BLM LIBRARY United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office, Nevada June 1999 Proposed Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat .^'ZTter&lFtiF- SgtoMH."**' V SNVEB FEDEWjJ- CCKTEB o on BOX 25047 J* «m r\n<&DO BLM Mission Statement The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air and scenic, scientific and cultural values. BLM/EL/PL-99/013+1610 L__ % tinoiWtf vnosk' ■ ; United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office P.O. Box 12000 (1340 Financial Blvd.) Reno, Nevada 89520-0006 http://www.nv.blm.gov m tj > lis, ■> I r C] A In Reply Refer To: 1610 (NV-040) Dear Reader: Enclosed for your information is the Proposed Caliente Management Framework Plan (MFP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat. This MFP amendment outlines goals and actions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. These goals and actions, some of which are recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approved Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan, would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely Field Office. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. The document discusses several alternatives for the protection of desert tortoise habitat and recovery of the species. The Proposed Amendment and EIS has been printed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. This Proposed Amendment is carried forward from the Draft document and is presented in its entirety. This document contains an overview of the planning process and the planning issues, the Proposed Amendment and three other alternatives analyzed, revisions to the Draft text, written and verbal comments received during public review of the Draft Amendment, and responses to the public issues raised. The Proposed Amendment may be protested by any person who participated in the planning process and who has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval of the Proposed Amendment. A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process (see 43 Code of Federal Regulations § 1610.5-2). Protests must be filed with the Director, Bureau of Land Management, Attn. Ms. Brenda Williams, Protests Coordinator, WO-210/LS-1075, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. All protests must be written and must be postmarked on or before July 16, 1999 and shall contain the following information: -The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. -A statement of the issue or issues being protested. -A statement of the part or parts of the document being protested. -A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues previously submitted during the planning process by the protesting party, or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record. -A concise statement explaining precisely why the Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Director's decision is wrong. ■■■■■■, I - i Upon resolution of any protests, an Approved Plan Amendment and Record of Decision will be issued. The Approved Plan Amendment/Record of Decision will be mailed to all individuals who participated in this planning process and all other interested publics upon their request. If you would like any additional information, please contact Gene L. Drais, Project Manager at (775) 289-1880. Sincerely, Robert V. Abbey / State Director, Nevada Attachment 1. Questions and Answers QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT/FEIS Q. Why is the Bureau of Land Management preparing this document? A. This document is being prepared so that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Several steps led to the proposed land use plan amendment. The desert tortoise was listed as a Threatened Species on April 2, 1990. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) subsequently identified critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise on February 8, 1994. Some of the identified critical habitat included public lands in Lincoln County, Nevada, administered by the BLM. The Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan was issued by the USFWS on June 28, 1994. It provided management actions needed to protect the desert tortoise. Current direction for management of these lands is provided by a multiple use land use plan known as the "Caliente Management Framework Plan" (Caliente MFP), which was completed in 1983 (prior to listing of the desert tortoise). The BLM compared the management actions proposed for recovery of the desert tortoise and the existing land uses allowed under the Caliente MFP. The need to make changes in some land uses to protect desert tortoise habitat resulted in the Proposed Plan Amendment. Q. Is the Bureau of Land Management implementing everything included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan? A. Not all recommendations contained in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan are included for adoption in the Proposed Plan Amendment. The proposed action is an attempt to balance protection of desert tortoise habitat while minimizing adverse affects upon other traditional uses of the public lands. The Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan serves as a guideline to assist BLM in effective management of critical desert tortoise habitat, which will eventually contribute to recovery of the, species. Q. What does this Proposed Plan Amendment do? A. The Proposed Plan Amendment delineates three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for desert tortoise and protects desert tortoise habitat through specific management actions, while minimizing adverse affects upon traditional uses. Q. Will any ranchers be put out of business if this plan is implemented? A. Yes. The Moapa Band of Paiutes currently holds a grazing permit for an allotment which would be closed to livestock grazing under the Proposed Plan Amendment. Two other grazing allotments are proposed for closure. The affected ranchers have negotiated fair market purchases of their ranching operations. Funds to be used for the purchase would come from the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan. Q. Will any tax revenue be lost to Lincoln County if this Proposed Plan Amendment is implemented? If so, how much? A. Yes. Lincoln County annually assesses ranchers 280 per head for cattle (non-dairy), 750 per head for horses and 300 per head for sheep. Lincoln County could potentially lose up to an estimated $380.45 in tax revenues annually if the Proposed Plan Amendment is adopted (410 cattle = $114.80, 5 horses = $3.75 and 873 sheep = $261.90). The current situation, however, is less than the potential loss because the Rox-Tule and Beacon Allotments have been in non-use for the past several years. Therefore, they have not been taxed. The current estimated tax figures are: $100.91 (347 cattle = $97.16, 5 horses = $3.75 and 0 sheep = $0.00). Q. How will motorized recreational events be affected if this Proposed Plan Amendment is implemented? A. Vehicle travel would be limited throughout desert tortoise habitat to existing roads. Cross-country vehicle travel (off roads) would be illegal. Within ACECs, vehicle travel would be further restricted to those roads designated as "open" during a future public involvement process. The public process used to identify roads for vehicle travel within ACECs is intended to ensure continued access to meet public needs. Identification of "open" roads is intended to discourage "pioneering" or creation of new roads. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) organized events would also be limited to existing roads throughout desert tortoise habitat. No speed-based organized events would be allowed within ACECs, and non-speed organized events (or non-speed portions of speed events) would be allowed to pass through ACECs, except during the tortoise's most active periods (March 15 - June 15, and August 15 - October 15), on roads designated within this plan. Q. Are there restrictions on other types of recreation? A. No. Q. Will citizen rights to bear and use firearms be affected? A. No. Q. How will mining be affected? A. Lands within the Kane Springs ACEC would be closed to mineral entry. Mining activity within the Beaver Dam Slope and Mormon Mesa ACECs would be subject to approval of a mining plan of operations by the BLM and Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Q. Where can I review a copy of the "Final Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment For The Management of Desert Tortoise/Habitat Environmental Impact Statement"? A. At Bureau of Land Management Offices in Caliente, Ely, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Copies will also be sent to public libraries in Alamo, Caliente, Ely, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Mesquite, and Moapa and the Lincoln County High School library in Panaca. Q. What is the next step in the planning process? A. The Proposed Plan Amendment and Final EIS is issued which has incorporated comments to the Draft document. There is a 30 day public protest period regarding the Proposed Plan Amendment and Final EIS. An approved Plan Amendment and Record of Decision will be issued upon resolution of all protests. Q. When will the decision be made? A. The Record of Decision document is expected to be signed in calendar year 1999. Q. What do I need to do to protect my right to protest the final decision if I am dissatisfied? A. To develop protest rights on a land use plan, the affected party must show they have participated in the process. This usually means that they have commented on the document as required. Q. How will we know when the desert tortoise is recovered? A. The objective of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan is to recover and delist the desert tortoise. To assist in this recovery and delisting, the recovery plan outlined delisting criteria for recovery. Desert tortoise populations are only capable of very slow growth. Therefore, one delisting criteria states that if a desert tortoise population shows a statistically significant upward trend or remains stationary over a 25 year period (one desert tortoise generation) then delisting may be warranted. To achieve this stationary or increase in tortoise population size, sufficient habitat must also be protected along with regulatory mechanisms in place to allow for the recovery and long-term persistence of the desert tortoise. Delisting will be considered on a recovery unit basis. Monitoring methodologies have been developed and will be implemented to determine when delisting criteria is met. Also see the section labeled monitoring beginning on page 2-8 of this document. Q. In Chapter 4 there is a wide range given for the estimated tortoise population in the Special Management Areas. Why is that? A. This is due to the survey techniques employed. Even though the best survey techniques available are used in the collection of population size and/or density information for wild animal populations, not all of the animals can be counted. This is especially true in the case of tortoise populations where the animals spend a lot of their time below ground. That is why desert tortoise densities are given in ranges. Q. Will allotment evaluations be conducted on allotments outside of the Special Management Areas? A. Yes, allotment evaluations will be conducted in the future on those allotments outside of the ACECs. Q. Will reductions/adjustments be made automatically when this amendment is finalized? A. No, grazing decisions for each allotment will be issued which will implement this plan amendment. PROPOSED CALIENTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management County Directly Affected: Lincoln County, Nevada Environmental Impact Statement Contact: Correspondence on this Final Environmental Impact Statement should be directed to: Gene Drais Gene A. Kolkman, Field Manager Project Manager Bureau of Land Management, Ely Field Office Ely Field Office HC 33 Box 33500 (775)289-1800 Ely, Nevada 89301-9408 Date Final Environmental Impact Statement filed with United States Environmental Protection Agency: June 11, 1999. ABSTRACT This Proposed Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Caliente Management Framework Plan would implement management goals and actions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)- administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. The Mojave desert tortoise {Gopherus agassizii) was listed as a threatened species in 1990, based on declining numbers in some areas of its range. These goals and actions, recommended in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's approved Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a), would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. This amendment is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover listed species within their administrative units. The accompanying EIS satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates that federal agencies analyze the environmental consequences of major undertakings. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely Field Office. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. Official Responsible for the Plan Amendment and the Environmental Impact Statement: )be/t V. Abbey / -, . Date Robert V. Abbey State Director, Nevada / 0..M UW p.c SUMMARY The Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a threatened species in 1990 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, based on declining numbers in portions of its range and regional habitat loss and degradation. This Proposed Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Caliente Management Framework (MFP) proposes direction for implementation of goals and actions on desert tortoise habitat administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Lincoln County, Nevada. The MFP amendment complies with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover ESA listed species occurring within their administrative units. The proposed goals and actions herein are consistent with recommendations made in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan; USFWS 1994a) for assisting with recovery and delisting of populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The accompanying Environmental Impact Statement satisfies mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federal agencies to analyze environmental consequences of major federal actions. The planning area for this amendment consists of approximately 754,600 acres of public land in southern Lincoln County, administered by the Caliente Field Station, within BLM's Ely Field Office. No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. The planning area is located within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as defined by the Recovery Plan. Purpose and Need The purpose of this amendment is to assist the recovery and delisting of the Mojave desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit within the context of BLM's multiple use mandate. The plan is needed to implement site specific aspects from the recommended goals and actions in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. Proposed Action The Proposed Action would assist desert tortoise recovery, while minimizing effects on human activities that occur on public lands. It includes recommendations derived from the Recovery Plan and public input, as well as management actions designed to be consistent, or at least compatible, with those proposed by adjacent BLM Field Offices. The Proposed Action would: 1) designate three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); 2) implement management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat inside and outside of the ACECs; 3) ensure BLM participation in USFWS-developed environmental education programs; and 4) implement a USFWS- approved interagency monitoring program (Line Distance Sampling). The three ACECs, totaling 212,500 acres, would protect 83 percent of designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Management prescriptions, designed to improve desert tortoise habitat, would modify or restrict some multiple uses, including livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle recreation, wild horse and burro management, land use authorizations, and mineral development within the ACECs. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted with the USFWS on any federal action that might affect listed species. Alternatives Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) contains management goals and actions that are similar to the Proposed Action, with the exception of the management direction proposed for livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation. Under this alternative, three ACECs would be designated and managed. Livestock grazing within the ACECs would be managed according to forage production criteria developed by Tracy, (pg. 14, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995). Recreation management direction would be modified to reduce restrictions on recreation use. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted with the USFWS on any federal action that might affect listed species. Mineral activities would be allowed in all management areas with management direction to minimize conflict with recovery efforts. SUMMARY Alternative B (Designated Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) Alternative) contains the management goals and prescriptions recommended in the Recovery Plan, with less emphasis on multiple use management of the public lands. Two special management areas (DWMAs), would protect 52 percent of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. The DWMAs would contain approximately 307,000 acres and would be managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Management prescriptions would not authorize livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, mineral development, many land use authorizations, and some types of recreational activities within the DWMAs. No special management attention, other than required Section 7 consultation on federal actions that might affect listed species, would be directed to the approximately 454,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved Caliente MFP. Management recommendations from the Recovery Plan either would not be implemented or would not be systematically or comprehensively implemented. Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would continue to be conducted prior to the authorization of any federal action affecting listed species. Management direction would also be provided through the issuance of Biological Opinions by the USFWS through Section 7 consultation. Current management directions for livestock grazing and off-highway vehicle events were developed as a result of Biological Opinions issued to minimize effects on desert tortoise habitat. The No Action Alternative forms the baseline against which to assess the effects of the alternatives and is required for a comprehensive NEPA analysis. Issues and Impact Conclusions A number of important issues were raised for this environmental impact statement. These issues along with their impact conclusions are presented below. These measures are presented in detail in Chapter 4 of this environmental impact statement. A summary and comparison of the environmental impacts for the proposed action and all alternatives can be found at the end of Chapter 2. Detailed discussions of impacts can be found in Chapter 4 of this document. TORTOISE HABITAT Issue: Increase protection of desert tortoise populations and habitat to assist with recovery goals outlined in the Recovery Plan. Conclusion: Proposed Action of the MFP Amendment directs development of three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) on which primary management emphasis will be for desert tortoise recovery. Land-use restrictions on ACECs benefitting the desert tortoise will generally allow other resource management to continue. GRAZING Issue: Loss of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) as a result of closing allotments to grazing. Conclusion: Loss of AUMs has been partially mitigated by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund (HCP>, through a willing seller buy-out for those allotments that are within ACECs. LANDS Issue: Land Tenure Adjustments and Land Use Authorizations. Conclusion: The Proposed Action provides for retention of public lands within ACECs and designated critical habitat and also allows for disposal of public lands for community expansion in areas outside of the ACECs and designated critical habitat. The exception is that the federal owned legislatively leased properties controlled by iii SUMMARY Harrich Investments, LLC, may be exchanged for the legislatively conveyed properties now owned by Harrich Investments, LLC. Both the legislatively leased and conveyed lands are considered critical habitat. The intent of any potential exchange would be to enhance ACEC reserve design and improve critical desert tortoise habitat. Land Use Authorizations that envision surface disturbance will be denied or restricted within ACECs and designated critical habitat. RECREATION Issue: Provide corridors to allow organized OHV events to pass through desert tortoise habitat from population centers in Clark County into non-tortoise habitat to the north. Conclusion: Most of the corridors suggested to allow events to pass through tortoise habitat have been included in the Proposed Action to allow access for non-speed portions of OHV events to points north. MINERALS Issue: Closure of lands to mineral entry and economic development. Conclusion: With the establishment of the special management areas (ACECs), mineral activities would be restricted but not closed in the Beaver Dam Slope and Mormon Mesa ACECs. The Kane Springs ACEC would be closed to mineral entry to protect higher tortoise habitat values. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS Issue: Effects that the amendment would have on economics in Lincoln County and also additional restrictions on use of public lands. Conclusion: No noticeable adverse economic effects are projected for the Lincoln County economy. Potentially, some additional costs may be borne by mineral operators, and some livestock operations would be reduced or curtailed. Several of the livestock operations have been inactive for a number of years; the active operations may be reimbursed by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan. WILD HORSES Issue: Use of public lands by wild horses and/or burros and the recovery of desert tortoise habitat. Conclusion: Grazing by wild horses and burros would be excluded from special management areas in order to improve the habitat for desert tortoises. This would result in a reduction of twenty to seventy-five wild horses and the conversion of one to two herd management areas to herd areas. Agency Preferred Alternative In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal agencies are required by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1502.14) to identify their preferred alternative for a project in the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project. The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; it is rather an indication of the agency's preference. This alternative considered all the information that has been received, including comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, relevant to the proposed project. The agency preferred alternative is the Proposed Action as described in the environmental impact statement. IV SUMMARY Rationale The Proposed Action would best meet the purpose and need of desert tortoise recovery within a multiple use management context. Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Special Designate three areas of Management desert tortoise habitat as Areas ACECs for a total of 212,500 acres or 83% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Wildlife Cdesert Manage desert tortoise tortoise and other habitat to assist the special status recovery and delisting of species) desert tortoise in the Northeast Recovery Unit. Maintain or improve habitat condition for desert tortoise and other special species. Designate Experimental Management zones as needed. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Participate in USFWS-developed environmental education program ALTERNATIVE A Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B Identify two areas of desert tortoise habitat as DWMAs for a total of 307,000 acres or 52% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Authorize only those activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise habitat and other habitat. Establish barriers and underpasses for tortoise along heavily traveled roads and railroads. Designate up to 10% as Experimental Management Zones. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C No Special Management Areas would be designated. Prepare HMP's for desert tortoise and Gila monster. Protect habitat of desert tortoise and other special species through mitigative stipulations developed through the environmental (NEPA) process for each individual action. Program not developed. S-l Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Forestry and Vegetative Products Mgmt. Special Status Plant Species Livestock Grazing Management PROPOSED ACTION Within ACECs, authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed or plant) except for salvage and research on case by case basis. Allow commercial sales outside of ACECs. Manage special status plant species to assure protection, maintainance and enhancement of habitat. Allotments or portions of allotments within Mormon Mesa, Kane Springs, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be closed to grazing. ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Grazing (cattle) allotments within the ACECs would be authorized if the following forage requirement was met: 288 lbs/acre of available tortoise forage. Sheep grazing (Beacon Allotment) within the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would be closed. Manage vegetative products in desert tortoise habitat for education, scientific purposes, sale and sustained yield. Same as Proposed Action Allotments or portions of allotments within the Mormon Mesa and Coyote Springs DWMA would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of the DWMAs would be open to grazing with no seasonal utilization levels Study, manage or allow sale of desert vegetation within planning area. Proceed issuance of authorization for surface disturbance with either free use or sale of vegetative products. Same as Proposed Action Conduct livestock grazing in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. (USFWS 1994c). Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. S-2 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Wild Horse and Burro Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B The Mormon Mountains HMA will no longer be managed for wild horses (0 AML), but will maintain its herd area status. For HMAs within desert tortoise habitat but outside of ACECs wild horses would be managed with seasonal utilization limits. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action except with the addition of Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas where they existed at the passage of the WH&B Act of 1971 (PL- 92-195) S-3 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Lands Management PROPOSED ACTION Retain all public lands within ACECs, and critical desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs, except in the case of Harrich Investments, LLC properties where federal legislatively leased lands may be exchanged for the legislatively conveyed properties now owned by Harrich Investments, LLC. Both the legislatively leased and conveyed lands are considered critical habitat. The intent of such an exchange would be to improve ACEC design. ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Same as Proposed Action Retain all public lands and allow no disposal actions to occur within DWMAs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within DWMAs. Allow no land use authorizations within DWMAs that would cause any surface disturbance. Allow no new landfills within DWMAs. Provide public land for community expansion in the planning area as needed. Limit the transfer of public land for agriculture production to those areas that have been determined to have development potential. Allow disposal actions to occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. Allow land use authorizations outside of ACECs. S-4 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Rights-of-Way Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATP/E A Allow no new landfills within ACECs. Retain the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) legislatively designated corridor. Designate three utility /transportation corridors as described on Map 2-7. Areas outside of corridors within ACECs would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance within DWMAs. Do not authorize any activities associated with the transfer of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Do not designate transmission and utility corridors within DWMA's. Locate and designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way exist. Consolidate all future communication site rights- of-way, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks. Requests for new material site rights-of-way within ACECs, pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act, will be considered within a one-mile wide corridor along designated federal roads (Map 2-9). Material site rights-of-way outside of ACECs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. S-5 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Recreation Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C OHV use in ACECs limited to designated roads & vehicle trails. ACECs closed to speed competitive OHV events. Non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events (or non-speed portions of speed events) may pass through ACECs on designated roads from October 16 - March 14 and June 16 - August 14. OHV casual use and events, limited to existing roads and vehicle trails in desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. OHV use in ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. Speed competitive OHV events allowed to pass through ACECs on designated roads during tortoise inactive season (October 15 to March 15). Non-speed and non-competitive OHV events allowed to pass through without seasonal restriction. OHV designation outside of ACECs would remain open. OHV use within DWMAs limited to designated roads and limited speed. DWMAs closed to all competitive or organized events. Parking and camping within DWMAs restricted to designated sites No restriction of recreational use in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. All types of organized OHV events could be conducted through tortoise habitat outside DWMAs, most likely through Toquop Wash. Halfway Wash would be open north of the Clark - Lincoln County line. OHV designations are mostly "open" with variations of "limited" in select areas. OHV events conducted in accordance with Biological Opinion for Las Vegas District Off-Road Events. Kane Springs Valley closed to competitive OHV events. S-6 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Minerals Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B Kane Springs ACEC would be closed to fluid and non energy mineral leasables and operation under the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral materials disposal except one-mile wide corridors on designated federal and county roads. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to mineral entry with the following restrictions: ACECs remain open to the Mining Law of 1872 subject to Plans of Operations. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices of operation for locatable minerals. Standard operating procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply- No surface use allowed in the planning unit for fluid minerals from March 15 October 15. Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. DWMAs withdrawn from mineral entry, closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral material disposal. Desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs remains open to mineral entry, fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, and mineral material disposal. ALTERNATIVE C All lands within the planning unit remain open to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing (except Mormon Caves), to operations of the General Mining Law, and to mineral material disposal. 1. Under the General Mining Law of 1872 will be subject to Plans of Operation. ACECs closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. Planning unit remains open to non-energy mineral leasing with the same lease stipulation as oil and gas. S-7 PROGRAM Minerals Management (continued) Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 to October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. S-8 y^^-au^^^^^l^ Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATfVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Management (continued) Outside ACECs 1. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices for Iocatable minerals. Standard Operating Procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply. 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. S-9 Table S-l Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Fire Management Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. Some suppression restrictions apply. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. S-10 aMMMHMAMMMlMMfcaM, Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Total Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Management Prescriptions for Tortoise Habitat Outside of Special Management Areas Tortoise Population Trends Within Special Management Areas Ecological Status of Tortoise Habitat 212,500 acres (28% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 203,700 acres (83% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 542,100 acres subject to Section 7 consultation plus additional proposed management. Encourage upward trend to attain long-term stability and viability goals, avoid long-term downward trends. Maintain or improve within ACECs. Maintain outside ACECs. HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALTB) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) DESERT TORTOISE Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Maintain in the short term. Maintain inside and outside ACECs. LIVESTOCK 307,000 acres (41% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 126,700 acres (52% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 447,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation with no additional proposed management. Encourage upward trend to attain long-term stability and viability goals, avoid long-term downward trends. Maintain or improve within DWMAs. Decrease outside of DWMAs. 754,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation . Currently stable trend at Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots. Probable decline in trend in the future. Maintain Number of AUMs reduced 2095 (Sheep) 3563 (Cattle) 2095 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 3688 (Cattle) S-ll Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Number of allotments closed Number of allotments partially closed Current livestock use acres closed to grazing Current livestock non-use acres closed to grazing Appropriate Management Level (AML) for wild horses Number of Horses Removed 1 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 6 (Cattle) 47,900 164,600 0 for Mormon Mountains Herd Area; AML for Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 20 from outside of Mormon Mountains Herd Area. 1 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 5,600 0 WILD HORSES Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action 0 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 7 (Cattle) 92,300 214,700 0 for Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Areas; AML for Blue Nose Peak HMA to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 40 from Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area; 20 from outside of Herd Area boundaries. 0 None None AML for all three HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 20 from outside of HMA boundaries. S-12 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention within SMAs Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention outside of SMAs Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Disposal Outside of SMAs ROWs: Cost to Customer Landfills Retain in public ownership all lands within ACECs (212,500 acres). Retain in public ownership 41,200 acres of designated critical desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs. 15,000 acres identified for potential disposal; additional disposals to be considered on a case-by- case basis. Least expense; due to ROW located in designated corridors where previous inventories, clearances, and disturbances have occurred. All unauthorized dumps will be closed and reclaimed. LANDS Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Retain in public ownership all lands within DWMAs (307,000 acres). Potentially dispose of critical desert tortoise habitat subject to Section 7 consultation. No acres specifically identified for disposal, however, disposals would be considered on a case-by-case basis for agricultural development and community expansion. Most expense due to least amount of management flexibility. Disposals to be considered on a case-by-case basis for agricultural development and community expansion. Less expense than DWMA Alternative, more expense than Proposed Action. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action S-13 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Recreation Access and OHV Use OHV Events 212,500 acres within ACECs closed to all speed competitive OHV events, but open to non-speed competitive & non-competitive OHV events on designated roads from October 16 - March 14 and June 16 - August 14. 542,100 acres outside ACECs limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. 212,500 acres within ACECs closed to all speed competitive OHV events but, open to non-speed competitive & non- competitive OHV events on designated roads. 542,100 acres open to speed competitive OHV events on existing roads. RECREATION 212,500 acres within ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. 542,100 acres outside ACECs open. Emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 212,500 acres within ACECs open to speed competitive OHV events on designated roads during the tortoise inactive season. Non-speed competitive & non-competitive OHV events allowed on designated roads without seasonal restriction. 542,100 acres open to speed competitive OHV events on existing roads. 307,000 acres within DWMAs limited to designated roads. 447,600 acres outside DWMAs open; emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 307,000 acres within DWMAs closed to all competitive and organized OHV events. 447,600 acres open to competitive and organized events. 51,360 acres limited to existing roads and trails. 703,240 acres within planning area open; emergency designations would be done as needed in response to habitat damage. 754,600 acres open to OHV events in accordance with the current Biological Opinion. S-14 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATrVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Minerals Kane Springs ACEC, 65,900 acres, closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal (except one-mile wide corridor on county and federal roads for maintenance under material rights-of-way and free use permits to local governments), and closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, 146,600 acres will be subject to a Plans of Operation requirement. Outside ACECs, 542,100 acres, open to locatable mineral. MINERALS 0 acres withdrawn. 754,600 acres open to locatable minerals only with restriction on 212,500 acres, subject to plans of operateration. Same as Proposed Action 307,000 acres closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal, and to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. 307,000 acres closed to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, mineral material disposal, and to fluid and non-energy mineral leasables. No special management outside ACECs. 754,600 acres open to mineral entry. 0 acres closed to withdrawals. 754,600 acres open without restrictions. 754,600 acres open without restrictions. S-15 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Mineral Cont. HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALT B) Within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. 212,500 acres closed to mineral materials except one-mile wide corridor of designated roads and trails. Outside ACECs, 542,100 acres, open to mineral materials with Standard Operating Procedures. 688,700 acres open to non- energy and fluid leasable minerals with minor lease stipulations. Additional cost of operations and the loss of access to minerals. 212,500 acres closed to mineral materials except one-mile wide corridor on designated roads. 542,100 acres open to mineral material with minor restrictions. Same as Proposed Action 542,100 acres will be open to non-energy and fluid leasable minerals with minor lease stipulations. Same cost of operation as the Proposed Action but no loss of access to mineral values would occur. No special management outside ACECs. No special management outside ACECs. Outside DWMAs, 447,600 acres, open to mineral entry with restrictions. Loss of access to minerals and potential values of minerals to the public and industry NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) 754,600 acres open without restrictions. 754,600 acres open without restrictions. 2,880 acres closed to fluid mineral leasing. No additional cost of operations. S-16 Table S-2: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT DWMA ALTERNATIVE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) (ALT B) ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) FIRE MANAGEMENT Fire Management Due to protection of habitat Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action combined with minimizing surface disturbance, fire suppression and management will be more expensive due to the additional coordination and mitigation required. S-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ;i LIST OF TABLES viij LIST OF MAPS ix SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES (TABLE S-l) S-l SUMMARY OF IMPACTS (TABLE S-2) g-11 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1_1 LOCATION AND LAND STATUS . . , . . j.5 CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS 1-5 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS ' .' 1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 1-8 PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW 1_8 PLANNING CRITERIA 1-9 CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS 2-2 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 2-5 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-11 PROPOSED ACTION 2-1 1 ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) 2-43 ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) 2-46 ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 2-59 AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ' 2-66 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 2-67 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION 3., PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 3.3 SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES 3-7 FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS 3_21 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES 3-22 LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 3-22 WILD HORSES AND BURROS MANAGEMENT 3-22 LANDS ' ' 3_26 RECREATION 3-27 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS . ' . 3_27 FLUID MINERALS 3.28 SOLID MINERALS 3-29 FIRE MANAGEMENT 3-31 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS 3-31 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION 4-1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS 4-1 INCOMPLETE AND/OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION 4-2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 4-5 PROPOSED ACTION (BLM PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 4-7 ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) 4-30 ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) 4-36 ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) 4-54 POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES 4-65 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-69 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 4-69 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-71 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 4-71 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-72 IMPACT ANALYSIS 4-97 CHAPTER 5 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION INTRODUCTION 5-1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY 5-1 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-4 LIST OF REVIEWERS 5-6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT/DEIS 5-12 COMMENT LETTERS ON THE DRAFT PLAN AMENDMENT/DEIS 5-46 REFERENCES CITED R-l ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AA-1 GLOSSARY GG-1 INDEX M APPENDICES APPENDIX A STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (MOJAVE-SOUTHERN GREAT BASIN RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL) A-l APPENDIX B ACEC NOMINATION EVALUATION B-l APPENDIX C LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENTS C-l APPENDIX D OHV STIPULATIONS FOR SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS D-l APPENDIX E STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR LANDS & MINERALS E-l APPENDIX F ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY DATA F-l APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF FORAGE SPECIES CONSUMED BY TORTOISE G-l APPENDIX H GRAZING MANAGEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACECS H-2 vn TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES TABLE S-l TABLE S-2 TABLE 2-1 TABLE 2-2 TABLE 2-3 TABLE 2-4 TABLE 2-5 TABLE 2-6 TABLE 2-7 TABLE 3-1 TABLE 3-2 TABLE 3-3 TABLE 3-4 TABLE 3-5 TABLE 3-6 TABLE 3-7 TABLE 4-1 TABLE 4-2 TABLE 4-3 TABLE 4-4 TABLE 4-5 TABLE 4-6 TABLE 4-7 TABLE 4-8 TABLE 4-9 TABLE 4-10 TABLE 4-11 TABLE 4-12 TABLE 5-1 TABLE 5-2 TABLE C-l TABLE C-2 TABLE F-l TABLE F-2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES S-l SUMMARY OF IMPACTS '.'.'..'. S-U ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY WITHIN ACECS 2-16 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBER OF AUMS IN ACECS 2-20 SUMMARY OF LIMITATIONS FOR NON-SPEED OHV EVENTS AND NON-SPEED PORTIONS OF SPEED EVENTS WITHIN ACECs 2-27 PROPOSED SEASON OF USE AND TOTAL NUMBERS OF ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING (AUMS) OUTSIDE OF PROPOSED ACECS 2-37 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY WITHIN DWMAS 2-53 CURRENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF AUMS OF SPECIFIED LIVESTOCK GRAZING WITHIN PROPOSED DWMAS 2-54 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 2-67 SPRINGS IN THE PLANNING AREA ! .' ' . 3-4 RANGE CONDITION CLASSES (SERAL STAGE) '.'.'.'. 3-6 ESTIMATED TORTOISE NUMBERS BY DENSITY CLASS 3-14 ACTUAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS 3.14 ALLOTMENT PERMITTED USE 3„24 ALLOTMENT ACREAGE IN DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT ...... . . . . . . 3-25 LINCOLN COUNTY EARNINGS AND EMPLOYMENT 3-32 PROPOSED ACECS WITH ACREAGE AND TORTOISE POPULATION 4-8 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY IN PROPOSED ACECS 4-20 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-PROPOSED ACTION 4-24 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATP/E A 4-34 PROPOSED DWMAS WITH ESTIMATED TORTOISE POPULATIONS. . . . 4-37 ALLOTMENTS PARTIALLY OR ENTIRELY IN PROPOSED DWMAS 4-46 MINERAL MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATIVE B 4-49 MINERAL MANAGEMENT ACREAGE-ALTERNATIVE C 4-59 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS 4-70 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT AREAS-NORTHEAST RECOVERY UNIT 4-98 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION NORTHEAST RECOVERY UNIT 4.99 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE .... 4-1 15 LIST OF PREPARERS 5.4 LIST OF REVIEWERS 5-6 POSSIBLE SALES, EXCHANGES, AND R&PP PATENT LOCATIONS C-5 POTENTIAL AIRPORT PATENT LOCATIONS C-6 ECOLOGICAL SITE INFORMATION [[[[[ F-2 SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES FOR PLANT SPECIES F-7 vm TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS MAP 1-1 NORTHEASTERN MO JAVE- RECOVERY UNIT 1-2 MAP 1-2 GENERAL LOCATION OF PLANNING AREA 1-6 MAP 1-3 PLANNING AREA 1-7 MAP 2-1 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 2-10 MAP 2-2 PROPOSED ACECS 2-12 MAP 2-3 PROPOSED ACECS AND CRITICAL HABITAT 2-13 MAP 2-4 GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND PROPOSED ACECS 2-17 MAP 2-5 CATTLE USE AREAS IN ALLOTMENTS/ACECS 2-18 MAP 2-6 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS/ACECS 2-21 MAP 2-7 PROPOSED UTILITY CORRIDORS/ACECS 2-23 MAP 2-8 PROPOSED DESIGNATED OHV ROUTES/ACECS 2-26 MAP 2-9 PROPOSED MINERAL MATERIALS CORRIDORS WITHIN ACECS 2-31 MAP 2-10 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS IN PLANNING AREA 2-38 MAP 2-11 PROPOSED DWMAS 2-47 MAP 2-12 PROPOSED DWMAS AND CRITICAL HABITAT 2-49 MAP 2-13 GRAZING ALLOTMENTS AND PROPOSED DWMAS 2-51 MAP 2-14 CATTLE USE AREAS IN ALLOTMENTS/DWMAS 2-52 MAP 2-15 WILD HORSE HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS/DWMAS 2-55 MAP 3-1 KEY AREA TRANSECTS IN CRITICAL HABITAT 3-8 MAP 3-2 CURRENT DESERT TORTOISE DISTRIBUTIONS 3-12 MAP 3-3 LIVESTOCK GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN PLANNING AREAS 3-23 MAP 4-1 NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT PROPOSED DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT AREAS 4-73 IX CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this plan amendment is to help recover and delist the desert tortoise within a multiple use management context. The goals and actions, recommended in the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a) (hereinafter Recovery Plan) would assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizli) in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (Map 1-1). The amendment is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, which mandates that all federal agencies will conserve and recover listed species within their administrative units. Management direction for this plan amendment was developed within the context of BLM's mandate from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to manage public lands under multiple use and sustained yield. In 1990, the USFWS, under the authority of the ESA, listed the Mojave population of the desert tortoise as a threatened species. The ESA calls for the preparation and implementation of recovery plans for those listed species that are likely to benefit from the effort. