88014735 PROPOSED 1987 PLAN AMENDMENTS to the California Desert Plan environmental assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER, 1987 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1600 United States Department of the Interior (c-060.2) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA DESERT DISTRICT 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, California 92507 Dear Reader: Last February (1987), we invited you and other interested parties to review the California Desert Plan as amended and submit any comments and recommendations for proposed amendments of the Plan. The response that we received from organizations and individuals as well as from our own staff resulted in the amendment proposals contained in this environmental assessment. My thanks to those of you who sent in comments and suggestions. I hope that you will continue to help us manage your public lands. The decision to accept or reject these proposed amendments will be based on a number of factors including effect on the natural environment, input from the public, and recommendations of the California Desert District Advisory Council. We are providing a two-month public review of the environmental assessment. Please send your comments to this office by December 11, 1987. Send your comments to the following address: California Desert District Bureau of Land Management ATTN: Plan Amendments 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, California 92507 A public meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council will be held in Ridgecrest on October 29 and 30. The 1987 Amendments will be discussed at that meeting. I invite you to attend the meeting and share your thoughts with us. Details and location will be announced shortly before the meeting. Sincerely, Gerald E. Hilller District Manager /t)WI725 W, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED 1987 AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN 8LM UBRARY Prepared by gyJ UBRARY Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management California Desert District The Bureau of Land Management is conducting its 1987 review of the California Desert plan. This Environmental Assessment considers the environmental consequences of accepting or rejecting each of twelve proposed amendments. The amendments include Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including creation of a new ACEC, deletion of an existing area, and several boundary adjustments), establishment of new Wildlife Habitat Management Areas, multiple use class changes, a new Recreation element goal, changes in a livestock grazing allotment, and designation of a new utility corridor. Under the Bureau's preferred alternative, nine amendments would be accepted, two would be rejected, and one would be accepted in a modified form. DISTRICT MANAGER CALIFORNIA DESERT For Further Information Contact: Gerald E. Hillier, District Manager California Desert District Bureau of Land Management 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, California 92507 BLM UBRARY SC-324A, BLOG. 50 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P 0. BOX 2504/ e^ysR, CO 80225-0047 > SUMMARY PLAN AMENDMENTS In accordance with chapter 7 of the California Desert Plan and with 43 CFR 1610.5-5 (BLM Planning Regulations), the Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District has initiated the seventh amendment review of the plan. Proposals were accepted during a 31-day period from February 28 to March 31, 1987. Twenty-eight proposals were made by the public and by BLM staff. These proposals were screened by BLM management and by the California Desert District Advisory Council to determine which ones should be considered at this time and which should be deferred, dropped, or handled by an administrative action. Seventeen proposals have been adopted for consideration. These seventeen have been combined into the following twelve proposed amendments . Category Number Description Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Designate an ACEC in West Mesa area of Imperial County. Designate entire drainage of Short Canyon, Kern County, as an ACEC. Modify boundaries of Great Falls Basin ACEC. Wildlife Delete Coyote Mountains ACEC. Designate six new Habitat Management Areas in Mono and northern Inyo counties. Multiple Use Class 6 Change 2,164 acres of unclassified land adjacent to Red Rock Canyon State Park to Class L. Change multiple use class of two parcels of land within Homewood Canyon, and delete the parcels from the Great Falls Basin ACEC. Change T12S, R16E, from unclassified to Class L west of Coachella Canal (80 acres) and Class I east of Canal (800 acres) . Recreation Add new Recreation Element Goal concerning needs of special populations. Livestock Grazing 10 Change Piute Valley Allotment from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial, with a 720 Animal Unit Month carrying capacity. S-1 Utility Corridors 11 Establish a new utility corridor from corridor A at Inyokern to Kerr-McGee facilities near Trona. Motorized Vehicle Access 12 Increase size of vehicle closure within San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek Management Area from 1900 acres to 66 90 acres . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The impacts of both accepting and rejecting each amendment are summarized in Table S-l. BLM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based in part upon the amendment-specific impacts, a preferred alternative has been selected. This preferred alternative is not a final decision, but simply indicates a preliminary recommendation that has been included in this EA for public comment and review. A recommendation to accept, reject, or accept a modified version of each amendment has been made. Nine amendments would be accepted, two would be rejected, and one would be accepted in a modified form. The cumulative impacts of this preferred alternative are presented in Table S-2 below: TABLE S-2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS New Unit of Preferred Percent Percent Resource Measure No Action Alternative Change of Desert Multiple Use Class C Acres 1,900,000 1,900,000 0 15.9 L Acres 5,900,000 5,902,000 0.03 49.3 M Acres 3,400,000 3,400,000 0 28.4 I Acres 520,000 520,000 0 4.3 Unclassified Acres 251,000 249,000 0.8 2.1 Vehicle Access Open Acres 505,000 505,000 0 4.2 Limited Acres 9,256,000 9,251,000 0.05 77.3 Closed Acres 1,958,000 1,963,000 0.25 16.4 Undesignated Acres 251,000 251,000 0 2.1 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas Number 50 54 S-2 Resource Unit of Measure No Action Preferred Alternative ACECs Added Deleted Net Change Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres 2 18,560 1 1,211 +1 17,349 S-3 H CJ < Q_ LU > I- < LLI CO o < Q. Ul O >- CC < CO I CO Z HI HI < LU < o o z < h- < Q. LU > CO O Q. CO HI CO ID V CO LU o CC D o CO LU CC > • .= G» >• • 5 E ? 8 0> c C f I X X I 2 E re y If u cc 0 3 1 00 w< 2 c CD E T3 C 0) E < "O 0> C XI I1 -o « c Z z •- O 2 CC I- LU CC I- O -J I < r o ffl c Z o> E -" 1 < Q cc < III < o I CJ LU UJ > o < 1 z cc LU I- c E o -o • 6 D < ra u a ~ .£, cc o < < CO o o < c < i i UJ a 2 - O C 2 S LU o; i> » t- mi • "oT Ohqk > -J .. .. O < < CD CJ 2 2 LU « < E < 5 -o 00 Z z . o < cc x 3 .2. 1 CO mi .2 O O < h W u. CC S "J _i LU cc < < CO o z < z o > I Z UJ < > * < o z O CC CC LU (- Q -I LU < CC E ■ I Ul < 1/1 0) 2 O > z < u Q o o 5 LU o I III (A IT H I- o » < z (/) cc c * o - g • a z _i .. < < < _i CJ S-4 h- O < Q. < LU V. CO i- o < Q. Li. o >- CC < D CO I CO LU Q Z LU UJ < 9 Q It < Q. > C/J O Q_ II X CO LU CO D > • £ a >- • SO) c C £ O LU S CO LU O CC D o CO LU 0C T5 if II cr Z E < 2 « r g O 3 I CD 0 3 5 c/> < S c E "O C O) E < "D CJ C .O I1 £ ? ^<< < ** -. a. ** Z m u w tr S .£, Um " • Z K < OC < -J .. Z < < CD O z o < UJ cc u e I I LU C > ■ • - o E y- o < ^ ~ ~ Z a u LU 3s < or g < -I .. LU O < < CD Z (3 h3 D a. < > - — n I E Z a> LU * li E ~ * « a a> LU cc < ° s CC Q I- cc to o LU y LU 1^ O c o » 1 H LU » C > Z 4) S £ E < 2« Z o) o cc "3 .£. LU - E Q tr 2 -1 < < Q — — " - H < < CD CC D LU > < LU Z CC CC D LU (/) H O -l -I < u < CO S-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY S-l TABLE OF CONTENTS T-l CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1 CHAPTER 2 - AMENDMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES General Description 2-1 Proponents of Amendments 2-1 Supplementary Information 2-9 Summary of Impacts 2-10 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1 CHAPTER 5 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Notices and Meetings 5-1 Public Input 5-1 List of Preparers 5-2 List of Accronyms 5-3 References Cited 5-4 APPENDICES Appendix A - Amendment Maps A-l Appendix B - Amendments not considered or deferred B-l Appendix C - Source of Amendments Accepted for Consideration C-l Appendix D - Homewood Canyon Land Sale EA D-l T-l CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with Chapter 7 of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan (1980) and with 43 CFR 1610.5-5, the Bureau of Land Management is conducting the seventh amendment review of the plan. Proposals for amendments were accepted during a 31-day period from February 28 to March 31, 1987. Twenty-eight amendments were proposed by the public and by BLM staff for consideration during the review. The proposals were then screened by BLM management and by the California Desert District Advisory Council to determine which ones met the following criteria: (1) Is the proposed amendment based on new data not considered when the plan was developed? (2) Does the information represent a change in legal or regulatory mandate? (3) Is the supporting detail sufficient and the problem clearly stated so that the request can be considered? (4) Does the information represent a formal change in State or local government or agency plans? Sixteen proposals met the criteria. They have been combined into twelve amendments. These twelve are analyzed by this environmental assessment. Eleven proposals were rejected from consideration or will be handled by methods more appropriate than the amendment procedure, as described in Appendix B (tables B-l and B-2). Consideration of one proposal has been deferred to a later date. The final decision concerning whether or not to approve each amendment will be made following a 45-day public review of the EA. The decision will be based upon several factors, including the findings of this EA and the public response received during the review period. That decision is expected in February, 1988. Most of the amendments address site-specific issues. Map 1-1 indicates their regional location; site-specific maps can be found in Appendix A. 1-1 CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA '•>» 7 Bishop 1 1987 Plan Amendments INDEX MAP MAP 1-1 AMENDMENT NUMBER I !JJ .■.■.■aH-f.y i * I * * * * 21 '/ 1 -V ■" '>- T~»- —I 1 1— ^J JLO —■—111 _ 5T ! "1 ■i*R£j ;r| — i Barstow , 7T ^ fc c i « «: t Indio-* *_J • CooTO. _J I [ 1 VI ~^~^7] Blythe M SAN DIEGO *l la T"T El Centro \ ^K ^jlig^ YUMA M E x i c o 1-3 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 AMENDMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES GENERAL DESCRIPTION Twelve proposed amendments to the California Desert Plan have been accepted for consideration. Each amendment has been considered individually for either acceptance or rejection. The rejection of an amendment represents the "no action" alternative. Additional alternatives have been proposed for several of the amendments which present modified versions of the proposal. The amendments have been grouped into the following categories: 1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2. Wildlife 3. Multiple Use Class Designation 4. Recreation 5. Livestock Grazing 6. Utility Corridors 7. Motorized Vehicle Access Table 2-1 describes each of the proposed amendments and the reasons given by the proponent for the change. Maps of each amendment are located in appendix A. PROPONENTS OF AMENDMENTS The proponents of the amendments are listed in appendix B. 2-1 — I — !/) ^ C 0 o in a in 01 c Li 0 eg Li 0 01 L. ^ 0) •n -u 01 c -M 01 o. c 01 o ;) B. 'i O to i- &. *-> r o C rn r^ a; in e t/i •o C h C a1 F o> > A 5 H o0 3 n o — - — > C = a. aJ *. — > c OJ 4-J E & TJ 3 • co L. <° co qj co c oi co in -< 3 a. ■o u-l (0 CO ^j CO Li ■H » g 3 § 8 £ « U 0J CD rt O (J •a 3 01 +) > to CI) z •n o i-( to e -e g c o C co W) , .e -a 00 C CO 0) CO -H -P £> C CO o .C ■P CO • c GO 0) • e D CO TJ 3 T (X H iri cv m fa S * 1-1 oo •o .i-t Li OJ £. CO ~ OJ x "1 Li H +1 a £ CO 0) o Li o N C 0) e » .H 0) 3 cr H C 3 Li , w o CO .H -p 4 lu O 0) £ OJ -H jJ o oj K D in « *) co co '-iV SO) 3 II r-l W ^ >< «Si C w ■ 3 C in o -H 0) 6 j-> •h co in o -H 0) O " co to ^J CO1" Ul 01 0J 0) £ £. •O jJ JJ C 01 CO £ W O JJ o -i X 3 co til c r-t O CO .H . Li *J 01 CO B ^ 01 3 si a a o oi a ' 0) t4 £ .£ *J 0) a> L, O ° s a. e On O o o H •a oi e -h CO O 01 u Od *0 O Li o o Oi U 3 Li -u JJ I O O -H Kb II ti C •H C4-I 0) C O -I O Li 0) g i ^ rn U-. OI ej 0 Uj Li -H I i — 1 0 rn •0 n (11 01 Li •H Li m s m o IM CO L, 3 4J 0) — 1 4-1 u J 01 CJ 01 u 3 < (3 CO •a c a 01 c 01 CO • H CO o c ■ n 01 ft! c 0) .H CO 3 U) *J CI! o to a XI > C 4-1 oj c e 0) T! b c •n 01 C e ai 01 § <: pa >l OJ OJ -p > > C -H •H 3 JJ J-> CI CO co U E £ . — 1 0) 0J ro Jj -p -H ^H Li <: <: 01 a h H I a, 1 1 2-2 o — — 01 - —> — — 52 3 o> >, u co e 4-1 4-> O O 3 o 3 U m W a) o u < u o .i-l .H u > a 00 b 01 X oi o Li 41 i 3 01 • C <0 >> 0) 41 -O > g 3 .H 41 60 . PI a) a) £> •V 41 3 Li -0 -13-1 O -U 3 CIO •h c 3 -4 Ll 0> c b (j 01 0) 0) 4-1 Li p. e o * •H g 01 c 0 o Wj 01 CO (1) c Li o w ra Li o Li U-l •n 10 4J 0) 4-1 C 0) a c a; o 0 a t> 0 ra Li a c 4-1 C o C r-l a) 01 E 1/1 •o c H c 0) l 6 M 3 5 60 0) 01 ■p g 0) c o 01 u g < 5 ■3 C c o c o 41 HI 41 c > co 01 01 „ a c n-i 01 O) 1/1 £ « 5 ° ■ u 01 o) 0) HO 4-1 CO 01 c o 41 .„ 01 t, C\l 4' 01 5 oo c > ra Ll jj g u 3 o 01 ,fi 4-1 [/J 69 c ra Li 01 «° a CO 01 ■ H 01 01 01 -I -H .C Ll t4 4-1 4-1 0) g JJ £ CO CO C H <4-l O O 01 O co ta 3 o < «= O c o Li 01 ,0 01 01 01 >, 01 60 jz Xi — i C 4-1 O E .H ° 3 c * d OTJfi O. 4-1 01 01 01 41 > 4J CQ .r4 <0 & 0) ' « ti J ^ •o CO ■y » .2 ? 3 a •h ai o • Li CD t4 CO it -I 0) >o 3 .o Li C O 3 co co 4-> a. 01 -i-1 CO & oi co Li J2 CO -I >> ra 4-i > -H 0 Li g 60 01 01 PS -i-i c In] H«U CO J= < 01 4J 0 01 &- 01 — 01 01 -i-i •"-1 CO •a oi ^ Li O (- o »cs CO " ? -p g X 01 0) 01 oi .£ ^: 3 -*■> 4-1 O 01 4J ^: H ra 1 1 is 01 co o 3 .h C o S g » K -5 0) ai — I E 3 CO •r4 -i 3 4-1 CO 01 I > t4 60 > C o O -H 3 oi O CO . — I -H *> 01 -O >> 00 ai h C 4J -r4 •H Ll Ll • -U O CO O 60 01 -H CJ •H Li Li < 01 (X ill- i n 3 .H 41 O ^i til o CO 01 Li 4-1 01 3 > 01 CO -i-l 41 41 41 c 9! * o •o f •r4 CO g c 60 c -, ~i co c ■* c P H -I e c oi 2 L- C M 41 0) *- -O 4J -H 0) L 10 f O 01 4-1 C L- w 01 O oi I*1 H 3 4) • X 41 4J Li oi g-i oi c L O f -H i 5 144 c o ra (11 «i 61 ra 01 •C • r4 CO >i Li 4-> •a c 3 0 Oi u U 4J c 01 (D 01 * r 4-J o > C (11 ra 4J u 01 C OX 4J ■H L. 1/1 O 0) 4S a M I co p 01 o u 3 lO c in o oi w t: g o o 2 c M ra o o > 0 o 0) 01 41 CO £ -4 01 CM 4-1 41 4-1 c 4-1 0) C e 41 T) g c •O 01 c g 41 CO E 4-1 4-1 o a 41 41 < 00 (1) 41 > > .H 4J 4-1 ra CO £ E 0) 01 4-1 4-1 -H < «! 01 01 £ -a ' c ra ~H «H O 14-1 01 a. 0) 0) 4J 01 0) .-4 4-> c ^ CO CO ■0 01 (1) o S Li o ■0 T3 r. u c o 3 u [I] u < < e ■ H 01 41 ffl > CO • H 4J 01 CO — 1 ~- 1 e ra 41 lb 4-1 t-i 4-1 < ra 01 Li U 41 41 •H CO •O -P •o *i-i *a ««C > 144 C • r4 O ra c 01 0) [J 0) 4- 4J u •o o o 3 0) § 41 § o 01 41 S 4) 3 c 14-1 o o 41 •n 41 ~4 -T-l o o C/l X. 1X4 .. C OI u 04 -H pa u -r4 m 41 01 o 4J 0) — i ra [El Li O a 4) •o 3 4-1 41 r— 1 4) o 41 > o •O > c •H C •H o 41 >* £ ■ H 41 41 .-4 01 L, A CO 4-> £ ra n 4-> 01 X T5 E o ra 0) C 01 41 u ^4 41 4-1 3 0) L. • r4 3 41 0 -H 0 Li 0 £ O -4 c < f> O c 3 3 — H ft C 0 O liJ 01 CO 01 c ft 0 to CO ft U 0> C 4J 0) °- s 4) O CO ^ c oi w C -H 01 g > .ft .H 3 DO 01 4J -ft CO -4-> 4J OJ „ !/l OJ OJ l« 01 01 ■ft n en .O la c m ft en CU JJ t>0 O .H ^J ca CO O 0) OJ CO CO cd ft c •H HI u J CJ X 1: o OJ .H r" CO e r; p, 3 60 OJ ft u 3 rO 03 O ^ 0 » CO .*-< 0 it - a er i-J, • H fl 1 M c J ~ C n 0) ft, <" m c CO • H « *N M ft S-, c co en t 11 Jft1 jj ■* *J S 3 n e TJ 4J C jS ft -J o *j n HI H IE c •H 0 u *J 3 >* 0) £ a. 3 3 CO ■o en ft CJ F u o *> O -U c 3 OJ > CO CO p. o ft ft, o ft 4J 0 OJ 60 CO o 0 J= 4J ■0 ft (11 ft 0 -o .-1 c ■ H iu ft, C CO « OJ ■s I p. e CD OJ F -1 n o ■H CO ^> fil 14 01 X 01 U ft, oi „ 0) ft X ft. -ft on CO OJ S5 c 01 til n j-j a> ft 0 01 oi 4J D in • H 60 iw OJ ft ■ H o id jC c j= o £ JO J= o li- CO u e*4 O CO . 60 o r tc +J rO (1) .H JS ■n ""j rH ft 4J •H JC e ti fc 01 ^ 01 •H 1) OJ 4J -kJ ft 0) CO ft T1 CO • r4 01 o C 0 C 05 CO 4J -1 J-l ■a 0. c a' r C -ft ft. "I c —i o CO c *j in CO ft CO OJ en 0 CJ -1 o ^H * .ft 0 1*4 .H f—t 0 J3 ft CO J= c 0 CO w u — ' ft. o CQ a w. 4J 0. J= CO .r-l X *J J= CO 3 c q CO -I C OJ CO .* > 3 TJ ?. s -< >. 01 c « 01 g J= c OJ OJ 0' *J ■a ID 3 0) i — 1 3 U o o O >, M » C 10 . •o ft c 5 •h o -h 5 jr O 60 ft -H a. jd CO oj ^ c ef 3 • o- o •^ K) O g +1 II ^ 3 •-I 3 OJ ft C O 60 CO S ft -O -l > CO 01 U-i > -o o ■r > o — C. OJ — < OJ •p e D, TJ O ^H en en CO 3 3 *J (0 *J o m o " SE OJ J .£ CD 4J o. c o C ft. OJ O OJ y -° c CO H OJ 60 F •H OJ OJ ■u nn en CO 0) rt» TJ c > CO c o u OJ a 3 no s nH r w CO H en > ft CO TJ a CO 0) 0) J-> •o c c -H CO TJ oj c en 3 ft O CO <4-< ft. m en ft 01 OJ ft J= CO -<-> o o c a. Jj -r^ 3 TJ xJ o o) S O ft 3 JJ ft. o ^ -5 O ft u c c J-> 60 ft .H OJ a. cj «; o. ft —i tj TJ ■ OJ ai jj en en co ai 3 -u J= CO -rt *) CJ JO c TJ -ft TJ OJ -i « c e 3 -ft CO CO O -H u 3/3 CO * 3 -ft •" (7" fl) OJ >, OJ en ft «-i 0) •H (J CO TJ -P O TJ C "1 ft 3 O •h w 3 D ft H-i O OJ -1- « ? Hj CO o >, J3 >> J3 » ^j en e .h >> -h TJ o -<-> ,3 J"1 ■H e*j lw 3 O O CO ''"J C -H O TJ -J 0- CO u I CO 5 ft. ft ft CO 4_> ft. -H ft 01 ft. OJ TJ OJ 01 J3 C O OJ CO ■rJ 3 -4 P. O OJ o. S c? ^ T3 ft 2 3 . -i ^ TJ C en 60 e TJ 60 OJ c c 2 ^ j3 -H a. ft- ' ft" OJ O ft ft •i-l .H OJ OJ 4J CO > > 01 -ft OJ 0) •r< C ft 3 X o ft o W o -h x TJ c TJ 3 § OJ " § 5 *J x-i 60 M C -H % to OJ .2..1S* S e to g g 60 c O CO O C OJ t*J OJ CO jS O jO Z +J £ C JJ OJ g OJ ft 60 OJ CO TJ C ° OJ 01 OJ "° jj en oi o 3 >, ai co •r-, TJ 3 O C ft co c ft, -I -rJ < 04 0) OJ > > •H ■H JJ *> CO to £ £ 0) OJ 4-1 -ft i-l ^H < «< 4J 0 c 8ft 0) C p H 01 61 CO E C a CO j= b 4J ft -M o CO ft -u TJ ■o CO c CO J= 0 3 1) C c 0 C X -H ■ H en £ 0) 5ti -u 01 — c ox 01 ■ H CO en 0) (1) ft Q to • TJ ft ft c OJ 0) CO -H OJ TJ TJ ft CO ■r4 O ca 14 ft ^ O CO ft j3 -H OJ 60 ft. OJ •H 3 TJ JO w OJ OJ J= TJ s e 3 4-> 4J O nJ ft J-1 jo CO OJ** g CO 60 TJ •-! ft -ft co co '-I 3 a tr 3 CO ar- o s ea 60 a •H • H Jft CO CO -^ jO jJ O c CJ 3 01 3 0 61 CO X c CO 3 1 CO CJES E c CO 0) 0 i ■> eJ >1 CO c to j= u „ t» c °Jft. 60 g en co co 60 J CO OJ OJ a. S I pa < 0) OJ > > •H ■ H 4J -ft eg CO p ft ft ft 0) OJ ■p -ft <: «: C H -I OJ en • C C ■ r4 ■ r4 CO CO 4J 4J C C 3 3 0 « S s CO JCJ Ul (J CJ 3 01 CO > 3 • r4 l JJ E o CO J= OJ 3 -ft 0 r-t u < i oj I1 U> 2-4 O — — O o — > CI T > D — — 5 Si C\J UJ O — CD en p c o O cp 01 Ill c -p 11 °- £ 01 o (0 u c C -P 21 CD ■p e a -a CD C O 01 o S 5 oi o co p< 01 P •™ I? (0 CL. 01 -P 01 A! tO £ P £ H (0 4J a. <1) 01 -P 3 -P 3 O X -I -P XI 3 . P- •o <11 73 H C a. a *^ 01 0) -P Q 01 01 J .3 oi en « U E (1) jz 3 CO C ■a ™ h - 5 5 e c .p "o Li 3 CO 01 *J < a u Q C U -H e 0) Li 01 O —I C -i 01 01 J2 -p X- m h c 00 •H . 01 01 01 01 •O 3 aj 01 01 oi x: u -P co 01 p •H -O 0! XJ 01 *o -p „o c CO 3 co s CO 01 01 u P P CO 3 »Q ^4 CO 4J 0) ■p 9 01 0) a1 01 3 C -< 01 O x: c a e t-i CO 01 CO 00 c • P •D C CO CO A •!-> 00 ■O -P CO X 3 0) O" 3 -P 0)C oi Ij -H 01 p Ji I' C P "O oi o co C ■H o CU 3 o) - oi oi oi - ■P 01 4J CO -P 41 CO *o CO 01 -p > c _ •H CO P p -4 o a •o 01 -H *> 3 CO O O ai-H S p ~4 O fl 01 3 -H - *£ * »3 S ^ CO CO ^ 01 •H tl -4 o 01 o •p/ae •h co £ oi oi C p <" 3 P 01 XT O -P 3 -P b] 0) CJ (D O «; "O -P "* a> oi 3 01 0) O p x: -i CO 01 c 01 to 0) -P 01 u 00 3 CO -o 01 *P p 01 aoi 01 „ a, -p o -H p -p a oi oi o) ■p "O P C C 0) 0) CO 5 C -t o O S* <" •£ p oi s CO o ^ 01 o P •o 01 C C CO 3 P O oo "O c •w Cfl ^*!^ co oi *> o •a l» ^ <» U < CO •a Li oi ■a S -H 01 CO ,c P H 01 T) OJ V, c -P 0! CO IT rP — 1 ■P o tp CO J 0 c 01 Oi 0 01 >1 CO 3 OJ p o CO c CO u H O O -P ^ P. .p -P SO H o o •o 01 •p — I I CN ■o 01 01 in cp OJ CO O ^P CI CJJ 0 C .1-1 j-i c 0 -p 3 -H B -p 4-1 o CO C p OJ c 0) cp n£ u CJ C ■ p CO X CO 01 'I— P £ OJ ■n CO > .p •p -p Jj CO CO E c u OJ 0) -p 4-1 — 1 < <: 0 ■0 -p * o "0 CO 4J o 01 0) 3 .p p 01 UJ o n (= .p 0 01 X CO 0) CO fi CO H V c r o x: 3 e n ai 01 3 ^j -H 3 O 4-> u ip 01 J 01 •n ^, iX r 0) .p co 0) -P CO p —I CO 3 CJ a 1 OJ x: cp 0 g 0 p 0) X- jj 01 cp Oj 1 — 1 c cii nc 01 C) -p C 0 >> 0) CO p c -p p CO Tl 0) U a U Q E c •n 01 C e a; CO i CO 4J o a 01 OJ o f 1 01 OJ < pa ( ) w CD 01 CJ t> > <; .P -p -P -p c CO CO 01 g £ CO 01 0) m 4-> -p 01 — i < < CO Eh OJ u I1 <0 2-5 z > o • z. o o IM to a x> £ ■H 3 < 00 to c -a -h 4) -P ~P E > .a « O 3 -i Ij a "P «! « -3 s t 03 -P °„ C 00 0) o O. a) tj -H o 41 3 ■a *J -p a c o •h a -i ^ 0 a) 3 ID • rH 9< 4> S J= J h no a re O O -P •p ^ t_, — I 41 4) xi > -P 3 41 01 c 0) ■p e a -a ■p e a td 01 c O 01 0 £ < < 41 -O -P -P c P •H fl) fl) 0) to » fl) 41 to •o 8fi -P 3 fl) o p 4) .c 4-) a - u ID 4) >< 41 -p 01 X c 3 01 e •p a -P _ 01 c a2^ o 3 <" ■> a. * « o o ■-1 -a ,» -p S ?! p? <" .