referred to from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions. These key areas lack forage composition of key species within the range site (ecological site) so serai stage is lower than the percentage of PNC indicates, except for DT-4. 5/ This is the percent composition and serai stage that would have the desired vegetative characteristics to optimize production, quantity, quality and variety to provide the greatest desert tortoise habitat values. 6/ BRRU2 is a undisirable annual grass which is indicating a deteriating ecological site. II Trace - is less than one percent of composition by weight. 8/ Total annual forb composition by weight. F-3 Table F-l. Ecological Site Information ECOLOGICAL SITE DNfFORMAT ION PRESENT SITUATION SITE POTENTIAL5' Key Spp Serai Key Spp % Stage % Comp By Study Transect Ecological Key Comp (% of Weight Plot Location Site No. Species By Weight PNQ* At PNC DT-5 T10S 030XB019NV BRRU2 10 73 R64E HIRI 1 Mid T-5" Grapevine Sec. 16 ORHY _ T-S" Allotment ERPU8 LATR2 AMDU2 KRAME AAFF 63 2 13 T-S" 65-80 5-25 T-5 T-5 DT-6 T12S 030XB005NV BRRU2 11 61 R69E HIRI — Mid T-8" Gourd SCC. j MUP02 — T-8" Spring ORHY — T-8" Allotment STSP3 ERPU8 AMDU2 LATR2 EPNE AAFF 36 11 4 10 T-8" T-8" 25-50 10-25 T-5 T-5 1/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 8% in aggregate. 2/ Allow no more than 2% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 3/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 4/ Serai stage is based on plant community composition as well as percentage of PNC. Ecological sites listed here can be referred to from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions. These key areas lack forage composition of key species within the range site (ecological site) so serai stage is lower than the percentage of PNC indicates, except for DT-4. 5/ This is the percent composition and serai stage that would have the desired vegetative characteristics to optimize production, quantity, quality and variety to provide the greatest desert tortoise habitat values. 6/ BRRU2 is a undisirable annual grass which is indicating a deteriating ecological site. II Trace - is less than one percent of composition by weight. 8/ Total annual forb composition by weight. F-4 Table F-l. Ecological Site Information ECOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION PRESENT SITUATION SITE POTENTIAL5' Key Spp Serai Key Spp % Stage % Comp By Study Transect Ecological Key Comp (% of Weight Plot Location Site No. Species By Weight PNC)" At PNC DT-7 T12S 030XB019NV BRRU2 58 35 „ R69E HIRI ~ Early T-52/ Gourd Sec. 3 ORHY — T-52' Spring ERPU8 ~ T-52/ Allotment LATR2 AMDU2 KRAME AAFF 33 9 65-80 5-25 T-5 T-5 DT-8 T12S 030XB005NV BRRU2 49 42 __ R70E HIRI ~ Early T-8" Gourd Sec. 6 MUP02 ~ T-8" Spring ORHY — T-8" Allotment STSP3 ERPU8 AMDU2 LATR2 EPNE AAFF 16 20 18 T-8" T-8" 25-50 10-25 T-5 T-5 1/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 8% in aggregate. 2/ Allow no more than 2% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 3/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 4/ Serai stage is based on plant community composition as well as percentage of PNC. Ecological sites listed here can be referred to from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions. These key areas lack forage composition of key species within the range site (ecological site) so serai stage is lower than the percentage of PNC indicates, except for DT-4. 5/ This is the percent composition and serai stage that would have the desired vegetative characteristics to optimize production, quantity, quality and variety to provide the greatest desert tortoise habitat values. 6/ BRRU2 is a undisirable annual grass which is indicating a deteriating ecological site. II Trace - is less than one percent of composition by weight. 8/ Total annual forb composition by weight. F-5 Table F-l. Ecological Site Information ECOI .OGICALSITE INFORMATION PRESEN1 ' SITUATION SITE POTENTIAL5' Key Spp Serai Key Spp % Stage % Comp By Study Transect Ecological Key Comp (% of Weight Plot Location Site No. Species By Weight PNC)* At PNC DT-9 T11S 030XB019NV BRRU2 36 41 „ R70E HIRI - Early T-52' Beacon Sec. 16 ORHY — T-52' Allotment ERPU8 LATR2 AMDU2 KRAME AAFF 37 26 T-52' 65-80 5-25 T-5 T-5 1/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 8% in aggregate. 2/ Allow no more than 2% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 3/ Allow no more than 3% of each species of this group and no more than 5% in aggregate 4/ Serai stage is based on plant community composition as well as percentage of PNC. Ecological sites listed here can be referred to from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ecological Site Descriptions. These key areas lack forage composition of key species within the range site (ecological site) so serai stage is lower than the percentage of PNC indicates, except for DT-4. 