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to appoint recovery teams to prepare such plans. A recovery plan must establish recovery goals and objectives, describe site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve those goals, and estimate the time and cost required for recovery. A recovery plan is not self-implementing, but presents a set of recommendations, endorsed by an approving official representing the Department of the Interior (USFWS 1994a). "Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the [U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service" (USFWS, p. 1, 1994a). According to the USFWS, "Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species" (USFWS, 1994a). The reader should be aware that BLM was represented on the recovery team, conducted an independent and extensive review of the Recovery Plan, and as a result, the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group (BLM State Directors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and the four State Wildlife Management Agency heads) concurred with the Recovery Plan. To be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, however, this environmental impact statement shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made (C.E.Q. 1502.2 (g)). In 1994, BLM signed a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 13 other federal agencies to improve implementation of the ESA. Under the terms of this MOU, cooperating agencies have agreed to use their authorities to conserve federally listed species and to cooperate in the implementation of recovery plan actions, Conservation Agreements, and other affirmative conservation actions developed by regional interagency groups. MAP 1-1 Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit Recovery Unit Boundary Caliente MFP Amendment Planning Area -Desert Tortoise Habitat 50 rz 50 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfbCIS 1-2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The USFWS issued the Recovery Plan in 1994. This Recovery Plan identified specific recovery units, developed criteria for the recovery and delisting of the species, and recommended actions to be implemented on federal lands to achieve those goals. The Recovery Plan stated that the Mojave population of desert tortoise would be considered eligible for delisting on a recovery unit basis when the following conditions were met: Criterion 1: As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the population within a recovery unit must exhibit a statistically significant upward trend or remain stationary for at least 25 years (one desert tortoise generation). Criterion 2: Enough habitat must be protected within a recovery unit, or the habitat and desert tortoise population must be managed intensively enough to ensure long-term viability. Criterion 3: Provisions must be made for population management within each recovery unit so that discrete population growth rates (lambdas) are maintained at or above 1 .0 into the future. Criterion 4: Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments must be implemented that provide for long-term protection of desert tortoise and their habitat, such as those described in Sections II, D and E of the Recovery Plan. Delisting would be followed by a loss of protection under the ESA; therefore, adequate protection through alternative means is essential before delisting can occur. Criterion 5: The population in the recovery unit is unlikely to need protection under the ESA in the foreseeable future (USFWS, p. 43-44, 1994a). Additional Background Information: The desert tortoise is found throughout the Mojave, Sonoran, and Colorado Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. Two distinct desert tortoise populations are recognized: the Sonoran population, located east and south of the Colorado River, and the Mojave population, found west and north of the Colorado River. Only the Mojave population has been listed as threatened under the ESA. This plan amendment addresses the management of the public lands in Lincoln County, Nevada that provide habitat for Mojave desert tortoise populations. In 1980, federal management actions for tortoise decline was formally effected for a portion of the Mojave population occurring along the Beaver Dam Slope of Utah. Action by the USFWS resulted in listing the Beaver Dam population as threatened and designation of 35 mi2 as critical habitat. By the late 1980's, federal land management agencies were developing enhanced management actions to benefit desert tortoise habitat and populations. In 1988, the Desert Tortoise Habitat on Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan was published (BLM 1988). The Rangewide Plan called for BLM managers to categorize all habitat using four criteria based on: relative importance of habitat to support viable tortoise populations; conflict resolution with other land uses; and, tortoise population density and trend. In keeping with the Rangewide Plan, a Management Oversight Group (MOG), consisting of multi-agency representation of primarily federal and state governments, was established in 1988 to oversee implementation of Rangewide Plan objectives inclusive of interagency coordination of activities. Facilitated by the BLM, the MOG was empowered to develop both management policies and research funding priorities benefitting the desert tortoise. Current desert tortoise protection by Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah state wildlife agencies varies and centers on laws, regulations, and policies regarding collection, possession, trade, and transportation of individuals. The exception is with California which also has habitat authority through its endangered species act. Protection 1-3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION afforded by the states has changed over the decades. For example, collection or killing the desert tortoise was unlawful by the mid-1950's in Nevada. The Board of Wildlife Commissioners later acted on species classifications under authority of Nevada revised Statutes 501.110.1(d). Classifications were revised in 1978 and 1991 from Protected and Rare to Protected and Threatened, respectively (Nevada Administrative Codes 503.080). Similarly, the desert tortoise was elevated to a Threatened species by action of California's Fish and Game Commission on June 22, 1989. Both California and Nevada have adopted the desert tortoise as their State Reptile. Using the 240-day emergency rule of the ESA, the USFWS listed the Mojave population of the desert tortoise as endangered on August 4, 1989. Except for animals in captivity prior to the listing date, all desert tortoises were afforded protection under the ESA. On April 2, 1990, the USFWS published its final ruling of the Mojave Population as Threatened based on several factors. Desert tortoise numbers have been declining in some areas, particularly in the western Mojave Desert. The declines have been attributed to habitat loss or degradation, direct and indirect human-caused mortality, and more recently localized predation, and disease. An estimated 21 million acres of habitat are occupied by the Mojave population of desert tortoise; of that total, 14 million acres are public lands administered by BLM (unpublished report to the MOG, June 1995). Habitat loss has been a consequence of urbanization, agricultural development, livestock grazing, mining, and road development. Other human activities, including the removal of tortoises from the wild for pets, have been implicated in the declining numbers. Because of historic increase in raven populations, localized tortoise population have experienced heavier predation pressure, particularly on juvenile recruitment. The importance of predation by other species is not well understood. An upper respiratory tract disease has been implicated as a significant factor for some tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert. (USFWS 1994a). While populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, which includes the desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, do not seem to be undergoing major changes in numbers or densities, population levels are considered to be dangerously low (written communication, Brussard 1994). The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Mojave population in 1994. Critical habitat designation includes "areas that contain the best remaining tortoise habitat" and "areas that contain essential habitat features (whether or not they are currently occupied by the listed species)" (Federal Register, p. 5828, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). It also identifies those habitat areas that may require special management attention. The designation of critical habitat "does not prescribe specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), nor does it have a direct effect on areas not designated as critical habitat " (Federal Register, p. 5821, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The USFWS conducts consultations under Section 7 of the ESA for actions that may affect listed species and their habitat. Section 7 consultation for critical habitat focuses on the effects of actions, whether or not that habitat is currently occupied by the listed species. Any action that may adversely modify critical habitat will trigger Section 7 consultation. "The requirement to consider adverse modification of critical habitat is an incremental Section 7 consideration above and beyond Section 7 review necessary to evaluate jeopardy and incidental take" (Federal Register, pg, 5834, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). In 1990, the Secretary of the Interior appointed a Desert Tortoise Recovery Team, consisting of eight members, generally academic scientists with expertise in desert tortoise biology, conservation biology, epidemiology, population dynamics, and desert plant communities. The team met 17 times between October 1990 and April 1994 in order to develop recommendations for recovery strategies. During development of the Recovery Plan, the team solicited input from the MOG. In June of 1994, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Team, with the concurrence of the MOG, issued the Recovery Plan. The Recovery Plan describes a strategy for the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population that includes: 1) identification of six recovery units within the Mojave Desert region; 2) establishment of a system of special 1-4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION management areas (SMAs), identified as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) within the recovery units; and 3) development and implementation of specific recovery actions within the DWMAs. The proposed DWMAs would include a portion of the designated critical habitat, as well as other desert tortoise habitat not designated as critical (Federal Register, p. 5746-5768, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The final boundaries of the proposed DWMAs were to be determined by land management agencies, in consultation with the USFWS, "through a planning process that is coordinated with local government and interested members of the public" (Federal Register, p. 5833, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). In developing the proposed DWMAs, land management agencies would have the opportunity "to consider local custom and culture in their decision process" (Federal Register, p. 5839, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). The Planning Area (Map 1-1) for this amendment is managed under the Caliente Management Framework Plan (MFP), approved in February, 1982. Since many of the goals and objectives proposed to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would not be in conformance with direction contained in the approved MFP, an amendment to the MFP is needed. LOCATION AND LAND STATUS The Caliente Field Station, an administrative unit within the BLM's Ely Field Office, is located in Caliente, Nevada and administers public land in Lincoln County (Map 1-2). Approximately 3.4 million acres of public lands are contained within the Field Station Area; desert tortoise habitat comprises approximately 754,600 acres of that total. The planning area for this amendment is defined as BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County; this habitat occurs at elevations below 4,000 feet (Map 1-3). No private lands would be directly affected by management direction described under the Proposed Action or alternatives. CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLANS The Proposed Action or alternatives would amend the approved Caliente MFP for the planning area; no alternatives address the management of areas outside of the planning area. The Proposed Action or alternatives would be in conformance with the remainder of the decisions contained within the approved MFP. Neither the Proposed Action nor any alternatives proposed in this plan amendment contain direction that is inconsistent with approved activity plans for the planning unit. The Proposed Action or alternatives also conform to the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health recommended by the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council to the BLM Nevada State Director in 1996 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on February 12, 1997. (Appendix A) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS Management of non-speed OHV events in the Proposed Action differs from adjacent BLM field office plans. The Las Vegas Field Office in Nevada proposes an array of restrictions including limiting numbers of events per year and per ACEC according to active or inactive season of the tortoise, requiring special recreation permits for small organized events, closing the ACECs for brief periods at the beginning and end of the tortoise active season, etc. The Arizona Strip Field Office in Arizona would close ACECs to non-speed events during the tortoise active season. The Dixie Field Office, Utah, and the Tonopah Field Station, Nevada, will limit non-speed OHV events to designated roads without seasonal or other restrictions. The Ely Field Office would close ACECs to all organized OHV activity during the tortoise's most active periods, similar to one of Las Vegas' restrictions, but would allow non-speed OHV events to pass through ACECs on designated corridors at all other times of the year, similar to Dixie and Tonopah (see responses to comments 5.9 and 19.12). The Recovery Plan identifies "all vehicle activity off of designated roads [and] all competitive and organized Map 1-5 aliente MFP Amendment for Management of Desert Map 1"2 Tortoise Habitat - General Location of the Caliente MFP Planning Unit N 20 20 40 60 80 Miles Lincoln County Caliente MFP Planning Unit I I Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Art/Info CIS 1-6 ^■■•MMaMMMMaMtat^MHa* - — w Caliente MFP Amendment for Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat - Planning Area Map 1-3 Planning Area — (excluding all private lands) Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/Info CIS 1-7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION events on designated roads" as "generally incompatible with desert tortoise recovery and other purposes of DWMAs." The OHV management strategy proposed in this plan amendment would be consistent with the Recovery Plan in restricting vehicular access to designated routes, but would be inconsistent in permitting organized OHV events to pass through the ACECs. The Proposed Action or alternatives are consistent with the approved resource-related policies and programs of other federal agencies, Indian tribes, and the State of Nevada. Approved land use plans for adjacent federal administrative units include the Clark County MFP, the Esmeralda-Nye Resource Management Plan (RMP), Arizona Strip Field Office RMP, the Virgin River MFP, the Nellis Air Force Range Resource Plan, and the Desert Wildlife Range Management Plan. Plans approved by adjacent counties include the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan (Nevada) and the Washington County (Utah) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Proposed Action and alternatives are also consistent with the Lincoln County Policy Plan for the Management of Public Lands, which recommends that federal land managing agencies "[i]dentify, protect, and preserve wildlife species and habitats on public lands"(Lincoln County Policy Plan, p. Ll-10, 1984). The Policy Plan also recommends that "[t]he Federal Government should continue to make public rangelands economically and realistically available for livestock grazing, where compatible with other multiple use objectives" (LI-7). Further, the Lincoln County Policy Plan endorses the management of off-highway vehicle use on public lands "to minimize negative environmental impacts" (LI-9). Management actions identified in the Proposed Action or alternatives would not be consistent with a resolution passed by the Lincoln County Commissioners on June 20, 1994. This resolution states that the Lincoln County Commission is "adamantly opposed ... to land exchanges or transfers that take land either off of county tax rolls or place land into a tax exempt status" (Lincoln County Commission Resolution #1994-10). Throughout the narrative in Chapter 2, reference is made to acquisition of the lands through exchange, in these cases private lands could be taken off of the county tax roles and therefore be inconsistent with the County Resolution. Several adjacent BLM administrative units are preparing land use plans or amendments in order to implement the recovery goals and objectives identified for the Mojave population of desert tortoise. The Las Vegas Field Office (Las Vegas, Nevada), Tonopah Field Station Area (Tonopah, Nevada), and the Dixie Field Office (Cedar City, Utah) are preparing to have prepared RMPs that address many of the issues analyzed in this plan amendment. The Arizona Strip Field Office (Arizona) has also amended the Arizona Strip Field Office RMPs to accommodate management actions recommended by the Recovery Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO STATUTES AND REGULATIONS The Proposed Action or alternatives are in accordance with applicable federal statutes and regulations, including the Taylor Grazing Act, the FLPMA, the ESA, the Wild, Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act, Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, Congressional mandates, and Executive Orders. PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS OVERVIEW The land use planning process, as mandated by FLPMA, requires BLM to solicit and incorporate public input in the management of public lands, while still complying with the laws and policies established by Congress and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Amendments to approved land use plans are developed using the planning process, following these basic steps. 1-8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Identification of Issues Issues drive the plan amendment process and indicate concerns which the BLM and the public may have regarding the management of specific resources in a planning area. An issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem pertaining to the management of public lands and associated resources. Identification of issues orients the planning process so that interdisciplinary analysis and documentation are directed toward resolution of the issues. The BLM is required to comply with the provisions of the ESA, as amended. This plan amendment constitutes a single issue planning document that will address the management of BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat in Lincoln County, Nevada. It responds to the following planning questions: 1 . What management actions will be implemented to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit? 2. Where will SMAs be designated within the desert tortoise habitat of the planning area? 3. What constraints, if any, will be placed on other resource uses? Development of Planning Criteria Planning criteria are formulated to guide the development of a land use plan amendment. The criteria are derived from laws; Executive Orders; regulations; planning principles; BLM guidance; consultation with interest groups and the general public; and available resource information for the area. The planning criteria for this amendment are as follows: 1. Comply with applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. 2 Define the planning area as BLM-administered desert tortoise habitat within Lincoln County, Nevada. 3. Management direction within the existing Caliente MFP that pertain to lands outside desert tortoise habitat remain in effect and will be unchanged by this amendment. 4. Develop and implement management actions to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan in order to assist in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 5. Use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and social aspects of public land management. 6. Weigh short and long-term benefits and detriments. 7. Coordinate BLM resource inventory, planning and management activities with the resource planning and management programs of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes, to the extent consistent with applicable laws. 8. Rely on available inventories and existing resource data in the planning area to reach sound management decisions. 1-9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 9. Grazing permittees will receive compensation upon closure of the Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments through this Land Use Plan Amendment. 10. Desert Tortoise inactive season in the planning area is October 15 to March 15. 11. The USFWS will revise critical habitat designations in the planning area to be consistent with the designated special management areas for tortoise. 12. The Harrich Investments, LLC, properties were legislatively leased and conveyed pursuant to P.L. 100-275. All of these properties are considered critical desert tortoise habitat. The 7,320 acres within the leased area is public land that is encumbered with a 99 year lease and is completely surrounded by the conveyed land. The BLM currently does not have full range management options or flexibility on these lands. To increase management flexibility and improve desert tortoise reserve design, we may exchange the leased lands for other private lands within the P.L. 100-275 area. 13. When public land acreage is no longer available for grazing, there is an implied reduction to livestock grazing. Actual reductions in livestock grazing may or may not occur, depending on whether or not current management practices can facilitate the change in public land that remains available for livestock grazing. 14. The USFWS will issue a biological opinion on the Proposed Caliente Plan Amendment that will address the management of land uses, including livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat, and assess the adequacy of the management proposals to achieve recovery and delisting objectives. Inventory and Data Evaluation Using the planning criteria and focusing on the management of desert tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, BLM specialists reviewed and evaluated available data. These data included field examinations, published and unpublished studies, and consultations with individuals and staff from other agencies and organizations. Analysis of the Management Situation The Analysis of the Management Situation was prepared to describe the condition and capabilities of resources within the planning area. The analysis provides the database for developing and evaluating alternatives and is generally incorporated into the draft Plan Amendment as the Affected Environment, and to some extent, the No Action Alternative. Formulation of Alternatives On the basis of the issues, planning criteria, and concerns raised during scoping, the Proposed Action and three comprehensive alternatives were developed for consideration. The No Action Alternative (Alternative C) is required by law and represents a continuation of present activities. Each alternative must meet the purpose and need for action and address the issues, while emphasizing different management. Several alternatives were considered but were eliminated from detailed analyses; these are described in Chapter 2, with a discussion of why they were not further considered. 1-10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Estimation of the Effects of Alternatives In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative are estimated, to allow for a comparative evaluation of impacts (Chapter 4). Site-specific environmental documents will be prepared for projects and proposals that implement the management guidance contained in the approved Plan Amendment. Selection of the Preferred Alternative The Ely Field Manager recommended a Preferred Alternative to the Nevada State Director, based on the issues and information identified through the planning process; coordination and consultation with other entities; and the impact analyses of the alternatives. The Draft Plan Amendment/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is then distributed to the public, including other government agencies and interest groups, for a 90-day review and comment period. Selection of the Proposed Plan Amendment Following the public review and comment period, the Ely Field Manager recommends a Proposed Plan Amendment to the Nevada State Director. Based on an evaluation of the public comments, the BLM may retain the Preferred Alternative or select a different alternative from the range of alternatives identified in the Draft Plan Amendment. The Proposed Plan Amendment/Final EIS will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and distributed to the public for review. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation are conducted annually and at 5 year intervals for the plan amendment. These will be used to determine the effectiveness of the plan amendment in achieving the desired results; to ensure that mitigation measures are satisfactory; and to ascertain whether there have been changes in related plans of other Federal, State or local governments. Any information gained will be incorporated into future planning, including other amendments or revisions to the Caliente MFP. 1-11 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the Proposed Action and three alternatives which are analyzed in detail, and five alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail. The focus of the Proposed Action and alternatives is to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit within a multiple-use management context. Each alternative contains objectives and directions or actions for the management of desert tortoise habitat; some management actions are the same for more than one alternative. The Proposed Action and alternatives represent a range of reasonable future management options. In making the final decision, the BLM may choose to combine portions of the alternatives. Special Management Areas (SMAs) for desert tortoise are proposed as ACECs in the Proposed Action and Alternative A and as DWMAs in Alternative B (DWMA Alternative). Both types of SMAs would protect tortoise habitat but would be subject to different management prescriptions and constraints. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT Proposed Action The Proposed Action focuses on desert tortoise recovery and delisting within a multiple-use management context, while minimizing effects on human activities that occur in desert tortoise habitat. It is based on recommendations derived from the Recovery Plan, as well as management actions designed to be consistent with those proposed by adjacent BLM field offices. The Proposed Action includes management objectives and goals intended to benefit desert tortoise habitat both within and outside of the proposed ACECs. Nominations for the ACECs were provided by interested groups or members of the public. The locations and boundary configurations for these areas were based on input received during public scoping for this plan amendment and field trips with the USFWS, adjoining BLM offices, and State Wildlife Agencies. Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. The actions and prescriptions in this alternative are consistent with balanced multiple use and ecosystem management. Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) contains management goals, objectives, and prescriptions that are similar to those described in the Proposed Action, with the exception of Livestock Grazing, Recreation Management, and Minerals Management. Under this alternative, multiple use would be modified by prescriptions for livestock grazing, minerals, and recreational uses within the three proposed ACECs. Section 7 consultation for any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) contains management goals, objectives, and prescriptions recommended by the Recovery Plan, with less emphasis on multiple use management. Boundary configurations for the proposed DWMAs were developed from maps and data contained in the Recovery Plan. Management prescriptions would be applied only within the proposed DWMAs, since the Recovery Plan states that "no active management is recommended" for desert tortoise populations outside of DWMAs, unless those populations are in jeopardy CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (USFWS, pg. 45, 1994a). The exception to this would be that should the lands legislatively leased or conveyed through P.L. 100-275 become available, the BLM would attempt to acquire them and include them in the Mormon Mesa DWMA. Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. Alternative C (No Action Alternative) Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved MFP and activity plan decisions. No management recommendations from the Recovery Plan would be implemented. Although the Caliente MFP was approved prior to the development of the BLM Rangewide Plan for Desert Tortoise (BLM 1988), the decisions contained in the MFP are consistent with that plan. The approved MFP decisions are also consistent with the designation of critical habitat, since that designation "does not offer specific direction for managing desert tortoise habitat" (Federal Register, pg. 5833, Vol. 59, No. 26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). Section 7 consultations with the USFWS, required by the ESA, would continue to be completed for any federal actions that could affect a listed species or its habitat; prescriptions resulting from those consultations would provide BLM management direction for desert tortoise habitat. One important change since the approval of the Caliente MFP in 1982 has been the issuance of decisions that restrict livestock grazing within allotments in desert tortoise habitat during tortoise spring activity periods (March- June). A biological evaluation of livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat was submitted to the USFWS in 1991. The Section 7 consultation resulted in a Biological Opinion that contained a non-discretionary condition precluding livestock grazing from March 1 through June 14 of each year (USFWS, 1994c). The seasonal prescription on livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat is now part of the No Action Alternative. The BLM issued "full force and effect" decisions to the grazing permittees, based on that Biological Opinion. The decisions were appealed by the livestock operators. In November 1995, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) upheld the BLM decisions. Subsequent to that ruling, the Desert Livestock Producers filed suit in Federal District Court seeking a permanent injunction against BLM to stay the Livestock Grazing decision that implemented the Biological Decisions. This case is currently pending. Following the USFWS designation of critical habitat in 1994, BLM reinitiated Section 7 consultation on livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat. Full force and effect decisions were issued to grazing permittees, based on the resulting Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS. These decisions were also appealed. The livestock grazing portion of Alternative C (No Action Alternative) in the Draft Plan Amendment is based on the 1991 and 1994 evaluations and the resultant Biological Opinions. Another change in management direction since the approval of the Caliente MFP concerns Special Recreation Permits in the planning area. As a result of Section 7 consultation in 1995, the USFWS issued a programmatic Biological Opinion for speed-based off-highway vehicle (OHV) events in tortoise habitat, outside of designated critical habitat (USFWS, 1995c). The Biological Opinion limits the number of speed events that can be held in tortoise habitat on an annual basis and requires the routing of the events on previously used courses. The management direction for speed-based competitive events under Alternative C (No Action Alternative) is based on the 1995 Biological Opinion. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS Alternative One This alternatives was a recommendation by the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission that BLM not implement any management actions to recover and delist the threatened desert tortoise in Lincoln County. As a 2-2 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES federal agency, BLM is required to follow the mandates of all applicable public land laws, including the ESA. This act requires that federal land managing agencies take actions to recover and delist threatened or endangered species within their administrative jurisdictions. An alternative that would not meet the purpose and need to aid in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would place the agency in violation of the law. This alternative was, thus, eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternative Two This alternative was proposed by a member of the public during scoping that would have modified uses on public lands to eliminate all domestic livestock grazing, vegetation harvest, biological specimen collection, and many other human activities from desert tortoise habitat. Under this proposal, wild horses and burros would continue to be managed in herd management areas (HMAs) in desert tortoise habitat. Such an alternative would not meet BLM's mandate for multiple use management of the public lands. It would also not meet the purpose and need for action, because it would not provide an appropriate level of management for all grazing uses to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. For these reasons, the proposal was also eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternative Three A "maximum habitat protection" alternative was proposed by the EPA as a response to the DEIS. This was not analyzed in detail for the following reasons. An important purpose of alternatives is to address unresolved conflicts. Field coordination meetings for the purpose of designating boundaries of potential special management areas were held between the BLM and the USFWS in order to resolve conflicts regarding boundary delineation and reasonable administration of the areas. A 100% designated critical habitat alternative was, therefore, not needed to address unresolved conflicts. Since these coordination meetings were held with the USFWS (who originally designated the critical habitat) the BLM decision not to evaluate a 100% Critical Habitat alternative was neither arbitrary nor capricious. According to the CEQ 40 Questions (lb), "What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and the facts in each case." A "rule of reason" must be applied in evaluating whether the agency has adequately considered a range of alternatives. (NRDC v. Morton, 1972) According to the CEQ 40 Questions (la), all alternatives must be "reasonable". CEQ 40 Questions, (29b) clearly states that if the alternative proposed by a commentor is not reasonable that it need not be considered for analysis. The question of reasonableness of the proposed alternative is discussed below. The Federal Register designating critical habitat states, "The Service may revise critical habitat if land management plans, recovery plans or other conservation strategies are developed and fully implemented, reducing the need for the additional protection provided by critical habitat designation." At a coordination meeting with the USFWS in the spring of 1997 in Las Vegas, Nevada, the USFWS affirmed their intention to revise critical habitat boundaries to coincide with the designated special management areas. That being the case, it was made part of the Planning Criteria (page 1-9 of the FEIS) which states, "The USFWS will revise critical habitat designations in the planning area to be consistent with the designated special management areas for tortoise." It would, therefore be unreasonable to analyze in detail an alternative which is contrary to administrative boundaries which have been coordinated with the USFWS. 2-3 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES In all of our coordination meetings with the USFWS, and their formal reviews of internal working documents and the Preliminary Draft EIS and the Draft EIS, not once did they ever indicate any desire to have an alternative analyzed which included 100% of the designated critical habitat, because they knew that to do so would be unreasonable. A further consideration is the timing of the designation of critical habitat within the process. The critical habitat was designated in February of 1994. The Recovery Plan for the desert tortoise is dated June 1994. It is relevant to note that the Recovery Plan for the desert tortoise proposed that only 52% of the designated critical habitat be included within Special Management Areas for tortoise. Since the desert tortoise recovery team meeting proposed that 52% of the designated critical habitat be included within a special management area, it would clearly be unreasonable to analyze an alternative which included 100% of the designated critical habitat. The purpose and need was to assist in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise within a multiple use land management context. To analyze such a "maximum protection" alternative would be unreasonable since it would not meet the purpose and need of accommodating multiple use with emphasis on assisting in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. By the same reasoning, we did not analyze in detail a proposed "full production" alternative. Alternative Four A full production/commodity oriented alternative was proposed by the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission as a response to the DEIS. While this alternative would be very favorable to multiple use management of the public lands it would not, according to our current scientific understanding, meet the other part of the purpose and need; to assist in the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Since it would not meet the purpose and need it would not be a viable alternative and should not be analyzed in detail. According to the CEQ Regulations for implementation of NEPA, "The range of alternatives discussed in an environmental impact statement shall encompass those to be considered by the ultimate agency decisionmaker." We cannot consider for selection as an Agency decision an alternative that does not meet the purpose and need. By the same reasoning, we did not analyze in detail a proposed "maximum protection" alternative. Alternative Five A fifth alternative considered was to allow a reduced level of grazing on the Breedlove, Rox-Tule, and Grapevine Allotments. This alternative only considered these allotments because portions of the allotment had livestock use areas within an ACEC, were receiving AUM reductions, or were not receiving compensation for AUM reductions. Livestock use areas were based on use pattern mapping, slope, and distance from water. Areas outside of these use areas were not used in determining the potential carrying capacity. A estimated carrying capacities for a winter season-of-use was then determined for portions of the allotments based on available ESI transect information. Analysis of the ESI transect data indicated that a potential of 39 AUMs may be available for the Breedlove Allotment, 33 AUMs may be available for the Rox-Tule Allotment and 42 AUMs may be available for the south pasture of the Grapevine Allotment. These AUM calculations were used for analysis purpose only and were developed with the assumption that all available native forage would be allocated to livestock. It was determined that this alternative would not meet the purpose and need because based on the existing ESI information, the present native herbaceous vegetation component was not at its greatest potential in relation to the potential native herbaceous vegetation. Focus was on the native herbaceous vegetation because of its nutritional importance to the desert tortoise as recent studies indicate (Oftedal and Allen, 1996, Oldemeyer, 2-4 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES 1994). The potential native herbaceous vegetation was determined using the Nevada Rangeland Site Descriptions (USDA, 1992). Analysis of the ESI information indicate that the present grass component of a range site varied from 2 to 66 percent of the sites potential on the Grapevine Allotment. On the Breedlove and Rox-Tule Allotments the grass component varied from 40 to 50 percent of the sites potential. On a majority of these range sites species diversity was limited. The sites that did contain a higher percentage of native grass were primarily of one species and only made up a small percentage of the allotments. The forb species component, including some exotic species (i.e. filaree) that have some nutritional value for tortoise, within the allotments varied from 20 to 100 percent of potential on the Grapevine Allotment and 60 to 100 percent of potential on the Breedlove and Rox-Tule Allotments. Native forb diversity was limited through out the majority of the area. Sites with the higher forb component and species diversity, were only a small percentage of the allotments. By allowing grazing to occur on these areas the native herbaceous component would not be given the change to improve and thus the habitat condition for the tortoise would also not improve. Recovery Plan Recommendations The Recovery Plan recommends that wild horses and burros not be managed within any SMA established to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (USFWS, pg. we, 1994a). An analysis of the management situation indicated that the construction of fencing would be required, in order to restrict access by wild horse and burro herds into the proposed SMAs. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL 92-195, as amended) mandates that "[all management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level..." (Sec.3 (a)). The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 4710.4 also states that "management shall be at the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in the approved land use plans and herd management area plans". Based on this legislative and regulatory direction, BLM has discouraged the use of fencing or other man-made devices to control wild horse and burro movements. Therefore, those proposals requiring the use of fencing to control wild horses and burros were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The development of new water sources to manage wild horse and burro distributions (within HMAs but outside of proposed SMAs) was also considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. It is unlikely that BLM could obtain new water rights for this purpose, since the Meadow Valley watershed, within which the planning area is located, is fully adjudicated. This Plan Amendment will not further consider the development of new water sources as a management tool for wild horses and burros. During the planning process, BLM, in coordination with the USFWS, identified several management recommendations from the Recovery Plan that did not need to be included in the Proposed Action or alternatives. In some areas of desert tortoise habitat, uncontrolled dogs outside of vehicles and the unauthorized discharge of firearms on public lands can negatively impact desert tortoise populations located near large, urban areas (USFWS 1994a). Due to the rural, unpopulated character of the planning area, these activities have not been identified as threats within the SMAs proposed by this Draft Plan Amendment (USFWS, Appendix G, 1994a). For these reasons, the management recommendations from the Recovery Plan which addressed uncontrolled dogs and the discharge of firearms were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES This section describes resource management guidance that is applicable, and therefore, common to the Proposed Action and all of the alternatives. Continuing management guidance includes laws, Executive Orders, regulations, Memoranda of Understanding, Cooperative Agreements, Department of the Interior manuals, BLM Instruction Memoranda, and other management practices and prescriptions that will not change or be proposed for change within this plan amendment. The Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health, developed by the 2-5 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in 1997, would also comprise management guidance common to the Proposed Action and alternatives (see Appendix A). The following resources will continue to be managed under valid existing management decisions contained in the approved Caliente MFP. The environmental impacts of land use actions not specifically covered in this plan amendment will continue to be analyzed in site-specific documents, as required by NEPA. Such analyses will be completed on a case-by-case basis. Proposed actions that are not in conformance with land use decisions in the Caliente MFP may be modified, denied, or evaluated through the plan amendment process. AIR RESOURCES All BLM and BLM-authorized activities will be managed to prevent air quality deterioration beyond the thresholds established by the Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards. Mitigation measures will be developed on a project-specific basis, through the NEPA and statutory or regulatory processes, to reduce impacts on air quality. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Soil and water resources will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as part of project level planning. Such evaluation will consider the potential impacts of the project and the sensitivity of soil and water resources in the area. Stipulations will be attached, as appropriate, to ensure protection of these resources. Soils Soils will be managed to maintain or improve rangeland productivity and to minimize potential wind and water erosion. Soils data will be used in project planning, with mitigation measures developed through the NEPA process to prevent deterioration or degradation of the soils resource. Water Resources Water quality will be maintained or improved in accordance with applicable federal and State of Nevada standards. Consultations will be undertaken with state agencies for proposed projects that could significantly affect water quality. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT If any areas are designated by Congress as Wilderness Areas, those areas will automatically be reclassified as Visual Resource Management Class I areas and will be managed accordingly. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT The BLM will continue to manage lands to meet the goals and objectives of any Recovery Plans and approved Habitat Management Plans (HMPs). Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would continue to be conducted, as required by applicable law. Monitoring of desert tortoise populations will continue to be conducted, using the MOG approved monitoring program in cooperation with the USFWS and NDOW. Protection of sensitive species and their habitat will be considered in all BLM-authorized or initiated activities. 2-6 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Predator control will be authorized, as required, through the District Animal Damage Control Plan, in coordination with the USFWS, NDOW, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Protocols were formalized in an Interagency Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of the Interior-BLM and the Department of Agriculture in 1995 (60 FR 26045-48, 5-16-95). The BLM will rehabilitate previously disturbed areas, when and where possible. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Livestock grazing occurring within the planning area would be consistent with the standards and guidelines for rangeland health developed by the Mojave Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council. Compensation will be provided for structural improvements for water, should water rights be lost because there is no longer a beneficial use. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT Wild horses and burros that establish home ranges beyond the boundaries of an HMA will continue to be removed. Wild horses and burros will continue to be removed from private lands, after a request from the private land owner is made and reasonable efforts to keep the animals off private lands have failed. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Cultural resources will continue to be managed to evaluate, conserve, and interpret the full array of archeological, historical, and socio-cultural values in the planning area. Federal laws, such as the Antiquities Act of 1906, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, as amended, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, as amended, provide for the protection and management of these resources. These laws are implemented through Federal regulations, Programmatic Agreements, and BLM Manual guidance. Significant paleontological resources are protected under FLPMA. These values will continue to be managed through the issuance of permits. RECREATION MANAGEMENT A 14-day (consecutive) camping limit in any 28-day period will continue to be imposed at any one area on public lands. To protect resources, BLM may close any site to occupancy by posting notification. Emergency designations would be made, as needed, in response to potential resource damage. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS MANAGEMENT All actions on lands under wilderness review will be processed in accordance with the BLM Manual H-8550-1, entitled Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP), until Congress either 2-7 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES designates those lands as Wilderness Areas or releases them for other uses. Should areas be released from wilderness consideration, management direction contained in this plan amendment would apply to these areas. Portions of five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (Meadow Valley Range; Mormon Mountains; Delamar Mountains; Fish and Wildlife #1 ; and Evergreen ABC) occur in desert tortoise habitat (see Map 2-1). As required by Section 603(c) of FLPMA, BLM must manage all WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for preservation as wilderness. This management recognizes certain grandfathered activities and valid existing rights. Specific policy regarding the management of WSAs is found in the IMP. Any activities involving surface disturbance, placement of permanent structures or land disposal are generally precluded under IMP, as are activities incompatible with the preservation of natural conditions. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT Public lands will be kept free from unauthorized hazardous materials generation, storage, disposal, and transport. Cleanup actions, other than emergency removals, will be conducted consistent with the management objectives and actions in the approved Plan Amendment. All cleanups will be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the National Contingency Plan. The BLM will continue to clean up unauthorized dumps and sewage ponds as possible. FIRE MANAGEMENT Fire management activities will continue to conform to BLM directives in the application of appropriate levels of suppression to protect and enhance resource values. LAW ENFORCEMENT The BLM will continue to provide law enforcement to ensure compliance with regulations. DESERT TORTOISE POPULATION MONITORING Distance sampling is the methodology for the monitoring of desert tortoise populations range wide that has been selected by the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group. Distance sampling is the name given to a class of methods used to estimate the density of biological populations. This method provides a way to obtain reliable estimates of density (rather than just a crude index to density) of tortoises under fairly mild assumptions. It often provides a practical, cost effective class of methods for estimating density of sparse biological populations, such as the desert tortoise. For objects distributed sparsely across large geographic areas, there are often no competing methods. Implementation of this method over a long-term would make it possible to make inferences concerning: (a) possible short-term, drastic declines in population density, (b) long-term increases in population density due to management alternatives in the ACECs, and (c) trends across ACECs and adjacent lands. 2-8 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES Data for this sampling method is collected by using line transects. Lines are surveyed in the field and the observer records a distance to those animals that are detected. The sample data are the number of detected objects (tortoise) and the set distances to detected objects and any relevant data (such as tortoise size and gender); however, many objects may remain undetected during the course of the survey. To take this into account the probability of a tortoise being above ground during the survey period is added into the equation. This probability is determined by the use of radiotelemetry to estimate the proportion of tortoise above ground. To perform the calculation required to get a population estimate after the field data has been collected a computer program called Program Distance was developed. 2-9 N 20 LZ Wilderness Study Areas Within the Planning Area Desert National Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County Map 2-1 III Planning Area Mormon Mountains WSA Meadow Valley Mountains WSA Delamar Mountains WSA Evergreen A, B, C WSA Fish and Wildlife #1 WSA Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using AntflnfbCIS 2-10 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED ACTION Objective The objective is to amend the Caliente MFP to assist in the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population of desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit within a multiple-use management context. This alternative contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat inside and outside of ACECs; 3) participation in USFWS-developed and implemented environmental education program; and 4) implementation of the USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. Three ACECs would be designated and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise (Map 2-2). These ACECs would encompass 212,500 acres or approximately 83 percent of the critical habitat designated by the USFWS for desert tortoise in Lincoln County (Map 2-3). Management direction is also proposed for desert tortoise habitat outside of the ACECs, in order to improve that habitat and be consistent with recovery efforts by other agencies. The BLM would participate in a USFWS-developed environmental education program and implement an interagency desert tortoise monitoring program, approved by the USFWS. The following description of the Proposed Action includes only those programs or resources for which new management objectives or direction are proposed; all other decisions from the approved Caliente MFP would remain valid. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS The Recovery Plan recommended general areas where SMAs should be established within recovery units. Whenever possible, SMA boundaries were drawn to include the best examples of desert tortoise habitat in specific vegetation regions. In addition heterogeneous terrain, soil types, and vegetation within SMAs will provide protection for the entire ecosystem upon which healthy desert tortoise populations depend. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for SMAs within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SMAs of 1 ,000 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. SMA selection and boundary delineation has been accomplished by land management agencies in coordination with the USFWS, and State wildlife agencies, after soliciting input from other interested parties. The design of the SMAs has met as many of the reserve design criteria as possible as outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). The Proposed Action would designate three ACECs, in Lincoln County, with a total acreage of approximately 212,500 acres. The proposed ACECs would be contiguous with other SMAs, either proposed or currently 2-11 20 Proposed ACECs hin the Planning Area Map 2-2 Desert National Wildlife Range 1 Lincpl n _Co u n ty Clark County 20 Miles Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using ArcflnfoGIS 2-12 20 Proposed ACECs and Designated Critical Habitat MaP 23 Within the Planning Area N Desert National Wildlife Range Li nco In _ Co u n ty Clark County 20 Miles J □ Critical Habitat Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mountains ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoGIS 2-13 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) designated adjacent to the planning area. Appendix B describes the other resource values of these areas, as well as the relevance and importance criteria met by the proposed ACECs. 1. KANE SPRINGS ACEC Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise and various sensitive species, including the banded gila monster (Heloderma suspectum cinctum), chuckwalla {Sauromalus obsesus), and several species of bats and plants. Acreage: 65,900 acres 2. MORMON MESA ACEC Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher {Empidonax traillii extimus), and other sensitive species including the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker (Castostomus clarki ssp.), Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculu spp.), and the Arizona toad {Bufo microscaphus microscaphus). Acreage: 109,700 acres 3. BEAVER DAM SLOPE (Nevada) ACECS Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, and various sensitive species, including the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, several bats, and plants. Acreage: 36,900 acres MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR THE ACECS Develop Management Plans for each ACEC. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES/WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to inventory desert tortoise habitat. Initiate in coordination with the USFWS, NDOW, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture- Wildlife Services, a program to control desert tortoise predators. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW, in order to designate Experimental Management Zones (EMZs), as identified in the Recovery Plan, and to issue permits for experimental research activities (including intrusive research on desert tortoise) within those zones during the recovery period as appropriate. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW prior to the issuance of permits for research. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to develop approved translocation research projects, as necessary, for captive or displaced desert tortoises, as needed. Implement a USFWS -approved interagency (NDOW, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Biological Resource Division (BRD), and MOG) monitoring plan (Distance Sampling). 2-14 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Participate in USFWS developed environmental education programs when appropriate. Coordinate, whenever possible, with the Federal Highway Administration, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), and the Lincoln County Road Department to include a stipulation in the Highway Easement Deed that would encourage the installation of tortoise-proof fencing and crossing culverts along U.S. 93, and other roads as needed. Coordinate with the USFWS and NDOW to monitor special status animal and other wildlife species. Authorize population augmentation or enhancement activities for native wildlife species (e.g. desert bighorn, Gambel's quail), only if such actions would not create conflicts with habitat objectives for desert tortoise populations. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES MANAGEMENT Cooperate with appropriate federal and state agencies to protect and manage special status plant species. Maintain an inventory of special status plant species habitat within proposed ACECs. FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed and/or plants). Authorize desert vegetation salvage based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert vegetation harvest for educational/scientific research purposes through permits. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Management Areas (refer to Maps 2-4 and 2-5) Table 2-1 displays information on those allotments or portions of allotments located within the proposed ACECs. Management Direction Close all allotments or portions of allotments within all of the ACECs to livestock grazing Season of Use No season of use would be authorized, as the following allotments would be closed to livestock grazing since they are located entirely within ACECs: Beacon Allotment Sand Hollow Allotment Rox-Tule Allotment 2-15 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-1. Allotments partially or entirely located within proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES OF ALLOTMENT IN ACEC PERCENTAGE OF ALLOTMENT IN PROPOSED ACEC MORMON MESA ACEC Breedlove 121,500 31,600 26 Delamar 245,400 1,000 1 Gourd Springs 97,700 40,000 41 Mormon Peak 77,900 13,200 17 Rox-Tule 25,600 23,900 93 TOTALS 621,800 109,700 18 KANE SPRINGS ACEC Breedlove 121,500 400 3 Delamar 245,400 41,400 17 Grapevine 34,200 12,200 36 Lower Lake East 53,700 11,900 22 TOTALS 454,800 65,900 14 BEAVER DAM SLOPE ACEC Sand Hollow (Beacon)** 41,200 36,900 89 (100) TOTALS "Beacon Allotment is located within the Sand Hollow allotment, a dual use area for cattle and sheep. (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station, 1996) 41,200 36,900 95 2-16 Grazing Allotments and Proposed ACECs Within the Planning Area Map 2-4 Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring f- SandHollow C Beacon H Terry 1 Snow Springs 1 Lime Mountain K GardenSpring L White Rock M Henrie Complex N Jackrabbit O PulsipherWash P Flat Top Mesa Q Summit Spring R BoulderSpring S Delamar T Buckhorn U Lower Lake East V PahranagatEast w Pahranagat West X Lower Lake West Y Lower Riggs Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfbCIS 2-17 Cattle Use Areas in Allotments Potentially Affected by ACEC Designations Map 2-5 Cattle Use Areas Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox -Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F Sand Hollow G Beacon H Terry S Delamar U Lower Lake East Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/Info CIS 2-18 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) No season of use would be authorized in portions of the following allotments that occur within ACECs, as those portions of allotments would be closed to livestock grazing: Breedlove Allotment Delamar Allotment Gourd Spring Allotment Grapevine Allotment Lower Lake East Allotment Mormon Peak Allotment Range Improvements Construct improvements only as needed to facilitate multiple use and to exclude livestock from the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would be dropped for allotments or portions of allotments within proposed ACECs. Initial Stocking Level Current and proposed permitted use for allotments or portions of allotments within the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be as shown in Table 2-2. Make changes in permitted use on allotments, using the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision processes and/or determination that livestock grazing is a factor in the non-attainment of rangeland health standards. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT Management Direction The Mormon Mountains HMA is the only HMA which overlaps an ACEC (Map 2-6). This HMA will no longer be managed for wild horses and burros. The entire area will lose its status as an HMA, but will maintain Herd Area (HA) status for future management consideration, should conditions change. Remove any wild horses and burros that establish home ranges within an ACEC. Remove all wild horses and burros from the Mormon Mountains HA and surrounding non-HMA areas. Should animals from adjacent HMAs reestablish within the HA and ACEC following removal efforts, additional removals would be conducted as needed to remove those animals. LANDS MANAGEMENT Disposal Allow no disposal of public land through FLPMA sales, exchanges, Desert Land Entry, Indian Allotment, Recreation and Public Purpose, Carey, or Airport and Airway Improvement Acts. 2-19 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-2. Current and proposed permitted use within proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT CURRENT PERMITTED USE WITHIN ACECS PROPOSED PERMITTED USE WITHIN ACECS Lower Lake East 0 0 Delamar 0 0 Grapevine 211 0 Breedlove 166 0 Rox-Tule 756 0 Mormon Peak 0 0 Gourd Spring 0 0 Sand Hollow 2,430 0 Beacon 2095 0 (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data, 1996) Land Use Authorizations Allow only land use authorizations that do not require any surface disturbance. Acquisitions Encourage local governments and private individuals to purchase environmentally sensitive private lands within ACECs that could be exchanged for public lands outside of ACECs (see Appendix C). Acquire lands legislatively transferred to Harrich Investments, LLC, (formerly Aerojet) by Public Law 100- 275 through the appropriate authorities, should those lands become available. Include any lands acquired in the Kane Springs ACEC. This would also occur if termination or relinquishment of the lease were to take place. Acquire private lands or rights to private lands within ACECs from willing sellers. Un-authorized Use Resolve unauthorized use so as to emphasize reclamation and title retention, rather than title transfer. Reclaim surface disturbances from unauthorized uses to pre-disturbance conditions, if possible. 2-20 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within Proposed ACECs Map 2-6 Desert National Wildlife Range . Lincoln ..Cqu.Qty. '"Clark" "County 20 20 Miles 1-15 Utah Nevada fM A A A A A A Herd Management Areas Mormon Mountains HMA Blue Nose Peak HMA Meadow Valley Mountains HMA ACECs i^J Kane Springs ACEC jlA Mormon Mesa ACEC U1LU Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Atc/lnfoCIS 2-21 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Withdrawals Allow administrative withdrawals for the purposes of facilitating management and for construction of public information/environmental education facilities, on those lands within ACECs but outside of WSAs. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT Utility/Transportation Corridors Retain the legislatively-designated (Public Law 100-275) corridor running north and south on the east side of U.S. Highway 93, through the private holdings of Harrich Investments, LLC, (formerly Aerojet Corporation). Designate the following corridors (see Map 2-7): 1) A corridor 2,640 feet wide connecting to the Moapa Reservation-designated corridor at Moapa, running northeast to the Nevada-Utah state line. The corridor would be one-quarter mile on either side of the IPP 500 kV line and includes portions of the Kern River pipeline. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs and would link corridors proposed for designation in the Las Vegas District RMP and designated by the approved Dixie Field Office RMP. 2) A corridor 1 ,000 feet wide, 500 feet on centerline of the existing telephone fiberoptics lines, beginning within T. US, R. 71E, Section 30, running easterly to the Arizona state line. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Beaver Dam Slope ACEC and would be consistent with the Arizona Strip Field Office. 3) A corridor 2,640 feet wide extending northerly from the north end of the Aerojet designated corridor, following the centerline of the approved Southwest Intertie Power Project (SWIP) right- of-way alignment. This corridor would cross portions of the proposed Kane Springs ACEC. Corridor Terms and Conditions Require power distribution lines of voltage higher than 69kV, major pipelines, and cross country communication lines to be located in a designated corridor. Encourage stacking of utility uses. Grant power distribution lines 69kV or less, local telephone, and cable lines outside of designated corridors on a case-by-case basis. Evaluate right-of-way applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Grant access roads to private parcels, federal oil and gas leases, and mining claims based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). 2-22 N Proposed Utility Corridors Through Proposed ACECs 20 Desert National Wildlife Range Lincoln County Clark County S S 0 Map 2-7 Proposed Utility Corridors Planning Area Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using AitflnfoCI5 2-23 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas Consider the following as avoidance areas (refer to Map 2-1): Delamar Mountains WSA (NV-050-177) Meadow Valley Range WSA (NV-050-156) Mormon Mountains WSA (NV-050-161) Fish and Wildlife #1 WSA (NV-050-201) Evergreen ABC WSA (NV-050-1R-16) Renew existing rights-of-way grants if they are still being used for their authorized purpose. Evaluate applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation for WSAs (or portions of WSAs) released by Congress for other uses. Consider areas outside of proposed corridors within ACECs as rights-of-way avoidance areas; applications will be evaluated based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas Consider all requests for new material site rights-of-way pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act within WSAs as inconsistent with this plan amendment. Consider any designated Wilderness Areas as right-of-way exclusion areas, unless otherwise stated in the enabling legislation. Areal Rights-of-Way Limit authorization of future communication site rights-of-way to existing, established communication sites. Make exceptions if the use of an established site is not technically feasible. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). Material Site Rights-of-Way Consider existing material site rights-of-way in ACECs (both developed and undeveloped) authorized under the provisions of the Federal Highway Aid Act as valid existing rights and consistent with the land use plan. Material sites will be authorized within the one mile wide corridor on state and county roads. These sites will be restricted to 10 mile separations. Grant rights-of-way to allow transport of oil and gas from producing oil or gas fields that might be developed. These rights-of-way would follow the most feasible route to an established pipeline or road system for further distribution. Encourage corridors, where feasible. 2-24 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). RECREATION MANAGEMENT Casual Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Limit casual OHV use in ACECs to roads and vehicle trails designated for OHV use. A route inventory would be conducted. The public participation process would identify routes for designation or closure. A Federal Register Notice would be published, and after an appropriate comment period, BLM would: • Post entry portals or major intersections with signs that read Vehicle Travel Limited to Designated Roads and Trails • Close and rehabilitate extraneous routes • Sign all designated routes as Open • Sign designated routes to prohibit off road driving • Enforce the ban on off road driving Designation of roads and trails would take place within two years of the issuance of a Record of Decision for this plan amendment. Any roads that might be created following the designation process would be physically closed and rehabilitated as part of ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Organized OHV Use Close ACECs to all speed competitive OHV use until additional information is available regarding the impacts of these types of activities on the desert tortoise and its habitat. Should monitoring in other areas indicate that properly managed speed competitive events cause little or no adverse impacts to the desert tortoise or its habitat, these types of events will be allowed to pass through ACECs from October 15 to March 15 along the following constructed, maintained roads; Kane Springs, Carp-Elgin, Halfway Wash, East Halfway Wash and Littlefield Roads (see Map 2-8). Of these roads, only the Kane Springs Road lies entirely within the planning unit. Therefore, use of any of the other four corridors would require the concurrence of one of the adjacent administrative units. If monitoring studies indicate that there are unacceptable adverse impacts to the tortoise or its habitat, ACECs will remain closed to speed competitive OHV events. Close ACECs to all types of organized OHV events from March 15 to June 15, and August 31 to October 15. Outside of these times, permit a maximum of 15 non-speed competitive events, non-speed portions of speed events, and non-competitive OHV events to pass through ACECs on roads designated open to organized OHV use (see Map 2-8). No more than 10 such events will be allowed to pass through any one ACEC per year. Kane Springs Road would be limited to a maximum of 300 vehicles per event. The remaining corridors would be limited only by restrictions imposed by adjacent planning units (refer to Table 2-3). Adjustments to the maximum number of events will be made based on the information made available through ongoing monitoring of these types of events. Vehicle off-loading areas, if authorized within tortoise habitat, would be limited to areas of existing disturbance, and of sufficient size to accommodate the number of vehicles involved without expanding the disturbed area. Appendix D describes stipulations that would be attached to all Special Recreation Permits for organized OHV events in desert tortoise habitat. 2-25 Proposed Designated Off-Highway Vehicle Routes Map 2-8 through Proposed ACECs (for events only) 1-15 S Proposed OHV routes for events: Kane Springs Carp/Elgin Halfway Wash East Halfway Wash Littlefield Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC m Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 20 20 Miles : Prepared by: BUM, Ely, Nevada Using Ate/Info CIS 2-26 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-3. Summary of limitations for non-speed OHV events and non-speed portions of speed events within ACECs. Corridors Carp/Elgin, Halfway Wash, and East Halfway Wash Initial Level RMP Level* Clark County** Maximum number of vehicles within active season (Mar 1-Oct 31): Dates events allowed between March 1 and Oct 31: 75 with one event per ACEC with 76 to 150 vehicles and will count as two events Mar 1-15; and Jun 15-Aug 14 100 Mar 1-31; June 1-Aug 14; and Oct 16-31 300 Events with more than 75 vehicles shall count as two events. Mar 1-15; Jun 16-Aug 31; and Oct 16-31 The Sept. through Oct. dates may vary up to three days to allow a full weekend for an event. Maximum number of vehicles during inactive season (Nov 1-Feb 28/29) 300 300 Maximum number of vehicles from Oct 16-March 15 300 Minimum number of vehicles requiring permit 26 26 26 Maximum number of laps or passes 1 1 Maximum number of events during active season w/limitations above and below 5 with no more than 3 events per ACEC; only 1 event per ACEC with 76-150 vehicles, which will count as two events. 10 with no more than 3 events per ACEC 5 Maximum number of events within inactive season (Nov 1-Feb 28/29) 12 with no more than 3 per ACEC 12 with no more than 4 events per ACEC Maximum number of events from Oct 16-March 15 60 with no more than one event per day. "•Limitations along these corridors are imposed under the Las Vegas RMP. The initial level of use will be imposed during the 3-year evaluation period identified in the Las Vegas RMP Biological Opinion term and condition l.a. The maximum level is established in the Las Vegas RMP. "This level of use is being proposed by a working group in Clark County. The RMP will be amended to accept these levels at which time they will replace the RMP Level. Until this is completed OHV use will be managed under the RMP Level. 2-27 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-3. Summary of limitations for non-speed OHV events and non-speed portions of speed events within ACECs continued. Corridor Littlefield* Dates events are allowed October 16 - March 14 Maximum number of vehicles per event 400 motorcycles 300 four-wheeled vehicles Minimum number of vehicles requiring permit 50 Maximum number of laps or passes per event 1 "Limitations along this corridor are imposed under the Arizona Strip RMP Plan Amendment. Corridor Kane Springs Road'*' Maximum number of vehicles per event 300 Dates events are allowed October 16 - March 14 and June 16 - August 31 Minimum number of vehicles requiring permit 50 Maximum number of laps or passes per event 1 Maximum number of events per year from October 16 - March 15 10 ♦Limitations along this corridor are imposed under the Caliente MFP Plan Amendment. 2-28 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Participate with the Las Vegas Field Office in the development and implementation of an OHV monitoring plan to assess impacts to tortoise and its habitat within proposed ACECs, if present, that result from casual and organized OHV activities. Non-OHV Organized Events Allow non-OHV organized and commercial events on a case-by-case basis. General Recreation Accommodate non-consumptive recreation uses (e.g. hiking, birdwatching, photography, and casual horseback riding) that do not disturb desert tortoise habitat. Establish sites for parking and camping, where appropriate and needed to recover and/or avoid resource degradation. Improve opportunities for non-motorized recreation, including the development of interpretive sites, kiosks, and wildlife guzzlers, where appropriate and consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise and BLM policy. Monitor for impacts to desert tortoise habitat from recreational uses. WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT Continue to manage WSAs contained within ACECs according to the IMP. Should a conflict between the IMP and ACEC management prescriptions exist, manage according to the standard which provides greatest protection for the desert tortoise and its habitat. Should Congress release WSAs within ACECs from further consideration as wilderness, manage those areas under the ACEC management prescriptions. Limit vehicle travel within WSAs to those routes (ways) that are designated as "open." Some routes (ways) may be signed as "closed" to achieve goals and objectives for desert tortoise habitat management and/or the management of wilderness values. MINERALS MANAGEMENT Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn and/or closed from mineral entry under the following public laws: 1 . General Mining Law of 1 872, as amended. 2. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented. 3. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended. 4. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. 5. Mineral Material Act of July 31, 1947, as amended. 6. Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Close the Kane Springs ACEC to mineral entry. Close the Kane Springs ACEC to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights; and closed to 2-29 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) mineral material disposal, except a one-mile wide corridor on US 93, Carp-Elgin, and Kane Springs Road, for county and federal highways maintenance (see Map 2-9). Existing mining claims would have valid existing rights and mining operations could occur in the ACEC. The withdrawal could take several years before it is designated closed and any mining claim within the withdrawal would have existing rights under the mining law. The BLM would be required to perform validity exams on the existing claims to determine if they are valid claims before any operation may proceed within the ACEC. The operation can proceed once the review of the plan of operation, NEPA review, and section 7 consultation has occurred. Locatable Minerals Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open to the operations of the General Mining Law of 1872, but would require a plan of operations, as outlined at 43 CFR 3809, for locatable mineral activities. BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to be implemented for locatable minerals activities (see Appendix E). These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the completed reclamation is approved and the accompanying bond released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Fluid Minerals The Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will have lease operations conducted as described under the standard terms and conditions contained in the lease instrument. A stipulation to a lease is a provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and made part of the lease. Resource values are also protected through restriction or conditions attached to field operations, such as applications to drill and sundry notices. These restrictions can be placed on operations on a site-specific basis to protect other resources. BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. 2-30 Proposed Mineral Materials Corridors Within Proposed ACECs Map 2-9 MesquiteJ^f^ 1-15 B Proposed Mineral Materials Corridors Kane Springs ACEC //, Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 20 20 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Aro'lnfo CIS 2-31 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Standard practices and procedures for geophysical exploration and conditions of approval for application permits to drill under this alternative are described in Appendix E. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Under certain conditions, grant waivers, exceptions, and modification of lease stipulations. A waiver is a permanent exemption of lease stipulation. An exception is a one time exemption to a lease stipulation which is determined on a case-by-case basis. A modification is a change to the provision of a leased stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of the lease. Waivers, exceptions or modifications can only be approved by the Authorized Officer. Stipulations could not be legally attached to existing leases, without the consent of the lessee. The existing stipulations attached to the lease are retained as long as the lease is valid. If the acreage involved in these expired leases is re-offered for leasing, the new stipulations developed under this alternative would be attached to the new lease. Leasing stipulations are as follows: 1. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (timing limitations). No surface use is allowed from March 15 to October 15. This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities. 2. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (controlled surface use). Unless otherwise authorized, access to this leasehold, and operations will be limited to the existing roads and trails. A leasing notice providing guidance for plan development will be included on all leases. Section 7 consultation will be completed prior to any surface disturbance in desert tortoise habitat. BLM must ensure through the review of the application permit to drill and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. Mineral Materials Close the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs to mineral material disposal except a one mile wide corridor, one half mile each side of the road on designated roads, for the disposal of mineral material through free use permits and Federal Highway material site rights of ways (see Map 2-9). These authorizations are for local, county and state governments. Existing pits and designations identified as not needed to meet current and future demand will be closed and reclaimed. There will be a restriction of 10 miles between each mineral material site. Any authorizations through free use permits or Federal Highway material site rights of ways will be subject to operating procedures described in Appendix E. BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of 2-32 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Non-Energy Leasable Minerals The Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to non-energy mineral leasing. Apply Standard Operating Procedures to prevent undue or unnecessary surface disturbance (see Appendix E). BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. Leasing stipulations are as follows: 1 . Open to leasing with minor restrictions (timing limitations). No surface use is allowed from March 15 to October 15. This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities. 2. Open to leasing with minor restrictions (controlled surface use). Unless otherwise authorized, access to this leasehold will be limited to the existing roads and trails. A leasing notice providing guidance for plan development will be included on all leases. Section 7 consultation will be completed prior to any surface disturbance in desert tortoise habitat. FIRE MANAGEMENT Initiate full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbances to reduce loss of tortoise cover and to minimize the spread of exotic annual grasses. Require consultation with a qualified Resource Advisor for all wildfires within ACECs. Restrict OHV travel and the use of tracked vehicles to the minimum necessary to suppress wildfires in ACECs; obliterate all tracks to reduce possibility of future use. 2-33 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Authorize use of aerial retardant; foam or fugitive retardant is preferable to iron oxide retardant. Do not authorize burning out of unburned fingers or islands of vegetation. The exception to this case would be the removal of fuels for safety concerns. Establish fire camps, staging areas, and helispots in previously disturbed areas outside of ACECs, where possible, in consultation with a qualified Resource Advisor. Use prescribed fire or other tools consistent with recovery goals and objectives to help reduce the burn-reburn cycle. Provide all firefighters and support personnel with a briefing on desert tortoises and their habitat to minimize take, particularly that associated with vehicle use. TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS Close and rehabilitate any existing roads within ACECs where no public or administrative need can be demonstrated (e.g. two roads that parallel each other to the same destination). Public participation process will be used to identify any road closures, with input solicited from all interested parties prior to the issuance of any decisions. Restrict the establishment of new permanent roads. Allow temporary upgrading of existing roads only to reduce impacts on tortoise habitat. Allow new access routes only on a temporary basis or if positive benefits to desert tortoise would occur. Require reclamation of any temporary roads. Reroute roads where feasible to improve manageability of habitat. Implement closure to vehicular access, with the exception of designated routes. Coordinate with USFWS, Lincoln County Road Department, and NDOT to identify any roads and trails that are the cause of tortoise mortality due to impacts from vehicles when possible. Fence and install culverts along these and other roads when appropriate to allow for the safe passage of tortoises. MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT OUTSIDE OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS Objective Maintain or improve existing habitat conditions for desert tortoise habitat to stabilize desert tortoise populations at existing trend levels. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES Management Direction Initiate coordination with the USFWS, NDOW, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture- Wildlife Services to control desert tortoise predators when necessary. 2-34 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Participate in USFWS developed environmental education programs on special status animal species. Implement and/or participate in an approved interagency (NDOW, USFWS, BLM, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, BRD and MOG) monitoring program for special status animal species. FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Management Direction Authorize commercial desert vegetation harvest of seed based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert plant salvage based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize desert plant harvest for educational or scientific purposes in desert tortoise habitat through scientific research permits. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES Management objectives and direction would be the same as those described under Special Management Areas. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Management Areas Those allotments or portions of allotments that are outside of the ACECs would remain open to livestock grazing (refer to Map 2-4). Management Direction Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple-Use Decision processes and subsequent allotment management plans or equivalent activity plans. Table 2-4 displays proposed season of use and total AUMs outside of proposed ACECs. In the future, Section 7 consultation may occur on a case-by-case basis for grazing management through an allotment management plan or grazing system other than outlined in this plan. Grazing Management Actions Range Improvements Construct improvements as needed to facilitate multiple use. 2-35 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Initial Stocking Level Allotments or portions of allotments within desert tortoise habitat, but outside of ACECs, would remain at current stocking levels (see Table 2-4). Make changes in permitted use on allotments, based on monitoring and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process in accordance with rangeland health standards. Conversions from cattle to sheep would not be allowed within the Planning Area. Constraints on Livestock Grazing For areas outside of the ACECs, livestock use may occur March 15 to October 15, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. Between October 15 and March 15, livestock use may occur as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs (USFWS 1991 as amended). These constraints would be applied to the allotments listed in Table 2-4. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for those allotments outside of ACECs. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustments for all allotments would be based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process in accordance with rangeland health standards WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT Management Areas Existing HMAs within desert tortoise habitat include the Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs, with boundaries as depicted on Map 2-10. Management Direction Continue to manage the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs for wild horses and burros and as HMAs. The existing Mormon Mountains HMA would no longer be managed for wild horses and burros, since there are no physical barriers to restrict the animals' movement into the Mormon Mesa ACEC. No facilities would be constructed to inhibit the wild and free-roaming nature of the wild horses and burros. The area will lose its status as an HMA, but will maintain Herd Area status, for future management consideration, should conditions change. 2-36 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Table 2-4. Proposed season of use and permitted use outside of proposed ACECs. ALLOTMENT SEASON OF USE PERMITTED USE Boulder Spring 10-1 to 3-31 416 Breedlove 3-1 to 2-28 698 Buckhorn 3-1 to 2-28 3,370 Delamar 3-1 to 2-28 5,558 Flat Top Mesa *E *E Garden Spring 10-1 to 5-31 2,809 Gourd Springs 10-1 to 5-31 3,239 Grapevine 3-1 to 2-28 349 Henrie Complex 3-1 to 2-28 4,160 Jackrabbit *E *E Lime Mountain 10-1 to 5-15 6,754 Lower Lake East 3-1 to 2-28 640 Lower Lake West 3-1 to 2-28 1,247 Lower Riggs 5-1 to 3-24 1,408 Mormon Peak 3-1 to 2-28 600 Pahranagat East 8-1 to 5-31 511 Pahranagat West 10-1 to 5-31 2,144 Pulsipher Wash *E *E Snow Spring 10-1 to 5-31 3,567 Summit Spring 10-1 to 5-15 715 Terry 11-1 to 5-31 1,511 White Rock 10-1 to 5-31 2,880 *E-Ephemeral Allotment (see Glossary) (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data, 1996) 2-37 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within the Planning Area Map 2-10 N 20 cz Desert National Wildlife Range Blue Nose Peak HMA Meadow Valley Mountains HMA Mormon Mountains HMA Planning Area Lincoln jCounty,,, Clark County Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfbCIS 2-38 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Herd Size Establish appropriate management levels (AML) within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. No AML is established for the Mormon Mountains Herd Area and all wild horses and burros will be removed. Resource Constraints Wild horse and burro use within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs may occur between March 15 and October 15, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Between October 15 and March 15, wild horse and burro use within the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs may occur as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs as modified by the BLM (USFWS, 1991 as amended). These utilization levels will be used in the establishment of AMLs for the Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs. Should AMLs be exceeded, excess animals will be removed. Wild Horse and Burro Ranges No new wild horse and burro ranges are recommended for approval by the Director. Activity Planning Herd Management Area Plans will be developed for HMAs. The Mormon Mountains Herd Area will not have a Herd Management Plan developed, since the area is not established as a HMA. LANDS MANAGEMENT Management Direction Retain all designated critical desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Allow no disposal of designated critical desert tortoise habitat public lands through FLPMA sales or exchanges, Carey Act, Desert Land Act, Indian Allotment Act, Recreation and Public Purposes Act, or the Airport and Airways Improvement Act. An exception to this is to allow for disposal of the legislatively leased lands (P.L. 100-275), through exchange for lands legislatively conveyed lands (P.L. 100-275). This exception would be allowed because BLM would obtain critical habitat for critical habitat and there would be no net loss of critical habitat. Those private lands acquired through such an exchange would be included in the Kane Springs ACEC. Public lands that are desert tortoise habitat but are outside of the ACECs and are not designated as critical desert tortoise habitat may be disposed of through the appropriate land laws. For this planning area, the Desert Land Act, Carey Act, and the Indian Allotment Act are not appropriate laws for disposal of public lands. See appendix C for descriptions of the public lands available for disposal. Provide qualified applicants with land use authorizations, as demonstrated need arises and resource constraints are met. 2-39 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) Provide support to other BLM resource programs by acquiring lands or rights in lands through appropriate authorities. Pursue segregation by withdrawal under the authority of Sec. 204 of FLPMA, for areas where resource protection is needed. Pursue trespass prevention, detection, abatement, and resolution consistent with appropriate laws and land use planning. The ESA requires that section 7 consultations will be conducted for any land disposals within desert tortoise habitat. Entities purchasing these lands will be notified of their obligations under the ESA (specifically the need to comply with section 9) and referred to the Service for information on obtaining an incidental take permit under section 10 of the Act. Lands considered for disposal are identified in Appendix C. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT Management Direction Management direction for rights-of-way in desert tortoise habitat would be the same as that described for ACECs, with the following exceptions. Material sites rights-of-way would be considered consistent with this plan. Areal rights-of-way applications would be considered based upon NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed to implement mitigation measures for rights-of-way activities (see Appendix E). RECREATION MANAGEMENT Casual OHV Use Casual OHV use is limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. Organized OHV Use Allow speed and non-speed competitive events to occur on existing roads and vehicle trails. General Recreation Establish sites for parking and camping where appropriate and necessary to accommodate use or to reduce or avoid resource degradation. 2-40 CHAPTER 2 MINERALS MANAGEMENT Locatable Minerals Management Direction ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy; or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. Operators submitting a notice for activities within desert tortoise habitat, but outside of ACECs, will be informed by BLM of their responsibilities to comply with specific provisions of the ESA. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as outlined in Appendix E, to be implemented for locatable minerals activities within desert tortoise habitat. Fluid Minerals Management objectives and direction would be the same as those described under the Special Management Area section of the Proposed Action. If a jeopardy opinion is issued from the USFWS, the operation would be modified until a no jeopardy is issued or no drilling would occur. Mineral Materials Management Direction Desert tortoise habitat would remain open for mineral material disposal. Require implementation of those Standard Operating Procedures for all mineral material activities in desert tortoise habitat (see Appendix E). BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. Non-Energy Leasable Minerals Management Direction All desert tortoise habitat would remain open to non-energy mineral leasing. Apply Standard Operating Procedures to prevent undue or unnecessary surface disturbance (see Appendix E). BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must 2-41 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Proposed Action) also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. FIRE MANAGEMENT Management Direction Management direction would be the same as that for the ACECs, described under the Special Management Area section of the Proposed Action. . i TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS Install tortoise caution signs at entry points to desert tortoise habitat (e.g. Kane Springs Road, Meadow Valley Wash). 2-42 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) Objective The objective for this alternative would be to assist the recovery and delisting of the Mojave population of desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, within the context of continuing multiple use management. Alternative A contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed ACECs; 3) participation in a USFWS-developed and implemented environmental education program; and 4) implementation of a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. Management Direction This alternative contains management directions that are identical to those described under the Proposed Action, with the exception of Livestock Grazing, Minerals and Recreation Management. Forage consumption would be managed within the proposed Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs at a level that would meet the reproductive needs of adult tortoise and throughout desert tortoise habitat. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails in the proposed ACECs. Vehicle use outside of the ACECs would remain open, consistent with approved OHV designations. Activity plans would be completed, as needed, to implement specific decisions. All ACECs will be open to mineral activities with restrictions. Management directions that are unique to Alternative A are described below: LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Management Areas Map 2-4 displays those allotments or portions of allotments located within the proposed ACECs. Management Direction Allotments or portions of allotments within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat would remain open to cattle grazing, and closed to sheep grazing. Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple-Use Decision processes and subsequent allotment management plans or equivalent activity plans. Grazing Management Actions Range Improvements Construct improvements only as needed to facilitate multiple use. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for allotments within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. 2-43 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) Initial Stocking Level Make changes in permitted use on allotments, based on monitoring and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process in accordance with rangeland health standards. Constraints on Livestock Grazing Within ACECs Manage livestock grazing according to the following criteria developed by Tracy, (pg. 14, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995): 1) Stock cattle only in years when food for tortoises is at least 2 times that necessary for full tortoise reproduction (e.g. 32 g/sq. meter, 320 kg/ha, or 288 lbs/acre). 2) Stock cattle at densities so that their consumption of forage never results in reductions of the biomass of spring annuals to levels below 16 g/sq meter (i.e. twice the level minimally necessary for the full reproduction by adult desert tortoises). 3) Stock at rates that protect the shrubs from being reduced in size from year to year. 4) Stock at rates traditionally specified to protect winter forage species for domestic grazers 5) Allow cattle to graze only under conditions in which ALL of the above criteria are met. If the above-listed criteria are met by March 15 and livestock grazing is authorized, manage livestock grazing so that forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs, between March 15 to October 15. Manage livestock grazing between October 15 and March 15 so that forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustments for all allotments would be based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process in accordance with rangeland health standards. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Management direction for recreation management under Alternative A would be the same as that described for the Proposed Action with the following exceptions: Within ACECs Casual OHV Use Designate ACECs as limited to existing roads and vehicle trails for OHVs. Sign the perimeter of ACECs at access points identifying the areas as "limited to existing roads and trails" for vehicle use. 2-44 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative A) Organized OHV Use Allow speed competitive OHV events to pass through ACECs on designated, maintained roads (see Map 2- 8) during the tortoise inactive season (October 15-March 15). Close ACECs to speed competitive events during the tortoise active season. Allow non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events to pass through ACECs on roads designated open to organized OHV use without seasonal restrictions. Vehicle off-loading areas, if authorized within tortoise habitat, would be limited to areas of existing disturbance, and of sufficient size to accommodate the number of vehicles involved without expanding the disturbed area. Appendix D describes stipulations that would be attached to all Special Recreation Permits for organized OHV events in desert tortoise habitat. MINERALS Under this alternatives all of the ACECs would be open to mineral entry. Kane Springs ACEC would remain open to leasable, locatable and mineral material mineral entry. The locatable and fluid and solid minerals will be conducted with the same restrictions as described in the proposed action for the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACEC in the proposed action. Mineral materials would remain open to sales and free use operations. BLM must ensure through the review of the plan of operation and development of the mitigation measures that the impacts from the operation do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The operator, USFWS and BLM must also reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. If it is determined that through the review of the plan of operation and the use of mitigation measures that the operation is not below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold, the project would not go forward. Require Standard Operating Procedures, as needed, to be implemented for mineral materials activities (see Appendix E). These operating procedures include reclamation requirements which will outline the standards that must be met before the reclamation is released. These standards are subject to change based on the site specific conditions at the site and with consultation with the USFWS. 2-45 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) Objective The focus of this alternative is to assist the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, in accordance with the management goals and prescriptions recommended by the Recovery Plan. This alternative emphasizes habitat protection with less regard for multiple use management of desert tortoise habitat. Alternative B contains three major components: 1) identification of two DWMAs with associated management prescriptions; 2) participation in a USFWS developed and implemented environmental education program; and 3) implementation of a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring program. In addition should the lands legislatively leased or conveyed through P.L. 100-275 become available, the BLM would attempt to acquire them and include them in the Mormon Mesa DWMA. Alternative B would identify two DWMAs, encompassing approximately 307,000 acres (Map 2-11). The DWMAs would include 52 percent (126,700 acres) of the critical desert tortoise habitat designated by the USFWS in Lincoln County (Map 2-11). Management prescriptions for the DWMAs were recommended in the Recovery Plan and these would emphasize habitat protection. A number of management recommendations from the Recovery Plan were not brought forward into this alternative, as a result of coordination with the USFWS. Activity plans would be developed, as needed, to implement specific decisions. The following describes only those programs or resources where changes in management objectives and direction from the approved Caliente MFP are proposed. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS The Recovery Plan recommended general areas where SMAs should be established within recovery units. Whenever possible, SMA boundaries were drawn to include the best examples of desert tortoise habitat in specific vegetation regions. In addition, heterogeneous terrain, soil types, and vegetation within SMAs will provide protection for the entire ecosystem upon which healthy desert tortoise populations depend. The array of recommended sizes and shapes for Special Management Areas (SMAs) within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are addressed on page 35 of the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. The minimally acceptable arrangement within a Recovery Unit (where it is not possible for one or more round-shaped SMA(s) of 1,00.0 square miles each) is for a combination of smaller SMAs (connected by corridors of suitable habitat) totalling at least 1,000 square miles. Delisting criterion No. 2 (USFWS, p. ii, 1994a), however, specifies that more intensive management can be used to compensate for fewer acres of habitat protected in SMAs. The reader is reminded, however, that the planning area is just a small part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and was never expected to meet the Recovery Unit objectives on its own. See the Cumulative Impacts section for an analysis of the impacts of the contribution of this planning effort in relationship to the other planning efforts for desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. SMA selection and boundary delineation has been accomplished by land management agencies in coordination with the USFWS, and State wildlife agencies, after soliciting input from other interested parties. The design of the SMAs has met as many of the reserve design criteria as possible as outlined in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994a). Map 2-11 shows the locations of the proposed DWMAs described below; total acreage would be approximately 307,000 acres in two areas. 2-46 mmm Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Within the Planning Area Map 2-11 Desert National Wildlife Range L' n.?pJ.n...fr0ynty Clark County 20 o H Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Are/lnfoCIS 2-47 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Designate approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including both designated critical habitat and non-critical habitat, as DWMAs, in the following areas (see Map 2-12): Coyote Springs DWMA - 9,600 acres Mormon Mesa DWMA - 297,400 acres COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA Values: Habitat for federally-listed threatened desert tortoise, banded gila monster, chuckwalla, and many sensitive species, including several bats. The federally-listed endangered Southwestern Willow flycatcher and peregrine falcon may also occur in this area. Acreage: Approximately 9,600 acres MORMON MESA DWMA Values: Habitat for the federally-listed threatened desert tortoise banded gila monster, chuckwalla. Other sensitive species, including the endemic fish species of Meadow Valley Wash and several species of bats, also occur in this area. Acreage: 297,400 acres MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR THE DWMAS Develop Management Plans for each DWMA. Special Status Animal Species/Wildlife Habitat Management Authorize non-intrusive monitoring of desert tortoise habitat and population dynamics. Designate up to 10 percent of a DWMA as an EMZ where a variety of experimental research activities (including intrusive research on desert tortoise) may be permitted during the recovery period. Locate EMZs on the peripheries of the DWMAs. Authorize non-intrusive and non-manipulative biological and geological research. Authorize biological research and specimen collection only by permits after NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Authorize the deposition of captive or displaced desert tortoise only through approved translocation research projects. Authorize population augmentation or enhancement activities for native wildlife species (e.g. desert bighorn or Gambel's quail). Authorize only those surface-disturbing activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise and other wildlife habitat, improve watershed conditions, or enhance opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Visitor centers, camping facilities, and wildlife guzzlers may be constructed, where appropriate. 2-48 20 Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas and Designated Critical Habitat Within the Planning Area Map 2-12 N Desert National Wildlife Range !rin.?9Ln. _cou_n.ty. Clark County ill. n Critical Habitat Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Planning Area Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using AreyinfoCIS 2-49 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Fence or otherwise establish effective barriers to tortoise along heavily traveled roads; install culverts that allow underpass of tortoises along U.S. Highway 93. Construct desert tortoise barrier fences and underpasses along the Union Pacific Railroad line. Implement a USFWS-approved interagency monitoring plan. Participate in USFWS developed environmental education programs. Forestry and Vegetative Products Authorize desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) by permit only within DWMAs and after NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Livestock Grazing Management Management Areas Close those allotments or portions of allotments that are within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs to livestock grazing (Maps 2-13 and 2-14). Table 2-5 displays those allotments partially or entirely within the proposed DWMAs. Season of Use No season of use would be authorized for the following allotments or portions of the allotment within the DWMAs: Breedlove Delamar Grapevine Gourd Spring Henrie Complex Lower Lake East Mormon Peak Rox-Tule White Rock Grazing Management Actions Range Improvements Construct improvements only as needed to facilitate multiple use management and to exclude livestock grazing from the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs. Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged for allotments within DWMAs. 