„ -P 4) re " £ S5 ° Si o 4) 3 o C <" *) fl) o .P •P to X) -P ^ to re C -P 0) — i fl) 0! 4) -P -P -P o re -P fl) o > •o 0 gg 0) M fl) re u a^ co « re o +> _, (0 •a c 4) re P o e -P fl) -h .c ■p c -p 4) c e fl) T) e c T) fl) c e fl) re e < CO a fl) > > .H •H -P -P re re E E 4) a) -P -p — 1 — i «: < 4) JJ — I V) C .u >p • o re >% tu JO 00 41 4) 10 <0 0) 41 -P O •p > x: *> o -P ■ -p u u *o to OCT) u re oi ° . c to 4) C C J= O O -P •p .p *J *1 -p re re 4) 4) rP 4) t" 3 e o a 9) O O pap < CO 0) 4) > > • H •P JJ -P re re E E 0) a> -p *) — 1 ^^ < < £ 0) I* 00 2-6 01 4J C CI 01 m •i-l W O 4-1 0! O -h 3 C e *j -h C U, o. >H c (0 < CO 3 o> o * •n forag lotment stern p in the 4J 3 to U 01 0) M « * (0 0) J- 10 •H .... j 0) JO c renn the the tmen L, n I. 01 *j o ■~* .c 3 00 S.B C o ►*• .H .rl -4 Ifl 1 £ T3 0) V) ^ H 0) 4J T) r ,C -J -H r: a) oo .o a, 0) T3 3 « j r 2 -".h S 0J | • r4 10 ,e .h -rH BO 0 (11 -U ID c !) u. —4 > Uj c*4 01 (1) < CO o o X (J 0! 01 . . 00 4J c O (u 4J 0) 01 ~4 *j o -h ao ,c co OJ o o ai • o 0) > IB 00 . .H 01 — ^ "^. 4-> C1* S ^ 2 » ' c c 01 Lj OJ ■0 0) N ■ H -H +1 > 03 CO -o e -i ■H 3 t-i o a. 2 B 01 0. O T3 •r-i 01 OJ | CM uj O o >. co oi C C £ CO 4-> W 0 01 XI c n 4J > O .H 1*4 c OJ e 4J •o —1 3 0 3 U 3 0 '1 ■o 3 OJ —1 144 0) U 0 0 n O — 1 3 •o ■o co U 4J o c —1 3 01 0) OJ 10 O 3 c £ w H ■o 4-> o 4J • H 3 01 ni o J= .C 3 4J 4-> 10 01 3 -u 4-1 • H in ■o OJ 01 4J 4J c 0) 00 -o c a 01 f. c IK C rH O o u 0) ^ oo ^ » « ' >> -H 00 .£ -i ai c -u in 4J c -hi 01 01 oo e C 01 (0 J= ^ 03 O 3 c Jj ni c 0) TJ e c ■o 0) c R 01 rn I < n OJ 01 > > • H •r-t 4J J-l a) CO £ g 01 01 -u 4-1 — i -J. < < S3 S- £ si si Si = 2-7 oi o 01 p o 1*4 o 01 re oi lw O 01 re u u o 01 CO 4> Li o 01 re 01 r > o ■-' u o — — «-> oi —> — CI a. (0 c — c — o £ ci — c_ -p e 0) g 5 1 .5-2 oi VI C .H « e > XI •H 3 SO V) -p C 0) g ■e c 0) g <: C c 2 • H -r4 01 01 C -H 0) g > XI .p4 3 60 0) CJ Z c. 5 +J E a. t3 4J c 01 ■U E 01 C O 0) U E < 5 ■ «5 CM UJ 3 _l = c < 3 — 5J •O C -l-l -H r-4 C ,. -I a) oi ai C x: O H a —I O oi oi aj c x 0) 01 g E o o 3 ft a> 01 >, .* XI re oo J C -a c re oi o o c -h 3 -P X- 01 -P o 01 01 >> <\l ■ 3 xi U Ml U Lj *j 01 c s < •H -H -1 ^4 •a Q (1! F 01 a. 0 (11 .H P XI Li r-4 c P CM C rH 01 3 tj 01 O 01 *J -p x: 01 4-1 0) 01 Li 01 ■w o 01 x 2-§ ft 3 4> .H»Oo ^j XI -P to 0 —I 01 co « ft E o o oi C -p ai a oo 3 oi <: x- oi o -p p. re 01 3 C >.J II C r-i C —i -i-i -P 01 o C g .H 0) 01 & o oo 4) 41 41 CO > > (j c -H CO *J gj o 0) c 4) g g •> ■o re oi C 2 C 4) a E -P CO CO 4) "O j-l -O U Ij C 0) CO CO CO -t-i L. u _i o 0 fci 0) 01 O JJ -i a, o E 14 T3 „ H O. O x: 3 >, « « ^H I- O .H jj ^ M W 01 ^1 01 -H C OJ -O tJ -H CO -J C 4) r-( H [_, 01 J-> 01 a co j-i c a. ' X 01 -H oi u a 41 - -P C O) O g .■-I CO •H «c OJ 4) u o " 01 .^ 3 * >>-^ x: -n oi o o ^ no c^ C « oo •H > CJ r-l 3 o 4-1 CJ 3 c CO 01 41 01 3 rr ■a C < « p f-i 0' ffl a to 0) •H 4) r x: ft r-l m *j 0) -p +J Ml ■i~i CJ c >. 3 < o b ft r-l ■U 0 IT 0) t-i C C 0) ■h> >H CI 0 (1) Eh o .J e _ 0) h in li ««« ,H 41 ^J t4 ■H > H t- -I ■V 0) 41 O <" 01 t4 2 "i XI ^ 5 •o re 01 c 4) N 2 ^ .H g CO 41 ^ CO u >, 41 ■S-0 CO , M CP 00 C co -o t; XL oi o o -u1" 01 01 ■H O x- x: jc 01 ^J -t-1 > 3 CO 00 £ c 3 .^l 4J OJ oi oi ^ C o 0) 01 ti* 41 ft C 01 •n 6 « (1 x: o ^-i o H O ft co *i *j c re 0) 4J > .rJ 01 XI u CO ft £ 0) O 01 —I 41 O co ^ ^ 3 -l . o co x: 01 3 f_i JJ 3 C 00 -P re o -n -• to 3 x: ft 14-1 o E 0) >* o x: 4-1 b ^> ,H IM C .r4 I I O n u ■r4 •n 4J > ■ H Li 11 Lj I" J3 O 4J CJ 0 >: c >! n • H 4J >i ■H C en H ID 4-> 4J 3 4-1 3 CO •H Oi o c re re < >4J (1) JS 0) 01 '-4 CO • rH 0 o XI ■o ■rH S i re u Li ±> Ij Li 0) 0 (li UJ CJ M < CO 41 41 > > • H •i-l 4J 4-1 re CO E c Li 41 4) 4J 4-1 -^ ^ "O < > r •? 3 CI Ed 41 -4 . t! o J o r-l CJ CO a ft re u o CJ IxJ E) ft X u «! 0 Q Ed 4) O -p •a re rC 01 Li 3 " O 00 ><3 5 N 1-4 m o x: 01 > 01 4-1 »H e C ■ r4 10 E r ** c E c ° re OJ -H ™ H m O 4-1 O •" ' ■n ■ -4 ? m «> X 41 - OJ 4J ai in 01 O C & o 01 01 -H CO a H rQ 41 -r4 J3 X! b 0 01 x: x: oi u M : OJ 4J H > < m 41 4) > > -H -r4 4J 4J re CO £ £ 0) 41 +4 -P < <: QJ a g -3 cv 5 nV< • f n y o n f 3 2iW/ °*hw SID EH ILL Prospeci ^ NORTH FORK f ARRASTRA * 1 "7„ „ 10 ^^ jf :."■ # ORCHARD ELLIOT Mohawk Mine "9~ i POTHOLE y~ IV , # NADEAU %^ \ • MUM FORD <%/«* ,!'9 rin*. TH'/A' ^ AUSTIN . aaao; "% T23S ><• 15 1-4 '.1 7\ 16 ALLEN BAINTER ' c.r 22 23-. CHRISTMAS •yon / ;"] c.nyo?/ _ I .The Tank*'?. VS 2i /! i. Vj- . 25- / i i: -,n."BM ,'* 3-8 (Department of Fish and Game, 1980). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the Inyo Brown Towhee to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act on August 3, 1987 (Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 158). Critical habitat was designated and additional critical habitat was proposed (map 3-2) . Rugged, isolation terrain in Great Falls Basin is suitable for raptor nesting. At least three golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and one turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) nest sites are present. There are likely more, including those of the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). Additional field surveys would be required to make a complete inventory, but are not considered necessary at this time. The ACEC's surface waters, and subsurface water supporting riparian habitat, are essential habitat components for wildlife in general, and especially for migratory and resident birds. Critical and proposed critical habitat for the Inyo brown towhee (map 3-3) centers around such features. The most serious threat to water and riparian habitat in the ACEC is the potential for excessive diversion of water from public land to private interests for domestic, irrigation and industrial purposes. Some springs are being use to provide water to private residences. There are unauthorized water diversions (i.e. no BLM right-of-way has been issued for pipelines) from Bainter Spring, Alpha Spring, Benko Spring and North Ruth Spring, all of which are within the ACEC. All except for Bainter Spring are in the Homewood Canyon area. Such water diversions, and maintenance of the water collection and transport system, could result in habitat damage by excessive water removal and removal or reduction of willow and aquatic habitat. Uncontrolled vehicle activity in at least three areas in the ACEC has affected wildlife habitat surrounding springs and has created scars on the landscape. This degradation is most pronounced in the drainage below Great Falls Basin. Hill climbing by motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles is extensive as is vehicle play in the large sand wash. Numerous fire rings and litter from weekend camping are present. PI inking with firearms and "beer parties" are common. Christmas Spring in Wilson Canyon and North Ruth Spring in upper Homewood Canyon are also degraded by vehicle use. All these activities have resulted in a downward trend in the resource conditions in these parts of the ACEC. The ACEC boundary identified in the CDCA Plan excluded some adjacent public land containing springs, riparian habitat and scenic areas, especially in the vicinity of lower Great Falls Basin. These areas are being degraded by uncontrolled vehicle use, camping, and trash left by visitors. The recently completed ACEC management plan proposes a boundary modification (alternative A) which would allow protective management to be taken to prevent further degradation of these springs, riparian habitat and adjacent upland areas. Some of this area is proposed as critical habitat for the Inyo brown towhee. The disturbed area associated with the Ruth Mine has no scenic or wildlife values. 3-9 Cultural Resources About seven percent (a little more than 640 acres) of the ACEC has been inventoried for cultural resources, and four of the eight known cultural resource sites within the ACEC are located on these 640 acres. The low number of cultural resources sites within the ACEC, therefore, represents the level of inventory rather than the actual site density. The actual number and kinds of sites are unknown. The recorded sites appear to be brief rather than long-term camp sites, and do not appear to have the potential to yield information that is important. They do not appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Recreation Day use recreation occurs year round in Great Falls Basin. Visitor use is at a medium intensity, and includes picnicing, hiking, and sightseeing. The high point in the area, Argus Peak, is a popular day climb attracting about 200 climbers per year. The area is very scenic, and has many unique landscape features. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The eastern portion of the ACEC (T.24 S., R.43 E.) has been classified as prospectively valuable for the occurance of geothermal resources. Based on current information, little or no potential exists for the occurance of leasable minerals (e.g. potassium, sodium) or saleable minerals (e.g. sand, gravel, clay) within either the ACEC or the proposed expansion area. The geology of the underlain area is primarily of grantic basement rock cut by east/west trending ore-bearing veins and dikes dipping near vertical. The area has a history of past gold production, and is part of the Argus Mining District. Gold has been produced from the Orondo, Davenport, Mowhawk and Ruth mines. A major exploration company currently holds lease to the Ruth mine and plans a continuation of exploration drilling on the Orondo-Davenport trend this year. A mining/milling company has expressed an interest in reopening the Mowhawk Mine. AMENDMENT FOUR: DELETE COYOTE MOUNTAINS ACEC Cultural Resources Initially, the Coyote Mines ACEC was identified, nominated, and accorded ACEC status on the basis of best available data. This data came from secondary sources and from predictive modeling. In 1987, prior to preparing a management plan, BLM carried out a sample investigation of the ACEC. Predicted values as noted in the Desert Plan could not be verified. In fact, the resources within the ACEC are sparse and are insignificant compared to others found in the desert. 3-10 It is no longer viable to maintain the ACEC. Preparation of a detailed management plan, ranger patrol, and other special attention simply is not warranted. Bureau efforts would be more profitably expended elsewhere. No other resource values have been identified which cannot be managed under the existing multiple use class guidelines. Recreation The Coyote Mountains ACEC is completely within the Plaster City Open Area, which received an estimated 31,000 VUDs in 1986, about equally divided between casual and organized competitive OHV use. The ACEC itself is occasionally visited by casual recreationists who enter the area from camping and staging areas at Painted Gorge or near Plaster City. Very little camping takes place within the ACEC. The ACEC consists of heavily dissected, badlands- type terrain which perhaps discourages casual users from traveling cross country, since there has been little route proliferation here. About one organized competitive event per year uses the ACEC, under the requirement that the course be confined to an existing route within its boundaries. This requirement has been imposed to prevent possible damage to cultural resources while the cultural resource potential was assessed. A BLM outdoor recreation planner conducts a pre-event course check to assure compliance. The restriction to one existing route has caused other event sponsors who would like to use the area to route their events elsewhere. AMENDMENT FIVE: NEW HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS Wildlife East Slope White Mountains The east slope of the White Mountains is winter range for the White Mountains deer herd. Mule deer occupy this area during the winter and spring. The department of Fish and Game recently prepared the Inyo-White Mountains Deer Herd Management Plan. This plan was signed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, and emphasizes deer population management, including aerial surveys to monitor herd composition (sex ration, age classes). Several perennial streams occur within the area, some of which support riparian vegetation and have a wild trout population. These streams are: Perry Aiken Creek, McAfee Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and Wyman Creek. Trout are known to occur in Cottowood Creek and Wyman Creek, and may occur in Perry Aiken and McAfee Creeks. The Black Toad, a State listed threatened species, is located at Antelope Springs. A portion of the area is used for foraging by raptors. Cattle grazing and water diversions are two uses that may be causing impacts to the deer herd, deer winter range, and aquatic and riparian habitats. 3-11 Soldier Pass - Piper Mountain The Soldier Pass - Piper Mountain area separates Deep Springs and Eureka Valley. Several small, remote springs provide water for wildlife and support small riparian habitats. The BLM and the Department of Fish and Game have constructed wildlife watering facilities at most of the isolated springs, and conduct annual inspection and maintenance of these facilities. This area once supported a bighorn herd, and a small deer population currently exists. Upland game, primarily chuckar, occur in the vicinity of springs. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has proposed a desert bighorn transplant into this area. This proposal has a direct bearing on the question of whether to designate this area as a new HMA. This is because it is BLM policy to prepare habitat management plans for areas involved with bighorn transplants. Cattle use in the remote, rugged portions of this mountain range must be addressed before bighorn sheep are transplanted into this area. Cattle are attracted to the area by the several small, developed springs even though the forage and grazable area is minimal. Cattle drift outside the authoriaed use area is believed to occur. Two springs on Piper Mountain were recently developed without BLM authorization by a local rancher to provide livestock water. Several dead cows have been observed in the vicinity of these springs in recent years, possibly indicating a poisoning problem from the water, or starvation. Both water sources are located in rugged, rocky terrain. Cowhorn-Waucoba This area is located on the eastern slope of the northern Inyo Mountains and borders the Inyo National Forest. It is included in the Inyo-White Mountains Deer Herd Management Plan prepared by CDFG. This plan, although primarily addressing deer population management, identifies the need for habitat management to benefit deer on the eastern slope of the Inyo Mountains. Water developments would likely extend the deer use zone to the east and disperse the population while on the winter range, thus providing foraging and resting areas away from heavy public use areas such as Whipporwill Flat and Waucoba Spring. A field survey in 1985 by CDFG and BLM identified areas east of the Saline Valley road where water developments would enhance habitat for deer and other wildlife. There are few wildlife conflicts with other uses. Those conflicts include allowances for a burro herd centered around Waucoba Spring, vehicle use off of designated routes and unauthorized use of cabins as residences in the Whipporwill Flat area. The area was once in a cattle grazing allotment. Sylvania Mountains This area is a very remote mountain range which extends into California from Nevada. Mule deer are known to occur here, but population size is unknown. No herd management plan has been prepared for this area by CDFG. The deer population may be relatively high, based upon winter-season observations of deer sign by the BLM (Harris, personal communication). Habitat ranges from mixed desert shrubs to pinyon pine, big sagebrush and bitterbrush. 3-12 The area is within the Last Chance grazing allotment. Year-long cattle grazing within the primary wildlife use area may affect deer through livestock use of key forage species and displacement from social incompatibility. Remote, isolated water sources are scarce. Most may have been developed for cattle watering, thus increasing the potential for conflicts with deer and other wildlife. Mining road construction and excavation has been a recent problem. Last Chance Range The Last Chance Range has a bighorn sheep population of about 100. Water developments in the early 1970' s probably enhanced the habitat, resulting in a moderate population increase. The estimated potential population of the range is 150 animals. The BLM acknowledges the need to develop a habitat management plan for the range that addresses water developments, disease control, burro removal and control, and fencing to eliminate cattle drift into the range. Cattle use in the Last Chance allotment is causing impacts on the east side of Last Chance Mountain. North Coso Range The north slope of Coso Range extends onto public land adjacent to the China Lake Naval Weapons Center (NWC) . Habitat ranges from Joshua Tree woodland to pinyon pine forest. Four natural water sources occur in the northern portion of the area, and wildlife values are high. Upland game and/or deer are known to occur in the higher elevations, and are dependent on water at Long's Well (spring), Black Spring and Centennial Spring (upper and lower) . Hunting is popular in these areas . The western portion of the proposed area contains no natural water. No special wildlife values are known to occur. A few upland game guzzlers were constructed about 20 years ago. However, upland game populations apparently have not increased because of them. There are several conflicts with other uses. Cattle grazing in the vicinity of springs removes riparian vegetation and wildlife food and cover. Cattle watering facilities in the Centennial Flat area may result in the excessive removal of natural surface water. Vehicle use and camping may occur next to some springs. A habitat management plan would address conflicts and specify corrective action such as protective fencing to keep cattle out of riparian areas and areas having surface water, improvement of springs for use by wildlife, and vehicle route changes to prevent drive-up access to springs. These opportunities would be limited to the northern rather than western portion. No specific actions are known to be warranted at this time for the latter area. 3-13 Livestock Grazing The proposed HMAs include all or part of several livestock grazing allotments. The HMAs and the corresponding allotments that could be affected are listed below. Proposed HMA East Slope White Mountains Soldier Pass - Piper Mountains Allotments Fish Lake Valley Whitewolf Oasis Ranch Deep Springs Deep Springs South Oasis Last Chance Sylvania Mountains Cowhorn - Waucoba Last Chance None Last Chance Range North Coso Range Last Chance Lacey-Cactus- McCloud Wild Horses and Burros There are two wild hose and burro herd management areas within the six proposed HMA's: Piper Mountain HMA and Waucoba HMA. The Piper Mountain area is a retention area for both horses and burros. The Waucoba area is a burro retention area. Recreation Vehicle sightseeing, hunting, and some Recreation use is of low intensity, camping comprise most of the uses. Geology-Ener^y-Minerals (GEM) Active geothermal exploration is occuring within the confines of the China Lake NWC to the south and east of the proposed North Coso HMA. Within the proposed HMA three geothermal lease applications (noncompetitive) are on record and are located in the western and southwestern portion of the proposed HMA. AMENDMENT SIX: RED ROCK CANYON Wildlife This area is a known raptor nesting and foraging area. Species known to nest and roost here include the golden eagle, prairie falcon, barn owl and great horned owl. A seasonal closure for all human uses has been implemented in the area to provide solitude for nesting raptors. 