5/ This is the percent composition and serai stage that would have the desired vegetative characteristics to optimize production, quantity, quality and variety to provide the greatest desert tortoise habitat values. 6/ BRRU2 is a undisirable annual grass which is indicating a deteriating ecological site. 7/ Trace - is less than one percent of composition by weight. 8/ Total annual forb composition by weight. F-6 APPENDIX G Appendix G: analysis. Summary of forage species consumed by desert tortoise determined through observation or fecal SPECIES Bluedick (Dichelostemma pulchellum) Bristly fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellata) (Camissonia boothii) Combseed spp. (Pectocarya platycarpa) Chorizanthe spp. (Chorizanthe thurberi) Chorizanthe (C. rigida) Crazy weed spp. (Oxytheca perfoliata) Cryptantha spp. (Cryptantha nevadensis & micrantha) Cryptantha (Matted) (Cryptantha circumscissa) Eriophyllum spp. (Eriophyllum wallacei) Foothill deervetch (Lotus humistratus) Freemont phacelia (Phacelia fremontii) Gilia (Gilia spp.) Goldpoppy (Eschscholzia minutiflora) Island indianwheat (Plantago insularis) Kochia (Kochia spp.) Langloisia (Langloisia schottii) Lupine (Lupinus spp.) Lupine (Lupinus flavoculatus) Lupine (Lupinus concinnus) Mentzelia spp. (Mentzelia obscura) Mentzelia (Mentzelia obscura) Moth langloisia (Langloisia setosissima) Phacelia (Phacelia spp.) Plantain (Plantago spp.) Shaggyfruit pepperweed (Lepidium lasiocarpum) Skeletonweed eriogonum (Eriogionum deflexum) Watson cryptantha (Cryptantha pterocarya) SPECIES OR GENUS LIVESTOCK STUDY PRESENT DURING ESI USE** NATIVE. ANNUAL. FORBS 1 1 1.3 XX 1 1 XX 2 XX 1 1,5 la) XX 1,2 XX 2 XX 1 2 XX 1 XX 1,4 2,4 XX 2 1 XX 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 XX 1,4,5 XX 2 XX 2,4 XX 1 XX *These species may have been accidentally ingested, their significance in the tortoise diet is probably marginal. ♦♦Livestock fecal analysis indicating tortoise/livestock diet overlap (Combs 1979) 1 - (Rakestraw D.L., et al. 1995), 2 - (Coombs E.M. 1979), 3 - (Nagy, K.A. and P. Medica 1986), 4 - (Ohmart R.D. and J. Hohman 1979), 5 - (NERC, 1990) G-2 Appendix G: Summary of forage species consumed by desert tortoise determined through observation or fecal analysis. SPECIES OR GENUS LIVESTOCK SPECIES STUDY PRESENT DURING ESI USE** NATIVE, PERRENIAL, FORB Dalea (Dalea spp.) 1 Deserttrumpet (Eriogonum inflatum) 1,2,4 XX Euphorbia spp. (Euphorbia albomarginata) 1,2 Four-o' clock (Mirabilis spp.) 2* Globemallow, desert (Sphaeralcea ambigua) 1,5,6 XX Globemallow, gooseberryleaf 2 XX (S. grossulariaefolia) Liliaceae 1 Mariposa lily (Calochortus flexuosus) 1 Pricklypoppy (Argemone spp.) 1 Purslane (Potentilla spp.) 2* Tansymustard (Descurainia spp.) 1 Tansymustard, Pinnate (D. pinnata) 2 Wild garlic (Allium vineale) 3 Wirelettuce (Stephanomeria spp.) 1 NATIVE, ANNUAL, PERRENIAL. FORB Boraginacea 1 Eveningprimrose (Oenothera spp.) 1,2* U XX Milkvetch (Astragalus layneae & spp.) 1 Polemoniaceae 1 Thistle (Crisium spp.) 2 Composite EXOTIC . ANNUAL FORB Cutleaf filaree (Erodium cicutarium) 1,2,4, XX NATIVE, ANNUAL, PERRENIAL, SHRUB, FORB Brassicaceae 1 Legumes 1 Malvaceae 1 *These species may have been accidentally ingested, their significance in the tortoise diet is probably marginal. **Livestock fecal analysis indicating tortoise/livestock diet overlap (Combs 1979). 1 - (Rakestraw D.L., et al. 1995), 2 - (Coombs E.M. 1979), 3 - (Nagy, K.A. and P. Medica 1986), 4 - (Ohmart R.D. and J. Hohman 1979), 5 - (NERC, 1990), sque 1986) G-3 Appendix G: Summary of forage species consumed by desert tortoise determined through observation or fecal analysis. SPECIES Sixweeks fescue (Vullpia octoflora) STUDY NATIVE. ANNUAL. GRASS 1 SPECIES OR GENUS LIVESTOCK PRESENT DURING USE** ESI XX Bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri) Desert neddlegrass (Stipa speciosa) Fluffgrass (Erioneuron pulchellum) Galleta (Hilaria jamesii) Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) Squirrel tail (Sitanion spp.) Purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea) Tridens (Tridens pilosus & pulchella) 1,2,5 1,2 1,4,6 1,2,6 1,2,3 1,2 1 1,2 2 EXOTIC. ANNUAL. GRASS XX XX XX Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Red brome (Bromus rubens) Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) Blackbrush (Coleogyne ramomissima) Broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) Catclaw (Acacia gregii) (Ceratoides lanata) Common pricklygilia (Leptodactylon pungens) Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) Ephedra (Ephedra spp.) Ephedra, Nevada (Ephedra nevadensis) Fourwing saltbrash (Atriplex canescens) Range ratany (Krarneria parvifolia) Sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) Shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) Spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa) White burrobrash (Hymenoclea salsola) (Esque 1986) 1,2 1-5 4 