2-50 Grazing Allotments Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas 20 0 20 Miles Map 2-13 H Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox -Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring L White Rock M HenrieComplex S Delamar U Lower Lake East J Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-51 Cattle Use Areas by Allotment Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Map 2-14 H Cattle Use Areas Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breedlove C Rox - Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring L White Rock M Henrie Complex S Delamar U LowerLake East 20 20 Miles Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-52 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Table 2-5. Allotments partially or entirely within proposed DWMAS. ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES OF ALLOTMENT IN DWMA PERCENTAGE Of ALLOTMENT WITHIN DWMA MORMON MESA DWMA Breedlove 121,500 114,100 94 Delamar 245,400 47,000 19 Grapevine 34,200 12,400 36 Gourd Springs 97,200 22,200 23 Henrie Complex 169,100 36,200 21 Lower Lake East 53,700 1,400 3 Mormon Peak 77,900 32300 42 Rox-Tule 25,600 25,600 100 White Rock 33,000 6,200 19 TOTALS 858,100 297,400 average 35 COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA Delamar 245,400 4,900 2 Lower Lake East 53,700 4,700 9 TOTALS 299,100 9,600 average 3 Initial Stocking Level Current and proposed permitted use for allotments or portions of allotments within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs would be according to Table 2-6. Make changes in permitted use on allotments, through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process in accordance with rangeland health standards. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustments would based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the Allotment Evaluation and Multiple Use Decision process. Wild Horse and Burro Management Management Direction Continue to manage the Blue Nose Peak HMA for wild horses and burros (see Map 2-15). The Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HMAs would no longer be managed for wild horses and burros, since no physical barriers are present to restrict the animals' movement into the Mormon Mesa DWMA. No physical barriers will be constructed to restrict the wild and free-roaming nature of the wild horses and burros. These two areas would lose their status as HMAs, but will retain Herd Area status for future management consideration, should conditions change. 2-53 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Table 2-6. Current and proposed permitted use for allotments within proposed DWMAs. ALLOTMENT CURRENT PERMITTED USE PROPOSED PERMITTED USE Lower Lake East 0 0 Delamar 0 0 Grapevine 217 0 Breedlove 864 0 Rox-Tule 756 0 Mormon Peak 217 0 Gourd Spring 974 0 Henrie Complex 228 0 White Rock 432 0 (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station Data, 1996) Management areas, adjustment criteria, resource constraints, and management direction are the same as those described for Proposed Action, with the following exception: Herd Size Establish the AML for the Blue Nose Peak HMA, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. No AMLs are established for the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Areas and all wild horses and burros would be removed. Lands Management Disposal Allow no disposal of public land through FLPMA sales, exchanges, Desert Land, Indian Allotment, Carey, R&PP, or Airport and Airway Improvement Act. Allow no new landfills through the R&PP Act. Land Use Authorizations Authorize no airport leases (43 CFR 2911) or FLPMA leases (43 CFR 2920). Issue only FLPMA minimum impact permits, to be evaluated based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. 2-54 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas Within Proposed Desert Wildlife Management Areas Map 2-15 N 20 Lincoln County Clark County Desert National Wildlife Range 20 Miles CO 3" ••Z2. !N ;© Mesquiti 1-15 Blue Nose Peak HMA Meadow Valley Mountains HMA Mormon Mountains HMA Mormon Mesa DWMA Coyote Springs DWMA Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfoCIS 2-55 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Approve R&PP Act lease applications based on NEPA analysis and Section 7 consultation. Retain in federal ownership those lands leased to Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) under Public Law 100-275. Upon termination, expiration, or relinquishment of those leases, include those lands within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. Acquisitions Encourage local governments and private individuals to purchase environmentally sensitive private lands within DWMAs that could be exchanged for public lands outside DWMAs. Acquire private lands or rights within DWMAs from willing sellers. Acquire private lands of Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet Corporation) through appropriate authorities and include them in the Mormon Mesa DWMA, should they become available. Un-authorized Use Resolve unauthorized use to retain lands as public lands. Reclaim surface disturbances from unauthorized uses to as close to pre-disturbance conditions as practicable. Withdrawals Allow administrative withdrawals or public land orders for the construction of public information/environmental education facilities on lands within DWMAs, but outside of WSAs. Rights-of-Way Management Utility/Transportation Corridors Retain the legislatively-designated corridor (Public Law 100-275) that crosses the proposed Mormon Mesa DWMA. Corridors to be designated Do not designate new corridors within DWMAs. Corridor Terms and Conditions Do not grant new rights-of-way outside of corridors. Consider designated Wilderness Areas as right-of-way exclusion areas, unless otherwise stated in the enabling legislation. Areal Rights-of-Way Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance. 2-56 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Material Site Rights-of-Way Consider existing material site rights-of-way (both developed and undeveloped), issued under the Federal Aid Highway Act, as inconsistent with the land use plan and BLM policies. Do not authorize any activity associated with the transport of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Recreation Management Designate all areas within DWMAs as limited to designated roads for OHV use. Routes designated as open would be signed and would be subject to a speed limit appropriate to the terrain. Routes designated as closed will be signed or obliterated or both. Close DWMAs to all competitive or organized events. Designate and construct as necessary appropriate areas for parking and camping, and restrict such activities to those designated areas. Allow non-consumptive recreation uses, such as hiking, birdwatching, casual horseback riding, and photography, that do not disturb desert tortoise habitat to continue within DWMAs. Improve opportunities for non-motorized recreation where appropriate and consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. This would include, but not be limited to, the construction of a visitor center and wildlife guzzlers in the DWMAs. Wilderness Management Continue to manage WSAs within DWMAs under IMP. Where a conflict exists between IMP and DWMA management prescriptions, manage according to the standard that best protects the desert tortoise and its habitat. Should Congress release WSAs within DWMAs from further consideration as wilderness, manage those areas under the management prescriptions developed for the DWMAs. Limit vehicle travel within WSAs to those routes (ways) that are designated as "open". Some routes (ways) may be signed as "closed" to achieve goals and objectives for desert tortoise habitat management and/or for the management of wilderness values. Minerals Management The Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs would be withdrawn from mineral entry under the following public laws: 1. General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 2. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented. 3. Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended. 4. Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended. 5. Mineral Material Act of July 31, 1947, as amended. 6. Surface Use and Occupancy Act of July 23, 1955. Close the Coyote Springs and the Mormon Mesa DWMAs to mineral entry. Close the Coyote Springs and 2-57 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative B) Mormon Mesa DWMAs to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights; and to mineral material disposal. Existing mining claims would have valid existing rights and mining operations could occur in the ACEC. The withdrawal could take several years before it is designated closed and any mining claim within the withdrawal would have existing rights under the mining law. The BLM would be required to perform validity exams on the existing claims to determine if they are valid claims before any operation may proceed within the ACEC. The operation can proceed once the review of the plan of operation, NEPA review, and section 7 consultation has occurred. Transportation/Public Access Restrict establishment of new roads in DWMAs. Implement closure to vehicle access, with the exception of designated routes, including federal, state, and county maintained vehicle routes. Implement emergency closure of dirt roads and routes, as needed, to reduce human access and disturbance in areas where human-cause mortality of desert tortoises is a problem. Fence or otherwise establish effective barriers to tortoises along heavily-traveled roads. Install culverts that allow underpass of tortoises to alleviate habitat fragmentation. MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT OUTSIDE OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS According to the Recovery Plan, no special management attention need be directed to desert tortoise populations or habitat outside of DWMAs, unless those populations are determined to be at risk. Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would, however, continue to be completed prior to the authorization of any activity within desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. The consultation would include consideration of potential impacts to the DWMAs from activities outside them. 2-58 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) Objective Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management decisions and actions as approved in the Caliente MFP and approved activity plans. The MFP objectives and direction have been maintained and updated to conform with current BLM regulations and policy. The requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have also modified direction contained in the approved land use plan. This alternative, required by NEPA for comparative purposes, serves as a baseline against which to evaluate the environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action or alternative. The following describes only those objectives and management directions by resource program that relate to desert tortoise habitat management. All MFP objectives and directions, as well as approved activity level plans for resource management outside of desert tortoise habitat, would remain in effect. Section 7 consultation would continue to be required prior to the authorization of surface-disturbing activities in desert tortoise habitat. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES/WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Objectives Sponsor or conduct the research, studies, and inventories necessary to insure adequate data for decision-making relative to expansion, improvement and maintenance of wildlife habitat. Specific priorities include identification of the habitat for the following: Federal threatened or endangered species, and State rare and sensitive species. Re-establish native fauna on historic range or use areas and increase species diversity/distribution of desired animals throughout a variety of habitat types. Provide sufficient quantity and quality of food, cover, and shelter to satisfy the demands of all species utilizing habitat in the planning unit through habitat improvement methods. Maintain habitat conditions through surveillance, acquisition, or management decision to continue existing species populations until activity plans are developed. Management Direction Prepare habitat management plans for desert tortoise and banded gila monster. Protect the habitat of desert tortoise and other reptiles through protective stipulations in the environmental process. Require the maximum utilization of existing roads and trails by competitive OHV groups and other intensive use groups and organizations. 2-59 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS MANAGEMENT Objective Study, manage, and allow sale of desert vegetation. Management Direction Conduct inventories on cactus and other succulent vegetation in the Delamar Valley and upper Tule Desert (two major concentrations) to develop ecological and phenological database on desert plants. Complete inventories prior to the initiation of a desert vegetation sale program. Precede any proposed new materials sites, road rights-of-way, or vegetative manipulation sites within desert vegetation types with either free-use or vegetative sales to prevent total loss of that resource. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Objective Continue to manage grazing of domestic livestock on the public lands for livestock forage as long as the grazing practices promote a healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystem. Increase livestock forage production and availability through vegetative treatment that provide for multiple use management. Encourage and assist the grazing permittees to develop range improvements that facilitate multiple use management and improve the condition of the rangeland ecosystem. Management Areas All allotments or portions of allotments that are within desert tortoise habitat are open to livestock grazing. Management Direction Initial Stocking Level Make changes in permitted use on allotments supported by monitoring and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process. Season of Use Establish season of use on all perennial allotments through coordination and consultation and subsequent development of allotment management plans or in conjunction with development of grazing systems. For season of use guidelines, refer to the "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" section below. 2-60 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Constraints on Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing would be conducted in accordance with the Biological Opinions for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat (USFWS 1991, 1994c). following grazing prescriptions are in effect for allotments in designated critical habitat: The Prescription 1 guidelines allow livestock use between June 15 and October 14 as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs and from October 15 to February 28 as long as utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 40 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Livestock use will not occur from March 1 to June 14 (USFWS, 1991). The following allotments or portions of allotments would be grazed according to Prescription 1 guidelines; Beacon Breedlove Gourd Spring Grapevine Henrie Complex Lower Lake East Mormon Peak Rox-Tule Sand Hollow Snow Spring Terry Prescription 2 guidelines allow for livestock grazing to occur between March 1 and October 14, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 40 percent on key perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs and between October 15 and February 28, as long as forage utilization does not exceed 50 percent on key perennial grasses and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs. Period-of-use for the following allotments or portions of the allotment would be according to Prescription 2 guidelines: Boulder Springs Delamar Hat Top Mesa Garden Spring Gourd Spring Henrie Complex Jackrabbit Lime Mountain Lower Riggs Lower Lake West Mormon Peak Pahranagat East Pahranagat West Pulsipher Wash Snow Spring Summit Spring White Rock 2-61 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Allotment Categorization Allotment categories would remain unchanged. Use Adjustment Criteria Use adjustment criteria for all allotments would be based on results of monitoring studies and determinations made through the allotment evaluation process. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT Objectives Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas (Wild Horse and Burro Herd Areas) where they existed at the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL-92-195) on December 15, 1971. Obtain information on wild horses and burros in the existing herd management areas through the use of inventories and studies. Maintain the wild, free-roaming characteristics of the wild horses and burros on the public lands. Management Areas Wild horse HMAs within the planning unit include the Mormon Mountains, the Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs (refer to Map 2-6). Management Direction Herd Size Establish AMLs within the HMAs, as determined through monitoring of the animal population, forage, water, riparian, and other ecosystem management objectives. Adjustment Criteria Remove wild horses and burros as expeditiously as possible from private lands, after a request has been made by the private landowner and reasonable efforts to keep the animal off private lands have failed. Remove wild horses and burros which have expanded beyond HMA boundaries, only if reasonable efforts to keep the animals within those boundaries have failed. Remove wild horses and burros in excess of an established AML in the HMAs. Resource Constraints Limit utilization by all herbivores on key perennial forage species at key areas within the HMAs in desert tortoise habitat to those utilization percentages identified by forage class and season of use as contained in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook. Authorize the construction of fencing only when that fencing will not constrain the wild, free-roaming characteristics of wild horses and burros. 2-62 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) LANDS MANAGEMENT Objectives Provide public land for urban or suburban expansion adjacent to the communities in the planning unit as needed. Provide public land for use by Federal (other than BLM), State, and local government agencies and non-profit associations for public projects. Limit the transfer of public land for agricultural production to only those areas (valleys) that have been determined to have development potential. Locate and establish/designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way currently exist. Management Direction In cooperation with State of Nevada and the Lincoln County Commissioners, determine those lands to be suitable for agricultural production (regardless of location) that should be disposed of through the appropriate means. Consolidate all future communication site development, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks: Ella Mountain, East Mormon Mountains, Chokecherry Mountain, Highland Peak, and Pahranagat Range. Utilize existing routes for major utility systems (69kV or higher powerlines, pipelines, etc.), whenever possible. It is recognized that engineering problems and project design will require that deviations be made to allow for the construction and maintenance of future facilities. Coordinate with local and State governments in the planning unit to meet future needs for sanitary landfill sites by Lincoln County. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Objectives Protect important botanic, zoologic, geologic, and paleontologic values to assure that they are not lost, destroyed, or substantially altered. Provide adequate access to facilities for important sight-seeing and recreation use areas to assure their continued enjoyment by the public. Provide OHV use areas and trails for both competitive and non-competitive use by individuals and organized groups. 2-63 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Management Direction Conduct speed-based OHV events within desert tortoise habitat under the mitigation measures and special stipulations contained within the 1995 USFWS programmatic biological opinion for OHV events (refer to Appendix D). Establish the following competitive use OHV areas: 1) Tule Desert; 2) Lower Meadow Valley Wash; and 3) Delamar Valley. Close Kane Springs Valley to competitive events and require OHVs to remain on existing roads and trails to protect the quail guzzlers. Limit OHV competitive events in desert tortoise habitat to existing roads and trails. Manage 51,360 acres as limited to existing roads and trails for all OHV use to protect desert tortoise habitat. Limit competitive OHV events to existing roads and trails on 16,900 acres to protect gila monster habitat. Provide facilities and/or protection necessary to ensure that OHV use is managed in such a manner as to avoid conflicts or damage to the unit's multiple use. Utilize existing roads and vehicle trails for competitive events whenever possible. Avoid and/or protect fragile soils through protective stipulation. Prohibit competitive events within 1/4 mile of known water sources. Prohibit pits or starting areas within 1/2 mile of known water sources and desert tortoise denning sites. All applications should be accompanied with a pit and spectator control plan. Provide adequate interpretive, educational, and directional orientation for visitors. Develop a self-guided OHV trail system, designed for individual, family, and small group use, providing both point-to-point and closed loop sight-seeing with overnight camping opportunities. Place interpretive or directional signs as necessary or when money and personnel exist to assist the public in awareness about the resource values in the planning area. Conduct intensive inventories in the East Mormon Barrel Cactus Area (T. 11 S, R. 69 and 70 E) to determine the nature and extent of the values. Upon completion of inventories, develop a Recreation Management Plan for the area. If values are found that are worthy of special protection, designate as a natural environmental area. Allow no wildlife vegetative manipulations in the area, pending review of values. Conduct an intensive speleological investigation of the Mormon Caves, T. US, R. 67E. and develop a Recreation Management Plan to protect and utilize the resources identified. Develop a Recreation/Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Mormon Mountains area. 2-64 CHAPTER 2 ^ ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT Manage WSAs under the guidance of the IMP so that these lands retain their wilderness characteristics until congressional designation to the National Wilderness Preservation System or release from further consideration. MINERALS MANAGEMENT Locatable Minerals Objective Encourage the search for and production of the locatable minerals in the planning unit. Consider mining to be the primary use of lands (especially around known mining districts) that are shown to contain valuable minerals in commercial quantities. Management Direction Assure that exploration, development, and extraction are carried out in such a way as to minimize environmental and other resource damage. Assure the rehabilitation of lands affected by such operations. Fluid Minerals Objective Encourage and facilitate the search for leasable energy minerals (oil, gas and geothermal) within the unit. Cooperate with developers to aid and expedite exploration and development activities while at the same time protecting other resource values by reasonable stipulations. Management Direction All lands in the planning unit are open to oil and gas leasing, except Mormon Peak Caves, which are closed to leasing, (T. US, R. 67E, Sections. 17, 18, 19, 20 and T. US, R. 66E, Section 24 El/2). FIRE MANAGEMENT Objective Provide for the maximum safety of the visitor, for the protection of personal property, and for the quality of the natural environment through development of a sound fire management and suppression program. Management Direction Develop a comprehensive fire management plan for the entire planning unit based on vegetative type, ecological relationships, the effect of different suppression techniques, and human use patterns. 2-65 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES (Alternative C) Fire suppression within WSAs should be accomplished by using non-mechanized forms or other means so as not to impair any wilderness characteristics that may exist until designation or release from wilderness consideration. TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS Road maintenance is conducted based on the Caliente Resource Area Transportation Plan, in cooperation with the Lincoln Country Road Department. Maintenance activities on existing roads in desert tortoise habitat will continue to be conducted during the tortoise inactive season (October 15-March 15). Section 7 consultation will continue to be conducted prior to any road construction and maintenance activities in desert tortoise habitat. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS No SMAs are designated in the MFP. AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Federal agencies are required by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1502.14) to identify their preferred alternative for a project in the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the project. The preferred alternative is not a final agency decision; it is rather an indication of the agency's preliminary preference. This alternative considered all the information that has been received, including comments on the DEIS, relevant to the proposed project. The agency preferred alternative is the Proposed Action as described in the environmental impact statement. Rationale The Proposed Action would best meet the purpose and need of desert tortoise recovery within a multiple use management context. 2-66 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Special Designate three areas of Management desert tortoise habitat as Areas ACECs for a total of 212,500 acres or 83% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Wildlife fdesert Manage desert tortoise tortoise and other habitat to assist the special status recovery and delisting of species') desert tortoise in the Northeast Recovery Unit. Maintain or improve habitat condition for desert tortoise and other special species. Designate Experimental Management zones as needed. Participate in TJSFWS approved interagency monitoring. Participate in USFWS-developed environmental education program ALTERNATIVE A Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B Identify two areas of desert tortoise habitat as D WMAs for a total of 307,000 acres or 52% of the designated critical habitat within Lincoln County. Authorize only those activities that would enhance the quality of desert tortoise habitat and other habitat. Establish barriers and underpasses for tortoise along heavily traveled roads and railroads. Designate up to 10% as Experimental Management Zones. Participate in USFWS approved interagency monitoring. Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE C No Special Management Areas would be designated. Prepare HMP's for desert tortoise and Gila monster. Protect habitat of desert tortoise and other special species through mitigative stipulations developed through the environmental (NEPA) process for each individual action. Program not developed. 2-67 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Forestry and Vegetative Products Mgmt. Special Status Plant Species Livestock Grazing Management PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Within ACECs, authorize no commercial desert vegetation harvests (seed or plant) except for salvage and research on case by case basis. Allow commercial sales outside of ACECs. Manage special status plant species to assure protection, maintainance and enhancement of habitat. Allotments or portions of allotments within Mormon Mesa, Kane Springs, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would be closed to grazing. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Grazing (cattle) allotments within the ACECs would be authorized if the following forage requirement was met: 288 lbs/acre of available tortoise forage. Sheep grazing (Beacon Allotment) within the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would be closed. Manage vegetative products in desert tortoise habitat for education, scientific purposes, sale and sustained yield. Same as Proposed Action Allotments or portions of allotments within the Mormon Mesa and Coyote Springs DWMA would be closed to grazing. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of the DWMAs would be open to grazing with no seasonal utilization levels Study, manage or allow sale of desert vegetation within planning area. Proceed issuance of authorization for surface disturbance with either free use or sale of vegetative products. Same as Proposed Action Conduct livestock grazing in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion for BLM's Interim Rangewide Livestock Grazing Program in Mojave Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat. (USFWS 1994c). Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be open to grazing with seasonal utilization limits. 2-68 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Wild Horse and Burro Management The Mormon Mountains HMA will no longer be managed for wild horses (0 AML), but will maintain its herd area status. For HMAs within desert tortoise habitat but outside of ACECs wild horses would be managed with seasonal utilization limits. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action except with the addition of Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area. Same as Proposed Action Manage wild horse and burro populations in those areas where they existed at the passage of the WH&B Act of 1971 (PL- 92-195) 2-69 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Lands Retain all public lands Management within ACECs, and critical desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs, except in the case of Harrich Investments, LLC properties where federal legislatively leased lands may be exchanged for the legislatively conveyed properties now owned by Harrich Investments, LLC. Both the legislatively leased and conveyed lands are considered critical habitat. The intent of such an exchange would be to improve ACEC design. ALTERNATIVE A Same as Proposed Action ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Retain all public lands and allow no disposal actions to occur within DWMAs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within DWMAs. Allow no land use authorizations within DWMAs that would cause any surface disturbance. Allow no new landfills within DWMAs. Provide public land for community expansion in the planning area as needed. Limit the transfer of public land for agriculture production to those areas that have been determined to have development potential. Allow disposal actions to occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. Acquire private lands from willing sellers within ACECs and desert tortoise habitat. Allow land use authorizations outside of ACECs. 2-70 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Rights-of-Way Management Allow no new landfills within ACECs. Retain the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) legislatively designated corridor. Designate three utility/transportation corridors as described on Map 2-7. Areas outside of corridors within ACECs would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas. Same as Proposed Action Do not authorize communication sites requiring new surface disturbance within DWMAs. Do not authorize any activities associated with the transfer of oil and gas that would cause surface disturbance within DWMAs. Do not designate transmission and utility corridors within DWMA's. Locate and designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way exist. Consolidate all future communication site rights- of-way, where feasible, on specific mountain peaks. Requests for new material site rights-of-way within ACECs, pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act, will be considered within a one-mile wide corridor along designated federal roads (Map 2-9). Material site rights-of-way outside of ACECs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 2-71 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM Recreation Management PROPOSED ACTION OHV use in ACECs limited to designated roads & vehicle trails. ACECs closed to speed competitive OHV events. Non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events (or non-speed portions of speed events) may pass through ACECs on designated roads from October 16 - March 14 and June 16 - August 14. OHV casual use and events, limited to existing roads and vehicle trails in desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C OHV use in ACECs limited to existing roads & vehicle trails. Speed competitive OHV events allowed to pass through ACECs on designated roads during tortoise inactive season (October 15 to March 15). Non-speed and non-competitive OHV events allowed to pass through without seasonal restriction. OHV designation outside of ACECs would remain open. OHV use within DWMAs limited to designated roads and limited speed. DWMAs closed to all competitive or organized events. Parking and camping within DWMAs restricted to designated sites No restriction of recreational use in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. All types of organized OHV events could be conducted through tortoise habitat outside DWMAs, most likely through Toquop Wash. Halfway Wash would be open north of the Clark - Lincoln County line. OHV designations are mostly "open" with variations of "limited" in select areas. OHV events conducted in accordance with Biological Opinion for Las Vegas District Off-Road Events. Kane Springs Valley closed to competitive OHV events. 2-72 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Kane Springs ACEC would Management be closed to fluid and non energy mineral leasables and operation under the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral materials disposal except one-mile wide corridors on designated federal and county roads. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs will remain open to mineral entry with the following restrictions: ACECs remain open to the Mining Law of 1872 subject to Plans of Operations. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices of operation for locatable minerals. Standard operating procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply- No surface use allowed in the planning unit for fluid minerals from March 15 October 15. Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. DWMAs withdrawn from mineral entry, closed to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. Closed to mineral material disposal. Desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs remains open to mineral entry, fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, and operations of the General Mining Law, and mineral material disposal. All lands within the planning unit remain open to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing (except Mormon Caves), to operations of the General Mining Law, and to mineral material disposal. 1. Under the General Mining Law of 1872 will be subject to Plans of Operation. ACECs closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. Planning unit remains open to non-energy mineral leasing with the same lease stipulation as oil and gas. 2-73 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Management (continued-) 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 to October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Closed to mineral material disposal except in designated one-mile wide corridor on designated federal and county roads. 2-74 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Minerals Management (continued) Outside ACECs 1. Desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs remains open to notices for locatable minerals. Standard Operating Procedures and Endangered Species Act provisions would apply. 2. Mineral Leasing Stipulations: a) No surface use allowed in the ACECs for fluid and non-energy leasible minerals from March 15 October 15. b) Access to leasehold by existing roads and trails, unless otherwise authorized. 3. Desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs remains open to mineral material disposal. 2-75 Table 2-7. Summary of Alternatives PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C Fire Management Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. Some suppression restrictions apply. Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Full suppression activities with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. 2-76 Table 2-7. Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Total Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Management Prescriptions for Tortoise Habitat Outside of Special Management Areas Tortoise Population Trends Within Special Management Areas Ecological Status of Tortoise Habitat HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALTB) 212,500 acres (28% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 203,700 acres (83% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 542,100 acres subject to Section 7 consultation plus additional proposed management. Encourage upward trend to attain long-term stability and viability goals, avoid long-term downward trends. Maintain or improve within ACECs. Maintain outside ACECs. DESERT TORTOISE Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action Maintain in the short term. Maintain inside and outside ACECs. LIVESTOCK 307,000 acres (41% of desert tortoise habitat in the EIS planning area). 126,700 acres (52% of the Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat in the EIS planning area). 447,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation with no additional proposed management. Encourage upward trend to attain long-term stability and viability goals, avoid long-term downward trends. Maintain or improve within DWMAs. Decrease outside of DWMAs. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) 754,600 acres subject to Section 7 consultation . Currently stable trend at Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots. Probable decline in trend in the future. Maintain Number of AUMs reduced 2095 (Sheep) 3563 (Cattle) 2095 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 3688 (Cattle) 2-77 Table 2-7. Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (ALT A) DWMA ALTERNATIVE (ALTB) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (ALT C) Number of allotments closed Number of allotments partially closed Current livestock use acres closed to grazing Current livestock non-use acres closed to grazing Appropriate Management Level (AML) for wild horses Number of Horses Removed 1 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 6 (Cattle) 47,900 164,600 0 for Mormon Mountains Herd Area; AML for Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 20 from outside of Mormon Mountains Herd Area. 1 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 0 (Cattle) 5,600 0 WILD HORSES Same as Proposed Action Same as Proposed Action 0 (Sheep) 2 (Cattle) 0 (Sheep) 7 (Cattle) 92,300 214,700 0 for Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Areas; AML for Blue Nose Peak HMA to be established through allotment evaluation process. 15 from Mormon Mountains Herd Area; 40 from Meadow Valley Mountains Herd Area; 20 from outside of Herd Area boundaries. 0 None None AML for all three HMAs to be established through allotment evaluation process. 20 from outside of HMA boundaries. 2-78 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the environmental and resource management components of the planning area that are relevant to an analysis of the Proposed Action or alternatives. These include soils and water resources, special status species, livestock grazing allotments, wild horse and burro HMAs, lands actions, recreation, WSAs, minerals management, fire management, and socio-economic conditions. Much of the data contained within this chapter is drawn from the more detailed Caliente Resource Area Unit Resource Analysis Step 3) (BLM 1978) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement on Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Resource Area (BLM 1979a), available for public review at the BLM Caliente Field Station, located in Caliente, Nevada. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA GENERAL SETTING The planning area is defined as desert tortoise habitat on public lands administered by BLM in southeastern Lincoln County. This habitat occurs at elevations below 4,000 feet, at the northern extreme of the vast Mojave Desert, and totals approximately 754,600 acres. Southeastern Lincoln County is generally undeveloped and sparsely populated; the unincorporated town of Alamo (population 926 from the 1990 census) is the only population center within the planning area. Major highway access is provided by U.S. Highway 93 which runs north-south along the west side of the planning area and by Interstate I- 1 5 which traverses Clark County near the southeast margin of the planning area. The Union Pacific Railroad main line, State Route 317, and the unpaved Kane Springs and Carp-Elgin roads comprise travel corridors through the planning area. CLIMATE The planning area is located within the Mojave Desert, the smallest and most arid of the American deserts (MacMahon 1985). The region is characterized by low precipitation and high summer temperatures. Three major air masses influence the climate of the area: the tropical Atlantic (Gulf); the tropical Pacific, and the polar Pacific (BLM 1991). These air masses create a bi-seasonal climatic pattern, characteristic of much of the American Southwest. Most of the annual precipitation is received during two peak storm periods: winter (November to February) and summer (July to September). Winter rains can begin in October and continue through March, supplying the Mojave Desert with between 60 and 80 percent of its total annual rainfall (Reitan and Green 1968; Huning 1978). Summer rains are often very localized, intense, and of short duration. The eastern Mojave Desert receives more of its annual rainfall from these storms than does the western portion (Bailey 1981). The driest months are April through June and September. Precipitation readings taken at seven locations within the planning area indicate that regional annual precipitation amounts can be highly variable, ranging from less than 2 inches to more than 13 inches, with an average of approximately 5 inches (data on file, BLM-Caliente Field Station 1996). Plant growth and reproduction in the eastern Mojave Desert are triggered by precipitation events of greater than one inch (Beatley 1974). The most predictable of these events generally occurs between late September and early December; these are the precursors of successful plant growth and reproduction during the following spring (Berry 1984a). Good annual vegetation growth occurs when both the winter and spring precipitation exceeds CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 125 percent of average or when winter moisture is near average and spring exceeds 140 percent (BLM, p. 30, 1996a). Poor growth years occur when both winter and spring moisture is less than 75 percent. In this region, winters are mild, with daytime temperatures reaching an average maximum of 60 degrees F and nighttime temperatures averaging 35 to 45 degrees F. Summers are hot, with daytime maximum temperatures averaging 85 to 95 degrees F and nighttime temperature minimums ranging from 70 to 75 degrees F. PHYSIOGRAPHY The topography and drainage of southeastern Lincoln County are characteristic of the Basin and Range province, with internally draining basins separated by mountain ranges, hills, and mesas. The trend of the ranges is not always uniform, but a general north-south orientation is apparent. A notable exception is the Clover Mountains, located at the northern edge of the planning area. The orientation of this range is generally east-west, the result of extensional forces. The Grand Wash Cliffs, located a few miles to the south of Mesquite, Nevada, mark the boundary between the Basin and Range province and the Colorado Plateau province. The southeastern portion of Lincoln County lies within the Colorado River Basin and is externally drained by the Colorado River and its tributaries. GEOLOGY Southeastern Nevada has a complex geologic history, comprised of several episodes of sedimentation, igneous activity, orogenic deformation, and continental rifting. These past events have influenced the location and potential for economic mineral values in the planning area and can be summarized as follows. In the early Paleozoic Era, the region was a marginal coastal zone, with deposition of sediments occurring in a geosynclinal environment. A carbonate belt was deposited, with detrital coastal deposits to the east and deep ocean sediments to the west. The rock types consist of shales and limestones. This depositional environment continued until the Devonian Period. During the Middle Paleozoic, approximately 100 million years ago, the region experienced its first compressional event. A subduction zone was established to the west and a volcanic island arc developed. A foreland basin was created when mountainous terrain uplifted in the ocean, away from the coast line. Sediments were deposited into the basin from the adjacent land forms. Typically, clastic sediments (sand and silt) were intermixed with limestone deposits. During the Antler Orogeny, the Roberts Mountain thrust developed; coastal sediments and crust were compressed by at least 100 kilometers. With the accretion of the Sonomia landmass, a subduction zone was established in western Nevada. This subduction marks the beginning of the modern circum-Pacific orogenic system, as the Pacific Ocean sea floor's Kula Plate was subducted under the North American continental crust. North America changed its direction of motion relative to the western ocean sea floor plate by rotating clockwise. A thermal bulge, relating to volcanism, occurred along the Sonomia suture zone. Sediments were transported to the northeast. The volcanism ended in the Late Triassic; the highlands at the southern end of Nevada subsided and were again below sea level. At the onset of the Jurassic, events to the east set the stage for the modern geologic landscape. The Atlantic sea floor spreading center was developed and subduction to the west intensified, as a consequence of the breakup of the supercontinent Pangea. During the early stages of the break up, sediments were deposited in the interior regions of North America, including the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. The western subduction zone experienced uplift in the Rocky Mountains, known as the Cordilleran Orogeny. Several major thrust belts are associated with this subduction zone, including the Sevier belt in Nevada. Crustal shortening was estimated to be 100 kilometers. Volcanic activity associated with subduction began between the Sierra Nevada Range and the Rocky Mountains. 3-2 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT From the middle Cenozoic Era to the present, extensional forces developed within the Basin and Range province. The high angle fault-controlled mountain ranges and intervening valleys are the result of regional extension. Volcanic activity increased with the extensional forces and accompanying thinning of the continental crust. Valley fill within the region contains the erosional remnants of the mountain blocks. SOILS Fan piedmont remnants are the major landform in the planning area. Soils have formed primarily in alluvial deposits and occupy positions on alluvial fans and terraces. Small areas of similar soils are found along narrow valley drains and as islands of residual soils on hills and mountains. Approximately 70 percent of the soils occur on alluvial fans, fan remnants, and terraces. These soils have developed in alluvial material, eroded from adjacent uplands. Soil development is slow due to the arid conditions. Such soils are very shallow to shallow over a hardpan. This hardpan, which generally has a high lime content, acts as a restrictive layer in the soil profile. A high percentage of rock fragments are found on the surface and throughout the profile; this rock cover aids in reducing susceptibility to soil erosion. Surface soil textures are primarily sandy loams. Slopes range from gently to strongly sloping. Soils found along narrow valley drains, such as the Meadow Valley Wash and Kane Springs, are deep and the most productive in the planning area. These soils have developed in alluvium and typically have loam and sandy loam surfaces. Slopes are level to gently sloping. Islands of residual soils occur within desert tortoise habitat on hills and low mountains, such as the Mormon Mountains. These soils are very shallow to shallow in depth and have developed primarily in sedimentary rocks. They exhibit a high percentage of rock fragments, including cobbles and stones on the surface and within the profiles of these soils. Slopes range from strongly sloping to very steep. Water erosion potentials within the planning area vary from slight to severe. A majority of the soils are in the slight category. The slight erosion potentials result from the low percentage slopes present and the high percentage of rock fragments found on the soil surfaces. Soil salinities are very slightly saline. Approximately 1,500 acres of strongly saline soils are found along lower Meadow Valley Wash. WATER AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES Eighteen springs with associated riparian areas are found in the planning area. These springs provide a very important source of water for the area. Table 3-1 lists the locations and discharge amounts for each spring source. A majority of these springs have ponded or standing water (lentic) riparian habitat associated with them. Riparian habitat areas are smaller than their potential areal size and are, to varying degrees, degraded below proper functioning condition. The degradation has resulted from overuse by grazing animals and the development of man-made facilities that removed the water supply from the riparian habitat. Water quality data has not been collected on the springs sources in desert tortoise habitat since the early 1980s. The Meadow Valley Wash traverses the planning area from north to south and is the only perennial stream, greater than one-half mile in length, within desert tortoise habitat. This stream is characterized by peak flows in February and March, when peak snow melt occurs. Mean annual flow, measured at the Rox-Tule gaging station, is recorded at 3.39 cubic feet per second. The Meadow Valley Wash has riparian habitat with lotic or moving water. The size and condition varies by location; this habitat has been grazed by domestic livestock since the mid- 19th century. 3-3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-1. Spring sources in desert tortoise habitat. SPRING SOURCE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION DISCHARGE (in cubic feet per second) Grapevine Spring 9S 65E 27 0.1 Snow Spring 9S TOE 02 0.2 Jones Spring 9S 70E 18 NA Willow Spring 10S 64E 09 0.9 Unnamed Spring 10S 66E 16 NA Hackberry Spring 10S 66E 23 2.1 Old Well Spring 10S 69E 10 0.1 Summit Spring 10S 69E 15 0.0 Badger Spring 10S 69E 22 0.1 Tule Spring 10S 69E 26 0.5 Abe Spring 10S 69E 26 0.2 Unnamed Seep US 69E 27 1.0 Gourd Spring US 69E 29 0.3 N. Spring US 69E 29 0.3 S. Peach Spring US 69E 29 0.0 Unnamed Spring 12S 69E 32 0.1 Unnamed Spring 12S 65E 36 NA Mine Spring 12S 69E 04 1.6 (SOURCE: BLM, Caliente Field Station data.) VEGETATION COMMUNITIES All of the vegetation communities within the planning area are located within the Mojave Desert biome and can be characterized as follows. Southern Desert Shrub - The southern desert shrubs occur between 1,500 and 5,000 feet in elevation, where between 5 and 12 inches of precipitation can fall during the year. Vegetative types representing the southern desert shrub community are creosote (Larrea tridentata), shadscale (Artiplex confertifolia), Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia), and bursage (Ambrosia spp.). Other desert shrubs within this type include spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), Anderson thornbush (Lycium andersonii), and Fremont dalea (Dalea fremontii). All of these types are found in valley bottoms (BLM 1979b). Big galleta (Hilaria rigida), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandus), and Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides) comprise an average of 4 percent of the species composition of this community. Winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), Mormon tea (Ephedra nevadensis), and four-wing salt-bush (Atriplex canescens) constitute approximately 14 percent of the species composition. Annual grass and forb production is dependent on the amount and timing of precipitation and can range from zero to as high as 4,000 pounds per acre (BLM, pg. 33, 1996). 