3-14 Lands The State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation filed a Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) application in December 1976 to acquire 6,403.57 acres of BLM managed public land for expansion of Red Rock Canyon State Park. The State's purpose was to consolidate existing park boundaries and to provide the necessary balance between recreational use and resource preservation. In late 1979 public controversy focused on how State Park management, particularly regarding off-highway vehicle use, would affect the Nightmare Gulch portion of the proposed land transfer. BLM and the State devised a two-fold means to meet the needs of the State and of public land users by separating the 2,164.39 acres which encompass Nightmare Gulch from the rest of the R&PP application. First, BLM and the State are now cooperatively managing Nightmare Gulch as per the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the two agencies in August 1985. Under the MOU the area receives greater protection while still allowing for multiple use. Second, BLM will transfer to the State title to the 4,239.18 acres remaining in the R&PP application. Recreation There are four designated OHV routes of travel in this area, with vehicle use restricted or prohibited on the Nightmare Canyon route during part of the year. There is frequent day use of the area for hiking by people enjoying the area's scenic qualities and interesting native flora and fauna. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) This area has not been classified as prospectively valuable for the occurance of geothermal, oil and gas, or leasable minerals. A low potential exists for the development of sand and gravel due to the favorable geologic environment, i.e., broad disected, non-marine alluvial fans. A number of claims for locatable minerals occur. AMENDMENT SEVEN H0MEW00D CANYON LAND SALE Five families have lived on public land in Homewood Canyon since the 1950* s. These people own their houses, garages, fences, gardens, and other improvements which they have built on their unpatented mining claims. These residents have been trying since at least the 1960's to purchase the land they live on from BLM. Three of the residences are located within the Great Falls Basin ACEC and are in a Class L multiple use classification under the Desert Plan. As such, BLM is presently prohibited from selling the three parcels. On February 10, 1987, BLM signed a Record of Decision to sell the two parcels located outside the ACEC, which were left unclassified in the Desert Plan. Of the three residents inside the ACEC, two were issued lifetime leases in the 1970*s under the authority of the Mining Claim Occupancy Act (MCOA) . The third resident is unauthorized. MCOA leases terminate upon the death of the named lessee and are non-renewable. These three residences include the afore-mentioned housing facilities and domestic water systems installed on 3-15 adjacent public lands. The water systems tap springs located within critical habitat for the Inyo brown towhee (Piplio fuscus eremiphilus) , which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated as a threatened species . A draft Environmental Assessment which addressed the sale of the three parcels was prepared and sent out for public review in November 1986. The proposed action was to sell the land under the authority of Sections 203(a)(3) and 203(f)(2) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The sale could serve an important public objective of allowing permanent use of three thirty year old residences, one of which is currently unauthorized while the other two are only temporarily authorized. The draft sale EA is included in this EA as appendix D. It includes a complete description of the affected environment. No decision on the sale has been made. The three residents have requested BLM (through this plan amendment) to consider deleting the sale parcels from the ACEC and changing the multiple use classification from L to unclassified so that the land sale can be allowed. AMENDMENT EIGHT: T.12 S., R.16 E., Section 6 MUC Change Recreation This amendment implements prescriptions 1-9 and 1-10 of the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP). The RAMP, which was completed in July 1987, was prepared over a 2 1/2 year period with extensive public participation. An EA prepared for the RAMP provides an extensive description of the general environment of the Imperial Sand dunes. The section of land affected by this amendment is 880 acres in size, and is located at the north end of the Mammoth Wash Open Area in the Imperial Sand Dunes. Mammoth Wash, which forms the northern boundary of the open area, passes through the southeast corner of Section 6, while the Coachella Canal cuts through the southwest corner. Of the 19,000 VUDs of recreational 0HV use occurring in the Mammoth Wash area in 1985, approximately half (9,500 VUDs) originated from camping and staging sites located in Section 6. The current land use classification ("unclassified") is inappropriate for this area, which has received consistent use as an OHV staging area since the 1960's, despite the lack of convenient public access. Under the Desert Plan, "unclassified" lands are subject to disposal, usually by competitive bid (sale) unless subsequent plans or inventories determine that they should be retained. The RAMP determined that Section 6 was vital to the recreation program, and should be retained and classified appropriately, consistent with existing use. Access to Section 6 is currently limited to four-wheel drive camping vehicles. The RAMP (prescriptions 6-34 through 6-38) provides for possible future development of an access road, parking, toilets, trash service, and a public telephone on the section in the mid-1990s. The final decision to proceed or not proceed with facility development will be made at that time based on available funding, actual trends in visitor use, and the results of baseline resource studies in the Mammoth Wash Open Area. 3-16 Wildlife The area is within the Algodones Dunes Wildlife Habitat Management Plan area. Mammoth Wash provides habitat for burro mule deer. The area is also within the range of the desert tortoise, although the number of tortoises present is not likely to be high. No threatened or endangered animals are known to exist in this area. Botany No sensitive, threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur in the affected area. Cultural Resources No known sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places exist in the affected area. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The area has little potential for locatable, leasable or saleable minerals. AMENDMENT NINE: NEW RECREATION GOAL The proposed goal is not inconsistent with existing BLM policy. At present, however, the Desert Plan is silent concerning the needs of special populations. The proposed goal stresses the need to provide facilities for special populations. This is presently being done at all new developed facilities. For example, handicapped wheelchair access is being provided in new developments. Facilities are not present at older and less developed sites. AMENDMENT TEN: PIUTE VALLEY LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT The Piute Valley allotment consists of 33,468 acres of public land. The lessee runs a cow-calf operation, with base property inside the allotment leased from the Santa Fe Pacific Realty Corporation. This is an ephemeral cattle lease, but it has been used year round since 1979. In that time an average of 49 cattle have been in the allotment year long, for a total of approximately 592 AUMs/year. Since 1984 use has not dropped below 60 head at a time. This allotment is the lessee's sole operation. Piute Valley was designated ephemeral because it fit the criteria described in the December 7, 1968 Special Rule on Ephemeral Range. The majority of the allotment is a nearly flat valley covered with creosote and bursage. Forage is provided mostly by ephemerals, although scattered Big Galleta, Range Ratany, Mormon Tea, Chamiza, and Acacia provide some perennial forage in summer, fall, and winter. 3-17 The west edge of the allotment includes the eastern slopes of the Piute Range. It is here that most of the perennial forage is located. In addition to the above perennial forage species, Desert Needlegrass, Bush Muhly and Three Awns are present in the hills. Livestock do not spend much time in the hills due to their distance from water. Although no trend studies are in place on the allotment, the 1983 Allotment Management Plan (AMP) states that the allotment is in good condition with an upward trend. Precipitation in the area was above average from 1978 through 1984, and has been below average since. The AMP states that 1506 AUMs of perennial forage are present and recommends that the allotment be managed as perennial-ephemeral with a base herd of 125 cattle. The allotment to the west is perennial-ephemeral; the one to the north is ephemeral. The vegetation of the Piute Valley allotment is characterized by creosote bush scrub at the lower elevations grading into a mixed-desert scrub at the higher elevations. Some of the canyons draining the eastern side of the Piute Range support a desert grassland community, and a small area in the middle of the valley supports an alkaline-adapted plant community (saltbushes, shadscale, spiny hopsage) . At present, this alkaline-adapted plant community is not designated as an unusual plant assemblage although a similar area near Valley Wells was so designated by the Desert Plan. No BLM sensitive plants and no Federal or state-listed threatened or endangered plants are known to occur in the allotment. The majority of the Piute Valley allotment is located at the extreme northern end of the proposed Fenner/Chemehuevi Valley Desert Tortoise Habitat Management Area, and the eastern half of the allotment supports 50-100 tortoises per square mile. The importance of this area to desert tortoise populations in both California and Nevada is probably of moderate to high significance due to the population density and its location on the Calif ornia-Neveda border. However, the Piute Valley allotment encompasses only a very small portion of the proposed Fenner/Chemehuevi Habitat Management Area and the highest density areas and highly crucial habitat are located well south of the allotment. Conflicts between desert tortoise and livestock grazing occur primarily during the spring and fall when competition for green forage is at its peak. The Piute Range forms the western boundary of the allotment and provides habitat for desert bighorn (a BLM sensitive species), desert mule deer, golden eagles and other raptors, and a variety of small mammals, birds, and reptiles. A verified sighting of the Gila monster (a BLM sensitive species) was made at Piute Springs approximately 1 mile south of the allotment. The western portion of the allotment, including most of the perennial forage, is within the Fort Piute Wilderness Study Area, WSA 26 7, which has been recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. AMENDMENT ELEVEN: RIDGECREST-TRONA UTILITY CORRIDOR Wildlife Resources The proposed corridor crosses creosote bush-bursage habitat in the Indian Wells Valley. Two wildlife species considered significant here are the Desert kit fox and Mohave ground squirrel. Both are fully protected under 3-18 State law. The Mohave ground squirrel is also classified as threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission, and is a candidate (Category 2) for proposed listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cultural Resources Six cultural resource sites have been recorded within the corridor. Four of these have — or had--National Register potential. "Had" because one has been surface collected and two might have been destroyed by previous development. A negligible amount of the corridor has been inventoried for cultural resources, and the distribution and density of sites is not known. Environmental conditions indicate that the potential for significant sites is best from West End through Salt Wells Valley. Lands Utility corridors are established in the Desert Plan to steer major utilities into consolidated routes rather than allow them to spread across the entire California Desert. New electrical transmission lines over 160 kV, pipelines with diameters greater than 12 inches, coaxial cables for interstate communications, and major aqueducts or canals must be located in designated utility corridors. The proposed Ridgecrest-Trona utility corridor would be a two mile wide route which would run from existing Corridor A at Highway 14 through Ridgecrest and along Highway 178 to Trona. Existing facilities in the proposed corridor include two 115 kV and one 33kV electrical lines, one 10 inch natural gas pipeline and one 12 inch and one 14 inch potable water pipeline. There are currently three new projects planned to be located in the proposed Ridgecrest-Trona corridor that are large enough to be required to be in a utility corridor. First, Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation plans to replace its 12 inch and 14 inch potable water pipelines with one 16 inch line. The new line will pass through China Lake NWC and run within the proposed corridor from Poison Canyon along Highway 178 to Trona. The two existing lines provide the town of Trona and the three major Kerr McGee plants with their only source of potable water. The portions of these lines in Poison Canyon are susceptible to flood damage and were washed out in both 1983 and 1984. Second, the City of Ridgecrest wants to run a new 16 to 21 inch treated effluent pipeline from the City's treatment plant on the NWC across the base and then through the proposed corridor along Highway 178 to Trona. The water would be a key element in Kerr McGee* s proposed Argus Cogeneration Expansion project. In addition, piping the treated water to Kerr McGee would help the City resolve a problem: its evaporation ponds at the treatment plan are leaking. The contaminated water is causing health hazards by leaching to the surface and is also threatening to contaminates potable ground water supplies for Ridgecrest, the NWC, Trona and Kerr McGee. Ridgecrest is under a mandate from the State Regional Water Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to dispose of the water elsewhere. The water leaching to the surface is also causing ground swelling which is cracking buildings and other improvements. 3-19 The third planned project is a City of Ridgecrest/U.S . Army Corps of Engineers proposal to construct a 100-foot-wide flood control channel along Bowman Road, which runs within the western half of the proposed Ridgecrest-Trona corridor. The channel has been intensively under study since a 1984 flood caused millions of dollars in damage to Ridgecrest and NWC. These three projects are key elements in the continued rapid growth in the Ridgecrest/NWC area and to the operation of Kerr McGee in Trona. The projects, because of their size, could only be approved through the plan amendment process by creating a utility corridor or as an exception to the utility corridor system. Recreation There is no significant use of the corridor by recreationists. No WSAs would be crossed. Visual Most of the area is of below average or low quality scenic value. A small area of land southwest of Trona has a higher than average scenic quality where there is a hilly landscape with rugged rock outcrops. Based on field work conducted during the preparation of the California Desert Plan, the Bureau categorized all lands in the CDCA into one of four visual resource management (VRM) classes. The classes are generally derived from scenic quality ratings, sensitivity to change and distance zones. The classes set a minimum recommended level of visual contrast. This level is expressed in the management objectives listed below for the three classes found in the study area: CLASS II: Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) created by an activity whould not be evident in the landscape. Contrasts are seen but must not attract attention. Impacts should have negligible effect on the overall visual resource quality. CLASS III: Changes in any of the basic elements created by an activity may be evident in the landscape. The impacts could have some noticeable effect on the overall visual resource quality. CLASS IV: Contrasts may attract attention and be a codominant feature in the landscape. The impacts could have some negative effect on the overall visual resource quality. The VRM class for the Ridgecrest area and the portion extending most of the way to Trona is Class III. There is a small Class II area southwest of Trona and around Trona is Class IV. The scenic quality rating for the majority of the area is "good" with a "fair" quality in the Trona area and southeast of Trona. 3-20 AMENDMENT TWELVE: SAN SEBASTIAN CLOSURE EXPANSION Wildlife San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek is an ACEC and a Wildlife Habitat Management Plan Area. The area contains a variety of critical wildlife and habitat values. Approximately 11 miles of San Felipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and Fish Creek Wash have been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the Federally-endangered Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) ; the only other critical habitat is 0.5 acres of aquatic habitat in Quitobaquito Spring in Arizona. The desert pupfish is also listed as endangered by CDFG. The current distribution of the species is much reduced from its historic distribution, and is restricted to the Sonoyta River in Sonora, Mexico; Quitobaquito spring in Arizona; Salt Creek, San Felipe Creek/San Sebastian Marsh; and a few shoreline pools and irrigation drains along the Salton Sea in California. The Salton Sea and Sonoyta River populations may be so low that they are no longer viable, and recent flooding may have given exotic predators and competitors access to other habitats. Other species of particular interest include the endemic San Felipe leopard frog (a category 3 candidate for USFWS listing), the flat-tailed horned lizard and the Colorado Desert fringe-toed lizard (both Category 2 USFWS Candidates). One hundred seven bird species representing 38 families are known to occur in the area; of these, 11 are on state or national "watch lists" due to their declining status. In addition, the perennial stream and native marsh habitat provide a unique corridor of wildlife habitat within the surrounding arid zone. Although a limited closure is currently in effect, the boundaries are not apparent to visitors. Vehicle use occurs regularly in the stream per se, as well as off of approved routes elsewhere in the management area. Camping is affecting previously unimpacted habitat. Cultural Resources The San Sebastian Marsh ACEC was important to prehistoric populations since it represented a stable water source in the desert environment. San Sebastian Village was a regional base camp and served as a focal point for several mountain trail systems. This camp is one of the largest archaeological sites in Imperial County and contains a wide spectrum of domestic, hunting, and manufacturing goods. Unfortunately, the site has suffered considerable damage from illicit collectors. The archaeological resources of the area are important from several perspectives. The site associated with the marsh serves as an example of an oasis-like environment. Water would have been extremely scarce after the desication of Lake Cahuilla. The marsh clearly served as a focal point for aboriginal use. The Spanish explorer Anza recorded that the village held more than four hundred persons. Such numbers are without parallel in Imperial County. Data are present to describe adaptation to this environment. If there are subsurface deposits, they would be of scientific value. 3-21 The overall archaeology contains data regarding the relationship between a central base camp and periphereal temporary camps. Analysis of these relationships is important for illustrating regional use patterns and examining issues current in archaeology. Finally, much of the archaeology illustrates the manner and methods of aborginal use of the mesquite environment . Botany Four plant species of special concern occur on or near the area. These are Peirson's milkvetch (Astragalus maftdelenae var. peirsonii), Wiggin's cholla (Opuntia wigftinsii), Thurber's pilostyles (Pilostyles thurberi), and sandfood (Ammobroma sonorae) . Pierson' milkvetch is a federal candidate species (Federal Register 1985) and is listed as endangered by the State of California (California Department of Fish and Game 1987). Wiggin's cholla is also a federal candidate species (Federal Register 1985). All four species are CNPS listed (CNPS 1984). Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The area has little potential for locatable or saleable minerals. The area has low to moderate potential for geothermal resources. The EA prepared for leasing in this area contains the Bureau's decisions on lease stipulations. Recreation Estimated visitor use in the management plan area is approximately 2,000 VUDs annually. Nature study is an occasional activity in the area for small, casual groups and, on a formal basis, for groups affilated with education institutions. Approximately 1900 acres of BLM public land in the San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek area are currently closed to vehicle entry. In addition, approximately 750 acres of private lands and 1920 acres of CDFG lands in the area are closed under cooperative agreements between BLM and the owners. The remaining 4,420 acres of BLM public land within the management area are designated "limited use," on which vehicle use is restricted to approved routes. Within the limited area, approximately 15 miles of routes are currently approved, while 7 miles of routes (mainly following San Felipe Wash and tributary washes) have been closed through the vehicle route designation process. Primary access routes are the Pole Line Road, which runs in a north-south direction along the western edge of the management area, and the Kane Spring Road, which runs in an east-west direction through the southern part of the Management Area. Approximately 757o of total visitor use of the Management Area (1,500 VUD) consists of camping and associated OHV riding in the northwest portion of the area. This camping and staging activity is found along the Pole Line Road and 5.5 miles of other approved routes located east of the Pole Line Road and south of Highway 78. Cross-country travel by OHVs coming from these staging areas is proliferating, contrary to the limited use and closed designations of lands within the management area. 3-22 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the scientific and analytic basis for the selection of the preferred alternative. It describes the effects that would result should each amendment be accepted, accepted in a modified form, or rejected. Both the beneficial and adverse effects are presented. Knowledge of the area and best professional judgement (based on observation and analysis of similar conditions and responses in similar areas) have been used to estimate effects where data is limited. The analysis is based on the following assumptions: - Funds and personnel will be available for implementation. - Impacts will be monitored and adjusted as necessary. - Minor adjustments in management may occur. - Baseline data are accurate. The discussion of each amendment is organized by resource (e.g. wildlife, cultural resources, geology-energy-minerals). Only those resources that would be affected are discussed. A resource that is not expected to be affected is not addressed. AMENDMENT ONE WEST MESA ACEC Alternative A: Accept Amendment Wildlife ACECs receive the highest BLM priority for monitoring and funding. This would insure that the largest remaining area of high flat-tailed horned lizard values is intensely managed. Such management would include FTHL trend monitoring, route of travel designation, race course designation, compliance monitoring, signing, and enforcement and patrol. These actions would reduce the chance that the FTHL will be listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) as threatened or endangered rather than candidate. The area would also be more likely to receive contributed funding and labor, which would significantly aid BLM management. A specific, consistent management approach and program would be developed in an ACEC management plan. All management actions would be initiated quickly and would be of high priority in future years, thus promoting effective management in the long term. Cultural Resources Greater management priority would insure that known sites receive protection, patrol, and data recovery. Additional surveys would be more likely, leading to a better understanding of the Lake Cahuilla site complex. 4-1 Botany- Sensitive plant species would be more likely to be adequately monitored. At present, little is known about the Salton milkvetch and Thurber's pilostyles. Any monitoring would increase our knowledge of the two species and provide valuable information for better management prescriptions. In addition, the area would be patrolled more frequently, which would help to reduce OHV induced degradation of native vegetation. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) This alternative would have no effect since the ACEC designation does not, in and of itself, withdraw the lands involved from operation of the mineral leasing, location and saleable laws. Recreation ACEC designation would have virtually no effect on recreation since no activities would be curtailed or eliminated except those which are already unauthorized. Controlling casual use of this area, which was unrestricted prior to passage of 1985 Desert Plan Amendment One, has required an extensive public education effort. This effort continues, primarily in the form of on-site personal contacts by rangers. As a result of ACEC designation, a greater emphasis on recreation management would be necessary to assure a high level of resource protection. This could be done through improved signing and enforcement of existing use limitations. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) Wildlife Without priority for funding and work month allocation, FTHL habitat of extremely high value would be lost or damage by uncontrolled OHV use. Such declines would go undetected. Since this is the largest contiguous area of high FTHL relative abundance, declines would precipitate USFWS and/or CDFG listing of the species due to threats to the species* continued existence. This would constrain other activities not only in West Mesa but throughout the species' range in Imperial and Riverside counties. Cultural Resources Sites would continue to be damage by uncontrolled OHV use. Even if sites were not completely destroyed, their informational content would be very much reduced. Sites not presently recorded would be lost. This is especially significant in relation to complex temporary habitation sites and midden bearing sites. Botany Neither the Salton milkvetch nor the Thurber's pilostyle is considered rare, but this is an area of unusually high populations for both plants. It is likely that impacts on vegetation would continue due to uncontrolled OHV use and would result in losses of sensitive plant species. 4-2 Recreation Existing recreation opportunities and management levels would continue. Modifying visitor behavior to bring it in line with the recent limited area OHV designation would be a more gradual process under Alternative B than Alternative A, because fewer resources would be allocated to the effort. Geology-Enegery-Minerals (GEM) No impacts on GEM resources are expected. AMENDMENT TWO: SHORT CANYON ACEC Alternative A: Accept Amendment Wildlife There would be no effect on wildlife. A series of drift fences, to be constructed in the area, would effectively eliminate significant impacts on riparian and aquatic zones. These fences are to be installed in 1987-88 under the range management program. No additional protection would be gained by ACEC designation. Botany There would be no effect on botanical resources. The drift fences, designed to exclude cattle from riparian and riverbottom zones, should prevent continued habitat destruction and allow slow recovery in these disturbed areas. The fence system would be the same as that required under an ACEC management plan, as would the good recovery expected in the next 15 to 20 years . Livestock Grazing The proposed amendment should not effect the management of the Walker Pass Common Allotment because the AMP will close the canyon to grazing. Recreation The quality of the area for day use recreation would be enhanced. An ACEC management plan would probably include measures to promote nature study and provide visitors with more information. This would result in a more enriching recreation experience. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) A new ACEC would have little or no effect on mining activity as this area is protected under the stringent regulations (43 CFR 3802) governing activity within a wilderness study area. Any added layer of protection may make the development of mining claims in existence prior to 1976 (if any exist) more difficult if conflicts arise with the resource value the ACEC is designed to protect. 4-3 Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) Wildlife There would be no effect on wildlife. Drift fences will be constructed in this area anyway (as a requirement of the AMP). Consequently, impacts on riparian and aquatic zones due to livestock use would be effectively eliminated without an ACEC. In addition, the East Sierra Canyon Habitat Management Plan Area will specify additional actions for enhancing wildlife habitat. BLM policy requires that cooperative management efforts be planned and implemented by the BLM and CDFG. Botany There would be no effect on botanical resources. Measures required by the AMP would eliminate livestock grazing in the canyon. The vast majority of the plant species are confined to the riparian and riverbottom areas which would be protected from grazing with the implementation of the AMP. These are the same measures that an ACEC plan would propose. This would make ACEC designation unnecessary and redundant. Additionally, the East Sierra Canyons HMP (to be prepared within the next five years) would include further measures to protect and enhance wildlife habitat, thus providing for botanical protection and enhancement. Recreation The present high level of unrestricted use would be controlled by the AMP drift fences. This would protect the area's natural resource base, particularly the spring annual wildf lower displays. However, opportunities for providing visitor interpretive aids and for enhancing the recreation experience generally would not be pursued. Therefore, recreation and nature study would not be enhanced. ALTERNATIVE THREE: GREAT FALLS BASIN ACEC Alternative A: Include Eastern Springs, Delete Ruth Mine Wildlife ACEC management of the lower Great Falls Basin would enable BLM to identify and implement actions needed to protect and enhance springs, riparian habitats and surrounding areas to meet the goal of protection and enhancement of wildlife values and habitat used by the Inyo brown towhee. Management actions would include those already established for the ACEC, such as protection of water sources and riparian habitat, and restrictions on camping and vehicle use in the vicinity of springs. With management attention the condition of springs and riparian areas, and the lower basin in general, would improve slowly over a period of several years. 4-4 Cultural Resources The area proposed as an addition to the ACEC has not been inventoried for cultural resources and no sites have been recorded within it; therefore, the affect of the addition on cultural resource sites is not known. If cultural resource sites are located within this area, the expansion would be beneficial because it would provide special management attention (identification, recordation, monitoring, stablization, protection). Ruth mine is not historically significant and its deletion from the ACEC would have no significant affect on cultural resources. Recreation The natural qualities of the lower Great Falls Basin would be greatly improved. People camping and driving vehicles to the springs would be displaced so that it would be necessary to walk to the springs and camp away from them. All forms of passive recreation involving hiking, sightseeing, nature study, and photography would continue. Visual Resources There would be a definite improvement as native riparian habitat regenerated. Use restrictions would reduce visual detractions from rock painting, vehicles, and shooting. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The potential exists for the development of locatable minerals (gold) in the expansion area. The close proximity of the Mowhawk mine and the trend of the mineralization (east-west) may conflict with the other protected resources within the ACEC expansion area. While claims are not indicative of future development, they do indicated interest in an area. To date 26 mining claims are filed in T.24 S., R.43 E. , sections 6, 7, and 18. Twenty two of these claims are filed in Section 6. In addition, the potential for geothermal resources exists. Expansion of the ACEC may conflict with mining activities if related resources and concerns (water, access) become an issue. Exploration work (such as drilling and sampling) can be conducted in a manner which will produce little impact. Development and production cause a greater amount of overall surface disturbance (depending on raining method, e.g. underground verses surface (open pit)). The removal of the ACEC designation may make the operation of Ruth Mine more attractive by removing some constraints on how development would proceed. Lifting the designation, however, would be considerably less important than the implications of the costs associated with mining the ore body. 4-5 Alternative B: Delete All of ACEC Except Great Falls Basin Wildlife Deleting these areas from ACEC status would result in less management attention, including monitoring. It would perpetuate conditions in the area which are adversely affecting aquatic and riparian areas. These problems include vehicle use and camping at or in the vicinity of springs and the inappropriate diversion of water from springs. These undesirable conditions are affecting some of the critical habitat (and proposed critical habitat) for the Inyo brown towhee. Mandatory protection of the habitat is required under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, this towhee is listed as endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission, and BLM policy requires that cooperative management efforts be planned and implemented by BLM and CDFG. Cultural Resources Three known cultural resource sites would be deleted from the ACEC. On the basis of the surface description of these sites, the affect of deletion would not be significant since the sites are not considered significant. However, the area has not been well inventoried, and it is possible that unknown sites would also be deleted. The affect on unknown resources is, quite obviously, unknown. Recreation Recreation in most of the area would not be significantly affected since the Great Falls Basin (which would not be deleted) is the principle recreational focal point. However, the opportunity to improve the natural qualities of the lower Great Falls basin would be foregone, and passive recreation activities would not be enhanced. Visual Resources The most scenic area, Great Falls Basins, would remain within the ACEC. Other riparian areas would receive low level useage which would result in a minor lowering of visual quality. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) Minerals development would be enhanced by the deletion of areas outside the Great Falls Basin. Little or no activity is occuring in the basin area. The designation of any areas as an ACEC does not preclude mining, but tends to elevate the status of the resources the ACEC designation is designed to protect. Alternative C: Reject Amendment (No Action) Wildlife ACEC designation results in higher priority for management action, and thus earlier protective management. Not including the eastern springs in the ACEC would lessen management priority. Since the Inyo brown towhee is listed as threatened by USFWS, corrective actions are mandatory on critical habitat at a minimum. The reduced priority for management action would be in those areas outside of designated critical habitat. 4-6 Cultural Resources Special management attention would continue to be provided for cultural resources within the current boundaries of the ACEC. Such special attention would not be provided for any sites which may exist in the Lower Great Falls basin, however, since that area would not be within the ACEC. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The potential for minerals development would be unchanged. AMENDMENT FOUR: DELETE COYOTE MOUNTAIN ACEC Alternative A: Accept Amendment Deletion of the ACEC would not decrease opportunities for increasing our knowledge of prehistory. No threats or conflicts exist which cannot be managed by enforcement of existing statutes. Deletion of the ACEC removes a certain management emphasis, but in no way reduces BLM obligations and practice under law. This alternative would have no effect on causal recreationists , at least initially. Because the incidence of cultural resources is low, the requirement that competitive events remain on existing routes in this area would be dropped. As a result, probably one additional event would use the area each year, and several additional routes would be created in the next two to three years. The affected area's position at the edge of the Plaster City Open Area (and consequently the edge of the area available for competitive events) would tend to limit the degree of route proliferation to two or, at most, three additional routes. As competitive event use creates new routes, or further accentuates those already existing, casual use of the area would probably being to increase. Alternative B: Reject Amendment No resource values are known or threatened at present. No threats would be avoided. Maintenance of the ACEC would be costly, with minimal benefits. This diversion of funds would be significant, because critical funds are needed elsewhere. This alternative would not change the existing level of recreation use. Casual use would remain light. Organized competitive events would continue to be restricted to existing routes, even though the area is designated "open" for OHV use and the incidence of cultural resources is low. AMENDMENT FIVE: NEW HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS Alternative A: Designate Six New HMAs Wildlife Designation of any of the six proposed HMAs as a planned management area for wildlife would provide management and protection of key wildlife resources (such as deer, deer winter range, riparian habitat and streams). It is the policy of the Bureau to cooperate fully with CDFG in habitat management 4-7 through the development and implementation of Sikes Act plans. Management goals and actions would be developed and implemented cooperatively with the California Department of Fish and Game under the authority of the Sikes Act. Habitat enhancing projects or actions in these plans receive priority for funding from the BLM budget as well as CDFG, including special funds available through the State of California from the California Environmental License Plate Fund, and the Hill Bill Fund. BLM policy requires that habitat management plans be prepared prior to wildlife reintroduction. Bighorn sheep are planned for reintroduction into the Soldier Pass/Piper Mountain and White Mountain areas by CDFG and BLM. Habitat management plans prepared for these HMAs would address habitat enhancement projects, mitigation of conflicting land uses and monitoring. Stream and riparian habitat improvement, water developments and cattle drift fences are examples of projects that would result from development and implementation of HMPs. In addition conflict resolution and mitigation related to vehicle use, mining and cattle grazing could also occur. These efforts would result in enhanced management for wildlife, within the context of multiple use and sustained yield. Beneficial results are expected, and would include increased population of trout, upland game, migratory birds, deer and bighorn sheep. The benefits would come in areas having the potential for the greatest habitat enhancement. Five of the six proposed HMAs are listed below, in order of potential for habitat enhancement (the first-named having the highest potential, the last-named having the least). 