NATIVE. PERRENIAL. SHRUB 1 2 2* 2* 1,2 1,2* 1,2* 1 2* 2 1,2 2* 1 1 1 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX *These species may have been accidentally ingested, their significance in the tortoise diet is probably marginal. * livestock fecal analysis indicating tortoise/livestock diet overlap (Combs 1979) 1 - (Rakestraw D.L., et al. 1995), 2 - (Coombs E.M. 1979), 3 - (Nagy, K.A. and P. Medica 1986) 4 - (Ohmart R.D. and J. Hohman 1979), 5 - (NERC, 1990), sque 1986) G-4 Appendix G: Summary of forage species consumed by desert tortoise determined through observation or fecal analysis. SPECIES SPECIES OR GENUS STUDY PRESENT DURING ESI NATIVE. PERRENIAL. CACTUS LIVESTOCK USE** Beavertail pricklypear (Opuntia basilaris) Cactus (Opuntia spp.) 2,6 Sp 1 Lichen OTHER 1 *These species may have been accidentally ingested, their significance in the tortoise diet is probably marginal. **Livestock fecal analysis indicating tortoise/livestock diet overlap (Combs 1979). 1 - (Rakestraw D.L., et al. 1995), 2 - (Coombs E.M. 1979), 3 - (Nagy, K.A. and P. Medica 1986), 4 - (Ohmart R.D. and J. Hohman 1979), 5 - (NERC, 1990) 6 - (Esque 1986) G-5 APPENDIX H i i Grazing Management Terms and Conditions for those Areas Outside of ACECs 1 . Grazing will be permitted as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs, between March 15 to October 15. Manage livestock grazing between October 15 and March 15 so that forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs in those same areas. 2. All vehicle use in desert tortoise habitat shall be restricted to existing roads and trails, unless authorized by the authorized officer. An example of vehicle use off roads or trails would be for maintenance or construction of an range improvement, which would be subject to section 7 consultation with USFWS. 3. Use of hay or grains as a feeding supplement shall be prohibited in desert tortoise habitat to avoid the introduction of non-native plant species. Mineral, protein and salt blocks are authorized subject to 43 CFR section 4130.3-2(c). 4. The payment of grazing fees are due on the due date specified on the grazing fee bill. Failure to pay the grazing fee bill within 15 days of the due date specified in the bill shall result in a late fee assessment of $25.00 or 10 percent of the grazing bill, whichever is greater, but not to exceed $250.00. 5. Applications for changes in grazing use must be in written form and received by the Bureau of Land Management Office no later than 15 days prior to the desired date of change. Applications for changes in grazing use which require the issuance of a replacement or supplemental billing notice shall be subject to a ten (10) dollar service charge. 6. Grazing applications will be issued on a yearly basis, if you do not sign and return your grazing application by the date specified on the application you will receive a bill for all of your active livestock grazing permitted use. If you wish to place all or a portion of your active livestock grazing use into non-use for the grazing year, you must indicate this in writing on your grazing application, along with your reasons. 7. Signed Actual Use Statements are due annually to the Caliente Field Office within 15 days after completing annual grazing use. In the case of year round grazing, Actual Use Statements must be received in our office by March 15. 8. The term Federal grazing permit is subject to cancellation, suspension, or modification for any violation of the Code of Federal Regulations or specified terms or conditions of this permit. 9. Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4(g) the holder of this authorization must notify the authorized officer by telephone, with written confirmation, immediately upon discovery of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony (as defined at 43 CFR 10.2). Further, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4 (C) and (d), you must stop activities in the vicinity of the discovery and protect it for 30 days or until notified to proceed by the authorized officer. .. . i X \ ■ ' I H-2 ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1998-683-040/60007 BLDG5Q?_ DENVER FEDERAL CBTTB €NVER COLORAIX) 80225 d Ci w c c 0 r o a >> ga M z H "S r s B M a QH 7 Draf Fra — 1 g r+ cri (D < O ui O PJ h m • XK 2 CD W a ►tJ 3 a Hft O CD a JJj (D OJ o 0 0 Ln XI J§ a oi X) j 33 > (11 3 3 h-1 o c >H 76. 5 N3 2355 1998 Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment a BLOG 50,-U^ tf DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER. COLORADO 80225 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office HC33 Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301-9408 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FIRST-CLASS MAIL POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. Department of the Interior Permit No. G-76 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300