3-4 CHAPTER 3 ^ ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Northern Desert Shrub - This community, sometimes known as the blackbrush formation, is characterized by a scattered growth of deciduous shrubs. The plants are woody, often very uniform in size, and, in denser stands almost cover the ground. In more typical areas, plants stand far apart and, except during the growth of annuals, the soil surface is visible. Representatives of this community are rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), yuccas, {Yucca spp.), blackbrush {Coleogyne ramosissima), bursage, and snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.). Blackbrush forms a broad, overlapping belt between northern and southern desert areas. Soils under blackbrush are usually free from harmful amounts of alkali. Large areas of blackbrush have been burned off and replaced by the mid- grass type three awn (Aristida spp.) in the Tule Desert. Snakeweed may occur on disturbed areas throughout the northern desert shrub area. Perennial grasses, including big galleta, Indian ricegrass, sand dropseed, and three awn, can comprise approximately 9 percent of the northern desert shrub community. More than 80 percent of the plants are blackbrush, Mormon tea, or bursage. Annual grasses and forbs can increase production to a few hundred pounds per acres during periods of above normal precipitation; in dry years, such production is negligible. Annual grassland - This plant association, occurring between 2,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation, is the result of recurrent wildfires that have removed native shrubs and yuccas, such as the Joshua tree. Perennial grasses, like Indian ricegrass, three awn, and big galleta, make up about 7 percent of the species composition, while browse species, such as Mormon tea and winterfat, comprise about 6 percent. Exotic grasses, such as red brome (Bromus rubens) and Indian wheat (Plantago insularis), and other native annuals, typify the remainder of the community. Annual production may range from between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds per acre during wet years to negligible production during dry periods. Red brome cures while standing. Unlike native species, this grass provides a continuous fuel source to carry wildfire. Most native desert plants are not well adapted to fire and are quickly killed by moderate or high intensity fires. Native shrubs require long time intervals for growth and may not have sufficient time to re- establish under the current wildfire cycle. ECOLOGICAL STATUS A limited Ecological Site Inventory (ESI) was conducted during April of 1997 in designated critical habitat for desert tortoise within the planning area. The purpose of ESI is to determine ecological status within a site, with respect to its vegetative values and/or potential. Ecological status or range condition is the current state of vegetation and soil at an ecological site, in relation to the potential natural community (PNC) for that site (measured in terms of species composition by air dry weight). Data from ESI inventories provide important baseline information for the establishment of management objectives and monitoring the attainment of those objectives as conditions change. The quality or condition of desert tortoise habitat can also be determined through an evaluation of ecological status when specific native herbacious species production is considered relative to its potential. ESI data were collected using the following methodology. Transects were located within Site Write Up Areas (SWA), the smallest delineated geographical unit used as a base for collecting vegetation data. Soils considered well suited for desert tortoise burrowing, as identified in the Draft Suitability for Burrowing Habitat by Desert Tortoise (NRCS 1997), and correlated with creosotebush or creosotebush-white bursage communities, were selected as the locations of the SWAs. In Lincoln County, 81 percent of tortoise sign was found where the creosote-bursage community was dominant. Karl (1981) also observed that tortoise density appeared to be positively correlated with creosote. At each transect, percent composition by weight of vegetation, ecological status, and total production was determined, using the double-sample weight estimate method described in the 3-5 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT National Range Handbook (SCS 1976) and the BLM Supplement to the Handbook (H-4410-1). Composition by weight, ecological status, and total production are related to Range Condition Class or Serai Stage. Four classes are used to express the degree to which the production or composition of the present plant community reflects that of the PNC (climax). The four classes are outlined in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Range Condition Classes (Serai Stage). Serai Stage or Ecological Status Potential Natural Community (climax) Late Serai Mid Serai Early Serai Percentage of Present Plant Community that is Climax of the Range Site 76-100 51-75 26-50 0-25 Nine ESI Transects were conducted in three range sites dominated by creosote-white bursage and big galleta grass( Map 3-1). Two of the nine transects (DT-1 and DT-4) were located within the Sand Hollow and Coyote Springs permanent desert tortoise study plots. (See Appendix F for a complete description of the range sites.) Three transects were in a community rated to be in early serai stage, five transects were in mid serai stage, and one transect was located in a community at PNC. Eight of the transects were rated at a lower serai stage due to the high percent composition of red brome and the absence of desirable vegetation; earlier serai stages are considered lower quality tortoise habitat due to those factors. Serai stages and site potentials are based on the range site (ecological site) description, as defined by the PNC. Site potential of the inventoried areas was lowered by the invasion of non-native plants, especially red brome, cutleaf filaree, tumble mustard, Russian thistle, and Mediterranean grass. These non-native species thrive in many open deserts that have been or are grazed by livestock and/or disturbed by human activities. Non-native species, which are not adapted to germinate in thickly crusted desert soils, gain entry when these crusts are broken. As non-native plant species become established, some native perennial and annual plant species decrease or die out (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992). For example, under pressure from livestock grazing, many native perennial bunch grasses have been replaced by red brome (Robbins et al. 1951). Native populations in disturbed habitats have been in a weakened condition for decades, and are more vulnerable to competition than at any other time in the historic past (USFWS 1994a). Recent drought conditions have placed additional pressures on native plants. The potential and frequency of wildland fires also increase as non-native species become established. Red brome is now very abundant in the planning area. In years of average to above average winter rainfall, red brome produces a high amount of biomass, fueling fires that can threaten the very structure of the desert as a shrubland. These hot fires damage native shrubs and can destroy cover which protects tortoises from predators and thermal exposure. Ironically, in years when high rainfall produces greater amounts of food for desert tortoise, fires often destroy suitable desert tortoise habitat. Burned areas are left more susceptible to the invasion of non-native plant species and the increased potential for reburning (USFWS 1994a). Livestock grazing and other human activities have altered the native vegetation communities in many areas. Moisture conditions and the presence of exotic annuals appear to control the rates at which ecological succession 3-6 CHAPTER 3 ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT can occur. Oldemeyer suggests that "ecological condition may never improve as long as exotic annuals are a permanent component of the flora". Increases in perennial-grass cover have been noted in areas protected from livestock grazing. (Oldemeyer, pg. 98, 1994) Improvements are projected to be very slow in desert environments, even after changes in livestock grazing management or reductions in livestock numbers. Some ecological sites will recover in the long term; others may never reach ecological site potential. The reader should note, however, that a late to PNC serai stage lacking native herbacious component may not adequately reflect the condition important for desert tortoise survival, reproduction, and recovery. Refer to the upcoming discussion on desert tortoise nutritional and habitat requirements. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES The planning area provides habitat for special status species, including threatened or endangered species, as well as sensitive and state-listed species. It is BLM policy to manage the habitats of all special status species to prevent future listing of species and to ensure the recovery of listed species. Threatened or Endangered Species The Meadow Valley Wash and the Pahranagat Valley provided nesting habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, a federally-listed endangered species. The White River Springfish (Crenichthys baileyi bailey) and the Pahranagat roundtail chub (Gila robusta jordani) can also be found in the Pahranagat Valley. The potential also exists for the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), also a federally-listed endangered species, to visit the planning area, as a seasonal migrant. The desert tortoise is a threatened species in the planning area. The USFWS first placed the desert tortoise on the Endangered Species List on August 4, 1989, under the emergency authority of the ESA. On April 2, 1990, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the desert tortoise as a threatened species. The ESA mandates that all federal agencies must not authorize, fund or conduct any activity, including habitat destruction or adverse habitat modification, that could threaten the continued existence of a listed species. Approximately 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat occurs on BLM-administered public lands in Lincoln County (see Map 1-3). Desert Tortoise Life History The desert tortoise is the only naturally occurring tortoise in the Mojave Desert and is considered "an indicator species to measure the health and well-being of the ecosystem it inhabits" (Berry and Medica, pg. 135, 1995). The species is well adapted to living in a highly variable and often harsh environment. Desert tortoises spend the majority of their lives underground, in winter dens and summer burrows, where they are protected from the temperature extremes of the Mojave Desert. These underground shelters are susceptible to surface-disturbing activities that can collapse the entrances, trapping and suffocating the occupants. Individuals generally remain in winter dens between October and mid-March, emerging to feed and mate during late winter and early spring. They typically remain active through the spring. Tortoises use the summer burrows and shrub cover to escape the intense Mojave Desert heat. During the summer months, activity periods occur at sunrise and sunset, when the animals leave their burrows to feed. Desert tortoises also retreat to burrows or dens in order to lower their metabolic rates and minimize water loss during adverse conditions. Adult tortoises lose water so slowly that they can survive for more than a year without access to "free" (not derived from plants) water of any kind. While in burrows, individuals consume very little food. Desert tortoises apparently can tolerate large water and energy imbalances. This ability enables them to survive lean years and exploit resources that are only periodically available. During years of average or better than average precipitation and forage production, desert tortoises can balance their water budgets and have 3-7 Key Area Transects Within Critical Habitat Map 3-1 Critica 1 Habitat Key Area Transects (Ecological Status) E M PNC = = Early ■ Mid = Potential Natural Community ALLOTMENTS A B C D E F C H l U Grapevine Breedlove Rox-Tule Mormon Peak Gourd Spring SandHoilow Beacon Terry Snow Springs Delamar Lower Lake East Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfaGIS 3-8 L CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT a positive energy balance, affording an opportunity for growth and reproduction. All of the mechanisms by which desert tortoise maintain their energy and water balances during periods of fluctuating resource availability are still not completely understood (USFWS 1994a) Long-lived, with a slow maturation rate, desert tortoises have low reproductive rates. Eggs and hatchlings are especially vulnerable; pre-reproductive adult mortality averages 98 percent (USFWS 1994a). Adults, however, are well protected against predators (other than humans) and other environmental hazards. Longevity helps the desert tortoise compensate for its variable annual reproductive success, which is correlated with environmental conditions. For more detailed information on desert tortoise life history, refer to Woodbury and Hardy (1948), Hohman and Ohmart (1979); Berry (1984b); Nagy and Medica (1986); Esque (1994); and Berry and Medica (1995). Desert Tortoise Nutritional Requirements Desert tortoises are vegetarians, consuming grasses, flowers, and succulent plants (Grover and DeFalco 1995). Food habits vary considerably among populations, based on the different vegetative composition of their habitats (Burge and Bradley 1976). In southern Nevada, recent studies have shown that tortoise depend primarily on forbs such as Camissonia munzii and moth langloisia (Langloisia setosissima) and small amounts of grass during the spring (Nagy and Medica 1986). After the forbs have dried up in mid-June, tortoises consume only dry grasses, such as red brome and Indian ricegrass. In August, dry langlosia is also an important food. In late September, Camissonia, red brome, and Indian ricegrass respond to summer rains by producing new green growth. Desert tortoises select these as food in October (Nagy and Medica, 1986). Earlier research conducted on the Beaver Dam Slope in Utah indicated that desert tortoise consumed cutleaf filaree (Erodium cicutarium), red brome, and bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri) throughout the year (Coombs 1977). Island Indianwheat, shaggyfruit pepperweed (Lepidium lasiocarpum), beavertail pricklypear (Opuntia basilaris), blackbrush, Cryptantha spp., and Eriophyllum spp. were consumed by tortoises in the spring and summer. Tortoise also selected Tridens spp. in the fall and Indian ricegrass and galleta in fall and winter (Coombs 1977). For a more complete list of forage items consumed by desert tortoise, see Appendix G. The desert tortoise requires very little forage, surviving on approximately 23 pounds of vegetation per year. Larger grazing animals, such as domestic livestock, utilize substantially more forage. For example, a cow with a calf needs 10,000 pounds per year, consuming more in one day than a tortoise does all year (Holing 1986). In good precipitation years, vegetative production in the Mojave Desert, particularly annuals, can exceed 500 pounds per acre. During these good production years, it would appear that enough forage would be available for both the desert tortoise and livestock. Recent research has shown, however, that despite the periodic availability of abundant forage, the quality of this forage may not meet the tortoise's nutrient needs (Oftdal and Allen 1996). Forage quality is probably of greater importance than forage quantity. The quality and abundance of curing or senescent forage may be a critical determinant in tortoise nutrition (Oldemeyer 1994). Few forage species supply a good balance of nutrients; therefore, intake of a variety of forage items is important (Mayhew 1968). Spring is a critical time for tortoises to replenish fat reserves used during hibernation. Native forbs are particularly important for tortoises in the spring, since essential nutrients can be more easily obtained from them (Fowler 1976; Hohman and Ohmart 1980; Urness and McCulloch 1973). Perennial grasses may be important as a late summer source of water and nutrients. Without the perennial grasses, tortoises may become dehydrated in summer, resulting in a buildup of electrolytes, especially potassium ions (Coombs 1977; Woodbury and Hardy 1948). During years with a poor crop of spring annuals, perennials may be the main source for meeting these demands. In some areas, perennial grasses have been replaced by exotic species (Jarchow and May 1989). 3-9 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Competition between exotic and native annuals may have lowered the nutritional content of the native species. Jarchow and May (1989) have suggested that this may be a likely cause of malnutrition in the desert tortoise. Recent studies have shown that nitrogen and potassium are two important nutrients in desert tortoise physiology (Oftdal et al. 1994; Nagy and Medica, 1986; Christopher et al. 1996). Nitrogen is important to the desert tortoise for growth and reproduction. Potassium is a salt that the tortoise must excrete. Natural diets are high in potassium and low in nitrogen (Coombs 1977; Minnich 1979). When consuming plants with high potassium concentrations, desert tortoises must excrete excess potassium, in order to maintain electrolyte balance and avoid the potentially toxic effects of hyperkalemia (Nagy and Medica, 1986). Desert tortoises, unlike chuckwalla and desert iguanas, cannot excrete excess salts, and must rely on urate excretion to dispose of them (Nagy 1972). Urate excretion results in a substantial loss of nitrogen since uric acid is nearly one-third nitrogen (Oftdal et al. 1994; Christopher et al. 1996). By diverting nitrogen critical for growth and reproductive functions to remove excess potassium, the tortoise pays a high metabolic price to consume potassium rich plants (Oftdal et al. 1994). When captive tortoise were experimentally fed diets high in nitrogen and low in potassium, they grew very rapidly, reaching adult size in five years or less (Oftdal and Allen 1996). Oftdal and Allen (1996) concluded that desert tortoises: (1) avoid high-potassium foods when possible; (2) reduce food intake when they must eat high-potassium foods; (3) use nitrogen to excrete urate salts when they eat high-potassium foods; and (4) have reduced growth rates when they eat high-potassium foods. The adverse effects of potassium are likely to be exacerbated by water shortages and when foods are low in nitrogen. Oftdal and Allen (1996) predicted that the foraging choices made by tortoises in the desert reflect the need to avoid potassium, while maintaining water and nitrogen intakes. Dietary potassium can have a major effect on the amount of nitrogen that tortoises can use for growth and reproduction (Oftdal et al. 1994). To determine the relative value of plants as tortoise food, Oftdal and Allen (1996) developed an index. The Potassium Excretion Potential (PEP) index accounts for the ability of tortoises to use dietary water and nitrogen to offset the potassium loads in particular foods. A negative value implies that there is insufficient water and nitrogen in the food to excrete potassium. High positive values indicate that tortoises should be able to use excess nitrogen for growth, egg production, or other functions, or use excess water for replenishment of body stores. Highly-favored food plants, such as Plantago flower heads, filaree, legumes (Astragalus, Lotus, Lupinus), and globe mallow in spring, have high PEP indices, as do immature grasses and cacti. The abundance of high PEP plants may be a critical feature of tortoise habitat. In the eastern Mojave (including southern Nevada), tortoises have access to cacti and perennial grasses during drought years and after winter annuals and herbaceous perennials dry up in May and June. Most grasses develop negative PEP indices as early as May. Data on perennial grasses suggest that dried grasses achieve positive PEP indices after winter rains have leached out much of the residual potassium. This would indicate that perennial grasses could be an important food source the following year. Bush muhly is a remarkable exception in that, unlike other perennial grasses, it continues to have a positive PEP in summer and fall. Woodbury and Hardy (1948) concluded that bush muhly was "the chief source of food" for tortoises on the Beaver Dam Slope, supporting Coomb's (1979) assertion that the reduction in bush muhly associated with livestock grazing may have adversely affected tortoises. Desert Tortoise Habitat Requirements Soil physical properties, landforms, and vegetative community characteristics combine to create habitat that is suitable for desert tortoises. Since the desert tortoise spends 98 percent of its life underground, soil properties must be suitable for digging burrows to an average depth of 20 inches. Rock content, soil texture, pH, and depth to a restrictive layer (hardpan) are all physical characteristics of soil that would contribute to its suitability for 3-10 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT tortoise burrowing (Wilson and Stager 1989). Soil temperature is also an important consideration, since a soil that is either too hot or too cold on an average annual basis would not help the tortoise to regulate body temperature. Landforms create micro-environments that have varying degrees of suitability as habitat for desert tortoise. Dissected landforms, cut by drainages, create more diverse micro-environmental areas. Slope and aspect of the landforms also effect the quality of the habitat, with south-facing slopes being hotter and drier than those that are north-facing. The most productive Mojave Desert tortoise habitat is characterized by the creosote bush-bursage community. This community occurs on open flats, gently sloping terrain, alluvial fans, along washes, and in canyons (Grover and DeFalco, 1995; Burge 1979). The soils which support the creosote-bursage community are generally suitable for tortoise burrow and den construction. In the eastern Mojave Desert, productive tortoise habitat is typified by desert pavement bisected by washes (Luckenbach 1982). Research in the planning area, within the Coyote Springs Valley, suggests that hills and washes are preferred habitat. Flat gravelly and rocky areas are poor tortoise habitat due to their limited burrowing potential (Garcia et al. 1982). Vegetation communities consisting of high densities of perennial and annual flora, a high percentage of cover, and a high biomass of annual spring flora are necessary to support high densities of tortoises (Berry 1975; Karl 1981; Luckenbach 1982; Schwartzmann and Ohmart 1978). In Nevada, tortoises are found in creosote, creosote-bursage, and creosote-blackbrush communities on bajadas, hills, or caliche washes (Lucas 1978, 1979; Tanner and Jorgensen 1963; Turner 1980). Desert tortoises within the planning area generally occupy habitat between 2,000 and 3,800 feet in elevation (Karl 1981). In Lincoln County, 81 percent of tortoise sign was found where the creosotebush-bursage community was dominant. Eleven percent of sign was found in the transition zone from creosote-bursage community to the blackbrush community. Eight percent of tortoise sign was identified in the blackbrush community. Tortoise density appears to be positively correlated with creosotebush; the upper limits of tortoise range (4,000 feet) correspond to those of the creosote community. Tortoise density is negatively correlated with the dominance of blackbrush and red brome (Karl 1980, 1981). The importance of the creosote community to the tortoise is attributed to the fact that it is the most stable and diversified vegetative cover, probably representing a climax community (Grover and DeFalco 1995). Trends in Desert Tortoise Populations Concern about the status of tortoises has increased greatly in the past 20 years (Berry 1984b; Desert Tortoise Council 1976 - 1985). Luckenbach (1982) stated that "a pronounced and steady decline" had been noted in some populations for several years. Berry (1989) asserts that across its range, tortoise numbers have declined dramatically and that many populations are now isolated. (See Map 3-2). Berry (1989) also speculated that until about 50 years ago large tortoise populations with densities exceeding 1,000 per square kilometer extended throughout parts of California, and probably into Nevada and Utah. In areas where habitat has been destroyed by urbanization or conversion to agriculture, tortoise populations are certainly extinct (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Tortoise densities have declined in areas where habitat has been degraded, e.g. by heavy off-road vehicle activity (Bury et al. 1977; Bury and Luckenbach 1986). In relatively undisturbed habitats, there is little reliable data prior to the 1970s to indicate how densities of current populations may differ from historical densities. 3-11 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT V- (u) il C i-v Htslcrftcttngt [j Presinl langi Q Poetic Occsa Map 3-2: Current areas of desert tortoise population densities, compared to overall distributions and potential geographic range (after Berry, 1989). The BLM collects data on desert tortoise populations by employing two methods: strip transects and permanent study plots. The strip transect method consists of a pedestrian transect walked in a 1.5 mile triangular configuration (.5 mile per side). All sign of tortoise within approximately 15 feet of either side of the transect is counted. Tortoise sign includes tortoises (alive or dead) burrows, scat, egg shells, tracks, and courtship rings. The amount of sign per transect can be correlated with tortoise abundance by conducting transects in areas with known population levels. The relative abundance of tortoise in other areas can then be estimated by conducting tortoise transects. This technique generally indicates the relative abundance of larger tortoise and can differentiate good habitat from poor habitat (Turner et al. 1982). The number of juveniles and hatchlings in a populations are more difficult to accurately assess using transect methodology. Since 1979, more than 1,400 strip transects have been completed in Nevada, greatly increasing the scientific database related to desert tortoise distribution (NDOW 1990). The second method uses permanent study plots and a mark-recapture technique of inventory tortoise populations. Study plots are generally read every four years. Plot surveys consist of a 30 field-day capture period, followed by a 30 field-day recapture period, for a total of 60 field-days per study plot. There are 40 permanent study plots in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts: two in Utah, two in Arizona, north of the Colorado River; nine in Nevada; and 27 in California. The Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots are located within the planning area in Lincoln County, Nevada. Only a limited number of the permanent study plots have multiple years of observations (NERC 1990). 3-12 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Strip transect studies have identified approximately 5 million acres (7,812 mi2) as habitat supporting desert tortoises. An estimated 1,600 mi2 of suitable tortoise habitat occurs in Lincoln County. Results from these transects indicate that tortoise distribution is uneven or patchy (NDOW 1990). Approximately 300 of the strip transects were conducted within Lincoln County. In April of 1980, Karl (1981) conducted 52 of these transects. That survey indicated that only 1 to 3 percent of the total area surveyed evidenced tortoise densities of 100 tortoises per square mile. The northern Coyote Springs Valley and two sites northwest and southwest of the Mormon Mountains were included within these higher density areas. The remainder of the surveyed area had densities less than 50 tortoises/mi2 (see Table 3-3). In 1981, Garcia, Berry, and Schneider conducted 281 additional strip transects in the Coyote Springs Valley of Lincoln and Clark counties and Arrow Canyon of Clark County, Nevada. Density estimates for this study indicated a wide variability of tortoise densities ranging from low (<10 tortoises) to high densities ( >140 tortoises) (Garcia et al. 1982). The Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow permanent study plots in the planning area have been read three and two times, respectively. Table 3-4 displays the results of those readings. Preliminary density estimates, using the 60-day methodology, tended to indicate relative stability in adult tortoise numbers recorded at the Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow study plots (Medica et al. unpublished reports 1992 and 1995). Other study plots (e.g. Ivanpah Valley and Gold Butte) in the northeastern Mojave have exhibited declines (Berry and Medica 1995). While there was no apparent downward trend in relative abundance of adult tortoises in the eastern Mojave, there was a decrease in the relative abundance of juvenile tortoises (NERC 1990). Some researchers warn that while populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit "do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers or densities in most places, population levels are dangerously low" (written communication, Brussard 1994:1). During the late 1980s, the relative abundance of large tortoises apparently declined in the western Mojave; the relative abundance of large tortoises was stable or increased in the eastern Mojave during that period (Corn 1994). Other data indicated that juveniles and possibly adult tortoise were less numerous after 1985 in the western Mojave (NERC 1990). The largest decreases occurred in the Desert Tortoise Natural Area and adjacent areas in California, at the western most extent of the tortoise's range. In the eastern Mojave, numbers of juveniles were reduced in a few study plots, but the trends do not comprise a major decline in overall numbers. Adults appear to be stable in numbers, but individual sites differ widely (NERC 1990). Factors Influencing Desert Tortoise Numbers Declines in tortoise numbers can be attributed to a variety of causes, including disease, malnutrition, predation, and human activities. Biologists have identified two diseases that affect desert tortoise populations in Lincoln County. The first of these is osteoporosis or the thinning of bone mass. This condition is often exemplified by a concavity in the plates or "scutes" of the tortoise's shell. Jarchow (1987) has suggested that concave "sunken" scutes in young tortoises could be considered a sign of malnutrition, but data are still lacking to support that contention. Osteoporosis has been documented on all Nevada permanent study plots sampled between 1990 and 1992. The percentage of tortoises encountered exhibiting sunken scutes ranged from 12 to 50 percent. Shell abnormalities (lesions) have also been documented on all study plots sampled between 1990 and 1992. The percentage of captured tortoises observed to have shell abnormalities varied from 7 to 52 percent. Osteoporosis may make individual animals less able to withstand attacks by predators. It may also be symptomatic of an individual that has an increased susceptibility to other diseases or environmental stress. 3-13 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-3. Estimated tortoise numbers by density class (Karl, 1981). ESTIMATED TORTOISE PER SQ MILE NUMBER OF TRANSECTS PERCENTAGE OF ALL TRANSECTS ESTIMATED AREA IN SQ. MILES OCCUPIED BY EACH DENSITY CLASS 0-10 26 50 660 72 1-10 8 15.4 85 9 11-50* 17 32.6 165 18 51-100 1 2 10 1 TOTAL 52 100 920 100 * - Approximately 30 mi2 (2 transects) may have tortoise densities up to 100 tortoise/mi2. Table 3-4. Actual numbers of animals in study plots recorded during the sampling period. PLOT 1986 1989 1992 1994 COYOTE SPRINGS 78 89* 44 53 SAND HOLLOW 7 7 5 6 * - Study plot sampled for 120 days. The second disease causing desert tortoise mortalities is an upper respiratory tract disease (URTD) that is both highly contagious and often fatal. Caused by Mycoplasma agassizii, the disease was apparently introduced to wild populations through the release of captive tortoises (Berry and Medica 1995). The disease infects all age groups of tortoises, and can seriously impact small, isolated populations. Some researchers have hypothesized that habitat degradation and reductions in forage quality may be factors in the spread and severity of the disease (Jacobson et al. 1991; Dickinson et al. 1995). In some portions of the species habitat, the disease has... "caused the deaths of thousands of wild tortoises... during the last few years " (Berry and Medica, pg. 136, 1995). This condition has been documented within the permanent study plots in the Coyote Springs Valley of the planning area; none of the animals observed showed advanced or chronic signs of the disease. Malnutrition has been implicated as a direct or indirect cause of declining tortoise populations. Borysenko and Lewis (1979) have shown that malnutrition can cause immunosuppression and an increased susceptibility to disease. Several researchers have hypothesized that competition between domestic livestock and desert tortoises for forage, particularly during years of poor rainfall, can reduce the amount of forage available to tortoises (USFWS 1991; written communication Brussard 1994: 3). Tracy (pg. 14, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995) has computed the forage needs of adult tortoises and developed recommended amounts of forage that must be available to maximize the potential for full tortoise reproduction (e.g. 288 lbs. per acre) (written communication Brussard 1994: 3). Insufficient amounts of forage could lead to malnutrition, low reproduction rates, and higher mortality rates. Others who have reviewed the published literature on desert tortoise forage needs have speculated that competition does not occur between domestic livestock and tortoises, since forage production (annuals and 3-14 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT perennials) in the Mojave Desert is sufficient to provide for tortoise survival (Resource Concepts, unpublished report 1988; Bostick 1990). These conclusions are generally dismissed by tortoise biologists who offer the following detailed analyses of tortoise nutritional and reproductive requirements. Tortoise researchers have noted that while sufficient forage may be available to desert tortoises, the forage lacks certain critical nutrients required by tortoise for optimum health and reproduction (Nagy and Medica 1986; USFWS 1991). Desert tortoise habitat in the Mojave Desert once consisted of native shrubs, interspersed with perennial bunchgrasses. These warm season native grasses were high in protein and phosphorus, important nutrients for desert tortoise growth and reproduction. As a consequence of many factors, including human activities, overgrazing by domestic livestock, and wild fires, the native perennial grasses have been largely replaced by annuals, including exotic species like red brome. Tortoises also rely on the high fiber content of perennial grasses to sustain their metabolic needs and reproductive processes after the spring ephemerals have died (Jarchow and May 1989). When high quality forage is not available, malnutrition or starvation can occur; starvation was reported as the cause of recent tortoise mortalities in Ivanpah Valley in California (USFWS 1991). Predation is also an important factor in desert tortoise mortality. Ravens (Corvus corax) are the primary predators, although golden eagles (Aquila chryaetos), red-tailed hawks {Buteo jamaicensis), burrowing owls {Athene cunicularia), and roadrunners {Geococcyx californianus) will also consume desert tortoises. Raven populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit have increased in tandem with urbanization and human activities. The birds forage in garbage dumps, along highways, and roost or nest on power transmission towers and power lines. The data are currently insufficient to quantify the effects of raven predation on desert tortoise populations in Lincoln County. However, observers in the western Mojave Desert have documented ravens killing live, healthy juvenile tortoises (BLM 1989). Based on data collected from California study plots between 1974 and 1987, Berry (1988) has suggested that raven predation is a significant cause of desert tortoise mortality, perhaps accounting for as much as 85 percent of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles. Excessive predation on juveniles can affect the adult breeding population and contribute to population declines. According to some researchers, excessive raven predation must be reduced if management efforts to recover the species are to be effective (BLM 1989). In 1989, a raven control program was initiated by BLM, in cooperation with the USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game, for the Mojave Desert of California; the program was suspended in response to public protests and litigation. Predation by coyotes (Canis latrans), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), badgers {Taxidea taxus), and feral dogs has also been documented (c.f. Woodbury and Hardy 1948; Mortimore and Schneider 1983; Berry 1988). These researchers have proposed that desert tortoise populations experience increased predation when primary prey, such as rabbits and rodents, decline in numbers. It has been suggested that "the most important limiting biotic factor on the desert tortoise is probably predation" (Resource Concepts, unpublished report 1988:7). Some mortalities have been attributed to the trampling of individual tortoises and tortoise burrows and/or dens by large grazing animals (USFWS 1994a). Grazing by domestic sheep and cattle has been ongoing in the planning area since the mid- 1800s; this use increased in intensity near the turn of the century and has declined since the end of World War II (Resource Concepts, unpublished report 1988:1). Trampling by domestic sheep has been documented in some areas of the Mojave Desert, but not within the planning area. For example, during a one year study in California, Nicholson and Humphries (1981) noted that approximately 6 percent of tortoise burrows were damaged and 3 percent destroyed by 1,000 sheep grazing for 12 days. Berry (1988) cited 15 alleged incidences of the trampling of juvenile tortoise by domestic sheep between 1973 and 1987, also in California. A recent study sponsored by BLM in the western Mojave has indicated that sheep "can directly kill through trampling approximately 20 percent of juvenile tortoises with which they come into contact" (written 3-15 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT communication Brussard 1994: 3). Domestic sheep generally are herded in tight groups and consequently impact more surface area of the ground. Quantitative evidence on the effects of cattle trampling on tortoise mortality is less well documented, although some direct observations support the occurrence of such trampling (Duck 1991; Dickinson et al. 1995). No incidences of desert tortoise trampling by livestock have been documented in the planning area. Human activities, such as construction, mining, OHV use, vandalism, and illegal collection, also contribute directly and indirectly to tortoise mortality rates. Individual tortoises are injured or killed by vehicles and heavy equipment, both along highways and off road. Tortoise burrows containing egg clutches may be crushed by equipment or off-highway vehicular travel. Human "predation" or vandalism are also direct causes of desert tortoise mortality in some areas of its range. Berry (1986) has observed that approximately 3 percent of tortoise carcasses collected from the western Mojave Desert areas showed signs of gunshots received while the animals were still alive. The collection of desert tortoises for pets has been on-going for many decades throughout its habitat (USFWS 1994a). This practice has reduced tortoise numbers in many areas; captive tortoises released back to the wild may spread the URTD to previously unexposed populations, thereby increasing mortality rates. The indirect effects of these human uses include habitat loss and fragmentation that can affect mortality rates for specific populations. Some researchers have argued that the combined effects of human-caused mortalities and "the continued and escalating loss of habitat" as a result of human activities could result in the extinction of the desert tortoise, at least in the western Mojave Desert before the turn of the century (written communication Brussard 1994:3). Relationship Between Livestock Grazing and Desert Tortoise The relationship between domestic livestock grazing and desert tortoise is a controversial issue. According to the USFWS, possible direct impacts to tortoise from livestock grazing include trampling of both tortoises and shelter sites (Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 28, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994: 5824). Indirect impacts comprise adverse modifications to habitat including loss of plant cover, loss of suitable shelter sites, changes in vegetation, soil compaction, reduced water infiltration, and the provision of a favorable seed bed for exotic annual vegetation (Ibid). The degree of impacts are dependent on the local ecosystem, grazing history and season of use, and the density of the tortoise populations. Investigations into the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoises and their habitat have been ongoing since the late 1970s (Berry 1988; USFWS 1994c; Oldemeyer 1994; BLM 1996a). A number of researchers have implicated dietary overlap and habitat changes as two important variables in the relationship (Berry 1978; Nicholson and Humphreys 1981; USFWS 1990). 3-16 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Dietary Overlap According to Oldemeyer (1994:100), "the primary evidence that grazing by livestock harms desert tortoise relates to an overlap in food habits of livestock and tortoises". Two studies have suggested that tortoises and cattle consume many of the same plant species, especially during the spring (Hohman and Ohmart 1978; Hansen et al. 1976). Desert tortoise show a preference for grasses and forbs in their diets (Oldemeyer 1994). Although few detailed studies of livestock dietary preferences have been conducted in the Mojave Desert (cf. Oldemeyer 1994), grasses characteristically dominate cattle diets. In the Mojave Desert, these would include the perennial grasses such as galleta, Indian ricegrass, bush muhly, squirreltail {Sitanion hystrix), and sand dropseed and perhaps the annual grasses (e.g. six-weeks fescue (Vulpia octoflora), six-weeks grama {Bouteloua barbata) and others). Cattle also consume palatable shrubs, as well as perennial and annual forbs , depending on their availability (Hohman and Ohmart 1980; NERC 1990). In Piute Valley, Nevada, cattle diets principally consisted of shrubs during the dormant season and herbaceous annuals during the spring growing season. Fecal samples collected during the dormant season were dominated by white bursage, littleleaf krameria {Krameria spp.), galleta, blackbrush and Nevada ephedra. During the growing season, fecal samples contained filaree, six- weeks annual fescue, wooly plantain, red brome, desert globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua) and sixweeks grama. As the ephemeral plants disappeared during summer, cattle resumed a diet of perennial shrubs and grasses. Domestic sheep consume more forbs and shrubs than grasses (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Competition between tortoises and livestock can vary due to seasons of use, vegetative types, and rainfall, making it difficult to make precise interpretations. Coombs (1979) has suggested that the dietary overlap between tortoises and cattle would be much higher were it not for the browse species in the diets of the livestock. Hohman and Ohmart (1980) reported that overlap was greatest during the early spring, then decreases during the summer. Berry (1978) suggested that the early spring was a critical period for reducing livestock competition with tortoises for food. On the Beaver Dam Slope, Sheppard (1981) indicated a 60 percent dietary overlap in April, before annuals cured and livestock shifted to perennial forage. Annual grasses appeared to be a buffer for reducing competition, but only when annual densities were high. Hohman and Ohmart (1980) indicated that forbs averaged 39 percent of cattle diet and that dietary overlap averaged 40 percent, but ranged to 60 percent in early spring. (See Appendix G for species list). The dietary overlap between domestic livestock and tortoise could account for declines in tortoise populations, particularly during periods of below average precipitation (Dickinson et al. 1995). Tortoise populations are incapable of rapid growth, even under optimum conditions. The USFWS has concluded that "[a]t this time there are no data showing that continued livestock grazing is compatible with the recovery of the desert tortoise, although it appears that cattle grazing under certain circumstances can be compatible with desert tortoise survival" (USFWS, pg. 58, 1994a). A few investigators have developed opinion papers that concluded that livestock grazing was of benefit to the desert tortoise. In particular, Bostick (1990), hypothesized that desert tortoise relied on cattle dung to maintain their populations. While it is true that desert tortoise have been observed eating dung, they have also been observed eating rocks, balloons, bones, and other non-nutritive materials. Bostick (1990) indicates that because the tortoise is ill equipped to harvest and masticate range food, then the tortoise primarily feed on dung. This assertion ignores the presence of effective shearing surfaces in the tortoise beak and the voluminous nature of the tortoise digestive tract, both of which assist in the processing of 3-17 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT desert plants. Based on behavioral observation, tortoises consume not only the tender ephemeral species but also the much coarser tissues of senescent grasses (Barboza & Oftdal, 1992). Another proposed benefit of a dung diet in Bostick (1990) is as a source of moisture. However, given the rapid desiccation of feces in the desert, it seems unlikely that this would be a reliable source of water (Barboza & Oftdal, 1992). The hypothesis that cattle dung can serve as an important source of nutrients for tortoise overlooks the fact that cattle dung represents the least digestible residues of the food plants. The quality of cattle dung will depend both on the efficiency of digestion by cattle and the quality of feed from which it originally derived. Domestic cattle are very efficient at utilizing fibrous diets and the dung they produce will therefore have little digestive or nutritional value. It is highly unlikely that wild ungulates consuming forages would excrete 80% of the total nutrients in feeds' as suggested by Bostick (1990). Typical digestibility for cattle grazing coarse grass are about 50% of dry matter, 45% of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), 70% for protein, and 90% for fat. Thus even with an emergent spring grass, such as Hilaria rigida which contains (on a dry matter basis) about 65% NDF, 14% crude protein and 1% fat, the dung produced may contain as much as 72% NDF, and as little as 8% protein and 0% fat (assuming the digestibility cited above). At face value this chemical composition resembles a very poor quality straw, but the actual digestive value is even worse because most readily digested materials such as soluble carbohydrates have been removed, leaving a matrix of highly resistant fiber residues. Furthermore only a small portion of the fecal protein would be usable since most nitrogen would be bound to the fiber residues. The obvious conclusion is that cattle dung is far less beneficial to a tortoise than are the grasses from which the dung was originally produced (Barboza & Oftdal, 1992). Allen (1998) conducted a study to determine the nutritive properties of cattle dung, and specifically, on the ability of tortoises to extract nutrients from the dung. For a digestibility study, cattle dung was offered to 14 healthy juvenile tortoises as the sole food during a one month adaptation period. Only four animals would eat a sufficient amount to be included in a subsequent four week digestibility study. Samples of offered dung and all uneaten dung were collected and dried to determine dry matter (DM) intakes. All tortoise excreta were also collected for nutritional analysis. During the third and fourth weeks of the trail, average DM intake was not significantly different from fecal excretion (mean difference +-0.44 ±0.22 SEg/2wk), suggesting a net digestibility of zero. On a DM basis, dung samples contained 50.0%±0.34 acid detergent fiber (ADF), 1.34%±0.012 total nitrogen (TN), and 4.24±0.542kcal/g gross energy. These constituent levels did not differ significantly from those of uneaten dung. The estimated digestibility of energy and ADF were not significantly different from zero and the estimated TN digestibility was negative. Based on preliminary trial results, the suggestion that tortoises have benefitted from a symbiotic relationship with cattle and their dung is clearly speculative. Habitat Change Grazing by cattle and sheep has been implicated as a factor causing deterioration of desert tortoise habitat (cf. Berry 1978, Coombs 1979, Webb and Stielstra 1979). Desert ecosystems require decades to recover from disturbances, based on low precipitation rates. Livestock grazing has altered perennial vegetation in a number of ways. It has caused, or contributed substantially to, the reduction and loss of native perennial grasses (e.g. members of the genera Bouteloua, Hilaria, Stipa, Oryzopsis, Poa, Muhlenbergia, Sporobolus) in the desert (USFWS 1994a). According to some studies, perennial grasses such as needlegrass (Stipa), grama grasses (Bouteloua spp.), and fluffgrass (Erioneuron pulchellum) have been significantly reduced in number, as a result of livestock use (Berry 1984). Much of the western Mojave Desert has been altered from grassland to 3-18 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT shrubland, and perennial bunch grasses have disappeared or have been severely reduced by grazing in many creosote communities (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Perennial grasses in many areas have been replaced by woody shrubs, often with an understory of non-native annual grasses introduced from Europe and Asia. In the late 1940s, Woodbury and Hardy (1948) noticed the decrease in perennial grasses in the Beaver Dam Slope of Utah and forewarned of the problems that would result from heavy livestock grazing. They observed that bush muhly was the most abundantly used and important food item for desert tortoises. This is no longer the case, as bush muhly is no longer a substantial part of the tortoise diet (Coombs 1977). Nish (1964) and Coombs (1977) noted that the cover and densities of perennial grasses on the Beaver Dam Slope were generally low, but were more abundant in less grazed areas. Tortoises showed a high preference for these less grazed areas. Tortoises also showed a high preference for bush muhly, even though it was only a minor portion of the diet. Perennial grasses are particularly important in the diets of desert tortoise, as they supply both water and nutrients during spring, summer, and fall. Because of the past 100 years of livestock grazing, perennial grasses are in shorter supply. These changes resulted in an overall deterioration in habitat quality for desert tortoises (Oldemeyer, 1992). Livestock also play an important role in the proliferation of non-native weeds such as filaree, Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), Arabian schismus (S. arabicus), brome grasses (Bromus spp.), and Russian-thistle (Sahola kali) (USFWS 1994c). The seeds of these species are transported to new areas by cattle and sheep, either on their coats or through manure. These introduced annuals now comprise much of the annual flora in grazed areas (Berry and Nicholson 1984). Introduced exotic annuals have a tolerance for soil compaction and can survive heavy grazing pressure better than can native species. They outcompete and replace the native species in heavily grazed areas (Webb and Stielstra 1979). Exotic species, such as red brome and filaree, have been correlated with low tortoise population density and low density of other annuals and are indicators of extensive grazing (Karl 1981). Livestock grazing has also changed the composition of shrubs used by desert tortoises for cover (USFWS 1994c). For example, sheep reduced some perennial shrubs by 65 to 68 percent in volume and by 16 to 29 percent in cover. In areas consistently and heavily grazed by sheep, cover of many species of shrubs was substantially reduced; creosote and weeds often became the predominant vegetation (Webb and Stielstra 1979). The following shrubs can be reduced in numbers and vigor in such grazed sites: burro bush {Hymenoclea spp.), goldenhead {Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus), Anderson wolfberry (Lycium andersonii), Spiny hopsage, winter fat, and Mojave aster {Machaeranthera tortifolia) (USFWS 1994c). In those desert environments where livestock grazing has been eliminated, some changes in vegetative communities have been observed. For example, regrowth of bush muhly was noted in portions of Eldorado Valley and Piute Valley (Clark County) where livestock grazing has been eliminated (Oftdal and Allen 1996). Other studies (cf. Shreve and Hinckley 1937; Gardner 1950; Waser and Rcdotem Filaree 3-19 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Price 1981; Durfee 1988) have documented increases in native perennial grasses in desert areas protected from livestock grazing. The rates of change were noted as being very slow. The replacement of native annuals and once prominent perennials (such as bush muhly) could be an important factor in the decline of desert tortoise numbers. Exotic annuals, when consumed by desert tortoise, could cause a shortage of water and nutrients and complicate electrolyte elimination (Coombs 1979). Dietary stresses could account for increased incidences of malnutrition, greater susceptibility to disease, and lowered reproduction rates. Since desert tortoises live for many decades, these changes in habitat have occurred during the lifetime of individual animals. Their food and cover requirements have evolved over thousands of years of adaptation to the Mojave Desert environment. Tortoises lack the genetic capability to rapidly adapt to these new habitat conditions (Coombs 1979). A limited number of investigators have developed opinion papers that contradict the conclusions drawn by tortoise biologists and researchers. Bostick (1990) has proposed that the desert tortoise numbers have declined in tandem with decreasing livestock numbers grazed on the public lands. In an unpublished report, Resource Concepts (1988) suggested a parallel between reductions in sheep grazing pressure and declining tortoise populations. These conclusions are not generally accepted by those scientists who are currently engaged in desert tortoise studies. The preponderance of evidence generally indicates that livestock grazing negatively impacts both the desert tortoise and its habitat. Resource Concepts, Incorporated (RCI), 1996 published an annotated bibliography with 850 citations with a summary developed. These citations include professional publication, letters, personal communication, news articles, EISs, EAs, Federal Register notices, and other reports. There are 58 professional publications relating to the effects of grazing with summaries developed. Of these, 53 conclude and describe negative impacts to native desert vegetation communities, 2 indicate a no effect in their study, and 3 suggest positive impacts to the desert vegetation. Twenty-two of these citation specifically identify impacts to desert tortoise. One article suggests positive impacts of grazing on desert tortoise, 2 suggests that there is no impact on desert tortoise and 19 conclude and describe that there are negative impacts on desert tortoise from grazing. Habitat Management Under the ESA, the BLM is required to ensure that any activity which the agency authorizes, funds or conducts does not threaten the continued existence of a listed species. To evaluate the potential effects of proposed activities on listed species, BLM must consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA on any activities that may affect a listed species. Section 7 consultations have considered a variety of activities, including OHV events, rights-of way, mineral activities, and livestock grazing. Designated Critical Habitat The desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species in 1991 and critical habitat was designated by the USFWS in 1994. A total of 6.4 million acres of critical habitat were designated by the USFWS for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Federal Register, pg. 5820-5866, Vol. 59, No.26, Tues. Feb. 8, 1994). Critical habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as those habitat areas that contain physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, whether or not the species is currently present in that habitat. Critical habitat is further defined as those areas that may require special management considerations or protection. Of the total designated critical habitat for desert tortoise, 1,224,400 acres (or 19 percent) are within 3-20 CHAPTER 3 ^ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Nevada. Designated critical habitat in Lincoln County totals 244,900 acres. The planning area contains 5 percent of the total critical habitat and 26 percent of critical habitat designated within Nevada. The USFWS will revise critical habitat in the future as land management plans, recovery plans, or other conservation strategies are developed and fully implemented reduce the need for the additional protection provided by critical habitat designation. ONGOING RESEARCH Research related to long-term survival of the desert tortoise in its native habitat has been ongoing at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center, established by BLM in 1989. Located in Las Vegas, the Conservation Center has supported studies by researchers from the Smithsonian and other academic institutions on desert tortoise physiology, behavior, reproduction, and the causes and transmission of tortoise diseases. Sensitive Species Several sensitive species are known or predicted to occur in the planning area. The banded gila monster is a BLM sensitive species, as well as a State of Nevada protected and rare species. Often found in association with springs and ephemeral and perennial tributaries of the Colorado River, gila monsters have been observed in Meadow Valley Wash, the Pahranagat Valley, and the Tule Springs Hills. The species is also found on rocky slopes, in washes and riparian areas. Since the gila monster spends up to 90 percent of its time underground, observations are relatively infrequent. The chuckwalla lizard is another BLM sensitive species. These are large, herbivorous lizards, generally found at elevations below 5,000 feet, on rocky outcrops and slopes. Suitable habitat for chuckwallas includes most mountain ranges in southern Nevada. Other sensitive species that could be found in the planning area include various species of bats, fish, and amphibians. Some bat species that may be found within the planning area are the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Allen's big-eared bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus calif ornicus), Small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (M, evotis), fringed myotis (M. thysanodes), long-legged myotis (M. volans), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), and the Pale Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii pallescens). These species may inhabit the planning area, with a greater potential for occurrence in the Mormon, Meadow Valley, and Delamar Mountains. The Meadow Valley Wash may provide habitat for sensitive fish species including the Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker (Castostomus clarki ssp.), Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculu spp.), and the Arizona toad (Bufo microscaphus microscaphus). FORESTRY AND VEGETATIVE PRODUCTS Desert Vegetation Although the Caliente Field Station has no formal program for the harvesting of desert vegetation, many species are made available to the public when destruction of these plants would occur as a result of project construction or facilities development (e.g. power line installations, mining activities, etc). The demand for native seeds and plants has increased over the past decade, as nearby urban areas, such as Las Vegas and St. George, have encouraged the use of drought tolerant plants in landscaping. To date, no permits for seed collection have been issued within desert tortoise habitat. A small number of permits for desert vegetation salvage were issued at the northern extreme of desert tortoise habitat, along Kane Springs Road. 3-21 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES No known threatened or endangered plant species occur within the planning area. The following is a list of sensitive species that may be found in the planning area (data on file, Caliente Field Station 1996): Nye milkvetch (Astragalus nyensis) Utah century plant Agave (Agave utahensis) Cloky Pincushion Cactus (Coryphantha vivipara var. roseus) Cedar Canyon phlox (Gilia ripleyi) Musky Phlox (Phlox gladiformis) Miners Compass Cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes var. lecontei) Meadow Valley sandwort (Arenaria stenomeres) White bearpoppy (Arctomecon merriamii) Threecorner milkvetch (Astragalus geyeri var. triquetrus) Sticky buckwheat (Eriogonum viscidulum) LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT Twenty-five livestock grazing allotments, totalling approximately 1,331,500 acres, are either partially or entirely contained within the planning area (Map 3-3). Of that total, approximately 245,000 acres are within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Most of the allotments are cow-calf operations. The Beacon Allotment, located within the Sand Hollow Allotment (a dual use area), has historically been used in March for one month to graze domestic sheep. Three allotments with domestic horse permits are licensed. Four allotments are managed by other field offices. Three of the four allotments Flat Top Mesa, Jackrabbit and Pulsipher Wash are managed by the Las Vegas Field Office and the Terry Allotment is managed by the Arizona Strip Field Office. The Terry Allotment is managed as a pasture of the Scarecrow Peak Allotment in the Arizona Strip Field Office. Table 3-5 displays data relating to the allotments within desert tortoise habitat; Table 3-6 shows allotment acreage. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT The Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs are located within the planning area (refer to Map 2-9). The Mormon Mountains HMA encompasses the entire Mormon Mountain range and is bounded on the northwest by Meadow Valley Wash. The wild horse herd within the boundaries of this HMA has historically been a small population of approximately 15 horses. Wild horses generally use only the northwest quarter of the HMA, where adequate water can be obtained from Meadow Valley Wash. Steep terrain significantly reduces the amount of suitable grazing acreage, while the lack of accessible water make other portions of the HMA unusable for wild horses. Portions of the herd also utilize areas outside of the HMA, including the Breedlove and Rox-Tule Allotments, where suitable foraging areas and accessible water can be found. The number of wild horses using areas outside of the Mormon Mountains HMA have historically been quite high. Burros and/or wild horses have also been reported along the Lincoln-Clark County boundary line. In October 1993, the BLM removed 211 horses, mules, and burros from areas west of the Mormon Mountains HMA within the Breedlove and Rox-Tule 3-22 ™ Livestock Grazing Allotments Within the Planning Area Clark County 20 20 Miles Zl 1-15 Map 3-3 Planning Area ALLOTMENTS A Grapevine B Breed love C Rox-Tule D Mormon Peak E Gourd Spring F SandHollow G Beacon H Terry I Snow Springs J Lime Mountain K GardenSpring L White Rock M Henrie Complex N Jackrabbit O PulsipherWash P Flat Top Mesa Q Summit Spring R BoulderSpring S Delamar T Buckhorn LA Lower Lake East nV PahranagatEast W Pahranagat West X Lower Lake West Y Lower Riggs Prepared by: BLM, Ely, Nevada Using Arc/lnfbCIS 3-23 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-5. Permitted use, kind of livestock, and season of use for the entire allotment. ALLOTMENT PERMITTED USE KFND OF LIVESTOCK SEASON OF USE Breedlove 864 Cattle & Horses 6-15 to 2-28 Boulder Spring 416 Cattle 10-1 to 3-31 Buckhorn 3,370 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Delamar 5,558 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Flat Top Mesa *E Cattle *E Garden Spring 2,809 Cattle & Horses 10-1 to 5-31 Gourd Spring 3,458 Cattle & Horses 10-1 to 5-31 Grapevine 560 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Henrie Complex 4,160 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Jackrabbit *E Cattle *E Lime Mountain 6,754 Cattle 10-1 to 5-15 Lower Lake East 640 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Lower Lake West 1,247 Cattle 3-1 to 2-28 Lower Riggs 1,408 Cattle 5-1 to 3-24 Mormon Peak 600 Cattle 6-15 to 2-28 Pahranagat East 511 Cattle 8-1 to 5-31 Pahranagat West 2,144 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 Pulsipher Wash *E Cattle *E Rox-Tule 756 Cattle 6-15 to 2-28 Terry 1,511 Cattle 11-1 to 5-31 Sand Hollow 2,430 Cattle 10-1 to 2-28 **Beacon 2,095 Sheep 6-15 to 2-28 Snow Springs 3,567 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 Summit Springs 715 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 White Rock 2,880 Cattle 10-1 to 5-31 *E-Ephemeral Allotment (see Glossary) **Beacon Allotment is located within the Sand Hollow Allotment, a dual use are for cattle and sheep (Source: BLM, Caliente Field Station data) 3-24 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-6. Allotment acreage in desert tortoise habitat and critical habitat. ALLOTMENT TOTAL ACRES ACRES IN TORTOISE HABITAT ACRES IN CRITICAL HABITAT Breedlove 121,500 110,600 25,500 Boulder Spring 17,800 9,700 0 Buckhorn 80,700 2,400 0 Delamar 245,400 101,100 43,500 Flat Top Mesa 1,100 1,100 0 Garden Spring 39,200 22,200 0 Gourd Spring 97,700 93,500 44,800 Grapevine 34,200 30,200 12,300 Henrie Complex 169,100 84,700 0 Jackrabbit 6,200 6,100 0 Lime Mountain 21,000 2,800 0 Lower Lake East 53,700 41,700 14,400 Lower Lake West 65,200 13,300 0 Lower Riggs 19,500 100 0 Mormon Peak 77,900 24,400 12,100 Pahranagat East 30,300 11,600 0 Pahranagat West 56,300 14,300 0 Pulsipher Wash 1,400 1,400 0 Rox-Tule 25,600 25,500 23,900 Terry 31,500 30,500 22,000 Sand Hollow* (Beacon) 41,200 41,100 36,900 Snow Springs 44,400 44,000 6,600 Summit Springs 17,600 17,600 3,000 White Rock 33,000 24,700 0 TOTALS 1,331,500 754,600 245,000 * Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments are a dual use area; Beacon Allotment totals 5,682 acres, all within designated critical habitat, with 2,095 AUMS permitted for domestic sheep. This acreage is included within the total acreage for the Sand Hollow Allotment. (Source: BLM Caliente Field Station data) 3-25 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Allotments. Due to severe drought conditions in 1996, 9 horses, 6 burros, and 8 mules were removed from within the Breedlove Allotment. The Meadow Valley Mountains HMA is located between Meadow Valley Wash and the Meadow Valley Mountains. Hackberry Canyon serves as the southern boundary of the HMA. Wild horse use is concentrated primarily in the southern two-thirds of the HMA, where adequate water can be obtained from Meadow Valley Wash and two perennial springs in Hackberry Canyon. The northern third of the HMA is utilized by wild horses, but not as frequently as the southern portions, due to the lack of perennial water. In 1993, a wildland fired burned substantial acreage within the HMA. An emergency removal of wild horses was conducted, during which 101 wild horses were gathered from the HMA; 17 horses were later returned to the HMA. Due to severe drought conditions in 1996, an emergency removal of wild horses was conducted within the HMA, during which 39 horses were removed. The current population estimate is between 35-50 wild horses. Some interaction may occur between the wild horses of the Mormon Mountain HMA and those in the Meadow Valley Mountain HMA, generally at the accessible water in Meadow Valley Wash. As a result of this interaction, some of the horses may have established home ranges within both HMAs. The southeastern portion of the Blue Nose Peak HMA is contained within the planning unit. This HMA includes the south slope of the Clover Mountains, with Meadow Valley Wash forming the west boundary. The wild horse herd, estimated to number between 20 and 30 animals, concentrates its use in the northern half of the HMA, outside of desert tortoise habitat. LANDS The planning area is comprised of public lands administered by BLM. Small tracts of private land are found along U.S. Highway 93 in Coyote Springs Valley and Pahranagat Valley and along the Meadow Valley Wash. No management direction proposed in this plan amendment would directly affect these private lands. A large tract of BLM-administered public land, totaling more than 13,000 acres, was conveyed to the Aerojet Corporation through legislative action in 1988 (Public Law 100-275). Of that total, approximately 7,370 acres were located within the Coyote Springs Valley of Lincoln County. These lands have recently been sold by Aerojet to Harrich Investments, LLC. The legislation also designated a mile-wide transportation and utility corridor through the private lands, paralleling U.S. Highway 93. These private lands are not included within the planning area; Section 10 of the ESA addresses the compliance requirements on private lands for listed species. Many land use authorizations have been granted in the planning area, including rights-of way for power and telephone lines, communication, and material sites; leases under the R&PP Act; and airport leases under the Airport Act. The majority of existing authorizations are for linear rights-of-way, including power transmission lines, State and Federal highways, and gas transportation pipelines. The Intermountain Power Project's 500 kV transmission line and the Kern River natural gas pipeline bisect designated critical habitat for desert tortoise. Two existing utility lines and one granted (but as yet unconstructed) 500 kV transmission line for the SWIP cross the Coyote Springs Valley. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way follows the canyon of the Meadow Valley Wash. Several communication sites have been developed within the planning area. Local government entities and private individuals have expressed interest in acquiring public lands within the planning area. Lincoln County Commissioners have identified lands near Alamo and Ash Springs for community expansion. The City of Mesquite has been investigating the possibility of acquiring public lands in Lincoln County, in order to expand an existing landfill. All of the lands under consideration are within desert tortoise habitat. 3-26 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT RECREATION The majority of recreational use within desert tortoise habitat is casual, dispersed use. Recreational opportunities in the area include hunting, trapping, hiking, primitive camping, photography, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and OHV use (both casual use and organized and/or competitive use). Overall, recreation use in the planning area is very light. Total estimated annual recreational use within the planning area ranges from 1 ,000 to 2,000 visitor days (data on file, BLM, Caliente Field Station 1995). Hunting activities are generally concentrated at springs and artificial water sources (guzzlers) located throughout the area. Gambel's quail are the most important game bird in desert tortoise habitat. Mule deer and desert bighorn sheep hunting occurs but generally at higher elevations, outside of tortoise habitat. Coyote, bobcat, kit and gray fox, and mountain lion are trapped and/or hunted during the winter months. Hiking, primitive camping, photography, wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and casual OHV use occurs throughout the year. Because the planning area is located a long distance from large population centers, much of the casual OHV use occurs in association with hunting, trapping, or other activities. Unlike many areas near large population centers like the Las Vegas Valley, Lincoln County has not experienced high levels of casual use on organized OHV courses. Organized OHV use has also been very limited in the planning area, averaging only one event per year. A total of 51,360 acres of the planning area is already designated as limited to existing roads and trails for all motorized OHV use to protect desert tortoise habitat. Another portion of the planning area, totalling 16,960 acres, is designated to limit competitive events to existing roads to protect gila monster habitat. The designation for this habitat does not apply to casual OHV use. WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS Portions of five WSAs are within or immediately adjacent to desert tortoise habitat. These are indicated on Map 2-1 and include Evergreen ABC WSA (NV-050-01R-16 ); Fish and Wildlife #1 (NV-050-201); Delamar Mountains WSA (NV-050-177); Meadow Valley Mountains WSA (NV-050-156); and the Mormon Mountains WSA (NV-050-161). Portions of the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains WSAs have been recommended to Congress as suitable for wilderness designation; the remaining three WSAs have been recommended as unsuitable. All five WSAs continue to be managed according to the IMP which generally prohibits surface-disturbing activities, including off-road vehicle travel. Evergreen ABC WSA was studied under Section 202 of FLPMA, following the April 1985 decision in Sierra Club v. Watt concerning certain lands that were deleted from wilderness review in 1982 and 1983. The WSA contains three small sub-areas, totaling only 2,694 acres, sandwiched between the USFWS Desert National Wildlife Range on the west and U.S. Highway 93 on the east. Primarily due to its location contiguous to the Wildlife Range (most of which was once recommended for wilderness designation), this area was reinstated as a WSA. Although no acreage was recommended for wilderness designation, the desert tortoise was identified as a special feature of the area and was considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Fish and Wildlife #1 WSA encompasses approximately 11,090 acres bordered by the Desert National Wildlife Range on the west and U.S. Highway 93 on the east. Only the northern portion of this WSA is within Lincoln County and the planning area. Like the Evergreen WSA, the Fish and Wildlife WSAs (#1, 2, and 3) were identified as WSAs in support of the USFWS recommendation that the majority of the adjacent Desert National Wildlife Range be designated as wilderness. This wilderness recommendation was later withdrawn. Since the WSA does not contain outstanding wilderness qualities on its own, no acreage was recommended for wilderness 3-27 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT designation in the BLM Wilderness Report prepared for submission to Congress in 1990. The presence of desert tortoise was among the special features identified and considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Delamar Mountains WSA contains 126,257 acres located at the southern end of the Delamar Mountains. Elevations within the WSA range from 2,600 to 6,300 feet, consisting of a series of bajadas that generally surround a rugged mountainous interior. The majority of desert tortoise habitat is in the lower bajadas, on the southern and western fringes of the WSA. Numerous special features were considered in development of the wilderness recommendation, including the presence of the desert tortoise. None of the WSA was recommended suitable for wilderness designation because of potential resource conflicts. The absence of physical barriers to limit incursions by OHVs into the WSA created manageability concerns that influenced this recommendation. Meadow Valley Mountains WSA is comprised of 185,744 acres, located between the Delamar Mountains and the Mormon Mountains WSAs. A total of 88,564 acres are recommended for uses other than wilderness, due to manageability concerns primarily associated with off-road vehicle use. This eastern portion of the WSA, generally below the 3,200 foot contour, is characterized by a low desert shrub vegetative community. The 97,180 acre portion recommended for wilderness designation is characterized by more rugged topography and includes pinyon and juniper woodlands. Presence of the desert tortoise within the WSA was not identified as a special feature considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. Mormon Mountains WSA consists of 162,887 acres of public land and encompasses the Mormon Mountains. Elevations range from 2,200 feet to 7,500 feet and include low-desert bajadas and rugged mountainous peaks and ridges. The desert tortoise, which occur on the bajadas in the southern, western and eastern flanks of the WSA, were among the special features considered in developing the wilderness recommendation. A total of 123,130 acres were recommended for wilderness designation, while 39,757 acres were recommended for uses other than wilderness. Excluded from the wilderness recommendation were the bajadas that comprise habitat for the desert tortoise. The recommendation was, in part, based on the potential difficulty associated with limiting off-road vehicle use across the bajadas. Other bajada areas, considered inaccessible to off-road vehicle use, were recommended for wilderness designation. MINERAL RESOURCES Fluid Minerals Federally-owned minerals in the public domain are classified into specific categories. Fluid minerals are those being processed for their fluid material, either in the rocks or flowing through the rocks. Fluid minerals have been classified as a leasable mineral. Under current regulations, the following items are classified as fluid minerals: 1) oil and gas; 2) geothermal resources and associated by-products; and 3) oil shale, native asphalt, oil impregnated sands and any other material in which oil is recoverable only by special treatment after the deposit is mined or quarried. The leasing of these minerals is discretionary. Oil and Gas Few wells have been drilled in the planning area, with only one or two of the wells having oil and gas shows. Geophysical activity is continuing on a very occasional basis within the desert tortoise habitat. Based on the regional geology for the area, the U.S. Geological Survey published Eastern Great Basin and Snake River Downwarp, Geology and Petroleum Resources (Peterson 1988). This report presents information for developing oil and gas potential for the region and identifies two potential oil and gas plays for Eastern Nevada. A "play" refers to an exploration target that may have the potential for payable quantities of oil and gas. 3-28 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The planning area is covered by portions of two plays; these are identified as the "unconformity play" and the "Upper Paleozoic play". The planning area is contained within the Upper Paleozoic play, characterized as a possible stratigraphic trap between interbedded shaly seals, independent of the reservoir rock. The rocks are almost entirely marine and contain good potential reservoir and source rock in most of the stratigraphic section. The extensive interbedding of source rock and reservoir rocks with shale formations could produce small oil and gas reservoirs in the play. This type of trap is producing oil in the Blackburn field in Pine Valley, Nevada. Conversely, the tectonic and igneous activities of the area may have destroyed these traps and the oil potentially contained within them. The mountain regions of Nevada have not been drilled to the same extent as the valleys. Extensive interest has been expressed in the overthrust trap located in the northern portion of Lincoln County, outside of the planning area. Based on indirect geological and geophysical evidence, the oil and gas potential for the planning area is evaluated as moderate in the valley bottoms and based on USGS data is prospectively valuable for fluid minerals. The mountainous regions have low potential, based on similar indirect evidence. Geothermal Resources Geothermal resources within Lincoln County are located to the north in the Pahranagat Valley, the Caliente area, and near Panaca (Garside, 1979). Geothermal resources are not known to occur within the desert tortoise habitat which comprises the planning area. The geologic history indicates faulting and igneous activity in the region but no geothermal resources have, to date, been identified. The potential for the occurrence of these resources in the planning area is low, based on indirect evidence. The temperatures of these springs and wells range from a high of 120 degrees in Caliente to a low of 70 degrees (Garside, 1979). Solid Minerals Minerals which are mined out of the ground and processed for the metallic or chemical nature of the rock are identified as solid minerals. These minerals have been divided by Congress into three groups: locatable, salable, and leasable minerals. Locatable minerals are those that have been described as "valuable mineral deposits". These include metallic minerals such as gold, silver, copper, lead, and nonmetallic minerals such as bentonite, gypsum, chemical grade limestone, and chemical grade silica sand. Uncommon varieties of mineral materials such as pumice, rock, and cinders are also managed as locatable minerals. Disposal of these minerals is not a discretionary action for the BLM. Salable minerals are common minerals and mineral materials and include sand and gravel, sand, and common clays. These have been identified as minerals not designated as leasable and locatable. Disposal of these minerals is a discretionary action for BLM. Non-energy leasable minerals are identified as specific minerals such as coal and phosphates. Leasable minerals are all minerals in specific locations, such as acquired lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. Disposal of these minerals is a discretionary action for the BLM. Locatable Minerals Within the planning area there are 68 mining claims located (BLM, 1997). Of these, there are 19 lode claims and 49 placer claims. No operating mines are located within the planning area. Several exploration operations have been conducted, but no production has been reported. Two mining districts, the Gourd Springs District 3-29 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and the informal Tule Valley District, are located within the planning area (Tschanz, 1970). The Gourd Springs District has had very little historic production, most of which occurred during the 1920s. The district has two main deposits: the Amos Hunt manganese property and the Bruson tungsten property. The Hunt manganese shipped 60 tons of ore in 1929; no production has been reported for the Bruson (Tschanz, 1970). The district has occurrence of tin, beryllium, barite, and the material mined manganese and tungsten. The Tule Valley District has been identified for the occurrence of moderately thick sequences of gypsum. Two main i T~*i deposits, White Queen and the Snowhite, are found within the district. No production has been recorded for this district (Tschanz, 1970). Other notable prospects in the planning area include the Whitemore Mine (copper); the Iron Blossom prospect (iron oxides); the Bradshaw (vanadium); and the Johnston and Fitchett (perlite and some zeolites). These prospects are located in the Mormon and Meadow Valley Mountains (Pampeyan, 1988 and Shawe, 1988). The Mormon Mountains are reported to have three mineralized areas: a southern zone which is enriched with lead and copper; an east-trending northern zone which contains lead, silver, and copper; and a west-central third zone with tungsten (Pampeyan, 1988). The locatable mineral potential for desert tortoise habitat and surrounding mountain ranges is identified as moderate, based on indirect geological and geophysical evidence. Salable Minerals Several types of salable minerals are found within the planning area. The most common is gravel that has resulted from alluvial and colluvial deposition. Other types of deposits include topsoil and decorative types of rock and sand. These salable minerals are widely distributed throughout the region. No major exploration is reported to be ongoing for salable minerals. Deposits of sand, sand and gravel, rock, and topsoil of unknown volumes have been identified throughout the planning area. Production of salable minerals is currently limited to an. area along U.S. Highway 93, just north of the Clark-Lincoln County line. Most of the material is being produced for use as highway material for the maintenance of U.S. Highway 93. There are 17 NDOT material site rights-of-way totalling about 320 acres within desert tortoise habitat.. Large sand deposits are found south of Coyote Springs in small dunes along Highway 93. Deposits of other mineral materials in the East Mormon Mountains and the Meadow Valley Mountains have been identified but production has been limited. Liesegang banded rhyolite tuff is being produced in the Clover Mountains, outside of the planning area. Production of mineral materials on private lands in Coyote Springs Valley has been increasing, with this material being sold to markets in Las Vegas. The planning area has a moderate to high potential for saleable materials, based on direct and indirect evidence for mineral material resources. Solid Leasable Minerals Solid leasable minerals in the planning area include potassium and phosphates associated with Pleistocene-age lakes. When these lakes evaporated, mineral salts were precipitated. A mineral occurrence for phosphates has been reported in the Mormon Mountains. The planning area is prospectively valuable for solid leasable minerals based on USGS data and is rated as having low potential for solid leasable mineral resources, based on indirect evidence. 3-30 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT FIRE MANAGEMENT Surface-disturbing activities have altered the fire regime in the planning area. Where fire-resistant perennial shrubs were once abundant, exotic annual grasses, like red brome, now thrive. These exotic annuals provide a fuel source that encourages the spread of fire and increases the size of fires that occur in desert tortoise habitat (see discussion under Ecological Site Inventory in this chapter). From 1980 until 1992, 96 wildland fires were reported on public lands within the planning area, at an average rate of eight fires per year. These consumed an average of 582 acres per fire, for a total of 51,000 acres. Over 50 percent of the fires were caused by lightning. Current BLM fire suppression strategy is to determine an appropriate level of suppression, as determined by safety factors and resource values at risk. Suppression tactics in desert tortoise habitat emphasize the minimization of vegetative losses and surface disturbance. Tactical determinations are made by the Incident Commander, in consultation with Resource Advisors. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS Because of the manner in which data is organized and made available, the affected environment, for purposes of economic and social analysis, must necessarily be defined to include all of Lincoln County. Analysis of potential effects in the next chapter must also be inferred from county-wide data. Population and Area Lincoln County, the third largest in the state, is rural and sparsely populated. With a total area of approximately 10,634 square miles, and an estimated 1996 population of 4,020 (State of Nevada, June, 1997), population density for the county is less than 0.4 persons per square mile. The county's population grew from 3,732 in 1980 to only 3,775 in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census); an increase of only 43 persons. This represents a rate of growth of 1.2 percent, the lowest in the state. The largest population center in the county, and its only incorporated city, is Caliente, with a reported census population of 1,111 in 1990 and a 1996 population estimate of 1,110. The balance of the county's population is concentrated in the unincorporated towns of Alamo, Panaca, and Pioche. Income and Employment Historically, mining and agriculture have been the most constant and dependable economic activities in Lincoln County. These industries were the county's original and primary source of income and continue to play an important role in the county's economy today. Many residents view livestock grazing and mining as the solid, stable and dependable bedrock of the economic base. Their relative importance in the overall economic picture has, however, become less significant in recent years. Table 3-7 shows earnings by place of work, and employment by major industrial sectors, for Lincoln County in 1995. Total personal income for the County, in 1995, is reported at $72,004,000; this includes earnings by place of work, personal contributions for social insurance, adjustments for residence, dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer payments. Earnings by place of work constituted $54,356,000 of that total. Total employment is estimated at 2,038. The service industries are the single most important employers and income producers for the County, with government providing the second largest source of income and employment. Civilian employment by private firms providing contractual services to the Nevada Test Site and other Department of 3-31 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Table 3-7 Lincoln County earning and employment for 1995. EARNINGS EMPLOYMENT INDUSTRIAL SECTOR $000 %OF TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS % OF TOTAL Agriculture 1,866 3.4 149 7.3 Agriculture Services 78 0.1 15* 0.7 Mining 248 0.5 18 0.9 Construction 556 1.0 36 1.8 Manufacturing 55 0.1 10* 0.5 Transportation and Public Utilities 2,324 4.3 59 2.9 Wholesale and Retail Trade 2,992* 5.5 256* 12.6 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 650 1.2 59 2.9 Services 28,322* 52.1 832* 40.8 Government 17,265 31.8 604 29.6 TOTAL 54,356 100.0 2,038 100.0 *BLM estimates (Source: USDC, 1997) Defense activities explains the high incidence of service industry income and employment. Together, the service industries and government account for 83.9 percent of wage and salary income, and 70.4 percent of employment in Lincoln County. The Lincoln County economy has been hard hit in recent years, largely due to reduced expenditures and employment in U.S. Department of Defense activities. County income from wages and salaries has declined from $57.0 million, in 1991, to $46.6 million in 1995; representing a total loss of income from employment of approximately $10.4 million. The number of jobs in the County has declined, as well, from a reported 2,395 in 1990 to 2,038 in 1995; a decline of 357 jobs. The Nevada State Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation reports that 300 Lincoln County residents lost jobs, since 1993, with the reduction of activities at the Nevada Test Site. Lincoln County unemployment was reported for the first quarter of 1997 at 100 persons, for an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent. This compares with data for the first quarter of 1996 which indicates 160 people unemployed and an unemployment rate of 13.5 percent. This decline in the number of persons unemployed, and in the unemployment rate, however, does not indicate the occurrence of any positive economic influence in the County. But rather an outward migration of persons seeking work in other counties, and the possibility that a number of people have removed themselves from the available work force and, at least temporarily, have abandoned an active search for employment. Annual per capita income figures for 1995 show Lincoln County, at $18,635, to be almost 24 percent below the average of $24,361 for the state's 17 counties. 3-32 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Economic Linkages The economic structure of Lincoln County is not large enough to support a wide variety of businesses; therefore, businesses and residents must rely on other counties for a large portion of the goods and services that they require. Lincoln County has available raw natural resources such as public rangeland forage for livestock. Businesses and residents of other counties utilize these Lincoln County resources. The Caliente-Panaca-Pioche area of Lincoln County is strongly linked to Iron and Washington Counties is Southwestern Utah. Cedar City in Iron County, and St. George in Washington County are regional trade centers where businesses and residents of Caliente, Panaca, and Pioche obtain goods and services unavailable in Lincoln County. Cattle ranchers obtain financing and purchase machinery, livestock, supplements, and fertilizers in Cedar City and St. George. Most of their calf sales are to Utah buyers. And, on the other hand, a large proportion of the public rangeland forage in the Caliente Field Station is purchased and utilized by cattle ranchers from Southwestern Utah. The Federal Government represents a significant presence in the county, as illustrated by land ownership data. About 95 percent of the land area in Lincoln County, approximately 6,500,000 acres is under federal ownership. The Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site represent the most visible presence of the Federal government in the county. However, resident interest and concern is directed toward federal management of the lands for livestock grazing, mining, wildlife and wild horse management, wilderness, and land tenure. Social Setting, Attitude, and Values Several analyses of Lincoln County social attitudes, expectations, and lifestyles have been conducted by BLM and other agencies during the land use planning processes and for environmental analyses, (e.g. BLM 1978, 1979, 1989, 1993) Conclusions drawn from those prior studies remain appropriate. The majority of Lincoln County residents are pleased with their communities and lifestyles, and are unamenable to outside influences in their lives. Residents strongly value quality educational opportunities for their children, family life, friendship, personal honesty, and trust. Personal independence, responsibility, and self-reliance are particularly prized virtues. Economic development, industrial growth, and community expansion are favored, but the emphasis is on moderation. Positive community attributes include such factors as (1) a good place to live and raise a family, (2) recreational opportunities, (3) and the quality of the physical environment. The lack of adequate hospital and medical care are principal concerns. Social and political attitudes and expectations among county residents are generally conservative and modest. County residents typically appear to view each other as equals and in general do not discuss other residents in terms of social rank, racial, or ethnic origins. However, on an individual basis, those values having to do with origins, kinship, and religion are the common bond around which political and social influences coalesce. The positive value placed on the small size of local communities; the positive aspects of a rural atmosphere; the. appeal of clean air, and moderate weather; the easy access to outdoor recreation; the feeling of friendliness and sociability; the opportunities afforded of doing things as a family; and the belief in the natural order of things, particularly the belief that change will proceed modestly and gradually without altering the county's rural character, are the values that are consistently articulated by county residents. There prevails a very optimistic attitude toward the historical peak and valley employment patterns of the mining industry; area residents expect that the future will be "pretty much like the past," and many express hope for the possibility of further mineral development in the area as at least a partial solution to the county's economic and employment problems. 3-33 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Generally, businessmen, professionals, and influential community leaders are politically oriented toward change, while ranchers are politically oriented toward preserving the status quo. Change is a value seldom expressed by the general public. Even among those in the county who favor change, change is often qualified in terms of "progress" that will preserve, or at least not upset, the natural order. The ranching community cohesively exists as a single community that transcends the Nevada-Utah stateline. The economic and resource ties are strong, and they are part of the same religious community. For the ranching community, in general, ranching is seen as one of the few remaining ways of carrying on a family tradition where family members can all share meaningful work and responsibility. Ranching is perceived as a way of life that provides security and family stability, the opportunity to be self-sufficient, the opportunity to work out-of- doors, and the opportunity to be relatively free of outside supervision in their isolated work environment. Generally, ranchers resent what they perceive to be excessive government regulation trends of the last 20 years, which they see as restrictive. Such initiatives are not perceived by the ranchers as being sufficiently elastic to permit management adaptations in response to various types of local conditions. In previous surveys, ranchers have strongly expressed their feeling that they cannot influence local BLM Field Office planning decisions, since they feel that interpretation of the law and planning decision guidance is provided by the Washington BLM staff without regard to local conditions or local perspectives and experience. Ranchers view market prices for ranches in the area as strongly related to the relative mix of public and private lands of which a ranch is composed; any withdrawal of preferences on public lands from that mix can have serious and immediate implications for both the ranching community and the financial institutions which support that community. They feel that the ranching industry has been severely limited in recent years by ever- increasing governmental intervention, drought, and tight cost-price ratios in the national cattle market. In the national market, they view themselves as "price takers" rather than "price setters." Ranchers also feel that the constant turnover of BLM personnel does not serve their best interests. They perceive the lack of continuity created by new personnel as having a deleterious effect on communication and understandings that have been developed, and in BLM efforts as they apply to local circumstances and conditions. In an industry where long-term planning is considered essential, they feel that the frequent changeover of BLM personnel deprives the ranching community of consistency in interpretation and application of Bureau regulations and policies as they might apply to the local region. The above views, coupled with the ranching community's philosophical opposition to both government intervention in the industry and continued federal ownership of "Nevada lands," tends to sustain the potential for conflict between the Bureau and the community. Lincoln County residents and elected officials have consistently voiced opposition to proposed Land Tenure Adjustments that would result in either loss of tax revenue to the County, or loss of development opportunities. Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan In July 1995, Clark County entered into an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal, State, and municipal agencies (including the Bureau of Land Management), for a Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The purpose of this HCP is to establish rules, policies, and procedures which permit continued development in Clark County while providing extensive measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts which might result from the incidental taking of desert tortoise. This HCP imposes a $550 per acre mitigation fee on all land disturbed within Clark County below 5,000 feet in elevation, which is subject to permitting requirements of Clark County and the cooperating municipalities. 3-34 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT These fees provide a fund for mitigation of impacts upon desert tortoise habitat. The HCP further provides for Clark County to negotiate with individuals for the purchase and exchange of grazing privileges to offset developed land and to achieve conservation objectives. The land area included for purchase and exchange of grazing privileges is not confined to the boundaries of Clark County, but is stipulated as, "within DWMAs," or Desert Wildlife Management Areas, as proposed in the USFWS, Recovery Plan, dated June 1994. Affected Sectors Livestock-oriented agriculture and mining are the major basic industries to be affected by management proposals to recover and delist the desert tortoise. Affected resources will include lands, corridors, and recreation. Agriculture Agricultural production in Lincoln County consists of cattle, sheep, alfalfa, and hay. Cash receipts from marketings in 1995 totaled $8,526,000, with $2,516,000 from livestock and livestock products, and $6,010,000 from crops. Total farm labor and proprietors' income is estimated at $2,183,171. Agriculture accounts for an estimated 3.4 percent of income in the county, but provides approximately 7.3 percent of county employment. However, agriculture contributes little indirect income to the county because most of the farm and ranch inputs are purchased outside of the county, in Cedar City and St. George, Utah. Wages and perquisites for farm labor are estimated at $913,000, and total net farm proprietors' income is estimated at $919,000 for 1995. Though not of major significance in the economy, cattle ranching is perceived by many county residents to be the bedrock of the economic base; and the viability and success of the industry remains tied to the public lands. Lincoln County assesses a tax on livestock at the rate of 28 cents per head, per year, for beef cattle, 75 cents for horses and 30 cents for sheep. Livestock operators have been authorized 116,763 AUMs within the lands administered by the Caliente Field Station, with a total of 48,453 AUMS authorized within allotments containing desert tortoise habitat. This accounts for approximately 42 percent of the total AUMs within the Caliente Field Station. There are 37 permittees in the planning area, with 29 active and 8 inactive. Of the 29 active permittees, dependency upon the public lands ranges from 12 percent to 100 percent. Nineteen of the 25 grazing allotments within the planning area are actively grazed at the present time. All but four are land-based properties. Because of the broad ranging variability and the small number of operations in the area, the seasonality of forage, and the high dependency upon ephemeral-perennial range, typical ranch budgets could not be developed. However, net ranch income is estimated at $4.50 per AUM. This estimate is based on previous ranch budgets estimated for the Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Statement (BLM, 1998), the Esmeralda-Southern Nye Planning Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 1984), and Potential Impacts of MX Deployment on Ranch Management and Ranch Economics, prepared by Resource Concepts, Inc. (1980), under contract to the United States Air Force. Net ranch income is calculated by deducting cash costs and depreciation from sales (gross income). The remaining revenue (net ranch income) is available to service long-term debt on land and capital, to provide income to family labor, and to provide a return to risk and management. Historically, the economic benefits derived by area ranchers from the use of public range have exceeded the fees they are charged. The existence of this market imbalance, or "consumer surplus" has meant that ranchers are willing to pay extra for the opportunity to use public lands, thereby causing the grazing permits to acquire a 3-35 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT market value (Vale, 1979; Neilson and Workman, 1971). The permits can be bought or sold in the market place, or used as collateral for loans (Corbett, 1978). Although not officially recognized as real property, BLM permits have nonetheless become an integral element in the capital and credit structure of area ranchers. Currently, the market value of federal AUMs ranges from $25 to $60 per AUM. Recent appraisals in southern Lincoln County, by Pacific Agribusiness Service for the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan, have estimated the AUM values for several of these operations to range from $45 to $54 per AUM. This appraisal takes into consideration the existence of range improvements, and averages about $50 per AUM. Assuming an average market value of $50 per AUM, BLM grazing privileges, which total 48,453 AUMs in the affected area, contribute $2,422,650 to the wealth of area ranchers. Mining At the present time, mining is of very low economic significance in Lincoln County. In 1995, mining provided less than 1 percent of the county's income and employment. Earnings for 1995 are reported at $248,000, or 0.5 percent of the county's total earnings. Mining employment provided a reported 18 jobs, or 0.9 percent of the county's total employment. Since Lincoln County is seeking growth and development opportunities and an expanded income base, there is concern that placing additional encumbrances on mineral exploration and production represents economic opportunities foregone. Formerly, mining represented a significant economic activity in the County. The largest mining operation in recent years was the Tempiute Mine, which reopened in 1977, but closed several years ago. This operation employed 185 workers. The Bunker Hill Mine, near Pioche, produced silver, lead, and zinc until March 1978, when low zinc prices forced it to close. A payroll of $150,000 per month, and employment for 110 workers was lost. Lands Payments in Lieu of Taxes to Lincoln County amounted to $186,950 in 1994. The 10-year average, at that time, was $180,331. Corridors The Planning Area has three established major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study prepared by the Western Utility Group in 1986. These corridors total about 50 miles. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The third route is encumbered with a right-of- way that has been granted for a 500 kV power transmission line which is yet to be constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although it is likely that construction materials and a skilled workforce will be brought in from outside the area, Lincoln County would realize a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce and any incidental construction materials or equipment that might be locally purchased. The establishment of these corridors was designed to enable more efficient and cost effective planning for future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of designated corridors sustains high planning costs because of the number of alternatives that must be considered, and results in longer processing time for right-of- way applications. Designating the DWMAs/ACECs as avoidance areas, or requiring Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, could affect the efficiency of planning for proposed facilities. Additional planning and construction costs to utility companies and longer processing time to review the viability of rights- of-way applications could result. 3-36 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The proponent of the Southwest Intertie Project, a 500 kV power transmission line, estimates that Lincoln County would realize annual property tax revenues of $4,935 per mile. Recreation Expenditures for recreation in the planning area contribute to the regional economy through the purchase of lodging, services, equipment, fuel, and food. With an estimated 1000 to 2000 visitor days of recreation activities occurring in the planning area, recreation related expenditures are estimated at $50,000 per year. During the past 5 years, different OHV events, totaling five events on as many courses, have been permitted by BLM, averaging one event per year. These events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little economic benefit in either jobs or income to Lincoln County. Section 7 Consultation Costs Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on actions that may jeopardize a threatened or endangered species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 directs agencies to submit to the USFWS a complete description of any proposed action and the anticipated effects (biological assessment). The USFWS then has up to 135 days (with an additional 60 day extension, when necessary) to review the proposal and prepare a biological opinion which may enable the project to go forward and, in some cases, provide for incidental take of the subject species, while providing certain conditions of operation, or modification of plans, or means to mitigate adverse effects. Private individuals, companies, or corporations are frequently the proponents of projects or proposals to utilize the public lands; such as minerals developments, land exchanges or transfers, utility corridors, etc. While it is the responsibility of the federal agency initiating the proposed action to prepare the description of the action and the anticipated effects (the biological assessment), oftentimes the Bureau of Land Management does not have sufficient staff or funding to process a private party request in a sufficiently timely manner to meet the needs of the project proponent. In such cases, the project proponent may prepare the biological assessment, under BLMs direction, in order to facilitate initiation of the required consultation and expedite project scheduling. These documents may be quite simple or very complex, depending upon the nature and extent of the proposed public land use and the species involved. Private individuals sometimes hire a consultant, or consult an attorney, to shepherd them through the process. Large companies, or corporations, often employ an Environmental Coordinator, or a Project Manager on a permanent full-time basis for just these types of activities. If the proposed project is quite extensive, a third-party Environmental consulting firm may be employed to undertake the necessary studies and documentation. The costs of Section 7 consultation may be quite variable. Cost factors would include the nature of the project, the biological requirements of the species, the extent of analytical detail required, and the time and expertise employed in preparation of the analysis and documentation. Additional costs could result in the event that additional mitigation measures might be required to ameliorate potential effects on the species; and from any delays imposed on the initiation of project development. At the present time Section 7 consultation is required throughout the area covered by this Plan Amendment. The establishment of a framework for land-use proposals and management decisions, which is the purpose of this Amendment, will provide sufficient guidelines to effectively focus potential land-use proposals and ameliorate or reduce Section 7 consultation and mitigation costs. 