1. Soldier Pass/Piper Mountain 2. East Slope White Mountains 3. Last Chance Range 4 . Cowhorn/Waucoba 5. Sylvania Mountains Wildlife benefits would certainly be realized in the first four listed areas from actions resulting from habitat management plans. It is likely that wildlife water developments and possibly some cattle drift fences could be realized in the Sylvania Mountains through a habitat management plan. It is not clear, at this time, that a habitat management plan for the North Coso Range would enhance wildlife above what can be accomplished through the allotment management plan for livestock and the policy for protection of water sources and riparian areas. In addition, geothermal exploration and development on the western side of the N. Coso Range proposal would preclude many wildlife actions in the unlikely event that any actions could be identified. Livestock Grazing The effect of this amendment on livestock grazing would be very dependent on a number of factors. The proposed Cowhorn/Waucoba HMA would have no effect on grazing because there is no grazing allotment involved. The impacts from the remaining HMPs would vary according to the objectives and proposed actions in each of the management plans approved for the HMAs. There might 4-8 be no effect. On the other hand, grazing might be eliminated from parts of some allotments. The CDFG has proposed limited restrictions on grazing in parts of the Deep Springs and South Oasis allotments to allow a reintroduction of bighorn sheep. Additional restrictions in stocking rates, season of use, development of water sources and choice of grazing systems could result. An HMA management plan would provide information and decisions necessary to develop an Allotment Management Plan for livestock use. In addition, the CDCA Plan decisions call for certain mitigations, such as livestock control within allotments, to reduce wildlife impact. Wild Horse and Burros Attempts to reintroduce bighorn sheep into existing herd management areas will lead to direct conflicts between the wild horses and burros and the bighorn sheep. This would lead to a need to decide whether a bighorn herd or a wild horse and burro population is the more appropriate use of this area. Recreation The proposed HMAs are in areas of low intensity, dispersed recreation use. Therefore, the proposal action would not affect recreation. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) The development of geothermal resources in the North Coso HMA would not be affected by HMA status. Alternative B: Designate Four New HMAs The Soldier Pass/Piper Mountain, East Slope White Mountain, Last Chance Range, and Cowhorn/Waucoba areas have the highest potential for habitat enhancement of the six proposed HMAs. Designating these four as new habitat management plan areas would focus management attention on the higher priority areas, or those areas where wildlife management actions would result in the greatest gain. Habitat for trout, upland game, migratory birds, deer and bighorn would be enhanced. Deleting the Sylvaina Mountains and the North Coso Range from consideration would not affect bighorn sheep and may not change the status for upland game and deer provided the allotment maxiagement plans call for protection of springs and riparian areas and provision for wildlife water. There would be no conflict between the existing low intensity recreational use and four proposed HMA's. Alternative C: Re.ject Alternative (No Action) Failure to designate the four proposed HMAs with the highest potential for habitat enhancement could result in the loss of several wildlife management opportunities. Without new habitat management plan areas, bighorn sheep transplants into the White Mountain and Soldier Pass/Piper Mountain Areas 4-9 would be forgone, enhancement of streams and riparian areas on the East Slope of the White Mountains would not receive attention, deer winter range and habitat enhancement projects within the the Inyo white Mountains Deer Herd would be forgone and conflict resolution and habitat enhancements for bighorn in the Last Chance Range would not be a priority or implemented in an orderly manner. The non-designation of the Sylvania Mountains would be of far less consequence for the reasons described above under alternative B. AMENDMENT SIX: RED ROCK CANYON Alternative A: Accept Amendment Designation of this land as class L would provide management of sensitive cultural resources that is consistent with that afforded resources in the surrounding area. The class L designation would provide the recreation management needs of this area. Under the MOU, there are additional public use limitations which are more consistent with the class L category. Classification as a limited use area will require a plan of operation for any surface disturbance which would result from mineral development. This would not be a significant impact on the development of saleable or locatable mineral resources. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) Cultural resource management would continue to lack consistency with that afforded resources in the surrounding class L area. This could allow the chance of damage to the resource to continue because cultural resources are present, and are as important as those in the adjacent class L areas. This area is an important area of recreation resources and scenic quality. Unclassified land is not identified for permanent BLM management and it could be sold. As a result, management of the area's high public recreational use for sightseeing, hiking, nature study, and limited ORV touring could be foregone. AMENDMENT SEVEN: HOMEWOOD CANYON LAND SALE Alternative A: Accept Amendment Two residents would be sold the land their homes are located on, giving them permanent tenure. This alternative would have no direct affect on cultural resource sites since none were identified within the two parcels. A complete description of both accepting and rejecting this amendment was prepared in November 1986 . That EA has been reproduced in this document as Appendix D. 4-10 Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) One of the three residents would remain unauthorized. The two residents currently authorized under lifetime leases would lose their authorization upon the death of the named lessees. All three residents would face a nagging uncertainty as to their future tenure on the land and as to whether they would have anything to pass on to their heirs. This alternative would have no direct affect on cultural resources since none were identified within the two parcels. A more detailed discussion was presented in the Homewood Canyon land sale EA, which has been reproduced in this document as Appendix D. AMENDMENT EIGHT: T.12 S., R.16 E., SECTION 6 MULTIPLE USE CLASS CHANGE Alternative A: Accept Amendment The area east of the Canal is currently used by campers. The Class I designation would enable the development of facilities as outlined in the Imperial Sand Dunes RAMP. Facility development would increase use of the area as well as directly disturb habitat. These in turn would affect burro deer and desert tortoise to an unknown degree, since the relative abundance of these species is not known. No threatened or endangered plant or animal species are known to exist in the affected area. The changes in MUC and OHV designation would insure that these lands are retained for public recreational use, and would be consistent with existing use patterns. No changes in use levels or patterns are expected as a result of the amendment unless public access to the land is developed in the future. Assigning the area east of the Coachella Canal to class I would be the first of a number of actions prerequisite to possible future development of recreational facilities on Section 6, as outlined in the Imperial Sand Dunes RAMP. Such development would occur in the mid-1990s. Development would also be contingent on the availability of funds for construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities, and the acquisition of private inholdings in the open area, and completion of sensitive resource baseline studies. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) The section would be subject to potential disposal in the future. Disposal could result in the elimination of OHV recreation opportunities and make future recreational development of the site impossible. If the lands remain in public ownership as "unclassified," it is likely that the existing recreation situation would be maintained for the foreseeable future. However, recreational opportunities at the site could be eliminated if surrounding landowners were to close off existing access routes across their property. Wildlife, botanical, cultural, and GEM resource would not be affected. 4-11 AMENDMENT NINE: NEW RECREATION GOAL Alternative A: Accept Amendment The new goal would complement BLM's current program of providing access for certain special populations to new developed facilities. These include the California Desert Information Center (in Barstow) , the Soda Springs Orientation Center, the Jawbone Canyon Visitor Contact Station, and the Cahuilla Ranger Station, and other sites where development of access is practicable (i.e. facilities other than very primitive ones). It would also give public emphasis to the development of future interpretive and informational materials specifically designed to help special populations. Alternative B: Reject Amendment Emphasis would continue to be given to providing opportunities and facilities for special populations. Such a program would not be explicitly established as a goal of the Desert Plan, however. In that case, emphasis on meeting the needs of special populations would not have as high a public profile as if a goal were written into the plan. Consequently, persons might not realize that a opportunities were being made available in the desert for those special groups. AMENDMENT TEN: PIUTE VALLEY LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENT Alternative A: Accept Amendment Changing classification would not in itself change the level of livestock use. The lessee would be able to keep cattle on the allotment without reapplying for authorization every three months. His operations would have far greater stability, and he would be in a better position to borrow operating money from financial institutions. He would still be able to apply for ephemeral use, if conditions were good enough. The proposed stocking rate is 48% of the level recommended by the AMP, indicating that more than enough perennial forage is present in the allotment. A surfeit of forage is available in the spring and late summer, when ephemerals are present and perennials are growing. Much of the forage documented the rest of the year is dry feed produced during these seasons. It is not known how much of the current use is made on perennials and ephemerals. Increased monitoring would be necessary to ensure that the allotment is properly stocked. Should the allotment be overstocked, even on a temporary basis, the BLM could still order the lessee to remove livestock, although a more complex and difficult process is required. However, most of the perennial forage is found in the Piute Range. Livestock do not spend much time in that area at present. To make use of the forage, water would have to be provided. Because nearly all of the range is within WSA 267 (recommended suitable by the Desert Plan), it is likely that at least one new well would be required inside the WSA. 4-12 In addition, the range provides habitat for desert bighorn. A shift of the lessee's operation into this area would heighten stress-related impacts on a year-round basis, and would continue the possibility of disease transmission from livestock to desert bighorn. Should the lessee's operation be managed as it is at present, livestock would continue to be concentrated in the eastern portion of the allotment (in Piute Valley). Here, forage is provided mostly by ephemerals. There is not enough perennial forage available in this portion of the allotment to support a perennial allocation of 720 AUMs . Consequently, the AMP's rationale for recommending that the allotment be managed as ephemeral- perennial (that is, because a large amount of perennial forage is available) would not be supportable. Except as noted above, acceptance of the amendment would not have a drastic effect on either the vegetation or the wildlife resources of the Piute Valley allotment due to the fact that the allotment has been grazed on a year round basis for the last 12 years and appears to be capable of supporting this level of use in normal precipitation years. However, accepting the amendment could result in a slow, long term change towards more shrubs and less grasses due to selective grazing pressure on the preferred species of grasses. In addition, competition for green forage would continue to occur between desert tortoise and livestock, as they have for the past 12 years. Changing the Piute Valley Allotment from ephermeral to perennial-ephemeral would not have any adverse impacts on wilderness values in WSA 267, and would not impair the area's suitability for wilderness designation. At appropriate stocking levels livestock grazing is compatible with maintaining wilderness suitability. Changes in the number of livestock and the period of use are permitted by the interim management policy guidelines as long as the changes do not cause degradation of the land. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) BLM management would remain unchanged. The lessee might continue to use this allotment year around under ephemeral authorizations. The rancher's operation would remain unstable, as he wouldn't know until his use authorization was about to expire if he would be able to keep cattle in the allotment for an additional three months. The operator would suffer economically because the lack of an assured grazing authorization would increase the difficulty of obtaining a loan for operating funds. The current practice of limiting use authorizations to 3 month periods forces the BLM to check field conditions in the allotment 4 times each year, allowing a quick adjustment in numbers, if necessary. This alternative would be in conformance with the goals of the Desert Plan. Rejection of the amendment, and enforcement of the ephemeral status (i.e. seasonal grzaing based on annual forage production only) would result in a net beneficial impact on the vegetation and wildlife resources of the area by removing livestock and grazing-related impacts from the allotment for the majority of each year. Perennial grasses and other forage species would be allowed to go to seed, vigor would increase, the establishment of new plants would increase, and overall range condition would improve. 4-13 During periods of non-use, water currently being taken from Piute Creek and piped to the allotment would be left in Piute Creek, which would increase stream flows in terms of distance, and improve and expand the riparian area. Competition between desert tortoise and livestock for green forage would remain unchanged, assuming the minimum forage production requirements for livestock turn-out are met. However, if minimum forage production requirements are not met, livestock would not be allowed to turn-out and no grazing would occur, whereas during the past 12 years and under the ephemeral-perennial designation, grazing has occurred, and will occur, regardless of annual forage production. Therefore, rejecting the amendment could potentially result in a beneficial impact to desert tortoise in less than optimum annual forage production years. AMENDMENT ELEVEN: RIDGECREST-TRONA UTILITY CORRIDOR Alternative A: Accept Amendment Cultural Resources Construction of pipelines, powerlines, tower pads, and access roads could destroy any National Register eligible sites which might be located within the corridor. Wildlife The level of impact on wildlife would depend on the type and number of pipelines and powerlines that are eventually constructed in the corridor. Should future construction be limited to the City of Ridgecrest and KMCC waterlines, only a moderate level of impact would occur. Assuming a twenty-foot wide area of disturbance, a maximum of 48 acres of habitat for the desert kit fox and Mojave ground squirrel would be affected. Indirect off-site impact cound result due to vehicle use, shooting, and littering that would likely occur due to public use of the access road. These impacts would occur on both public and privately-owned land. However, a corridor could allow additional facilities to be constructed in the future. while no projects have been proposed to date, powerlines and pipelines could be constructed. A new powerline (for example, a 161kV or 230 kV line, the largest foreseeable in the corridor) would require half a dozen tower pads per mile, and spur or access roads. A second buried gas pipeline could require a right of way clearing 50 feet across. Such facilities could have greater affects on wildlife, particularly the desert kit fox and the Mojave ground squirrel, than the water pipeline. The specific impacts would be identified in the EA or EIS prepared for the project. Consequently, wildlife could experience the following long-term impacts: permanent loss of approximately 48 acres of habitat for the Mohave ground squirrel and desert kit fox, indirect off-site impacts due to increased human use along the corridor, and additional direct habitat loss if powerlines and pipelines are added. Although the habitat and wildlife losses anticipated from this proposal are relatively low if considered 4-14 alone, several projects could contribute cumulative habitat losses, which must be considered in light of the general concern over the cumulative habitat losses in the western Mojave desert. In summary, cumulative habitat losses would be expected over a long term period from the construction of pipelines, electric transmission lines, and roads. These could result in significant impacts to the desert kit-fox and Mohave ground squirrel within the corridor. Lands The proposed Ridgecrest-Trona utility corridor is consistent with both Kern County and San Bernardino County planning. The proposed corridor would cross two China Lake Naval Weapons Center low flight corridors, C and G. Placement of tall electrical transmission towers within C or G could create hazardous flying conditions or otherwise limit NWC's use of the flight corridor. Recreation No recreational activities would be affected. Visual Resources In the VRM class II and IV portions of the corridor, there would not be any visual conflicts. For a small class III area southwest of Trona, mitigating measures would be required to protect the existing high scenic quality. Powerlines and pipelines already exist through the corridor and additional ones would not cause any significant loss of scenic values. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) Wildlife There would be no impacts from large pipelines and transmission lines. However, habitat losses and impacts are already occuring because of the proximity of rapidly-growing Ridgecrest. Lands If the proposed amendment is rejected, Kerr-McGee would not be able to replace its 12 inch and 14 inch potable water pipelines with one 16 inch line. KMCC would either have to continue repairing its two deteriorating pipelines and have them susceptible to washouts, or replace them with two 12 inch or lesser diameter lines. KMCC estimates the latter option would cost $5,000,000 more than installing the 16 inch line. The City of Ridgecrest would not be able to install a new 16 to 21 inch pipeline to remove its treated effluent. The City and the NWC would continue to suffer from health hazards and damage to buildings until another means to dispose of the effluent could be found. KMCC would have to find another source of water for its Argus Cogeneration Expansion Project. The City of Ridgecrest and China Lake Naval Weapons Center would continue to be susceptible to flooding until an alternative to the proposed Bowman Wash flood control project could be found. 4-15 The net effect of all of the impacts could affect growth in Ridgecrest and in the Naval Weapons Center and the continued operation of Kerr-McGee in Trona. AMENDMENT TWELVE: SAN SEBASTIAN CLOSURE Alternative A: Accept Amendment Wildlife Expanding the vehicle closure would increase protection of the area's critical wildlife and habitat values. Three sections of CDFG-owned land would also be posted as closed, and cooperative enforcement would increase compliance. If an expanded closure were implemented, cooperative agreements with private landowners would be pursued to allow enforcement on interspersed private parcels. This coordinated approach would protect all critical habitat and ensure the continued existence of the desert pupfish in its most extensive remaining natural habitat. Cultural Resources An expanded closure would be effective in increasing protection of known sites in the area, both on BLM and non-BLM lands. Inadvertant destruction of cultural resources by vehicles would be significantly reduced, and vandalism and removal of artifacts would be discouraged. Botany This alternative would provide more protection of sensitive plant species by attempting to reduce the number of OHVs in the area. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) This alternative would have no effect on geothermal leasing since an EA for leasing has been prepared and the Bureau does not intend to change existing decisions. Recreation As a result of the closure expansion, approximately 1,500 VUDs of camping and OHV recreational use will be displaced from the area. Much of the camping use is expected to shift to the north side of Highway 78 near the Pole Line Road. With the elimination of vehicle camping and OHV riding within the closed area, the incidence of illegal cross-country OHV travel is expected to decrease significantly, although some closure violations would occur. While nature study would be affected both positivily and negatively by the closure expansion, the overall effect would be positive, through a reduction in vehicle tracks, noise, and disturbance of vegetation and wildlife in the marsh area. The main negative effect would be reduced access. It is currently possible to drive within a hundred yards of the marsh with a two-wheel drive vehicle from Highway 78. This opportunity would be 4-16 eliminated. A minimum hike of about a mile (one way) would be required. However, such a hike should not be a significant hindrance to most nature study enthusiasts, and may serve to enhance the experience of some visitors. Alternative B: Reject Amendment (No Action) Wildlife A failure to expand the closure would allow continued degradation of desert pupfish critical habitat as well as direct crushing or injury of individuals of other species of special management concern. This failure to meet Endangered Species Act responsibilities could lead to serious local reductions in the already depleted desert pupfish population. Botany OHV and recreation-related problems would continue to impact the native vegetation. Cultural Resources Sites would continue to be damaged by vehicle use and camping. A number of sites have already suffered vandalism and theft; this would continue, especially since the area is regularly featured in treasure magazines. Continued vehicle use also leads to increased erosion, which leads to loss of archaeological resources. Not expanding the closure would be especially detrimental to relatively intact, remote sites which are only accessible by OHVs. Geology-Energy-Minerals (GEM) This alternative would have no impacts (see Alternative A). Recreation If the amendment is rejected, the incidence of camping and OHV riding within the management area would increase in the future. Much of the OHV use would continue to occur off of approved routes of travel, within San Felipe Wash at the marsh, and on the higher ground adjacent to the marsh. While OHV operation in and adjacent to the marsh is interesting and at times challenging for the operator, it degrades the experience of those seeking to enjoy the special wildlife and cultural resources of the area in quiet, non- impacting ways. MITIGATION MEASURES Amendment Ten: Piute Valley Livestock Grazing Allotment Alternative A Measure 10-1: Close off all f re-flowing water on the Piute pipeline. The installation of float valves on all tanks and troughs, and capping the end of the pipeline, will greatly reduce the amount of water drawn from Piute Creek. This in turn should allow riparian areas to expand. 4-17 Measure 10-2; Develop water somewhere north or west of T 13 N, R 19 E, section 8 before the amendment is implemented. This would increase livestock distribution in the north half of the allotment. Alternative B Amendment Eleven: Ridgecrest-Trona Utility Corridor Measure 11-1: Electrical transmissions towers as well as any other facilities) would be limited to 125 feet in height within the Naval Weapons Center's C and G low flight corridors. Measure 11-2: New facilities must meet all VRM class objectives within the VRM class III lands southwest of Trona. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative impacts of this preferred alternative are presented in Table 4-1 below: TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS New Unit of Preferred Percent Percent Resource Measure No Action Alternative Change of Desert Multiple Use Class C Acres 1,900,000 1,900,000 0 15.9 L Acres 5,900,000 5,902,000 0.03 49.3 M Acres 3,400,000 3,400,000 0 28.4 I Acres 520,000 520,000 0 4.3 Unclassified Acres 251,000 249,000 0.8 2.1 Vehicle Access Open Acres 505,000 505,000 0 4.2 Limited Acres 9,256,000 9,251,000 0.05 77.3 Closed Acres 1,958,000 1,963,000 0.25 16.4 Undesignated Acres 251,000 251,000 0 2.1 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas Number 50 54 4-18 Resource TABLE 4-1 (con't) SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Unit of Measure No Action Preferred Alternative ACECs Added Deleted Net Change Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres 2 18,560 1 1,211 +1 17,349 4-19 CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION NOTICES AND MEETINGS The 1987 amendment process was announced by a letter sent to the Desert Plan mailing list on January 28, 1987. The list consists of approximately 5,600 individuals, organizations, businesses, and government agencies. The letter outlined the criteria for evaluating amendment proposals and gave the final date for submitting proposals as March 31, 1987. A Federal Register notice was published on February 12 (Vol. 52, No. 29), and a news release was issued on February 27, 1987. Proposed amendments were reviewed by the District Advisory Council at its public meeting in Victorville on April 10, 1987. This meeting also served as a scoping meeting for the environmental assessment. PUBLIC INPUT Thirty letters were received in response to the invitation for amendment proposals. Nineteen were from individuals, three from organizations, two from businesses, one from a utility, and five were from agencies. Twenty eight were from California, one was from Texas, and one was from Virginia. Twenty-three respondents offered twenty-seven proposals. Twelve of these were recommended by the District Advisory Council and approved by BLM management for consideration in the 1987 amendment process. The remainder will be handled by other administrative processes or dropped as inappropriate. Each amendment proposal and its fate are listed in Appendix B. 5-1 LIST OF PREPARERS Name William Haigh Greg Thomsen Position Chief, Planning & Environmental Staff Realty Specialist Peter G.D.Ertman Chief, Branch of Resources Sandra Rohles Typist Jeff Aardahl. Roger Alexander Lynn Anderson Cynthia Grover Glenn Harris Steve Larson Peter Milne Steve Nelson Lillian Olech Joan Oxendine Eric Watkins Wildlife Biologist Natural Resource Specialist Outdoor Recreation Planner Range Conservationist Range Conservationist Range Conservationist Geologist Outdoor Recreation Planner Wildlife Biologist Archaeologist Natural Resource Office California Desert District Ridgecrest Resource Area (RA) El Centro RA California Desert District Ridgecrest RA Needles RA El Centro RA El Centro RA Ridgecrest RA Needles RA Ridgecrest RA El Centro RA El Centro RA Ridgecrest RA Ridgecrest RA Team Assignment ( Amendment No . ) Team Leader Ridgecrest Coordinator Lands (6,7,11); Soc-Econ (3) El Centro Coordinator; GEM (8,12) Administrative Support Wildlife (2,3,5,11) Wildlife, Botany (10) Recreation (1,4,8,12) Botany (1,8,12) Range (2,5) Range (10) GEM (2,3,5,6) Recreation (1,4,8,12) Wildlife (1,8,12) Cultural Res (2,3,6,11) Botany (2) 5-2 LIST OF ACCRONYMS ACEC AMP AUM BLM CDCA CDFG CFR EA EIS FTHL GEM GRA HMA HMP KMCC MCOA MOU MUC NWC OHV RA RAMP R&PP SVRA UPA USFWS USGS VRM VUD WSA Area of Critical Environmental Concern Allotment Management Plan Animal Unit Month Bureau of Land Management California Desert Conservation Area California Department of Fish and Game Code of Federal Regulations Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Geology-Energy-Minerals GEM Resource Area Habitat Management Area Habitat Management Plan Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation Mining Claim Occupancy Act Memorandum of Understanding Multiple Use Class Naval Weapons Center Off -Highway Vehicle Resource Area Recreation Activity Management Plan Recreation and Public Purposes Act State Vehicular Recreation Area Unusual Plant Assemblage United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Visual Resource Management Visitor Use Day Wilderness Study Area 5-3 REFERENCES CITED Abrams, L. and Ferris, R.S. 1974. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1980 At the Crossroads: Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. 147 pages. California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Designated Endangered, Threatened or Rare Plants. CNPS . 1984 . Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication No. 1. Eureka Printing. Eureka, CA. La Berteaux, D. 1984. Untitled. Unpublished report on field sitings of the Inyo Brown Towhee prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Shreve, F. and I.L. Wiggins. 1977. Vegetation and Flora of the Sonoran Desert. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA. United States Government. 1985. Federal Register. Friday, September 27, 1985. Part IV, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Notice of Review. University of California, Santa Cruz. 1981. San Sebastian Marsh Resource Survey and Management Plan, Imperial County, California. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Riverside, CA. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980. California Desert Conservation Area Plan. 1983. Environmental Assessment for Geothermal Leasing. 1987. Final EIS for the 1985 Desert Plan Amendments. 1987. San Felipe Creek/San Sebastian Marsh ACEC Plan. 1987. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Activity Management Plan. 1987. Cultural Resource Survey — Coyote ACEC (unpublished) 5-4 APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAPS OF AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT 1 f~ LEGEND — — Study Area Boundary T77A Class "C* fZ7^ Class "I" E^l Class "L* Class "M* Unclassified (Navy Withdrawal) Patented Land New ACEC-West Mesa (Imperial County) Proposed ACEC Boundary Proposed ACEC Boundary AMENDMENT 2 New ACEC- Short Canyon -« / //2sK *=**'*7""="" \ • r- . 'i \ AMENDMENT 7 AMENDMENT 3 Great Falls Basin/*\ Argus Range ACEC I— Modified Boundary J23S T24S MDM HOMEWOOD CYN . . LAND SALE KZZZZa -v^ 3 :""i y ■■^v^K^ 4*--^ ^.i '<-.->' j\ ALTERNATIVE 1 - Modified Boundary '*"■ ALTERNATIVE 2 i -H~; .*«» '---oo/-\^.^, .. — -. i X- . 3 i ■ 1 ■ . 28 A.-T I — -■ --'1'' ^ 3 ^^££j# 3«4#l**^-#-^ S'£ ^ll7 -V'V; : ',. 'fox, \ E^? -,"•:• j^ P v:j;;:cf v>W- . -Y>'s :'S r~ ua»y , Svrina '• l — - Ca-^ v; \ \ ." !,-Ts5° r4 f,CCi C»nyon,«* (±1 1 * •o^'uv , ft . — - -* y c t 00 CD - — ■* g 4- en C ■"J" -(-> •r— m 3 4- M > g s to jc en C _ Z5 cu E Q o p P oo C S ^ 4- >, oo jc i— en .a -t-> c en n c TO ■p- s_ s- en o. oo a> . s- +3 to +-> ."— TO ej <_> jc oo oo oo cu •r- (_> y oo 00 i — Q. un j_ oo cm o •<- OO (+_ "O u c CL) u 00 ■I- +J .c oo +-> CU en| ■r- en c C o oo 5 2 g TO TO S- O s_ CD _ oo cr to -O TO cS TO -t-> 15 to ei O cr C oo S- TO 00 4- +-> cu ^ oo -o E Si T3 JLJ =5 4-> J? E oo p TO 4- £ a; TO i — ■M cn +j c TO ■r- U S- CL to a> CL CD J*: • Si o o +-> -M >, O CL) TO -M +-> U TO 1/1 3 i. >— cr ai >— o S * TO O) _J +-> TO • C CQ I TO >) 00 +-> i i- O 00 © Ol • TO -H TO bound sary unci C U 1 id cm 00 00 -C TO O OO CD ■<- C i — oo o TO cu CD qj c u •>- <— -r- CC 00 00 ^ Sfe S- T- O oo 2 C -l-> T- C CO •r- c _c -t-> TO <* E cy +-> to 5 cu 00 s_ "^S i — 'i— 5 00 .?sl O TO CD 4- CQ U IS 5 . -1" Sij1- -t-> cn cu cu •■- -C +-> 00 00 4- 00 r— c TO O CU +-> s aj s- oo SZ TD TO O < — C S_ 00 00 +J C 5 S.I — TO =5 Z3 00 o +-> O TO i — a. OT u Q_ TO TO 00 o 2^^^ o +-1 4- Si ^i CU 4- 00 c~ CU +-> 00 cu S_ § -M 4- Z5 ^ O 3 i/i i CU Q O CL •l- C 4-> -Q 00 4- r— C CU C TO 3 00 ° ^ 5 TO i — CU T3 U Q. C s_ > •r— C^CQ cu s o "=5 +-> -M Q. ■M cu +J c o S_ TO O C5 *~~ O 4-> C 5 -Q 3 S- E Q- S ^ S O CD a. cn-r- c c cn £ 00 >, e i— ^^-^ c oo .:_! >>•■- TO t c?-— cu Q -MO ■a Q. B •i—i — 00 O. oo oo •<— i 00 +-> gj =5 P -r- -i- +J 3 CU E CL <|5 C .c x; to a+j a) c ^ ** >, i — S- «= TO? O E O) ■M 2 TO TO S e en c • •i- o oo 00 c CU = OJ ^"8 S o oo t- en 00 4- CJ TO -i- UJ TO i — 00 - — C O 00 en TO C r— O) r- O OO 3 e US "unc Cany 00 r— 00 Q. O CU TO _> •i- -M C +-> O ai E = to 00 "-a CD 00 -C OO C aj -M TO •!— ^_^ CL CU O i— ^~ -t-> en cu c: E P TO o C +-> c d x: s- to TO s: O 4- Q.CJ si _l -— UJ L Si C\J I Q_ I oo CXI CNJ Q_ I r^ CO B-l Q_ CO LU OO 03 oo C 03 03 Q. Q. CU -Q 03 T3 i- i— O) Z3 "O O T— e +-> O •— i u u c o ■r- C +-> 03 03 S- CL 03 Q. -f-> CU C £ £3 Si 13 03 Q. T3 O E ■— C_3 o. cy LU > E V 03 03 i— "S °- c oo o > "2 > S- +-> CU s- OO CU 00 CU CU if- "O 03 l> gj e E •!- o ■r- 4-» +-> 00 2.2 00 Q. +-> CO ■i- 03 CU " 2 CT> CU 00 O 00 S- CU 03 O -E Si l— 00 Q 03 +-> i- 03 O • CU e 2. CU 03 -"8 >> oo +-> • CU •^"S £ 03 TD •i- E> +-> => "O O LU CU u >— i- +-> -f-> O Q. Q. -a cu It 03 'ai -M > 03 -r- +-> +-> ^15 c $ c^ i- O CD 0|_ T- 3 +-> CD > U S^ . . q £ oo O 3 CU o So. 3 ET -Q (D u C ■r- Q. +-> •> •«- CD CU +-> C OO CU •<- -r- p.+-> o u S. o -— ' 00 -M 00 •r- C -E O C 03 03 (— O Q ^^ ^u +-> oo 03 CU 03 CU S- > 13 03 -M E 03 03 >, +-> i- 03 S- O) CU c Is en oo CU oo C =3 O •r- CU C_> +-> +J LU 03 03 CJ C -r- < CD S- 00 S"^ CD S- ■Q Q. 00 03 03 i— 03 U T3 CU o3 •!- I CU CD 03 c -a 2 £ E , 03 +-> 03 00 c «. CU 03 +-> CU •r- 03 03 > CU 00 -r- 00 03 CU CU S- U Z3 Q +-* E oo c = S O O O CU i— C CU 03 C Q. OO +-> o gj +-> E <-> CD 03 CD 03 +J C C 2 +-> CU +-» ^2 03 •■- -E JD C 03 CU -E s 00 00 C_J ZJ '1- E LU •■-3 -E O O ■a -m ■i- < 03 +-> >1 oo c >>-Q CU W S- 3 unda ered CT +-> O S 5 o 00 r— E t." S- 03 O g^^ CD > CU m +j CU S- -Q -e OO 03 <: 03 -i_> 8 a! o 5 Ll_ O O CU C_J 03 LU > C_) CD 4-> >, 00 00 •O 4-> J. 8 E E CD | JO +J i "S £ "3 -E ■M ■i — ?d Q. £ -E i — 00 cE +J 4- +J □ <+- o •f— c_3 +-> o no E fO E s •i — O o ro s^ J=3 en CU 03 -M O) oo 00 > . CD i- +-> 00 CD 03 ^ oo +-> CJ3 03 -—i Q CvJ Q_ oo CO Q_ OO B-2 Q_ Q_ CM S LU PO en 00 +J 1 e 2 e u 2 QJ fO 00 E EH- S- r— | e qj a. o cj o. <— e 03 O 03 £ J? s y >, g U- U 51 oo qj 03 ■< c o i — > i — 03 4-> +-> E 4-> r— a; a. 4- rs 03 OJ S- •■= T3 O OJ 4- cu 00 E "3 -^ OO r- J C oo the G eady £ QJ -M >> 03 E -i— x: -I- _o > +J Q -t-> QJ p 5 +-> cj <5 § e e cn E r— 4-> ga^^^s •r- ro E , < -3 r— QJ S- Cn . CJ 4- ■O 00 3D 03 * • P E E Q 4- t3 QJ O 2 •<- s_ x5 •<- -a +-> -E "O 00 e 03 E QJ E +-> OO -E ■<- "O 03 _3 i— • S_ •!- -a1 8 +-> -E i — s_ +-> ra 00 S- OO OJ +-> Z5 QJ fD -i- oo 3 2 2 P oo +j ZJ 13 03 •r- s_ 2 CO 00 D- 00 QJ '•"■ "g r— 1 m 03 4-> E tf £ •i— <_> 03 00 fC E E +-> -i- -E -»-> s: o 4-> • •i- E i— (_) (J o < ai e XI QJ 4- •!-+-> i— i e c +-> +J E >,(— C OO 00 O £_£ 03 •i- O O J- 4- <0 oo • r— u 2 Q. O 03 E (J t — 1 5 £3^ 00 . CJ W (U c oC rf\ =3 00 9 CJ -M 03 >— ZS -r- ZD -E i — lu oo i — oo 03 Q. e •i- CJ Q i— QJ +J E 3 E ^ oo ro en >i-g 5i+j ^ a E QJ E 3 03 E 5 S E u 00 5 ■i— i — 03 00 M— (_>•!— III 03 o +-> e-exis ine Va reased s. Th revent Id not mental or -•-> ^ +-> TD •^ o c 2 oo E -(-> QJ 00 ro 1 E^S -V 00 03 O) ai "8 LU _l U 4- -i-> S- <— U QJ Q. 13 C O. 03 E 00 Q P OO t- 13 "O 2 C s Xi 00 O U 03 03 8 O Q. c ■o +-> 00 i — -i- g IS •i- oo -E 03 2 •r- oj i. cn ^ "O > -E -E O E Q E E I— +J H_ -r- 2 03 QJ l— l 00 o x: 3 Q. -t-J 00 o-/ 03 O 00 00 >! CD 1 E 03 00 fa ■M 00 00 i — E QJ 3 03 03 QJ U 4-> QJ O (_> i — +-> E E ^~ land unci hav her S- +-> CL U .? 03 E QJ 03 -l-> O) 03 ^ 03 > ttJ Q. >i E c 00 > QJ •!— ^ O 4- 8 5 & O E O P "S = >,+j he D , pr gled so n a. gj Q. o JO fd +j •i- 4- Q_ C3 •^ QJ .E 53 00 , 3 ^ +-> 03 >, P 2 •— S- +-> fD ■o i — +-> TD E cn JD 03 00 +-> E E r— i — QJ "O r— CD 03 «- E 3 * 03 O. +J OO O •■- 03 c1 rout plie shou > 13 «|S2 X^ q_ •<- r "S ^.^1^ =5 i- +-) +-> C 4- 4- Q 1 O O -M +-> |— i T3 +-> 03 C Q. QJ QJ P 2 8" QJ E 03 E Q. 03 03 •O E i — i oo 03 x: S- O oo x: e , or In a re i here (J ro QJ -o •<- , s; oo -t— — 1 •"- -^ =3 e £ •? E 5 d U E ••> 00 C •<- = QJ 00 cn 2 03 QJ 03 x5 • co +-> 0 2: "3 +-> 1 — 00 S.3^13 e x OO 00 E QJ +j « • 00 .E 00 QJ QJ QJ -M cn QJ cn QJ E -r- OO E =3 SIS J! E 8 B S 03 Q. C > -r- OO O 03 -I-1 «i— 03 -E CJ) Q_ i— 2 O O 03 p QJ 1 — E •i — U +-> E Cu TD (_J CJ OO 03 03 QJ QJ QJ E 5- - — CJ +J S E O P OO Q_ >i>— " "O QJ E 03 •1- E 3 U ■!■" & +-) E 03 C y 03 >-,CJ CJ +-> < •r- >, > "a LU •1- E _l 4_> 03 C_) u 00 1— 1 03 nz LU > Irt > g E^ Q • ^ LU +-> s- r-vi •1- Q. 1 — ( X3 OO § •r— x: E h- 0 -— s- 03 S Q. Cu 1— 1 Q £ 1 D_ I r^ CO oo CO B-3 "2^ ro +J +-> o 00 (_) 11 r- _-u E_ oo ro -t-> L □_ e •i- O Q_ -»-> >> >> C •> +-> T3 O ^* T— C CO (/I -O 4-> -C CO ^-2 3 o> 03 • 00 +J 00 O #■> C CO >, • i — •1 — u X3 s. y o +-> CO +J 00 > en 00 "S ro 00 •r— !c 3 a c +J +-> o c •1 — Hs o >> 00 o -O 'i — 00 c o o> y +-> ■1 — "O "O 1 oo oo y to CO CO <— > -M § >i s +-> +-> to >>-C > fO u S- cn .a 4-> rO fO ■p" •i — CD +J JZ "8 -Q ** c •i — ro "S ■r" C 00 f— -C N to •r— • r— ro • rd 00 sz a 00 N 00 5. C r— •1 — • i — ai cn Z3 , , 00 00 1 '5 ^ CU un CD • 1 — 1 £ fO . «. c I— Q. (/I 4- oo 00 s +3 "8 e ro 10 oo to "8 ^ +-> *i — 1 CD 00 c 10 C •1— JC > >> •r— 2 to >> 3 1 2 u *< — +J 'i — > 5 ^O o c: •i — CU +-> 1 CD -M s_ "8 to ^ — -* •f— y U o c ^r 4- 00 rO 4- 4- 1 C 00 5 ■r- O 00 -i— -(-> fO -t-> C 4-> c +-> QJ O) ro CO 00 S- >1 c > 00 i_ CD 00 fO CU _Q ro _CT) "8^'E s* 5! +-> ro "O +J (/I c , t— 1/5.2 r— ro C ro i- CO cu_cg 1 — c 0 <— 'p— M •r- \— •f— cd a Q. CO = •1 — •r- +J s JZ ' E 4- 00 1 — CO CO fO Jl +J 00 •1 — S- 00 = 5>r J^ c S 4- CO • 1 "O -r- +J M- +-> *r- •r- CO CO «- CO C O ro E -(-> 8 > +-> ro +J ^ 1/) tt'r CO 00 O C fO Q. 4-> CO 00 00 +-> CD+-> 00 -i— 4-> •1- c 5? •1— *r— 00 ^sf° 00 oo _Q rO C +-1 K •r— CU ro CO rO a._) +-> "O -C «> 00 JC 00 CO c CO CO = -M ^ O0 i — oo c >,-»-> 00 -i- •r— ro ro •r- 00 00 ■1- -Q +-> 00 +J +J -C -r- O ro OJ ro ro CO -r- clj 2 U 2" ZZ IZ) S_ +-> O Z3 rO +-> +-> a; S- > -Q CO -r- C 8E s- 0 CO O +J CO 00 (J +-> ro Q. O 0 CO > a. o 00 to rO ro S CO • S_ > -M •r- fO O M- -M +-* '!Z OO JD O CD C rO E~ co rO > CJ fO fO 4- CQ CO fO 00 S- C -r- 4-> -r- O SZ 4-> i- +-> S- tO t- O -— S +-> U 00 ■r- -g 00 ro CO S- ro CO 00 nop u •1— 00 c JZ CO ■!- ai +-> -c > n +-> ^ s JO = 1— CD 1— C r— ro •!- ro +-> -r- £.£ I 5 S u O" CU C o_ q: o o •6 rO CO " 00 CO ■o CD CO c ^- -^ Q s- r rO < CL s3 ■^ g .a ■1- .c ^: 00 Q. as -O Q ££ SS Q. 2 un £ I 00 B-4 CO t— ' uj fe2 CD to CD c 3 b s -M u •r— 00 CL oo 5 00 s_ 00 •a -t-> o B o > o ^ re r— ? S- •i — OJ n rO fl CD 00 S-. •r™ ai ro cd • oj -l-> c J^ 00 00 "8 u +j , •i — o •r— u_ c 00 ro -M 03 -M ■ 1 — •r— +J i- 5- 1. (/) 53 U ra O 4-> o CD 5 +-> +-> it- Q£ •1 — 4- O cj .a i — o •r- CD 00 O >r- a.i— OJ (_> 00 <4- O rO ra ■a §> •i— <_> fd .c +-> -r- too OJ i- "O OJ ££>$ CD CD 'ra'iE ro S_ CD 4- 00 -MO CD C <4- "O O ro 00 •r- +J (D-- CD "5 £ &?& 00 ro -r- ^ U"S i — -Q 00 +J 3 3 ro ro M- Q_ _c Ql -t-J U ro •i- C >— CD _Q -i- =3 00 q. a) Q OJ -C --^ -t-> -Q ro C ra r- O C I' +-> -M ro 00 OO £Z CD •r- -a s_ oo gj •.- CD -C ^ -a +-> cr = oj •»-> C ro ro 00 OJ u gj <+- y y oo o u EOCrQOjroS- ». CD oj -r- p. 2 c: UJ CD S_ +-> -r— -i— OO 00 ion ran expe ies inor the 1 re nder -t-> CD 4-> E ro <=C ro "O "Q •<- OJ i- £! 2 ro^^ H-M-o' y y "O ro 3 OJrooorSoOCDc:'-} he R for itie on f need nd r on on ( o 1 — 1 +J £Z -r- ro 00 •!- (U 3-Mr- S- -t-> ss evise rovid pport ecrea pecia apped isito egeta s UJ a: C£Q_Oi-00U>> T I 00 B-5 oo OO =3 OO g Q_ O ^O 1 i- troa the +-> • "O oo O u a fo 3;= 2 a; +-> CJ 03 OVr- 00 03 i2 1: > 1— c ai a> -r- ro oo ^"g^ cu •> "O > as a> 00 £ oo^> -ei* ^ +j • O) +J I 03 03 o oo ra >> E & •> -M 03 u c ai d 15 "5 a> 33 +-> +-> 3 c ■<- 5 +J 03 Q +-> ■M n3 I CD 4-> 3 C ' -» i — i +J 4- c o JZ I +-> o 3 o r~ 00 03 E1 "5 _i S*. >, en L Q • -C e Q_ 00 C •!- •r- U_ CT> UJ 8E oo B-6 c A3 'o. 00 CD c\i re -^ 29 5 +-» CX> a ' CD oo (/I Q """ CU Q_ -C £ gj oo C o u S- rO CJ1 4-> E » n3 OO Q. rO ^1 00 I 'E 'rO O CD. ° -5 CD fO +-> Q. 0|- CD rO Q ii Cn4- C O •r— en

> c: -r- u o o a rO Ql. oo O CO LU po ^rO ro <: CD E £# £5 <0 -|_> 00 O o 00 £ e +j o >,+J i_ £Z 03 CD Q. +-> CD ro oo CD t O ■M ■i— OO > i. 'aj -r- r3 M — £ > CD Si ■M rO CD c i- S- o Cn 00 CD 9 2 oo •i — > 00 13 O Q. T3 P o s_ oo -"a %^ 00 o > +-> 00 00 ro X) -C C +-> 13 L en; c cd cn i_ o cu c5 ai cd & .a oo +j u +-> 00 03 •|_o £ 3 o +-> oi 00 03 s_ *— «H UJ 0) -Q ^*: ^ JS T3 G -!-> 1 CU «3 c i^ S_ • p— S_ 4- CD CD O •r— c oo '1 — 4-J a s^ 00 % o en 10 £ I — CU •I — >1 Q c ■Q ff CU 13 oi M •"D •i- en- 8. ro i — C O "3 M- 00 CU S ^8 O T- I 00 ■r- CU 4-> X3 5 e- _1 c CO -r- ■I- c c o ^s 03 <— O CD c5 e 4-> o ■r- QJ s- ai •i- c fO -r- c F O I o o « c cu >i en r— C fa fO +-> -,-J 4= 00 fO ^ 00 00 >> fO CT1T3 5 s o ro C_) cS - 00 c O ■M CQ CD O en ™ c ^ cn-i— i — e s- c '=T5 ° QJ +-> TD "3 CU cn-^ C Q. ro — - C CXI cn o oo -t-» c O oo u cu Si CD •— i Q O on eg oo oo B-7 £ 00 c to CU o "O 00 s~ u ■1 — ( c S « 8 3 o •r— 4-> Q. -t- fa o QJ > Q. c I/) i~ 5 00 c | 2 < ro e rO o •r— ■M i— £ >, 4-> S_ +-> c >> C c rO fe <+- i — Hi +-> •r— CL •I- +-> £ n r— +J c Q •r— l/l gj ^— E 2 ■Q o cu •r— +-> > CU -C gj "O +-> o CU X3 3 £* O LU Q_ Q- ~§ CO Q UJ g s 2 o E 4-> ■♦-> oo 4-> 00 • J^ CTi 53 CX> E O0 +J O Q O +-> 23 m- fO c SI c Q.+J S-2 := is . CT) C 0O ^ 5 s ■— oo O O i— O ' — M- fC 13 "to .a £^§ oo o OJ oo en 2 5 « 3 U_ "O -r- C C Q. O +-> O E •f— C "I- "I- +J CU 00 I O +J 00 c rO C gj g 00 CTi •r- CU C CD a .c 00 ro 2^ CU Ol p. !JE ^ -!-> ^O Q 00 ro • f— u ro C 4-> •i — C • 00 •t— 13 I 9 E CU "f0 +-> 'jo H 00 "fi TD a «s f— ro 3 c T3 s_ CU "8 5 00 E o 00 c c N r— -C e E p~ rO ro 3 < 8 •i — c •r— "S 3 CD JZ a % 00 ro 15 # CU e ^o 00 5 S- <0 S- 03 CO cu +-> 4- i — •i— i— l O E CM I Q_ I oo B-8 > , # £ § 00 03 1 — oo S_ 15 T3 1 to 5 s. C •p— Z3 1 OO s 00 8 a "2 £ n3 o; i (O a. CO s CO OO oo s Ll. OS OO o i— i Q B-9 Q s CO Ll_ I LU CO O LU OO m >> *E $3 CO CD 3 •r- C a ^ E "3 dj fo CD S_ "O >> OO §5 a +j 13 CD 3 4-> O 00 O -i- "r— C Q- +-> ■i- CD 4-> W3 r CD OJ 4-> +-1 J= t • * 13 -Q 3 c 13 13 "0 O) QJ 00 C 4-> rro E > to QJ 13 QJ $ c •r- r— -b 00 Q. S- 13 -M 5 5 5!}= OO -M (J cn >, ? "S "8 c C QJ 00 (Mi — -r- oo 00 1 S E QJ QJ O 13 +-> to J3 1 3 13 O "O o S- 00 13 | f— 13 1 — 4-J fi=§ 13 S- C C +-> cu • 1 — ■i — ^ S5 i- •r- 4-> •■- QJ c +-> C -i- Q_ c • -C cn cy -r- "O u > 00 a. ^ — -^ Si 4-> > 13 -i- C "" 8 13 cu s 3 cn UP >|T 13 QJ cu 4-> £ c •r- Ql = 3 d) +J l/l c 4- rD ■I-" ^— ■r^ en Z3 13 4-> i — "+- +J £ CD 00 L 4Z} »f— -M 3 ^ c 21 o "8 cnuj 4- JZl •r— ?5'5 42 O C CD i — 00 '5 CD O 13 13 C 00 c +-> >, c > — ' C sz 3 cn+-> fD oo i — 4-> = CU L C t- Q O 4-> CD -C •!- 13 _C CD 4-> _c +J -^ -^ +J cz 13 • 4-> •r- C +J Q ID -M 1 CL CU i — c % 13 -Q U C C ■r— 13 E 00 U 00 cu 13 13 00 a aid c ?o QJ • s- E c fO j*: 00 O < 3 -M U C 13 3 00 S- E • 1 — 00 13 13 u 8 O T- CU •i — 00 O 13 13 13 O QJ ■<- O 3 CU Q. CD E CD i^ >>2 JC 4J -r- t- • 4- •<- oj_ Q 4- CU ■r- Q) CJ CD a3 CD i- +-> "O 00 > 4- 4-> > 00 4-> JZl -Q S- O 4-> 1 — 00 4-> > Ul 4-> Q l/l O) 13 % E£ O 00 •i — +J •i- c Q 13 00 o E 13 13 13 00 'i — E^ 13 E CD C CD CD-i- JZl CU CD 4-> IX} 13 -rj ^4- O 00 r — -i— u en CD <— -£Z OJ -a t. 00 T3 E^ CD > 13 o cd E ? +j rs nz 1/1 3 00 CO O £ Z?^>, • r— ^— *r— C ■M o +-> co 13 o jz: oo •r— cx cu e u CU TZ> r-'rTJ ( >i3 ra cri oo cd S_ en "O o <— * CU. 00 4-> 00 i_ 13 =3 C oo -t-> N l— i— T- CD •i — &^o; Z3 ID Q. +-> •i — ra 13 ro E 1 _cj O * 4- ■ 1 — c 13 "O 3 - — oo cz JZ 5 4- 4-> > 13 P" 4-> CU 4- •> O V O jc QJ _J i — a. >> to •r- c c S O E S -C CQ 00 O 00 00 4-> 00 4-> +-> £ O •i- 00 f— S_ CJ3 S_ ■!- +J S_ 5- C ■1 — ^ 3j SU S >i en en 13 13 c: B +-> 4-> C t"] CU 4J £- «0 Q £53 C 5^ o c •^ "O • 1 — _ O o c_ Si 00 13 C -Q CU 13 C s HD o O 4- Q QJ -C c c c E 8 O 5- •!- >*>•<- +j QJ +-> CD C +-> en 13 ^ 3 4-> £ 13 13 13 O •i— CTl-Q 4- oo F» 4-> -^ >^ CD <0 ■r- Z3 -M 4-> •i- -C SL n cn-c i- S- 3 00 •i— 00 00 rQ ~8 CD »* >i-Q ^ 13 c y JZl +J •i — cr c 3 1— S_ 00 S- "i- CD gj CD oo ^1~ "6V S jz: 03 3 O O 4? E"S^ 13 (O Q. 13 E oo i — i"i _E > i— c Qj 13 QJ -M CD T3 ■M >, > u 4-> — » 1 _ Q. i~~ OO 13 CO "O *r— ^~ O CjS +j x: c oo o CD 'oj L •( — oo ■ eJ? B° jx: •2 | ft JC CD -C o c cu en 13 r— C 4- ^3 -^ r^ 00 +J 13 CU i_ cu +J QJ 1 E 8 13 or. 1 — ts QJ 0^_ +J E 4-> -M +-> 4 ^ 00 8 3 i—i 4-> JZl i- 4-> O i- •i — EM- fO C o c o rO O C 4- ■>- e i— a_ £ 4-> 1— 4-> 00 4-> 4-> "O < 13 O 13 r— l — l +-> O 3 u c •i— 13 <— N -O -~^ 00 1 — 00 13 "§ SJ CJ3 4- 00 00 •1- 13 13 CD Q 1— >l4-> £ "8 oj i- jz: 4-> QJ 00 13 S.-I- c: La_ •1- 13 1— O QJ LU 4- CZl OO LU £ r«». co B-10 APPENDIX C SOURCE OF AMENDMENTS ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION SOURCE OF AMENDMENTS ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION Final Preliminary Amend . Amendment No. No. 1 87-P-l 2 87-P-9 3 87-P-3 87-P-5 87-P-7 4 87-P-8 5 87-P-10 6 87-P-ll 7 87-P-A 8 87-P-12 9 87-P-16 10 87-P-18 11 87-P-22 87-P-23 87-P-24 12 87-P-14 Title Proponent West Mesa ACEC Short Canyon ACEC Great Falls Basin ACEC Coyote Mountains ACEC New Habitat Management Areas Red Rock Canyon Homewood Canyon Land Sale T12S, R16E Section 6 MUC Class Change New Recreation Goal Piute Valley Allotment Ridgecrest-Trona Utility Corridor San Sebastian Marsh Closure BLM, El Centro RA Mary Ann Henry BLM, Ridgecrest RA Phillis Riggle John Keys BLM, El Centro RA California Dept of Fish and Game BLM, Ridgecrest RA Beatrice A. Kirk BLM, El Centro RA Sierra Club Joe Evans Kerr-McGee Co. City of Ridgecrest Indian Wells Water Agency BLM, El Centro RA C-1 APPENDIX D HOMEWOOD CANYON LAND SALE EA I. INTRODUCTION Several residents in Homewood Canyon have lived there since the 1950s on public land. Typically, these people own their houses, garages, fences and other improvements which they have located on their unpatented mining claims. In the 1960s many of these residents applied to purchase the land they live on under the authority of the Church/Johnson Act (since repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)). Some of the applications were denied because the applicants did not meet the time in residence requirements of the Church/Johnson Act, because of C&MU (Classification and Multiple Use Act) restrictions and other reasons. Three of these applicants were offered leases instead under the Mining Claim Occupancy Act (MCOA) ; two accepted and one declined. The owners of these Homewood Canyon residences have now asked RIM to sell them the land they live on under the authority of Section 203 of FLPMA. Three of these sale requests have been separated from the others and are being analyzed in this Environment Assessment because the parcels are within the Great Falls Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and are within a Class L area as designated by the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980. As such, an amendment to the Desert Plan will be required to authorize the sale. Thus, if the Decision Record subsequent to this EA approves the sale, a plan amendment will be nominated. A separate EA has been completed and is available for review in the Bureau of Land Management's Ridgecrest Resource Area office on the sale of four parcels outside the ACEC. These include the Mark Coins and Rosalie Jorden residences, the County of Inyo landfill and a County of Inyo equipment storage yard. The status of the residents follows: 1. Beatrice Kirk Are partners in an unpatented claim. 2. Ralph and Ramona Hevener Their residences are adjacent to each other. Kirks were issued a lifetime lease (MCOA) . Heveners refused to sign the MCOA lease they were offered because it was limited to five years, renewable . 3. Elizabeth Raibourn Was issued a lifetime lease (MCOA). II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES The proposed action is the Bureau - motion direct (non-competitive) land sale of three parcels of public land in Homewood Canyon under the authority of Sections 203 (a)(3) and 203 (f)(2) of Public Law 94-579 (FLPMA). The parcels are located about 10 miles north of Trona, California in the Argus Mountain Range. The proposed action is to sell the ininimum acreage to include existing, fixed improvements. The proposed action would also authorize through subsequent BLM rights-of-way the domestic water systems the residents have installed on adjacent public lands. The purpose and size of the sale of each parcel follows : Parcel E (Kirk) - 2.24 acres. The sale would replace a lifetime lease with fee simple ownership (Figure 1(a)). The proposal would authorize a water system that Kirks and Heveners have installed on public land. Figure 1 (a) Kirk and Hevener residences. (b) Alpha Spring Canyon - looking southeast from above spring towards Kirk and Hevener residences. Drinking water is piped in from Alpha Spring approximately one mile to the northeast (Figures 1(b) and 2(a)). Irrigation water and backup drinking water is piped in from a well a few hundred feet off-site (Figure 2(b)). Both water lines tie into storage tanks off Parcels E and F (Figure 3(a) ) . Parcel F (Hevener) - 1.79 acres. The sale would resolve an unauthorized occupancy. See Parcel E for water system description. Parcel G (Raibourn) - 1.76 acres. The sale would replace a lifetime lease with fee simple ownership (Figure 3(b)). The proposal would authorize a water system that was installed on adjacent public land. A 1-2" pipeline shallowly buried for most of its length (Figure 4(a)) runs from Benko Spring (Figure 4(b)) approximately 1/2 mile to a water tank just off Parcel G. A condition of the sale would require the buyers to clean up their lots and remove all of their personal belongings or debris that are outside their lots. The sale price of the parcels would be for no less than fair market value. The buyers would need to relinquish that portion of their mining claims on the sale parcels. ALTERNATIVE 1 The first alternative is to sell the three parcels but not authorize the domestic water systems the residents have constructed that tap the springs on adjacent public lands. Kirks and Heveners would be authorized via a right-of-way to continue use of their well a few hundred feet from their residence, but would have to remove their pipeline that taps a spring approximately one mile northeast. Raibourn would have to remove her pipeline that taps Benko Spring and seek a new source of water. This could be drilling a well on or immediately adjacent to her parcel. ALTERNATIVE 2 The second alternative is denial of the sale, continuation of the Kirk and Raibourn lifetime leases, issuance of a lifetime lease to the Heveners under the authority of Section 302 of FLPMA, and authorization via rights-of-way of the off-site domestic water systems for the duration of the leases. ALTERNATIVE 3 The third alternative is denial of the sale, continuation of the Kirk and Raibourn lifetime leases, issuance of a lifetime lease to the Heveners, and authorization of the limited off -site domestic water system described in Alternative 1. ALTERNATIVE 4 The fourth alternative is no action. Under this alternative the Hevener residence and all the off-site water systems would remain unauthorized. Figure 2 --, V, W Ink*- ■■> jn ■ . ! % i I ■ (a) Pipeline diverting water from Alpha Springs. (b) Well associated with Kirk and Hevener residences Figure 3 (a) Tanks used to store water piped from Alpha Springs (b) Raibourn residence. Figure 4 (a) Pipeline diverting water from Benko Spring (b) Benko Spring. III. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A. Wildlife 1. Affected Environment a. Habitat and Species Occurrence - The proposed land sale is within the Great Falls Basin Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) (Figure 5) (Bureau of Land Management, 1980). Habitat on parcels of land proposed for sale was originally vegetated with creosote bush (Larrea tridentata ) and other desert shrubs, but has been almost totally altered by vehicle access routes, construction of residences, other buildings, fences and by planting of gardens and orchards. Habitat immediately adjacent to these developed parcels is typical of upland areas in the general area and is vegetated with creosote bush, bur sage (Ambrosia dumosa) , paper bag bush (Salizaria mexicana) and other shrubs as well as numerous species of annuals. The water systems associated with these residences consist of a water collector at each of two separate springs, Alpha and Benko, and a pipeline system. At this time it is not known if residences in the area other than those described in this proposed action are linked to the same water systems. Water from Alpha Spring is piped 0.7 mile to the initial point of use (Figure 1(a)). This spring supports a thicket of Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepsis ) approximately 7500 square feet in area (250 feet long x 30 feet wide). Surface water was essentially absent at the time of the field survey on April 15, 1986. Only a muddy area about 2 feet x 4 feet existed at an old cistern . Benko Spring occurs in upper Homewood Canyon. Water is diverted and piped to a residence 0.7 mile down the canyon (Figure 3(b)). This spring supports a large thicket of Arroyo willow approximately 11,000 square feet in area (250 feet long x 45 feet wide ) . Surface water was present during the field visit on April 16, 1986, and flowed downstream below the riparian zone for about 100 feet. However, this flow is seasonal, and was absent during a previous field visit on November 1, 1983 (Aardahl, personal observation). Wildlife occurring in the area include numerous species of reptiles, birds and mammals, many of which are common throughout the region. Certain species may be more abundant around the residences and orchards, assuming the residents do not purposely repel, trap or poison them. Examples of such species are house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ) , mockingbirds (Mimus mimus) , warblers ( Parulidae ) , house mice (Mus musculus ) , pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae ) , and coyote (Canis latrans) . Domestic pigeons or rock doves (Columba livia ) were seen in the area on April 15, 1986. Species diversity and abundance are naturally high around v the springs and riparian habitats. These habitat features are natural and are extremely important to most wildlife in the area. Up to 80 percent of the animal species in the area are dependent on these spring systems ( Thomas / J., et. al., 1979). The most noticeable abundant animals in these areas are birds, because of their general diurnal habit. Most mammals in the area are nocturnal and are seldom observed. Mammals likely abundant in the vicinity of the springs are rodents, kit fox (Vulpes macrotis ) , grey fox (Urocyor cinereoargenteus ) , coyote (Canis latrans ) , and bobcat (Lynx rufus ) . Feral burros (Equus asinus ) were observed at each spring during the field visits (April 15-16, 1986). See Appendix A for species occurring in the area. b. Endangered, threatened and sensitive species. The Inyo brown towhee ( Piplio fuscus eremophilus) occurs in the affected areas, and is associated with willow riparian habitat and adjacent hillsides in the vicinity of both Alpha and Benko Springs (Figure 6). This bird is proposed for listing as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and its proposed critical habitat was published on November 23, 1984 (Federal Register 49, No. 227:46174-46177). See Figure 5 for proposed critical habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will likely issue another notice which amends the known distribution and proposed critical habitat when additional data is obtained. (The Inyo brown towhee is listed as endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission (Department of Fish and Game, 1985)). The riparian areas associated with Alpha and Benko Springs and the adjacent uplands are included in the proposed critical habitat (Figure 7) and Inyo brown towhee are known to occur in these areas (Cord and Jehl, 1978; La Berteaux, 1986; Aardahl, personal observation) in addition to others in a limited area in the southern Argus Range. All sightings of the Inyo brown towhee in the 1978-1979 field studies by Cord (Cord and Jehl, 1978) were made within a circle 11 miles in diameter centered at "Benko Canyon." Thirty-six percent of the sightings were made within a circle three-miles in diameter. Both Alpha and Benko Springs are within the 3-mile circle. Willow and tanglebush thickets (Forestiera neomexicana) at Alpha and Benko Springs are essential to the Inyo brown towhee. These areas are used for escape and nesting cover, and most foraging occurs within 0.25 mile of these areas on adjacent hillsides. Seeds and insects form the bulk of the diet. 2. Environmental Consequences a. Proposed Action - The continuing existence of the residences, by themselves, will not have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources. Any impact that occurred was long ago, and was limited to removal of a few acres of habitat supporting species common to the region. Fig. 5. Map of the ACEC boundary in relation to proposed critical habitat for the Inyo brown towhee. ACEC Boundary Proposed Critical Habitat for the Inyo brown towhee j_ ... u.^T -__ : '*, - s > •] - _^^^^H B^^.-.i..-. -\ ^ ' ■■ * ■ :■. >r *•—'•.—. ' '•*■! V 1 '-- '- - -3i~-\ W^'v--' 'C V''3"" r -^•.«S"-/.'..L. • 36 • ^■.ii.(c-,^.7-;.v^':.-'T'r.| f. .wjs:c.:->v / .3c ! .• .. 3v.",^^~— 3f--:. !sV"-j]',;-'r\v]V-T- ! ""' ,'•" /"?'. ''co'- ■■'T.*- -^_--/jr""-v"*''V'- !'■ /■.. V a ^r- v. s — •»,- ^-"— .:r— -*--:.- --~:-^ ---U~ ^^^ ^^:^Vr' _ - -••..' Iicrc' Fig. 6. Distribution of the Inyo ^"fe brown towhee in the vicinity of the Cp proposed action (from Cord, 1978; ^=S;- LaBert^aux, 1986). 5 Water diversion from the springs has also occurred for an unknown period of time. This has likely resulted in a decrease in the extent of willow and decreased or perhaps eliminated surface water from the spring areas during most of the dry season (April through November). Conditions of riparian vegetation and surface water at each spring before diversions were made are unknown. Willows, and to a lesser extent tanglebush, are indicators of surface or near-surface water in these habitats. Removal of water from these habitats that would otherwise be available very likely results in a decrease in willow and tanglebush (Figure 8 (a)). Decreasing or eliminating surface water has a direct/ adverse impact on wildlife requiring surface water. In general insects, birds and mammals require surface water, although they may utilize it in different ways, both direct and indirect. During field inspections of the two areas on April 15-16, 1986, bird abundance appeared much greater in riparian areas where surface water was present (Aardahl and Thomsen, personal observation). Bird activity was much greater at Bobcat Spring (0.15 mile up canyon from Alpha Spring) and at Benko Spring, where surface water was present, than at Alpha Spring and unnamed springs in a canyon near Benkc Spring where it was absent. Visually, the willow habitat at the upper end of Alpha Spring appeared moisture-stressed (i.e. slightly brown in color), (Figure 8(b)) whereas the lower portion was healthy (dark green). In addition the willow thicket was discontinuous. Two dry segments within the riparian area totaling about 90 feet occur, also (Figure 9). Water is diverted from a buried collector at the upper end of the willow habitat, and flow was estimated at about 5,760 gallons per day from a point in the pipeline about 50 feet below the collector. No significant leaks in the pipeline were observed. It is assumed that the entire flow is used for domestic and irrigation water at the two residences down the canyon. Under the proposed action, the residents would be allowed to maintain the water diversion systems. This could have an adverse effect on the riparian areas. Dense growth at Alpha and Benko Springs has covered the pipelines. Replacement or repair of rusted or clogged pipes may require an unknown degree of vegetation removal. There is evidence of an old fire at Alpha Spring. It is unknown if this was natural or man-caused in an effort to remove dense vegetation to expose a pipeline route, increase surface water flow, etc. However, other riparian habitats in the Argus Range have been purposely set afire, which is probably related to increasing surface water flow for diversions associated with mining operations (Aardahl, personal observation) . The two water diversions, if authorized, would continue to limit the opportunities of the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Fish and Game for habitat restoration and enhancement. Figure 8 (a) Alpha Spring - dry area in willow stand r- ■v-'*"*' 'Jk* &* '/> .* - .• ■ r£? '^alfeii fn, (b) Willows at upper end of Alpha Spring which appear moisture-stressed Figure 9 Discontinuous willow stand at Alpha Spring 6 b. Alternative 1 - This alternate action authorizes the residences but requires removal of the water diversions. No significant impact would occur. The riparian and aquatic habitats would return to a natural state, and no impacts due to maintenance activities of the diversions would occur. Habitat protection and enhancement opportunities would increase. c. Alternative 2 - Impacts would be the same as for the proposed action but would be limited to the duration of the lifetime leases . d. Alternative 3 - Situation would be the same as for Alternative 1, e. Alternative 4 - Impacts would be the same as for the proposed action of authorizing the residences and water diversions. Mitigation Mitigation is identified for the portion of the proposed action and alternatives related to diversion of water from Alpha and Benko Springs. The alternatives to the proposed action, in part, can be considered mitigations. a. Proposed Action - Remove the water diversion from Alpha Spring and authorize use of water from an existing well on public land at the terminus of habitat used by the Inyo brown towhee. Authorize development of a well for the Raibourn residence in a location near the parcel but well outside the riparian habitat and areas used by the Inyo brown towhee. Such a well would eliminate conflicts associated with a water diversion from Benko Spring. A wind powered pump and water storage tanks would be most appropriate. b. Alternative 1 - No mitigation required. c. Alternative 2 - See mitigation identified for the proposed action. d. Alternative 3 - No mitigation required. e. Alternative 4 - For the purpose of this environmental assessment this is the no action alternative, with the assumption that no action or mitigation would be taken. 4. Residual Impacts Adoption of the mitigation recommended for the proposed action would not result in any significant wildlife impacts. Some minor disturbance could occur near the Raibourn residence from well drilling and placement of water storage tanks. 5. Compatibility with existing Land Use Plans, Laws, etc Current Bureau of Land Management Policy for managing ACECs does not allow sale or disposal of public lands. Therefore, the proposed action and alternative 1 are not allowed under existing policy and land classification. If the proposed action is approved, an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980 will need to be nominated and approved before the sale could be conducted. The Endangered Species Act and Bureau of Land Management regulations and policy do not allow for authorizing land uses which could result in impacts to a species listed as threatened or endangered or which is proposed for such listing. The Inyo brown towhee is proposed for listing as threatened. Allowing continued diversion of water will likely impact the habitat for the Inyo brown towhee, and other wildlife, and would therefore be subject to a conference between BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Literature Cited Aardahl, J. 1983. Observations made at Benko Spring and the Argus Range. Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management. Ridgecrest, California. Aardahl, J., and G. Thomsen. 1986. Personal observations made on 15-16 April 1986. Wildlife Biologist and Realty Specialist, respectively, Bureau of Land Management. Ridgecrest, California. Bureau of Land Management. 1980. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan. California Desert Plan Program, Riverside, California 173pp. Cord, B., and J. Jehl. 1978. Distribution, status, and ecology of the Inyo brown towhee (Piplio fuscus eremophilus ) . Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute, San Diego, California. Prepared under Contract No. CA-060-CT8-51 from the Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California 25 pp, plus Appendices. Department of Fish and Game. 1985. List of endangered and threatened animals of California. State of California, the Resources Agency. Sacramento, California 4 pp. La Berteaux, D. 1986. Unpublished field notes. Biologist, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California. Thomas, J., C. Maser and J. Rodiek. 1979. Riparian zones In: J. Thomas, Ed. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands of southeastern Oregon. Pacific Northwest For. and Rng. Exp. Sta. USDA, Forest Service Gen Tech. Report PNW-80. B. Vegetation 1. Affected Environment - The vegetation in the area of the proposed action and alternatives is dominated by shrub species with an under story of annual forbs. The plant community is common in the region (see Table 1 for a list of common species noted). No rare, threatened or endangered species were noted in the area. See the wildlife section of this EA for a discussion of riparian vegetation. 2. Environmental Consequences - As the action is pre-existing the vegetation has already been removed from most of the residence sites. It can be expected that additional vegetation could be removed in the future. Such removal would not be significant as the vegetation is common to the area. Exotic vegetation species have been planted at the sites by the residents, and it is likely they will plant more exotic species in the future. Vehicle use associated with maintenance of the water pipelines could damage additional vegetation. If the buried pipelines are removed, vegetation that has grown in since the pipelines were installed several decades ago could be damaged or destroyed. See the wildlife section of this EA for a discussion of environmental consequences and mitigation measures regarding riparian vegetation. 3. Mitigation - If issued, the rights-of-way should require use of existing roads/trails for any pipeline repairs to avoid further loss of vegetation. If the pipelines are not authorized through rights-of-way, only the above-ground portions of the pipelines should be removed. The buried portions should be plugged and left in place to prevent disturbance to vegetation. 10 Important Vegetation Species Table 1 Species Occurrence Pipeline Springs Common Name Scientific Name Site E F G Routes Creosote Bush Larrea divaricata X X X X Cattle spinach Atriplex polycarpa X X Ephedra Ephedra nevadensis X X Black brush Coleogyne rammosissima X X Cheese bush Hymenoclea sasola X X X X Buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum X X Thornbush Lycium spp. X X X X Dalea Dalea spp. X X X X Paperbag bush Salazaria mexicana X X Brittle bush Encelia farinosa X X X X Cotton thorn Tetradymia axillaris X X Fiddleneck Amsinkia spp. X X Phacelia Phacelia spp. X X Bur sage Ambrosia dumosa X X X X Tanglebush Forestiera neomexicana X X Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepsis X X 11 C. Soils 1. Affected Environment - Soils within the affected area range from medium to high sensitivity according to the CDCA Plan of 1980. These soils are on moderately steep slopes, with high susceptibility to water erosion if disturbed. Much of the soils are very shallow to deep (10" - 60") but dominantly shallow to moderately deep (20" - 36"). Textures range from sand to silty clay loam in the affected area. 2. Environmental Consequences a. Proposed Action - There would be minimal impacts to soils beyond the existing disturbances. b. Alternative 1 - Under alternative 1 the residences would remain but water sources from springs would not be authorized. There would be no impact to soils with housing developments left as is. Mrs. Raibourn would have to drill a well near her residence for an authorized water source. There would be a short term negative impact to soil with drilling activity, including compaction of soil at the drilling location and possible alteration of soil if a drill pad is needed. Additional soil disturbance would be incurred with removal of segments of both of the underground springs' pipelines to prevent future use. Soils at the springs would be positively impacted due to the increase of available water. The riparian zones would probably expand, decreasing the erosion potential of the affected area. c. Alternative 2 - Under alternative 2 the situation would remain status quo and there would be no further impacts to soils until termination of the lifetime leases. Once the leases were terminated, the springs' pipelines would be removed as described under alternative 1, creating some short term negative impacts, but mostly long term positive impacts at the springs themselves. There may be some short term impacts to soils with the removal of structures. There should be no increase in erosion potential with the foundations left in tact. Soils would be compacted from the activity of equipment used to remove structures and debris. d. Alternative 3 - Under alternative 3 impacts to soils would be incurred, as described in alternative 2, once the lifetime leases have expired. Soils would be impacted regarding the water source relocations as described in alternative 1. e. Alternative 4 - Under alternative 4, no action, there would be no impact to soils beyond what has already occurred. 12 D. Geology and Minerals 1. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The proposed sale parcels lie within the east flank of the Argus Mountain Range. Parcels E through G lie within the Argus Gold Mining District. Sand and gravel and alluvial detritus within and below Homewcod Canyon underlie Parcels E and F. Altered granodiorite underlies the northeastern part of Parcel G. A silicified shear zone is located 50 feet outside the Parcel G boundary. This zone was developed by the Ruth Mine, now undergoing exploration activity. Mining claims encumber parcels E, F and G. All parcels are classified by ELM as being prospectively valuable for geothermal resources. No hot springs are known to exist within the subject area. It was determined in the Mineral Report that because of the small size of the parcels, the reservation of the locatable mineral interest and any development of any parcel with "known mineral values" would interfere with appropriate non-mineral development. Geothermal development would not interfere with appropriate non-mineral surface use. It is the opinion of the author of the Mineral Report that based on literature and field examination of the subject area that the subject parcels are not mineral in character, do not contain known mineral values, and are not prospectively valuable for locatable, salable or 1920 Leasing Act minerals. The subject parcels are classified as prospectively valuable for geothermal resources by BLM, with data from the State of California to indicate that although the area is not mineral in character, it is valuable for prospecting for geothermal energy, hence has "known mineral value" as defined in 43 CFR 2720. See the Mineral Report for a more detailed discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences of sale or lease of parcels E, F and G. Regarding issuing rights-of-way for the currently unauthorized domestic water systems serving these parcels, the subject lands are encumbered by several post P.L. 167 mining claims. There are no free use permits, material sales or mineral leases on the lands. Issuance of rights-of-way for the water systems should have minimal impact to the mining claims because the water systems have been in place for over 30 years. 13 2. Mitigation If issued, the rights-of-way should be subject to valid existing rights . The Mineral Report recommends if the parcels are clearlisted for sale pursuant to Section 203 of the FLPMA, that: a. Geothermal resources be reserved with the right to develop those resources, pursuant to Section 209(a) of the FLPMA; b. Conveyance of all locatable, salable, and 1920 Leasing Act minerals pursuant to Sec. 209(b) of the FLPMA be made a condition of sale; c. That any Notice of Realty Action published in the Federal Register indicate that Parcel G is encumbered by the Benko Nos. 1 and 3 lode mining claims filed on April 6, 1984 by Queenstake Resources (USA), Inc., 5619 N. Paseo Ventoso, Tucson, Arizona 85715; d. That Queenstake Resources (USA), Inc., 5619 N. Paseo Ventoso, Tucson, Arizona 85715 be served a copy of the Notice of Realty Action during the time it is published in the Federal Register; e. That Queenstake Resources (USA), Inc. 5619 N. Paseo Ventoso, Tucson, Arizona 85715, because of their extensive holdings in the suject area, lack of proper posting observed, and nebulous and incomplete maps filed pursuant to the regulations at 43 CFR 3833 by Queenstake, be notified at the time of the NORA's publication in the Federal Register of all parcels offered for sale in Homewood Canyon; f . That Mrs. Beatrice Kirk, relinquish all interest in portions of the Sara Bill and/or Sara Bill II. lode inining claims encumbering Parcels E and F; and g. That prior to sale, Queenstake Resources relinquish any right or interest in the Benko Nos. 1 and 3 lode mining claims encumbering Parcel G, or any right or interest in any mining claims or portion thereof encumbering any parcel identified by Queenstake or others during or after the period of Notice of Realty Action and prior to sale. 14 Visual 1. Affected Environment The Argus Range, with the exception of rock outcrops, generally presents a smooth face to the highway. Traveling north the crest appears to descend and transition from mountain to low rolling hills. Vegetation on the mountains is sparse and, although some extends all the way to the crest, it thins out rapidly past the one third point. A few mining scars mark the surface of the ranges but for the most part do not degrade the scenic quality. The visual resources contrast rating within the area is Class IV. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which may require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. (These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention.) However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance and repeating the basic elements . 2. Environmental Consequences Due to the length of time that the Kirk, Hevener and Raibourn residences have existed (since the 1950 *s), there will not be a decrease in the visual quality in the area as a result of the proposed action or the alternatives. F. Recreation 1. Affected Environment The Argus Range is rated "excellent" for hiking opportunities. Other major recreation activities that are included in this range are: motorcycle and four-wheel-drive play and touring, target shooting, hunting, and nature study. 2. Environmental Consequences Due to the length of time the residences have existed, there is no significant impact on recreation anticipated as a result of the proposed action or the alternatives. G. Cultural Resources 1. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences a. Proposed Action - The land occupied by the Kirk and Hevener families has houses, barns, sheds, a corral, orchard, and gardens, and has been landscaped. Boulders have been used in landscaping, and some rocks have been put in piles. 15 The original condition of the land surface and subsurface has been so altered that any cultural resources which might have been present would have lost all cultural context (Oxendine, personal observation, August 28, 1985). There were no cultural materials observed on these residences, but it cannot be determined whether cultural materials were there when the Kirks and Heveners moved in. It is certain that a cultural resource site could not have survived the intensity of residential disturbance which the Kirks and Heveners put on the land. No cultural resources were observed along the pipeline which has been installed on the side of a canyon north of the residences. The hillside has been modified with a hiking trail and a mining adit. Repairs or replacement of the pipeline would not effect cultural resources. Continued use of the Kirk and Hevener residences and pipeline will have no effect on cultural resources . At the Raibourn residence there is a milling slick on a large, flat boulder which is adjacent to a much larger boulder. Both boulders are close to the Raibourn house on its north side. The larger boulder has two horizontal and six vertical lines on it. The lines appear to have been chipped into the surface of the rock, and have a messy rather than neat appearance. Continued occupancy of the residence will not have an adverse effect on the bedrock milling slick or pattern on the boulder. There is a cultural resource site along the pipeline to Benko Spring. Iny-3377 is primarily along the southwestern bank of the canyon. The pipeline currently has no effect on this cultural site, and should have no future effect on it as long as the pipeline stays in its present location. Access to the pipeline would probably be along a dirt road on the northeastern edge of the streambed, and if so would not disturb the cultural site. The cultural site consists almost entirely of bedrock milling, and these would not be adversely affected by pipeline repairs. The few artifacts associated with the bedrock milling could be adversely affected if a new pipeline were installed on the site. b. Alternative 1 - Continued occupancy through a land sale would have no adverse effects on cultural resources. Removal of the pipeline servicing the Kirks and Heveners would have no adverse effect, and removal of the pipeline servicing Raibourn is not expected to have an adverse effect since vehicles would use an existing road and the streambed. c. Alternative 2 - Continued occupancy through lifetime leases and rights-of-jway for water systems should not have an adverse effect on cultural resources. i l VM » « E 3 500 ROAD CLASSIFICATION itghway, hard au^ace "~~— y highway, hard eurtace ■ "" y road, hard or Improved surface other road ; • ' •stat.Rout. Q US. Rout. 0SUWROU" SCALE 1:100 000 J=L 5000 10000 1 B000 20000 25000 FEET ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN METERS NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF Hit To convert meter* to feet multiply by 3.28H8 To convert feet to meters multiply by 0. 30-13 A ; Thli map complies with national map accuracy standard* FOR SALE BY VS. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. DENVER. COLORADO SG225. OR RESTON. VIRGINIA 22092 QUADRANGLE LOCATION - 40 FEET pty by 3.2808 ply by 0.3048 MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS 1 4 2 3 1 Louisiana Butte 2 Maturango Peak 3 Maturango Peak SE 4 Mountain Springs Canyon 5 Slate Range Crossing 6 Burro Canyon 7 Trona West 8Trona East 5 6 7 8 Improved Road. Unimproved Road. Trail . f~) Interstate Route Q US- Ro ' HOMEWOOD CAJ1 PROVISIONAL ET 16 d. Alternative 3 - See alternative 2 above. e. Alternative 4 - Continued residency, either under lifetime lease or unauthorized, and continued use of water systems are not expected to have an adverse effect on cultural resources. 2. Mitigation Any vehicle access to Benko Spring should be restricted to the existing road on the northeastern edge of the streambed. H. Social/Economic 1. Affected Environment Homewood Canyon is a strictly residential community of about 100 people. Most residents are retired or work in Trona, typically for Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation. The main reasons people choose to live in Homewood Canyon are the peace and quiet, and a cooler climate than Trona. The three sale proponents have lived in Homewood Canyon for about 30 years. They state that they have invested much of what they own in their dwellings and other associated improvements. These residents have lived there with a nagging uncertainty as to their future tenure on the land or whether they will have anything to pass on to their heirs (two of the three have lifetime leases from BIM; the residence of the third party, the Heveners, is unauthorized). 2. Environmental Consequences a. Proposed Action - The residents would be sold the land their homes are located on, giving them permanent tenure, and would be issued rights-of-way authorizing continued use of their existing water systems. b. Alternative 1 - Same as proposed action for land tenure, but the three sale proponents would have to modify their current sources of water. Heveners and Mrs. Kirk may need to install a purification system on or redrill their well which is a few hundred feet from their residences. Mrs. Raibourn would probably need to pay the expense of drilling a new well near her residence. 17 c. Alternative 2 - No change on the lifetime lease land tenure for Mrs. Raibourn or Mrs. Kirk, which would be particularly felt by Mrs. Kirk's family because upon her death the two younger generations of Kirks living with her would have to move their homes off public land. Upon Mrs. Raibourn' s death her heirs would also be required to remove her house and improvements. Heveners would receive the assurance of long term authorized tenure to their home through issuance of a lifetime lease. All three sale proponents would be issued rights-of-way which would authorize use of their existing water systems for the rest of their lives. d. Alternative 3 - Same as alternative 2 for land tenure and alternative 1 for water systems. e. Alternative 4 - The Hevener residence and all the off - site water systems would remain unauthorized. The frustration of the three sale proponents over the uncertainty of their tenure in their homes would continue. The issue of how to resolve this situation would likely continue to resurface as it has for 20 years. IV. PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY INTEREST The member of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors whose district includes Homewood Canyon has expressed his support for the proposed action, as did local residents at a December 1984 town meeting there. The local residents, like others in rural desert communities, are wary of the federal government and likely feel the three sale proponents have squatters rights to the land they live on. There is, on the other hand, currently considerable interest in protective management of riparian habitat. This interest is shared by conservation organizations as the National Audobon Society and Defenders of Wildlife as well as by the California Department of Fish and Game. The presence of the Inyo brown towhee, a wildlife species proposed for listing as threatened, will probably heighten public interest. DETAIL A PARCELS E and F N59°I9'30'E 1078 PARCEL G 31 2i DETAIL 'B Sec 35 4 464 . \ \ \ \ ' / y O v5\ \ \ > 1/4 SEC COR Q W U £ 1) u C O ■o c c 0 u w u l-H b. o ■4~; > DATE DUE GAYLORD PA INT CO IN U.S.A. BLM LIBRARY SC-324A, BLOG. 50 DENVER FED £F?iL CENTER P. 0. BOX 25U47 DENVER, CO 60225-0047