3-37 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations, requires that Federal agencies identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that impact low income and minority populations as a result of Federal programs, policies, or activities. Demographic analysis comprises the first step in determining disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low income and minority populations. Such analysis includes defining the region of influence, census block groups, low-income populations, minority communities, and the thresholds for calculating a low-income or minority community census block group (USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). To identify minority communities, the four racial classifications recognized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census are used. These are (1) white, (2) black, (3) American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and (4) Asian or Pacific Islander. Hispanic is considered to be an origin, rather than a racial classification by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The Proposed Action and alternatives provide management actions for public lands located in Lincoln County; the county comprises the region of influence for this Draft Plan Amendment/EIS. Census block groups are defined as clusters of blocks within the same census tract. The census block groups do not cross county or census tract boundaries and generally are comprised of between 250 and 550 housing units (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993; USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). For analytic purposes, low income populations are defined as individuals living within a census block group whose income is below the poverty level. Households are classified as being below the poverty level if the total family income or unrelated individual income is less than the poverty threshold specified for the applicable family size (Ibid). As an example, the weighted average threshold for a 4-person family was $12,674 for the 1990 census (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1994). Percentages of low-income and minority communities can be calculated within each census block group, using thresholds developed to avoid biasing the designation of poverty areas. According to recent demographic analyses conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy, Lincoln County contains eight census block groups. No census block groups in the county have low income or minority communities, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census classifications and thresholds described above (USDOE, pg. 4-223, 1996). 3-38 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the anticipated physical, biological, social, and economic consequences of implementing the Proposed Action or the alternatives described in Chapter 2. The discussion of the environmental consequences is in proportion to the significance of the anticipated impacts. The following are not present or would not be impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives: Air Quality; Cultural or Paleontological Resources; Farm Lands (prime or unique); Floodplains; Wilderness values; Wild and Scenic Rivers; Native American Religious Concerns or Traditional Lifeways Values; Hazardous or Solid Wastes; or Environmental Justice issues. The baseline for comparing impacts is Alternative C (No Action Alternative), which represents a continuation of the existing management situation. Impacts identified are those that could be expected to occur within 25 years, if no changes occur in the current management guidelines. The impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives are compared to this baseline. The analysis of environmental consequences includes identification and discussion of direct and indirect impacts. Cumulative impacts are also analyzed in this chapter. Impacts were analyzed for each of the following resources or management programs: special management areas such as ACECs or DWMAs; special status species and wildlife habitat; soils and water resources; riparian areas; forestry and vegetative products; livestock grazing; wild horses and burros; lands; recreation; minerals; fire management; and socio-economic values. An interdisciplinary approach was used to analyze the environmental consequences. Only those resources determined to be impacted are included in the following sections. ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS The following assumptions underlie the analysis: Funding and staffing will be adequate to fully implement all management actions associated with each alternative. As desert tortoise habitat is improved, tortoise populations will manifest upward trends. Regional human demographic trends will continue at current rates over the life of the plan. Local governments/municipalities within the planning area will require additional lands for community growth and public purpose development. Power, communication, and petroleum product transmission and distribution needs will increase in the future. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) will make more frequencies available to industry; more communication site locations will be required. Recreational use of the desert environment will continue to grow as a direct result of the increase in human populations and the increase in sales and use of OHVs. Based on available precipitation data, it is assumed that 3 inches of annual precipitation would occur in 7 out of 10 years within the Planning Area (Alternative A). CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The BLM's full force and effect decisions implementing the biological opinion for livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat will be upheld in District Court. Livestock operators will be able to manage their livestock through a variety of techniques including fencing, herding, and salt and water placement, so that grazing will not occur within the special management area boundaries. Permittees who receive compensation for closure of their allotments to livestock grazing will be compensated only for those portions of their allotment inside the special management areas. Areas proposed to be withdrawn from mineral entry will occur timely and will be approved by Congress. Section 7 funds will be available to aid in implementation of management actions. One DLE may prove to have adequate soil suitability, availability of sufficient water for irrigation, sufficient arable land for production, and adequate financial and material (equipment) resources to successfully be developed in the planning area of the No Action Alternative. INCOMPLETE AND/OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION Introduction The Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 1502.22 mandates that agencies evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement must identify incomplete or unavailable information. Information is currently incomplete from the planning area for the following issues: precise desert tortoise population numbers and absolute trends; specific quantitative information on the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoise; the indirect effects of OHV use; the magnitude of direct effects of casual OHV use of existing roads and trails; and the potential for recovery of native plant communities with the removal of grazing. Information is also incomplete in regard to future management of the California portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, and on the past impact of radioactive fallout within the Recovery Unit. These are discussed below. Desert Tortoise Population Numbers and Trends Precise numbers of tortoise are unknown to the BLM, NDOW and the USFWS, and population information reflecting absolute trend is incomplete, however, population estimates and information on the status of tortoise populations is presented in Chapter 3. According to the Recovery Plan, "Our analysis indicates that areas receiving summer rains and are relatively free from human-induced mortality show no statistically significant population trend..." (USFWS, p. C8, 1994a) and "Because of the difficulty in obtaining accurate population size estimates on these cryptic, semi-fossorial, and sparse animals, most data collected over the last 15 years on the dynamics of desert tortoise populations are insufficient to determine whether a population is stationary, fluctuating stochastically, or undergoing a population trend" (USFWS, p. C8, 1994a). Monitoring has, however, demonstrated concerns with population trends and recruitment of young into the population in some areas. Some researchers warn that although populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers or density in most places, population levels are 4-2 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES dangerously low (Brussard 1994, written communication). The lack of exact population numbers or trend information from all portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is not an impediment to implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Desert Tortoise It is known that tortoise rely on new spring growth once they emerge from their burrows, and that livestock use decreases both the quantity and quality of this growth. It is also known, and recent ongoing research continues to show, that native perennial herbaceous forage species are very important to desert tortoise nutrition and reproduction. Much of the Mojave Desert vegetation communities have been impacted by historic grazing to the point that many of these important native plant species occur in greatly reduced abundance or are non-existent in the present communities. According to the 1988 BLM Rangewide Plan, livestock grazing is one of the detrimental impacts to tortoise in the Eastern Mojave. Since 1988, there have been studies showing the negative impacts of grazing on desert tortoise and its habitat (see Chapter 3). According to the 1988 BLM Rangewide Plan, there are some data gaps which include site specific quantitative data on the effects of grazing on tortoise populations and habitats. According to the federal register announcement designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise, "Although no definitive studies on the relation between livestock grazing and the welfare of desert tortoises have yet been completed there is significant amount of scientific literature on the adverse effects of livestock grazing on desert ecosystems, in terms of vegetation changes, soil compaction and erosion, and reduction of microorganisms in the soil." (USFWS, p. 5839, 1994d) There are differing opinions regarding whether livestock impact desert tortoise. Here are three examples: 1. "Scientifically based information on the interactions between the desert tortoise and livestock grazing is currently limited and inconclusive. There is not substantiating information on whether the elimination of grazing will in fact assist in the recovery of this species. Moreover, no information has been presented that indicates properly managed grazing (designed to maintain or improve current ecological status) has an adverse effect on the desert tortoise or it's habitat." (Resource Concepts Incorporated, unpublished report, p. 7-Findings, 1996) 2. According to the Arizona Strip 1996 Proposed RMP Amendment to implement the Recovery Plan; the effects of cattle grazing on desert tortoises and their habitats have been studied since the late 1970s, but information is still lacking. 3. Mr. Rey Flake noted at the January 26, 1996 meeting of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands that the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission had met with the BLM, and the BLM could not provide scientific proof that livestock are harmful to desert tortoise. Minutes of this Legislative Committee meeting also show that according to BLM desert tortoise expert Mr. Sid Slone of the Las Vegas Field Office, "Based on current data, the position of the BLM is that livestock grazing has an impact on desert tortoise." (Minutes of the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, p. 12, 1996). A project proposal, (Oldemeyer, p. 95, 1994), submitted for approval and to attain funding states: "Experimental information to assess the effect of livestock grazing on tortoises is lacking, and researchers have not yet examined whether the forage that remains after grazing is sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of desert tortoise." (Oldemeyer, p. 95, 1994) Several studies since 1994 have focused on the nutritional requirements of 4-3 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES desert tortoise, the relationship of native herbaceous species to meeting these needs, and amounts and types of forages important to desert tortoise (See Chapter 3). While there are some differences of opinion regarding impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise, conclusions drawn by professionals in the USFWS, BLM, University scientists, and the Recovery Team for The Desert Tortoise indicate that livestock grazing can have a number of negative impacts on desert tortoise and their habitat as described in the Recovery Plan and in this plan. The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that livestock grazing can have a number of different negative impacts to tortoise and its habitat. See Chapter 3 of this Plan Amendment for a discussion of the credible scientific data on desert tortoise biology and habitat needs. The Recovery Plan advised that livestock grazing should be prohibited in special management areas established for desert tortoise recovery. The impact-link between livestock and tortoise was established through a thorough review of available scientific information and professional judgment rather than a definitive study since, "Studies designed to detect this linkage (between grazing and species declines) are, interalia, logistically difficult, expensive, politically contentious, and statistically indefensible. On the other hand, there is strong circumstantial evidence that grazing is a major problem" (Carrier and Czech, p. 39, 1996). See Chapter 3 of this Plan Amendment, and response to public comment 18.14 for a discussion of the credible scientific data on desert tortoise biology and habitat needs. Indirect Effects of OHV Use The indirect effects caused by noise, vibration, and dust, from OHV use is unknown. These indirect effects of OHV will be evaluated in the future through a monitoring plan. Direct Effects of Casual OHV Use of Existing Roads and Trails Use of existing roads and trails by casual OHV users could result in some direct mortalities of desert tortoise. The extent of this impact is not known and would depend on a number of factors including density of the tortoise population, traffic volume, season of travel and speed of the traffic. It is recognized in this EIS that relatively low levels of casual OHV use occur within the Planning Area. Potential for Recovery of Native Plant Communities Reduction in native plant communities as part of the vegetative composition in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit has occurred over the last 100+ years. While the viability of perennial plant communities would benefit from the partial or total removal of grazing, there is professional disagreement as to what extent and how quickly the native plant communities would recover. The results of a spring 1997 Ely Field Office ecological status inventory study of critical desert tortoise habitat within the planning area predicted that change to a dominance of native perennial plants after removal of grazing would probably not occur during the life of this plan (25 years), but could occur within portions of the Recovery Unit in the future. See "Ecological Status" in Chapter three. Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the California Portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit The Mojave National Preserve, administered by the National Park Service in California, is currently undertaking a planning effort which includes a small portion of desert tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Since this planning is only beginning (public scoping meetings were held in April 1997), documentation on future management for this tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in California is 4-4 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES lacking. However, only a small portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is located in California and, because of their mandate, the National Park Service would manage for ecosystem integrity. This specific information, therefore, is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the decision on how to implement the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan within the Planning Area. Impact of Radioactive Fallout The effect, if any, of the historic nuclear testing on the "downwind" tortoise population has not been evaluated outside of the Nevada Test Site and is not understood. It may have been a contributing factor to population declines and/or age structure anomalies in some areas. While this information is lacking, it is not deemed essential to the analysis. Conclusion Since the desert tortoise has been listed as threatened by the USFWS, the mandate of the BLM is to help recover the species. While there are a number of subject areas for which there is less than 100% complete information, there is enough information to allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives. The cost of waiting to proceed with implementation of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan until more complete information was available has been considered. It was determined, however, that delaying implementation of the Recovery Plan could prove detrimental to the survival of the desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Also, see response to public comment 17.11 on incomplete and unavailable information. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The following projections of future minerals activities were developed in order to identify and analyze impacts associated with minerals development in desert tortoise habitat. Locatable Minerals Exploration would continue at the present rate of between eight to ten operations per year for all types of locatable minerals. Operations would consist of small exploration projects that would comprise drilling operations. Surface disturbance would affect an average of 5 acres per project; a total of 50 acres of surface disturbance could be projected per year. Reclamation could require up to 25 years for native vegetation to reestablish. Such operations would be located throughout desert tortoise habitat. A small mining operation may occur for gypsum, located in the East Mormon Mountains or the Tule Springs Hills and would be projected to total approximately 75 acres in size. Fluid Minerals Initial geophysical surveys may be widespread throughout desert tortoise habitat, in an effort to analyze the regional geology. When geologic structures of interest have been located, intensive, repetitive surveys of specific areas could be anticipated. Between 25 and 50 miles of seismic line could be surveyed per year, disturbing up to 50 acres during that period. Disturbance would be typified by crushed vegetation and some soil compaction. Initial reclamation of these lines, either by natural recovery or efforts undertaken by the proponent, would be completed by year's end. Based on prior drilling patterns, most of the drilling will occur in valley bottoms. Oil discoveries in Nevada, to date, have been exclusively in valley bottoms, although oil companies are currently also exploring mountainous regions for overthrust plays. Drilling has been sporadic in desert tortoise habitat. It is estimated that one well 4-5 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES may be drilled every other year. The operation would disturb approximately 5 acres, including access requirements. The drill pad and access route would require 25 years or more to be reclaimed, either through natural recovery or efforts undertaken by the proponent. For analysis purposes, it is estimated that one producing oil and gas field would occur within desert tortoise habitat. The average size of a producing field is 640 acres. Operations within the field would include maintenance of the production facilities and transportation of the oil and gas off site. Assuming that the field would be a small gas field, such as at the Kate Springs field in Railroad Valley, Nevada, a total of 1 14 acres of disturbance could be projected; surface disturbance would be related to the construction of well pads, service roads, pipelines, and gravel pits. Mineral Materials Mineral activity would continue and is expected to increase. Mineral material activity would remain concentrated along U.S. Highway 93 and would provide materials for the maintenance of that highway. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) will continue to hold 17 material site rights-of-way. Mineral materials for road maintenance are also needed by Lincoln County Road Department. There are six Free Use Permits proposed within the ACECs. Sales of mineral materials to the public are expected to increase in the future. The demand for sand and gravel in the metropolitan Las Vegas area could stimulate sales of materials in Lincoln County. These actions would be only allowed outside ACECs. We expect one pit per year to be established. Each pit would total approximately 5 acres in size; reclamation would be ongoing during the life of the pit. An estimated 25 years or more would be required to complete reclamation. NDOT Rights-of-Way and Free Use Permits will be allowed in the one-mile wide corridor for maintenance of designated Federal, State and County maintained roads. All pits in desert tortoise habitat that are not community or NDOT pits would be closed and fully reclaimed. There would be an expected 500 acres of disturbance over the 25 years of this plan. Non-energy Leasable Materials No known exploration activity for non-energy leasable minerals has occurred in the planning area. Such activity would be limited to the valley bottoms. During the 25 year period of desert tortoise recovery activities, one exploration prospecting permit could be issued. The operation would be for drilling and could disturb an estimated 20 acres; no production would be expected to occur. 4-6 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) PROPOSED ACTION (BLM Preferred Alternative) This proposal contains four major components: 1) designation of three ACECs with associated management prescriptions; 2) management prescriptions inside and outside of ACECs; 3) participation in USFWS developed and implemented environmental education programs; and 4) implementation of a USFWS approved interagency monitoring program (Distance Sampling). Three ACECs would be designated and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise population. These ACECs would encompass 212,500 acres and approximately 83 percent (203,700 of the 244,900 acres) of the critical habitat designated by the USFWS for desert tortoise in Lincoln County (refer to Maps 2-2 and 2-3). Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. Other management constraints, including IMP for Wilderness Study Areas, could limit the scope and intensity of impacts related to surface disturbance. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Designation of ACECs would directly benefit the threatened desert tortoise, assisting the recovery and delisting of the species in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Approximately 212,500 acres would be included within three ACECs and managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Eighty-three percent (203,700 acres) of the designated critical habitat, considered by the USFWS to be essential for the conservation of the species, would be afforded the special protection of ACEC management prescriptions. This acreage also contains the highest densities of tortoise within the planning area. Current tortoise population densities within proposed ACECs are depicted in Table 4-1; these data have been collected from the Coyote Springs and Sand Hollow permanent study plots and strip transects, located in the planning area. Conflicting land uses would be eliminated, limited and/or mitigated, reducing both direct and indirect impacts on tortoise habitat. The prescriptions proposed for management of the ACECs would improve tortoise habitat and would encourage upward tortoise population trends over the life of the plan. At this time it cannot be determined how many years it would take for the habitat to improve to a point that would be of greatest benefit to the tortoise. Improvement of tortoise habitat would be at a rate similar to Alternative B and faster than Alternatives A. In addition, there is better connectivity of the ACECs between the adjoining planning areas and 31% more of the designated critical desert tortoise habitat protected in this alternative over Alternative B. Management direction outlined for the ACECs would also have positive effects on the banded gila monster, chuckwalla, and other sensitive species. The establishment of Experimental Management Zones within the ACECs and the issuance of scientific research permits would provide research opportunities for several species. Mitigation measures developed during the preparation of management and activity plans would help to minimize conflicts with recovery objectives. Desert tortoise and other wildlife species could experience reductions in mortalities if tortoise-proof fences and crossing culverts along U.S. Highway 93 were installed. Coordination with USFWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Service, and the NDOW for control of ravens, coyotes, and other desert tortoise predators when necessary could substantially enhance recovery efforts, since predation is considered to be an important cause of tortoise mortality (Berry 4-7 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) 1986, written communication Brussard 1994). Such actions would include periodic raven, coyote or other predator control programs, conducted within the ACECs to reduce the numbers of predators. The implementation of raven control programs alone could reduce the mortality rates among hatchlings and juveniles by as much as 85 percent in some parts of their range. (Berry 1988). Table 4-1. Proposed ACECs with acreage and estimated current tortoise populations. ACEC NAME ACRES EST. TORTOISE NUMBERS PER SQ. MILE EST. TORTOISE POPULATIONS Kane Springs ACEC 65,900 25-75 2,575 - 7,723 Mormon Mesa ACEC 109,700 10-20 1,716 - 3,431 Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 36,900 5-15 288 - 864 ACEC Totals 212,500 4,579 - 12,018 A higher recruitment rate of juveniles into the tortoise reproductive population would help to achieve upward trends in tortoise populations over the life of the plan. Participation in a USFWS developed environmental education program could increase public awareness of the Mojave Desert ecosystem and the effects of human activities in arid lands. Desert tortoises and other species could experience reduced rates of human-caused mortalities (e.g. gunshots, vehicular crushing) as a result of a public education effort. Illegal collection of desert tortoises would also be reduced by increased public awareness and law enforcement. A USFWS approved interagency (NDOW, Nevada National Heritage Program, BRD, and MOG) monitoring program (Distance Sampling) would be implemented in order to assess the effectiveness of the management actions proposed under this alternative. This program could provide additional data concerning desert tortoise population trends, causes of desert tortoise mortalities, and identify other factors important to the success of the recovery efforts. Such information could be used to support future modifications in the management direction of land use plans. Outside of ACECs The mitigation of land uses outside of ACECs would reduce the impacts on the tortoise and reduce habitat destruction or fragmentation on approximately 542,100 acres. Public education through road signing could reduce impacts related to human activities in habitat outside of ACECs. Tortoise populations in these areas could, at most, be maintained at current levels with some potential for decline. 4-8 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Forestry and Vegetation Products Management Within ACECs By not authorizing commercial desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) within ACECs, mature plant species would remain to provide thermal cover and forage for the tortoise within 212,500 acres of habitat. The total annual production of seeds would be allowed to disseminate and germinate, helping to ensure that native plant species continue to be present within the plant communities. Outside of ACECs Outside of ACECs, the impacts of commercial desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plant) and desert plant salvage/harvest for education or scientific purposes would be mitigated through stipulations attached to the permit. Such mitigation like no travel off of designated roads or no use of mechanical means would minimize any effects on the desert tortoise and its habitat during these activities. From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs Under this alternative, approximately 212,500 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be closed to livestock grazing, and 5,658 AUMs eliminated, benefitting the desert tortoise in the short and long term. Competition with domestic livestock would be eliminated, providing a greater amount of quality forage for the desert tortoise. Fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition and possibly reduced occurrences of osteoporosis. Improved nutrition could reduce the susceptibility of individual tortoises to diseases, including the Upper Respiratory Tract Disease which currently impacts many wild tortoises in all age classes. In the long term, the elimination of livestock grazing should improve the tortoise habitat. However, at this time it cannot be determined how many years it would take for the habitat to improve to a point that would be of benefit to the tortoise. At this time, it cannot be determined how many years it would take for habitat to improve to a point that would be of greatest benefit to the tortoise. Improvement, however, would be at a rate similar to Alternative B and faster than Alternatives A and No Action. As native species gradually become part of the vegetative communities, tortoises would benefit from better quality forage and habitat conditions. The above- ground biomass of perennial grasses and forbs would increase, providing thermal and protective cover for hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. With improved cover, juvenile tortoises would be less susceptible to predation. Tortoises and their burrows would also be protected from trampling by livestock. This is particularly important in areas where sheep are grazed, since trampling of tortoises or burrows in California has been shown to be a contributing factor in tortoise mortalities (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Outside of ACECs Allotments or portions of allotments outside of ACECs would be managed according to seasonal utilization limits of 40 percent on key perennial grasses and shrubs (March 15 to October 15), 50 percent on key forbs, perennial grasses, and 45 percent on key shrubs and perennial forbs (October 15 to March 15) of annual growth. This limitation should maintain plant communities at their 4-9 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) current serai stage. Possible negative impacts to tortoise, such as trampling and competition for forage, could continue on the 542,100 acres outside the ACECs. From Wild Horse and Burro Management Within ACECs Desert tortoise habitat would benefit from the management of the Mormon Mountains HA for zero horses and burros and the removal of animals which establish home ranges within the Mormon Mesa ACEC. Increased forage and cover would be available for tortoise and the possibility of trampling would be eliminated. Since the Mormon Mountains HA contains a relatively small wild horse herd (approximately 15 animals), the anticipated benefits to desert tortoise habitat within the Mormon Mesa ACEC would be minimal. Outside of ACECs The Meadow Valley Mountains and Blue Nose Peak HMAs would be managed at the established appropriate management levels; current wild horse and burro populations in these HMAs total less than 75 animals. Wild horse and burro use would continue in desert tortoise habitat, but with seasonal utilization limits. By limiting maximum utilization levels on key perennial species, plant communities would be maintained at current status, with some potential for improvement. Possible impacts to tortoise, such as trampling and competition for forage, could continue. From Lands Management Land Use Authorizations Within ACECs Discretionary land uses that result in surface disturbances would not be authorized within ACECs, thus minimizing habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. The potential for "takings" of tortoise as a result of these activities would be minimized. The evaluation of minimal impact uses on a case-by-case basis would ensure that protective measures for the desert tortoise and habitat were included within the authorizations. Disposal Areas All of the designated critical habitat within the planning area would be retained in federal ownership and managed to assist tortoise recovery efforts. The retention of a large land mass of designated critical tortoise habitat would prevent further habitat loss or fragmentation. Since this habitat is considered the best available habitat in the planning area, the retention of all lands within ACECs would positively enhance tortoise recovery efforts in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. See Appendix C for listing of areas available for disposal. New landfills would not be authorized within ACECs. Landfills provide foraging opportunities for ravens and other tortoise predators; prohibiting landfill authorizations within ACECs would lessen this threat to tortoise populations. Acquisitions Local governments and private individuals would be encouraged to acquire environmentally sensitive lands or rights from willing sellers within ACECs. These lands would then be exchanged for public lands outside the 4-10 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) ACECs. Such acquisitions, which could total approximately 1,500 acres, would help to protect additional habitat from loss or degradation and assist in meeting the delisting criteria for the desert tortoise in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Unauthorized Use This alternative recommends as the first option the acquisition of the legislatively conveyed lands of Harrich Investments, LLC, (formerly Aerojet) should they become available. If fully successful, approximately 22,000 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat would be included in the Kane Springs ACEC and subject to the management prescriptions developed to recover and delist the desert tortoise. In addition, upon termination or relinquishment of the legislatively mandated lease, approximately 7,370 acres that are currently encumbered by a lease would be included in the Kane Springs ACEC. The intent of any acquisition would be to enhance ACEC reserve design and improve critical desert tortoise habitat. While there is currently no known problem with unauthorized use, in the future resolving unauthorized use within ACECs to allow for title retention and reclamation of the site would be beneficial for the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. The parcels would remain in federal ownership and be managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Reclamation efforts would improve the quality of desert tortoise habitat. Withdrawals As recommended by the Recovery Plan, administrative withdrawals for public information/education facilities could be granted in ACECs. Through such facilities, the public would be provided with information on the desert tortoise and its habitat, as well as other resource values contained within the ACECs. Public awareness could benefit tortoises and other Mojave Desert species by reducing human-caused vandalism, unauthorized collection, and mortalities. Outside of ACECs Under this alternative, approximately 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat outside of ACECs would be retained in federal ownership to prevent further habitat loss or fragmentation. An additional 7,370 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat currently encumbered with a legislatively mandated, (PL 100-275) lease, would be available for exchange portions of the legislatively conveyed lands. This exchange would be critical habitat for critical habit and result in no net loss of habitat for the desert tortoise. The intent of any acquisition would be to enhance ACEC reserve design and improve critical desert tortoise habitat. Since designated critical habitat is considered by the USFWS to be essential for the conservation of the species, the retention of this habitat outside ACECs would compliment other recovery efforts in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Approximately 15,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs have been identified for possible disposal (See Appendix C for listing of areas available for disposal). None of this acreage is designated critic./, habitat for desert tortoise. These lands would not be managed to assist the recovery and delisting of the species and could be subject to actions that would create additional habitat loss or fragmentation. These effects would be mitigated by the requirement that Section 7 consultation be conducted for any land disposals within desert tortoise habitat. Entities purchasing these lands would be notified of their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (specifically the need to comply with section 9) and referred to the USFWS for information on obtaining an incidental take permit under section 10 of the ESA. Surface-disturbing activities could be authorized on the 542,100 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside ACECs. Should such authorizations be proposed within those portions of the five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) located 4-11 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) outside the proposed ACECs, these activities would be required to meet the non-impairment criteria. Leases and other instruments of a more permanent nature would only be authorized on these acres outside of the ACECs. Mitigation measures would be developed through Section 7 consultation and required in the terms and conditions of the authorization. The impacts on desert tortoise habitat from land use authorizations would be reduced to the maximum extent possible From Recreation Management Within ACECs Casual OHV Use Limiting casual OHV use to designated roads and vehicle trails would help to minimize the proliferation of new roads within the ACECs and the loss or fragmentation of desert tortoise habitat. This limitation could also lessen the possibility for direct mortalities and the crushing of burrows, as a result of cross-country vehicular traffic in the 212,500 acres of the proposed ACECs. Organized OHV Events Closing ACECs to all speed competitive events would eliminate these events from 83 percent of designated critical desert tortoise habitat in the planning area. New trails would not be created and no widening of existing trails would occur. No direct tortoise mortalities would be caused by speed competitive events. Since, historically, only one of these types of events has occurred annually within the planning area, the benefits from this closure are anticipated to be minimal. Non-speed organized events would be authorized to pass through ACECs on designated routes, except during the tortoise's most active periods (March 15 - June 15, and August 15 - October 15) reducing impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat (Map 2-8). The designation of routes would reduce the potential for course widening, additional soil compaction, and the creation of new courses. The non-speed nature of events and prohibition of events during the most active periods, would minimize the potential for direct mortalities of tortoises. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur, because these would not be allowed within the ACECs. Outside of ACECs Allowing speed and non-speed events within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs could result in impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat. By requiring that all future events be limited to existing roads and trails, the potential for further habitat destruction would be reduced. A potential would continue to exist for direct tortoise mortalities, possibly during speed events. Based on past monitoring of these types of events in tortoise habitat, direct impacts to tortoise would be expected to be less than one tortoise every 30 years at current use levels, and less than one every six years based on the maximum projected levels. Soil compaction and creation of new roads and trails by spectators might occur, causing the potential loss of very small amounts of habitat. The roads used 4-12 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) for these events would remain open to all other uses; the addition of these organized events would have little, if any, effect on the condition of the roads or surrounding areas. Historically there has been about one such event per year. It is expected that from 1 to 5 events would occur per year during the life of the plan. Non-OHV Organized Events Non-OHV organized and commercial events such as trail rides and commercial sightseeing would only be allowed when consistent with the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise, creating little or no effect on the tortoise or its habitat. Demand for these types of events has historically been less than one event per year. General Recreation Improving opportunities for non-motorized recreation would neither benefit nor hinder recovery and delisting of the tortoise. Construction of wildlife guzzlers could increase other wildlife populations, stimulating additional hunting or trapping. Levels of casual OHV use could increase, in association with hunting and trapping. Most of this OHV activity would occur during the tortoise inactive season and would be unlikely to result in any direct tortoise mortalities. Impacts to tortoise habitat, including soil compaction and erosion, trampled vegetation, and crushed or collapsed burrows, could result from casual OHV use, however, these impacts would be minimal because they will only occur as a result of unauthorized off-road travel. Non-consumptive recreation activities, such as hiking, casual horseback riding, and nature photography, could increase during the life of the plan. Surface disturbances or impacts to desert tortoise could occur as a result of the increase in these types of recreational activities in desert tortoise habitat. According to the Recovery Plan, such activities are compatible with the objectives for desert tortoise recovery (USFWS 1994a). From Wilderness Management Within ACECs Approximately 105,500 acres of lands under wilderness review (Delamar, Evergreen ABC, Fish and Wildlife #1, Meadow Valley Range, and Mormon Mountains WSAs) are contained within the boundaries of the proposed ACECs. Until congressional release or designation as wilderness, this acreage would be managed under the Interim Management Policy (IMP) which mandates that proposed activities meet the non-impairment criteria. Desert tortoise recovery efforts would be enhanced by the IMP criteria, which restrict surface disturbances and vehicular access. Habitat loss or degradation and the possibility for incidental take would be minimized within the 105,500 acres managed under the non-impairment criteria. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, management would be completely consistent with the remainder of the ACECs as provisions of the IMP would no longer apply. Outside of ACECs Small portions of the five WSAs within the planning area are located outside of the ACECs. The non-impairment criteria of the IMP would benefit desert tortoise habitat by restricting many surface disturbing activities and imposing constraints on the creation of new roads. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, the potential for surface disturbance, degradation of tortoise habitat, and direct mortality of tortoises would be increased. 4-13 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Rights-of-Way Management Within ACECs Approximately 39 miles of utility corridors would be designated through the proposed ACECs, with 12.6 miles being located in the Kane Springs ACEC, 8.8 miles in Mormon Mesa ACEC, and 18.25 miles in the Beaver Dam Slope (Nevada) ACEC. Impacts to the desert tortoise or habitat would be considered during Section 7 consultation and mitigation measures required through the terms and conditions of any right-of-way grant issued. Any future projects sited within these corridors could create minimal impacts on desert tortoise populations and habitat. By concentrating powerlines in narrow corridors, raven perching sites would be localized, rather than dispersed throughout the ACECs. Overhead powerlines could provide additional perching sites for ravens along the 39 miles of proposed corridors. Roads for utility rights-of-way could provide access into the proposed ACECs and increase the potential for tortoise mortalities and habitat degradation. However, existing roads would be used for construction and/or maintenance unless otherwise authorized. These impacts would be reduced because areas within the ACECs (outside of corridors) would be designated as avoidance areas. The number of surface-disturbing activities authorized would be lessened, helping to protect desert tortoise habitat. New Federal Aid Highway material site rights-of-way would be excluded from the ACECs, unless they are within the one-mile wide corridor for free use permits and material site rights-of-way. In the Kane Springs ACEC, the only ACEC in close proximity to a Federal Aid Highway, the tortoise would benefit from limitations on surface disturbances relating to material sites. Authorizations for new communication site rights-of-way would be limited to existing, established communication site developments. Exceptions would be made if the proponent can demonstrate that the existing sites are not technically feasible for a proposed use. Two developed communication sites with access roads and power are currently located within the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC; each site comprises less than 5 acres of total disturbance. The granting of additional communication site rights-of-way at those sites, even if new surface disturbance were to be authorized, would constitute a minimal impact to desert tortoise habitat. Outside of ACECs New Federal Aid Highway material sites would be authorized outside of the ACECs only after Section 7 consultation has been completed and appropriate mitigation measures developed. Applicants for communication sites within desert tortoise habitat would be encouraged to locate facilities at existing sites. All rights-of-way (linear and areal) would be subject to Section 7 consultation and the development of mitigation measures designed to minimize incidental take and reduce surface disturbance. These mitigation measures could include requirements for habitat rehabilitation and compensation for unmitigated impacts. No existing rights-of-way would be terminated as a result of the Proposed Action. From Minerals Management Within ACECs Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry approximately 65,900 acres of desert tortoise habitat within the ACEC would be closed to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, and to mineral material disposal. The 4-14 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) desert tortoise and its habitat would benefit from these closures. The potential for direct mortality, burrow crushing, and habitat loss due to mining would be eliminated under this alternative. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal, including habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise would be reduced. It is anticipated that the NDOT would continue to hold 14 mineral material rights-of-way, with a potential of 3 more located within the designated corridor through the proposed ACECs. The Lincoln County Road Department could develop approximately 3 free use permits located in the designated corridor in the ACECs. However, over the life of the plan it is anticipated that no more than 500 acres of habitat loss would occur from these pits within the proposed ACECs. These would continue to be needed for highway and road maintenance. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, and others developed through Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. These operations would be required to have a no jeopardy opinion decision from the USFWS. Locatable Minerals Exploration, and mineral developments would continue throughout the proposed Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Negative effects from mineral exploration and development could include direct mortality during mining activities, harassment, incidental take, and the loss and degradation of habitat. By requiring plans of operation for all mineral activities within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, the potential for these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. It has been determined that protection of the desert tortoise and habitat for recovery of the species cannot be accomplished through just mitigation measures in the Kane Springs ACEC as in the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. This is because the habitat in the Kane Springs ACEC is of higher quality and the population densities are higher than in the other ACECs. Due to these two aspects of the Kane Springs ACEC it would be very difficult to design a plan of operation that would sufficiently mitigate the impacts to the tortoise and its habitat and still provide for recovery of the desert tortoise. Closure of the Kane Springs ACEC would reduce the potential for further habitat fragmentation in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit who's reserve design is are already compromised because of the large edge effect (ratio of edge to interior area). It is anticipated that exploration would continue at a rate of from 8 to 10 activities per year, for all types of locatable minerals within the planning area. The operations would consist of small exploration projects, that would disturb an estimated 5 acres per project. These could result in up to 50 acres of disturbance per year. It is estimated that one small mining operation would be developed during the life of the plan, with a disturbance of approximately 75 acres in the planning area. This would constitute a minimal loss of desert tortoise habitat within the planning area. Fluid Minerals Fluid mineral exploration and development could continue throughout the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. Impacts that could occur from these activities include loss and fragmentation of habitat, direct mortality of tortoises, and increased public access to habitat. By attaching the lease stipulations and conditions of approval, as outlined in Appendix E, and additional mitigation measures developed though Section 7 consultation, the impacts to desert tortoise habitat would be reduced to the extent possible. No habitat disturbance from seismic activities would occur within ACECs, since these activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails. One wildcat well per year would disturb up to 5 acres. Should oil be found, one oil and gas field could occur during the life of the plan, disturbing up to 640 acres. 4-15 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Mineral Materials Impacts associated with mineral material disposal include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential for incidental take of a tortoise. By closing the ACECs to mineral material disposal (with the exception of one-mile wide road corridors for free use and Federal Highway Act material rights of way), these impacts would be reduced. The majority of the mineral material pits required would be located along Highway 93; the Nevada Department of Transportation would continue to hold 14 material site rights-of-way, with the possibility of 3 more being developed. The Lincoln County Road Department may also have the need for 3 pits along the Kane Springs and Carp Elgin roads. Between Free Use Permits and NDOT Rights-of-Way there is an expected 500 acres of disturbance during the life of the plan. Non-energy Leasable Minerals Although no known exploration has taken place, it is anticipated that one exploration prospecting permit could be issued in either of the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. One drilling operation and an estimated 20 acres of disturbance could occur over the life of the plan. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. All disturbed areas would be reclaimed, according to standards in Appendix E. Reclamation All surface-disturbing activities would be required to reclaim the surface to the standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meet adjacent cover and diversity standards. These standards will be based on the site conditions and with coordination with USFWS. The reclamation will reduce impacts to the tortoise habitat over the long term. Outside of ACECs Locatable Minerals The impacts described above for locatable minerals could occur within desert tortoise habitat outside of ACECs during exploration under notices and development under 5 acres. Mitigation would only be imposed through plans of operation when the exploration and development exceeded 5 acres. Plans and notices would prevent undue and/or unnecessary degradation of desert tortoise habitat. Fluid Minerals Habitat disturbance associated with fluid mineral activities would take place in three phases: exploration, wildcat drilling, and oil field production. It is estimated that 25 to 50 miles per year of seismic lines could occur within desert "tortoise habitat outside of ACECs. This could result in up to 50 acres per year of disturbance from seismic activities. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, along with others developed through Section 7 consultation from mineral materials, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and reduce the potential for take. 4-16 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Mineral Materials The sale of mineral materials to the public would be expected to increase in the future, as population growth continues in the region. Mitigation measures, outlined in Appendix E, and those developed though Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. It is estimated that one new pit would be established every 5 years to meet public demand, disturbing an estimated 80 acres over the life of the plan. Reclamation All surface disturbing activities would be required to reclaim the surface to the standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meet adjacent cover and diversity standards, reducing impacts to tortoise habitat over the long term. From Fire Management Within and Outside of ACECs Wildland fires would have the potential to alter desert plant communities and encourage the proliferation of non- native plant species, especially red brome. Such fires could also destroy forage and cover, as well as cause wildlife mortalities through exposure to smoke and heat. Tortoises would be susceptible to being killed, particularly when caught in the open or in shallow burrows, as a wildfire moves past them. After a fire, tortoises may experience food shortages and inadequate cover. Individuals may be able to survive a short term forage loss, since tortoises are adapted to food shortages during drought years. The loss of thermal cover may be a more important impact, particularly on sites where rocks are not available. Hatchlings and juvenile tortoises could be more vulnerable to predation as a consequence of reduced cover. Fire suppression activities could also impact desert tortoise and their habitat. These impacts include vehicular crushing of live tortoises and the destruction of nests and burrows. The construction of firelines also has the potential to destroy nests and burrows. Off-road tracks created by suppression vehicles would be obliterated under this alternative, thus minimizing the creation of new permanent roads and trails. Under the Proposed Action, full fire suppression tactics within desert tortoise habitat would reduce habitat loss. The use of suppression techniques to minimize surface disturbance and restrict off-highway vehicle travel would limit habitat destruction or degradation and reduce the potential for direct mortalities. Education of fire crews about the desert tortoise and its habitat could reduce effects associated with suppression activities. The use of Resource Advisors in the development of suppression tactics would further mitigate impacts to tortoise habitat. Habitat loss would be further minimized by locating fire camps, staging, and helispots outside of ACECs. The use of prescribed fires or other tools consistent with recovery goals and objectives may be implemented to help reduce the re-burn cycle. Many areas burn repeatedly, reducing the potential for desired perennial and shrubs to return. By using prescribed fires on these areas, temporary fire breaks could be designed to reduce future fire size. 4-17 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) SOIL RESOURCES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Soil disturbance occurs as a result of grazing by domestic livestock, wild horses and burros, wildlife and human activities such as hiking, biking, and OHVs. Such compressional activities compact soils and directly damage microbiotic crusts. The effects can accelerate both wind and water erosion. Surface soil permeability and infiltration decreases variably according to the soil texture. Sheaths and filaments of microbiotic crusts are broken up and reduces the crusts capabilities to fix nitrogen and hold soil aggregates together. Runoff can increase by half and soil loss rates can increase six fold without apparent damage to vegetation. Grazing management practices which increase shrub components of range sites also can reduce the nitrogen fixing capabilities of crusts by as much as 80 percent. The proposed action and management prescriptions for the ACEC would not authorize livestock grazing and severely limit human induced compressional activities in the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs. As a consequence of removal of large grazing animals and limiting human activities, microbiotic crusts would slowly recover, biodiversity would increase, and soil erosion would decrease. Cyanobacterial and green algae components of the crust could recover in as little as 1 to 5 years given average climate conditions and a nearby source of inoculum. Longer recovery time may be needed if no such sources exist nearby. Crust recovery would on a site specific basis reduce soil runoff and erosion and increase soil permeability and infiltration. Outside of ACECs Other actions, including restrictions on OHV casual and competitive uses and mining reclamation requirements, would benefit soils in the short and long term. Reductions in surface disturbances would represent a negligible decrease in soil erosion rates over the life of this plan. WATER RESOURCES From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Management actions proposed under the Proposed Action would remove livestock grazing from three allotments and portions of six additional allotments within proposed ACECs, eliminating a total of 5,658 AUMs. One HA within and overlapping the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC would be managed at a zero population level for wild horses; about 35 animals would be removed from within and adjacent to the HA. Since grazing animals concentrate use at water sources and associated riparian habitats, the removal of livestock and wild horses and burros would positively impact three springs in the proposed ACECs. Trampling and heavy use would be eliminated at these sites. In some cases, riparian habitat would naturally regenerate or increase at two spring sources. Reduced numbers of grazing animals would benefit riparian zones along Meadow Valley Wash by improving stream bank stability. In the long term, sedimentation and salinity loading would decrease, water temperatures would be lowered, and peak flows moderated. 4-18 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Outside of ACECs Livestock and wild horse and burro management prescriptions would impose seasonal restrictions and seasonal utilization limits that could benefit three springs outside of ACECs. Trampling and heavy use would be lessened at these water sources. Riparian habitat would naturally regenerate or increase at some locations. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Grazing would not be authorized within the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, affecting the nine allotments displayed in Table 4-2. These allotments encompass 697,200 acres and 16,961 AUMs; approximately 212,500 acres and 5,658 AUMs are within ACECs. Total AUMS would be reduced by 5,658, as livestock grazing is eliminated within the ACECs. More than half of these 5,658 AUMs have been almost entirely unused in the past ten years. (Refer to the Socio-Economic impacts analysis in this chapter for further discussion about impacts to livestock AUMs). To keep livestock out of the ACECs, operators would use a variety of techniques including herding and placement of salt and water to manage livestock grazing outside of the ACECs. However, these practices would be labor and cost intensive and fencing some of the boundaries of the ACECs may be necessary. Based on current data, fences may need to be constructed and/or maintained in the Grapevine, Breedlove, Lower Lake East, Delamar, and Gourd Spring Allotments, in order to authorize livestock grazing on those portions of the allotments that are not within the ACECs. The construction of physical barriers, in some instances, could be precluded by the requirements of the non-impairment criteria for the Delamar, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Mormon Mountains WSAs. Additional fencing may be necessary at a later date, should monitoring indicate a need. Outside of ACECs Utilization limits would be applied to the following allotments (or portions of allotments) that are not within an ACEC: Boulder Spring Henrie Complex Pahranagat West Breedlove Jackrabbit Pulsipher Wash Buckhorn Lime Mountain Snow Spring Delamar Lower Lake East Summit Spring Flat Top Mesa Lower Lake West Terry Garden Spring Lower Riggs White Rock Grapevine Mormon Peak Gourd Spring Pahranagat East Lowered utilization limits could result in early removal of livestock from the allotments. (Refer to the Socio- Economic impacts analysis in this chapter for an analysis of livestock grazing economics). 4-19 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Table 4-2. Allotments partially or entirely within proposed ACECs. Allotment Name Allotment Within Proposed ACECs Permitted Use Total Acres Total Allotment Acres Use Area Acres Allotment Total Within ACECs Percent Reduction within Allotment Current Proposed MORMON MESA ACEC Breedlove 121,500 31,600 10,400 864 166 0 19 Delamar 245,400 1,000 0 5,558 0 0 0 Gourd Springs 97,700 40,000 0 3,458 0 0 0 Mormon Peak 77,900 13,200 0 600 0 0 0 Rox-Tule 25,600 23,900 N/A 756 756 0 100 TOTALS 568,100 109,700 10,400 11,236 922 0 8 KANE SPRINGS ACEC Breedlove 121,500 400 0 864 0 0 0 Delamar 245,400 41,400 0 5,558 0 0 0 Grapevine 34,200 12,200 9,900 560 211 0 38 Lower Lake East 53,700 11,900 N/A 640 0 0 0 TOTALS 454,800 65,900 9,900 7,622 211 0 3 BEAVER DAM SLOPE ACEC *Sand Hollow (Beacon) 41,200 (5,600) 36,900 (5,600) 27,600 (5,600) 2,430 (2,095) 2,430 (2,095) 0 (0) 100 (100) TOTALS 41,200 36,900 27,600 4,525 4,525 0 100 *Sand Hollow and Beacon Allotments are a dual use area; Beacon Allotment totals 5,682 acres, all within designated critical habitat, with 2,095 AUMs permitted for domestic sheep. This acreage is included within the total acreage for the Sand Hollow Allotment. (Source: BLM Caliente Field Station data) 4-20 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs Prescriptions for the proposed Mormon Mesa ACEC necessitate the management of the Mormon Mountains HA for zero wild horses (Map 2-6), since the proposed ACEC would overlap with the HA. In order to manage the Mormon Mountains HA at a zero population, approximately 35 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the HA. The wild horse herd within the adjacent Meadow Valley Mountains HMA could be subject to removals, since the herds could interact along the common boundary of the HMAs in Meadow Valley Wash. Any wild horses (or burros) that establish home ranges within the Mormon Mountains HA and/or Mormon Mesa ACEC would be removed. The existing Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way fence within Meadow Valley Wash would be maintained to control the movement of the horses between the HMAs. Outside of ACECs Wild horses would be managed in the Blue Nose Peak and Meadow Valley Mountains HMAs, located outside of the ACEC, at the appropriate management level (AML) established through resource monitoring; any wild horses and burros in excess of the AML or outside of the boundaries of the HMA would be removed. All of the adoptable age class wild horses and all age classes for burros would be placed into the adoption system. Any remaining animals would be relocated to another HMA, as mandated by BLM policy. Any relocation effort would impact the relocated horses since they would not know locations of reliable water sources or favorable foraging areas. Despite implementation of approved procedures, the relocation process could stress individual animals and a few individuals could die as a consequence of the relocation. The existing wild horses within the relocation HMA(s) would be subject to increased competition for forage and water supplies. LANDS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The prescriptions on land use authorizations would have minimal effects on management of the lands. Impacts would include: 1) additional costs for permitting, mitigation, and reclamation for surface-disturbing lands actions proposed within ACECs; 2) loss of development opportunities; and 3) additional costs per acre for off-site mitigation fees, as uses are displaced to locations outside of ACECs. Outside of ACECs Demand for land use authorizations could increase in other portions of the planning area, as activities are displaced to locations outside of the proposed ACECs. This displacement would comprise a minimal impact to lands management. 4-21 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The designation of utility corridors (Map 2-7) within the proposed ACECs should result in lower costs and more timely granting of rights-of-way for utility companies and free use permits and Federal Highway mineral material sites, since the proposed corridors would follow the routes of existing granted or constructed facilities. The environmental compliance inventories and analyses have already been completed for these facilities; some of these data could be used to support compliance for new applications. Section 7 consultation would be completed prior to any new authorizations. Outside of ACECs Rights-of-way outside of proposed ACECs would be granted on a case-by-case basis, with Section 7 consultation completed and mitigation measures developed, as needed, prior to the granting of the ROW. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Casual OHV use Within ACECs All vehicles within ACECs would be limited to designated roads and trails. Since the designation of roads would be largely in response to public input, and intended to ensure all desirable public access, there would be very little impact to most recreational users. Most existing roads would likely remain available. Hunters and trappers would be most impacted by this restriction, since they could no longer legally travel cross-country or through washes to retrieve game, set and recover traps, or access remote areas by motorized vehicle. Outside of ACECs Casual OHV use would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails. Impact on recreation use would be similar in scope to those described for the ACECs. Less compliance with this limitation could be anticipated, since the roads and vehicle trails would not be signed. The impacts on hunters and trappers would be the same, as cross-country travel would no longer be authorized. The possibility exists that new roads or vehicle trails could be created in non-compliance with this restriction. Road proliferation outside of ACECs could be anticipated to be less extensive under the Proposed Action than under Alternative C (No Action Alternative), due to public education initiatives and law enforcement. Over the life of the plan, from 1 to 4 miles of additional routes might be established, providing additional, unauthorized recreational access. Organized OHV Events Within ACECs Speed competitive OHV events would not be permitted within ACECs unless, and until, information becomes available which reasonably and conclusively indicates that these types of activities can be managed so as not to 4-22 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) cause adverse impacts to the desert tortoise or its habitat. Designated and maintained roads for OHV use within ACECs could still be used for non-speed competitive and non-competitive OHV events, allowing participants to pass through these areas, except during the tortoise's most active periods (October 16 - March 15 and June 16 - August 31). Speed based events would be modified to exclude any speed sections within ACECs, causing certain types of events to be excluded if promoters were unable or unwilling to conform to this restriction. From one to five events could be affected annually over the life of the plan. Outside of ACECs Speed competitive events would continue to be allowed on existing roads (see stipulations in Appendix D). This restriction could affect between one to five events per year and 100 to 800 visitor use days annually over the life of the plan. General Recreation Within ACECs Based on current and projected levels of use, it is unlikely that parking and camping developments would be needed. General recreation use would be unaffected. Should any parking or camping areas be developed, they would be intended to encourage use, and would not eliminate dispersed use. Development of sites would be likely to increase overall use of the area for recreation. Non-consumptive recreation activities that are not substantially surface-disturbing would continue to occur unrestricted throughout the plan area. Such activities are anticipated to increase slightly in numbers over the life of the plan. Outside of ACECs The impacts would be similar in scope to those described above within the ACECs. MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs The Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Within the Kane Springs ACEC, industry would not be able to explore or produce any minerals from the 65,900 acres (Table 4-3). Minerals with low to moderate potential would not be developed during the life of this plan unless the mineral withdrawal is removed. Existing mining claims would have valid existing rights and mining operations could occur in the ACEC in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Based on BLM records there are no current mining claims located within the Kane Springs ACEC. Leases that have been issued within the ACEC would be allowed to operate under current lease terms. The operations would be required to have an approved application to drill or a plan of operations and have received a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS to start operations. Should mineral prices rise, known deposits of gypsum and lead could become economically feasible to recover. These opportunities would be lost as a consequence of closure. Loss of mineral revenues would be experienced by the public. Royalties, payments and leasing rentals would not be paid to the federal government and these monies would not be distributed to the states. Within the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, the public lands would remain open to locatable, fluid, and leasable mineral entry, with minor stipulations. Table 4-3 displays acreages with mineral 4-23 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) management prescriptions. Mitigation measures developed through the review of the mineral proposal, standard operating procedures and stipulations from section 7 consultation would be applied to the operation to protect desert tortoise and its habitat. Mineral materials would be closed to entry in the designated ACECs, except in the one-mile wide corridor for county and state governments to maintain their roads. Restrictions in lease instruments, plans of operation, and permits comprise an economic factor in the mineral industry's ability to explore for mineral resources, due to cost and timing of operations. Timing limitations under the Proposed Action could result in additional expenditures. If sufficient time is not available to complete exploration and drilling programs, detailed and necessary geologic information may not be acquired to support the next phase of the exploration plan. A mineral company could incur greater costs for the production of a mineral commodity, as a result of these restrictions. Table 4-3. Minerals Management Acreage-Proposed Action. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 542,100 146,600 65,900 Leasables 0 688,700 65,900 Mineral Materials 542,100 0 212,500 The requirement for plans of operations and Section 7 consultation for all locatable minerals within Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before any operations could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding costs and expenses for operators. These requirements would render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. Outside of ACECs The requirement for Section 7 consultation during the approval process for minerals plans of operation could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. Operations would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before they could begin. Mitigation measures developed through the review of the mineral proposal, standard operating procedures and stipulations from section 7 consultation would be applied to the operation to protect desert tortoise and its habitat. The mineral material industry would incur higher haulage costs from specific pits. These actions could render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. One of the major economic factors for a project is the timing of the overall operations. The company must schedule equipment and services during operations. The cost of delay includes equipment waiting on standby so they do not go to another project, based on the delay not being able to complete future projects because the field season ends and cost of storage of the equipment. The companies try to anticipate these delays based on the known environmental and other permitting requirements but additional delays beyond the anticipated dates are costly. The need for Section 7 consultation or an environmental impact statement is usually not an anticipated time factor. 4-24 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Mineral Materials Management Mineral material disposal would be restricted to within one-half mile either side of three road corridors identified within the ACECs (Hwy. 93, Kane Springs Road and Carp-Elgin Road on Map 2-9). This would force all mineral materials activities and disturbances to be conducted within the foreground of the viewshed for travelers through the area. Under normal circumstances, visual resource management would require these types of activities to be located so as to minimize the impacts to the visual resource, rather than concentrate the impacts in the viewshed foreground. Only the Highway 93 corridor receives even moderate use by travelers, and the viewshed already contains similar disturbances. The other three corridors receive very light use levels, but similar disturbances are rare within those corridor viewsheds. The VRM classification throughout the planning area ranges from Class II to Class IV. All mineral material activities proposed would be within the management objectives for these classes. Outside of ACECs There would be no change from existing management. FIRE MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within and Outside ACECs Pre-plan dispatch, resource advisor notification, and pre-season coordination would be used to meet resource objectives and prevent the loss of life, property, and unacceptable resource damage. As fire activity increases during the season, safety concerns would take precedence over the protection of other values. Implementation of suppression tactics that minimize vegetative losses and surface disturbance could increase the costs of fire suppression. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs This alternative affects 12 livestock permittees on 9 allotments. However, only seven permittees with six allotments have current active use. Of the seven permittees with current active use, only four, in three allotments, have active grazing use within the proposed ACECs. One permittee, utilizing the Breedlove and Grapevine Allotments would lose 377 AUMs of the total 1,428 AUMs available on these two allotments. This represents a loss of about 26 percent of the available forage, and a potential loss in net ranch income estimated at $1696.50; capital asset value would decline by $18,850. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with a reduced herd size could make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. 4-25 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) A second operator, utilizing the Rox-Tule Allotment, would lose 756 AUMs, or 100 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $3,402, and a loss of $37,800 in capital asset value. However, this allotment was, until recently, utilized by a third-party under a base property lease, and is currently not being grazed. Whether leased or owner-operated, the loss of 100 percent of their licensed AUMs would force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. With a total of 12,436 currently permitted AUMs available to grazing operators who are affected by the Proposed Action, the reduction of 1,133 AUMs represents an overall reduction of 9.1 percent, and a loss of capital asset value of $56,650. A decline in capital asset value affects the market value of the ranch property and the ability to obtain short-term operating loans. The total potential loss of net ranch income is estimated at $5,100. In addition, the sheep operation licensed for the Beacon Allotment would realize a substantial reduction in ranch wealth. The loss of 2,095 AUMs represents a potential market loss of $104,750 in capital asset value. However, these AUMs have not been utilized since 1988, so the economic viability of an existing operation is not imperiled. At present the above potential market loss of $104,750 in capital asset value, is being compensated for through a fair market buy out by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund. One other cattle operation licensed for the Sand Hollow Allotment would realize a substantial reduction in ranch wealth. The loss of 2,430 AUMs represents a potential market loss of $121,500 in capital asset value. Potential loss in net ranch income is estimated at $10,935. At present the above potential market loss of $121,500 in capital asset value, is being compensated for through a fair market buy out by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund. In summary, one livestock permittee with an active grazing operation and one without an active grazing operation would be adversely affected. The active grazing permittee would suffer severe adverse effects and be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. Both permittees, however, have recourse to the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan to receive financial compensation for the licensed public land AUMs, which would serve, in some measure, to ameliorate the economic loss. Little economic impact would accrue to Lincoln County. One livestock permittee with a current active grazing operation within the proposed ACECs would lose a combined total of 377 AUMs and be immediately adversely affected. With income per AUM estimated at $4.50, total immediate loss in potential net ranch income is estimated at $1,696.50, annually. This represents 0.09 percent of total agricultural earnings, and 0.003 percent of total Lincoln County industrial earnings in 1995. Some very small reduction in livestock tax revenues might occur (estimated at about $100.00), but with such a relatively small loss in regional income, there will be no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchases and sales, or income and employment. Outside of ACECs Future constraints that might be imposed upon livestock grazing, designed to achieve habitat objectives for desert tortoise, could result in adverse economic impacts to individual livestock grazing operations. The potential occurrence or extent of these effects would be variable and dependent upon future vegetative conditions which cannot be hypothesized. The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch income (profit after all costs), and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset value. 4-26 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Lands Management Within ACECs Little or no economic benefit to Lincoln County would result from lands actions within ACECs under this alternative. A total of 212,500 acres of public lands within ACECs would be retained in federal ownership. Constraints on public land use and development would have the effect of diminishing any identifiable economic potential. The proper development and utilization of administrative land withdrawals for public information and education facilities coupled with public awareness, developed through advertising and dissemination of information, could lead to enhanced visitation and local expenditures on the part of tourists interested in, or curious about, the desert tortoise, its biological history and requirements, and the habitat the desert tortoise requires as well as the measures taken to protect it. This does hold at least the potential for a small local industry and the promise of economic reward for anyone who might embrace and develop the opportunity. Outside of ACECs No specific economic benefits can be identified. All lands actions would be subject to Section 7 consultation and mitigation, thereby potentially increasing the costs of any proposed land use or development. From Rights-of Way Management The existence of designated corridors enables more efficient planning of future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of such designated corridors, or the avoidance of existing corridors, engenders higher planning costs to utility companies and results in longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees could make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses. Often, such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and off-site mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. The planning area has three major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study done by the Western Utility Group in 1986. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The other is encumbered with a right-of-way that has been granted for a 500 kV transmission line that has not as yet been constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although construction materials and a skilled workforce will likely be brought in from out of the area, Lincoln County would experience a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce temporarily located there. The Southwest Intertie Project, which plans to build a 500 kV power transmission line through the planning area estimates that it would pay $4,935 per mile, annually, to Lincoln County in property tax. Even with the additional costs of Section 7 consultation and mitigation, this project is expected to be completed as proposed. These costs, associated with a power transmission line, are not likely to be nearly as expensive as the costs of planning and analysis, and the additional mileage that might be involved, for alternate routes. 4-27 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) From Recreation Management No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. Limitations and restrictions on casual OHV use would not preclude such recreation, which is already largely confined to existing roads and trails. Such restrictions may, however, encourage the displacement of some of those activities to adjacent public lands outside of the planning area. Formal OHV events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little, if any, economic benefit to Lincoln County in either jobs or income. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be of sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. From Minerals Management Within ACECs The Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. The Kane Springs ACEC has been identified to have low to moderate mineral potential. Nevertheless, any potential mineral development and production, with its attendant income and employment would be foregone throughout the period of closure. No mining claims have been located within the Kane Springs ACEC. Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open with minor stipulations, and closure to mineral materials with the exception of a one-mile wide corridor. Minerals development potential and economic effects would remain as discussed in Alternative C, except for mineral materials which would be restricted for commercial sales. Outside of ACECs Locatable Minerals Locatable minerals development is expected to proceed at a reduced rate, as compared to today. The requirement for plans of operations and compliance with Section 7 requirements to protect desert tortoise habitat would add additional costs to any of these operations. Cost increases may range from an additional 10 to 20 percent for environmental permitting and bonding. Fluid Minerals Fluid minerals development is expected to proceed as discussed in reasonable foreseeable development scenario. Leasing stipulations would add additional costs upon oil and gas exploration and development due to the constraints such restrictions impose on scheduling and operating efficiency. Industry sources indicate that these costs usually increase overall cost by 10 to 20 percent, depending upon the amount of stand-by time and scheduling of equipment. No evidence is available to indicate these additional costs are sufficiently prohibitive to discourage exploration; and no substantially adverse effects may be anticipated for oil and gas operations. 4-28 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Proposed Action) Mineral Materials Mineral materials development is expected to proceed as discussed in the reasonable foreseeable development scenario. Disposal would be restricted to designated pits. Transportation costs would be affected if haul- distance is increased. Transportation costs increase by an estimated 25 percent for each doubling of the haul distance (Mine Cost Services, 1998). Distances range from 50 to 100 additional miles to available sources, with costs of 45 to 70 cents per mile. 4-29 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) ALTERNATIVE A (HABITAT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE) This alternative contains management objectives and direction that are the same as those described in the Proposed Action, includes the exact acres and configuration of the three ACECs as the Proposed Action, and allows differing management objectives and direction for Livestock Grazing, Recreation and Mineral Management. Multiple use would be modified by prescriptions for livestock grazing, recreational uses, and mineral entry within the three proposed ACECs. Section 7 consultation for any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of authorizations. Impacts anticipated to occur under this alternative would be the same as those analyzed for the Proposed Action, with the exception of the following: SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Livestock Grazing Management Within ACECs Sheep Under this alternative, approximately 5,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be closed to sheep grazing and 2,095 AUMs eliminated, benefitting the desert tortoise in the short and long term. In the short term, competition from sheep would be eliminated, providing a greater amount of forage for the desert tortoise. Fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition and/or osteoporosis. Improved nutrition for tortoise could reduce the susceptibility of individual tortoises to diseases, including Upper Respiratory Tract disease which currently impacts many wild tortoises in all age classes. In the long term, the elimination of the potential for sheep grazing should maintain or allow for a slight improvement in tortoise habitat, As native species gradually become part of the vegetative communities, tortoise would benefit from better forage and habitat conditions. The above-ground biomass of perennial grasses and forbs would increase, providing thermal and protective cover for hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. With improved cover, juvenile tortoises would be less susceptible to predation. Tortoises and their burrows would also be protected from trampling by sheep. This is particularly important in areas where sheep are grazed, since trampling of tortoises or burrows in California has been shown to be a contributing factor in tortoise mortalities (Nicholson and Humphreys 1981). Cattle Cattle grazing on the 212,500 acres under this alternative would be allowed if forage was reserved at twice the level necessary for full adult tortoise reproduction (288 lbs. per acre) by March 15 of each year (Tracy, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995). This would eliminate competition during the spring and summer periods in poor production years. Grazing under this prescription should maintain or allow for a slight potential improvement in desert tortoise habitat on eight grazing allotments (shown in Table 4-2). However, at this time it cannot be determined how many years it would take for the habitat to improve to a point that would be of greatest benefit to the tortoise. Improvement, however, would be at a rate predictably slower than that of the Proposed Action or Alternative B. Grazing under this prescription does not address the nutritional needs of juvenile or hatchling tortoise or the other needs of adult tortoise (Tracy, unpublished draft manuscript, 1995). Even with the reservation of forage recent research has indicated that forage quality as opposed to forage quantity is more important (Oftdal and Allen 1996). An abundance of forage available to the desert tortoise may not be of sufficient quality to meet the tortoises' nutrient needs. Direct impacts to tortoise could continue (trampling). 4-30 n CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) From Recreation Management Within ACECs Organized OHV Use Under this alternative, speed events would be allowed to pass through the ACECs during the tortoise inactive season. The potential for impacts such as the creation of new trails and widening of existing trails would be reduced because the events would only be allowed on designated roads. The potential for direct mortality would be eliminated because the event would be held only during the tortoise inactive period. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur because these activities would not be allowed within the ACECs. Non-speed organized events would be authorized to pass through the ACECs on designated routes, creating minimal impacts on desert tortoise and its habitat. The designation of routes would reduce the potential for course widening, additional soil compaction, and the creation of new courses. The non-speed nature of events would minimize the potential for direct mortalities of tortoises. Impacts associated with spectators and pits would not occur, because these would not be allowed within the ACECs. Casual Use Vehicle travel within ACECs would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails under this alternative. Some non-compliance with the designation could be anticipated, resulting in the creation of new roads or trails. From Minerals Management Within ACECs Locatable Minerals Mining, exploration, and other mineral developments would continue throughout the proposed ACECs. Negative effects from the mineral exploration and development could include direct mortality during mining activities, harassment, incidental take, and the loss and degradation of habitat. By requiring plans of operation for all mineral activities within ACECs, the potential for these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. However, in the Kane Springs ACEC it would be difficult to design a plan of operation that would sufficiently mitigate the impacts to the tortoise and its habitat and still provide for the recovery of the tortoise. This is because the habitat in the Kane Springs ACEC is of higher quality and the' population densities are higher than in the other ACECs. By leaving the Kane Springs ACEC open to locatable mineral activities this could increase the potential for further habitat fragmentation in the Recovery Unit and the unmitigated impacts to the tortoise could further reduce the potential for recovery of the tortoise. It is anticipated that exploration would continue at a rate of from 8 to 10 activities per year, for all types of locatable minerals within the planning areas. The operations would consist of small exploration projects, that would disturb an estimated 5 acres per project. These could result in up to 50 acres of disturbance per year. It is estimated that one small mining operation would be developed during the life of the plan, with a disturbance of approximately 75 acres in the planning area. This would constitute a minimal loss of habitat within the planning area. 4-31 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) Fluid Minerals Fluid minerals development is expected to proceed as discussed in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario. Impacts that could occur from these activities include loss and fragmentation of habitat, direct mortality of tortoises, and increased public access to habitat. By attaching the lease stipulations and conditions of approval, as outline in Appendix E, and those developed through Section 7 consultation, the impacts to desert tortoise habitat would be reduced to the extent possible. No habitat disturbance from seismic activities would occur within ACECs since these activities would be restricted to existing roads and trails. One wildcat well per year would disturb up to 5 acres. If oil is found, one oil and gas field could occur during the life of the plan, disturbing up to 640 acres. From Mineral Materials Impacts associated with mineral material disposal include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential incidental take of a tortoise. By closing the ACECs to mineral material disposal (with the exception of one-mile wide corridors on designated roads) these impacts would be reduced. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. From Non-energy Leasable Minerals Although no known exploration has taken place, it is anticipated that one exploration prospecting permit would be issued. One drilling operation and an estimated 20 acres of disturbance could occur over the life of the plan. By applying Standard Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix E, and mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could be reduced to the extent possible. All disturbed areas would be reclaimed, according to standards in Appendix E. Reclamation All surface-disturbing activities would be reclaimed to meet the surface standards outlined in Appendix E. These standards require the surface to be recontoured to blend with the natural topography. The disturbance would be reclaimed to meet adjacent cover and diversity standards. The reclamation will reduce impacts to the tortoise habitat over the long term. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within ACECs When forage requirements are met domestic livestock grazing (cattle) would continue to be authorized within the Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa, and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs, except for the Beacon Allotment. The Beacon Allotment would be closed to grazing, resulting in a loss of 2,095 AUMs (sheep). It should be noted that these 2,095 sheep AUMs have not been used since 1988. The forage production requirements would affect 8 allotments: Breedlove, Delamar, Gourd Spring, Grapevine, Lower Lake East, Mormon Peak, Rox-Tule, and Sand Hollow. In the western Mojave, an average of 7 centimeters (approximately 3 inches) of annual precipitation would be required to produce sufficient annual biomass to satisfy the criteria for livestock grazing authorization 4-32 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) (Tracy et al„ unpublished draft manuscript 1995). Such a statistical relationship between winter rainfall and spring forage has not been developed for the northeast Mojave. However, based on available precipitation data, it is estimated that the planning area would receive this rainfall 7 years in 10. In addition to the production requirements, utilization limits would be in effect on the allotments. The production requirements and utilization limits would reduce management flexibility, which could result in livestock being removed from the allotment early, or not authorized at all. (Refer to the Socio-Economic Analysis for a further analysis of livestock grazing economics.) RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Organized OHV Use Within ACECs Speed-based OHV events would be allowed to pass through ACECs on designated, maintained roads during the tortoise inactive season. If adjacent management remains unchanged, only the Kane Springs Road would be available for this use. Non-speed and non-competitive OHV events would be permitted to pass through ACECs on designated, maintained roads without seasonal restrictions under this alternative. This would help to meet the recreation needs of the OHV community to route events from the metropolitan Las Vegas and Mesquite areas to points north, through the planning area. An estimated one to five OHV events could occur annually over the life of the plan. Casual Use Within ACECs Vehicle travel within ACECs would be limited to existing roads and vehicle trails under this alternative. Hunters and trappers could be the most directly impacted by this limitation, since they could no longer travel legally cross-country or through washes to retrieve game, set and recover traps, or access remote areas by vehicle. Outside of ACECs Vehicle travel in tortoise habitat outside of ACECs would remain unrestricted. No impacts to casual OHV use would be sustained, since the management direction would remain the same as Alternative C (No Action Alternative). MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas The Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs would remain open to locatable, fluid, and leasable minerals entry, with minor stipulations. Table 4-4 displays acreage with mineral management prescriptions. Mineral materials and locatable minerals would be open to entry and would require a plan of operation and section 7 consultation. Mitigation measures and standard operating procedures would be applied to each operation to protect desert tortoise and its habitat. During the review of the mineral operation any additional stipulation necessary to protect the desert tortoise and its habitat would apply to operation. Any 4-33 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) stipulations from the section 7 consultation will be applied to the operation. Restrictions in lease instruments, plans of operation, and permits comprise an economic factor in the mineral industry's ability to explore for mineral resources, due to cost and timing of operations. Timing limitations under the Proposed Action could result in additional expenditures. If sufficient time is not available to complete exploration and drilling programs, detailed and necessary geologic information may not be acquired to support the next phase of the exploration plan. A mineral company could incur greater costs for the production of a mineral commodity, as a result of these restrictions. Table 4-4. Minerals Management Acreage-Alternative A. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 0 754,600 0 Leasables 0 754,600 0 Mineral Materials 0 754,600 0 The requirement for plans of operations and Section 7 consultation for all locatable minerals within Kane Springs, Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before it could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding costs and expenses for operators. These requirements would render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. The requirement for Section 7 consultation during the approval process for plans of operation for minerals could delay companies in the development of mineral properties and could require additional expenditures of funds for bonding and reclamation. The mineral material industry would incur higher haulage costs from specific pits. These actions could render lower grade deposits uneconomical, causing a loss of mineral resource development potential. If no jeopardy opinion can be received operations could not occur on mineral resources would not be developed. One of the major economic factors for a project is the timing of the overall operations. The company must schedule equipment and services during operations. The cost of delay includes equipment waiting on standby so they do not go to another project, based on the delay not being able to complete future projects because the field season ends and cost of storage of the equipment. The companies try to anticipate these delays based on the known environmental and other permitting requirements but additional delays beyond the anticipated dates are costly. The need for Section 7 consultation or an environmental impact statement is usually not an anticipated time factor. In order to offset these timing issues, companies will often hire third party contractors to provide the information and documentation, or prepare the appropriate reports and documents required to obtain approval. While some of these items are the responsibility of the BLM, due to time constraints, limited staff, and competing priorities, BLM is unable to prepare the necessary documents within sufficient time to meet the proponent's project goals. Therefore, companies do assume these additional costs in order to facilitate their project. 4-34 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative A) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS From Livestock Grazing Management Closure of the Beacon Allotment to sheep grazing would result in a loss of capital asset value to this operation of $104,750. However, these AUMs have not been utilized since 1988, so the economic viability of an existing operation is not imperiled. All livestock grazing operators on the 8 allotments affected by the forage production requirements would be required to find alternative sources of forage or shut-down operations in each of the 3 years in ten for which it is estimated that precipitation would not be adequate. Many would consider abandoning the effort and shutting down operations completely. About 3,782 AUMs may be affected by the shutdown, representing a direct loss in total net ranch income of $17,019. However, the total effect may actually be much greater, particularly for those operations where public land AUMs meet only a portion of their annual forage requirements. Without alternative sources of forage, some operators may be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. From Recreation Management Within ACECs No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. The restriction of vehicle travel within ACECs to existing roads and vehicle trails would impose only incidental costs on recreationists, particularly hunters and trappers. Such costs are insignificant and will probably not even be perceived by most recreationists, except in terms of the additional time that might be required when short-cut routes are not available for use. Formal OHV events originate in Clark County, and proceed into Lincoln County and provide economic benefit to Lincoln County as a result of expenditures (gas, food, motel). From Minerals Management Within ACECs Required mining plans of operations and section 7 consultation and mitigation would have a discouraging effect on smaller operations. However, in all such situations the decision to proceed would be based on estimated returns over costs. Such additional costs are usually incidental, not prohibitive, and may be found to exist, in one form or another, in most mineral exploration and development areas. Under this Alternative, minerals development within the Kane Springs ACEC would be allowed to proceed. 4-35 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) ALTERNATIVE B (DWMA ALTERNATIVE) This alternative contains the management goals, objectives, and prescriptions specifically identified by the Recovery Plan except for those actions excluded through coordination with USFWS. A total of 307,000 acres in two DWMAs would be managed primarily for the recovery of the desert tortoise. These two areas include 126,700 acres (52 percent) of the designated critical habitat, considered by the USFWS to be essential for the recovery of the species, within Lincoln County. Boundary configurations for the proposed DWMAs were developed from maps and data contained in the Recovery Plan and through coordination with the USFWS. Management prescriptions would be applied only within the proposed DWMAs, since the Recovery Plan recommended that no special management attention need be applied to desert tortoise populations located outside special management areas unless those populations are in jeopardy (USFWS, pg. 45, 1994a). Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. Other management constraints, including IMP for Wilderness Study Areas, could limit the scope and intensity of impacts related to surface disturbance. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Management prescriptions developed for DWMAs would benefit desert tortoise and wildlife in general. Current estimated population densities are depicted in Table 4-5. Data on population densities were collected from permanent study plots and strip transects, within the planning area. The proposed Mormon Mesa DWMA is bisected by the Meadow Valley Wash. The western portion (Area A) of the proposed DWMA contains better quality desert tortoise habitat than the eastern area (Area B) and, as a consequence, higher tortoise densities; this difference is reflected in the data shown in Table 4-5. Conflicting land uses would be eliminated, limited and/or mitigated, reducing both direct and indirect impacts on tortoises. Management prescriptions under this alternative would allow for improvement of tortoise habitat and would encourage upward tortoise population trends during the life of the plan. Improvement of tortoise habitat would be at a rate faster than Alternative A similar to that of the Proposed Action. However, this alternative provides for less connectivity of the ACECs between the adjoining planning areas and protects 31% less critical desert tortoise habitat than the Proposed Action. Participation in a USFWS developed environmental education program could increase public awareness of the Mojave Desert ecosystem and the effects of human activities in arid lands. Desert tortoises and other species could experience reduced rates of human-caused mortalities (e.g. gunshots, vehicular crushing) as a result of a public education effort. Illegal collection of desert tortoises would also be reduced by increased public awareness and law enforcement. Management direction outlined in this alternative for the DWMAs would improve desert tortoise habitat. By authorizing research within the DWMAs by permit, stipulations could be attached to the permit to help protect the tortoise and its habitat. The development and implementation of mitigations would ensure that population augmentation or enhancement of native species would not create conflicts with desert tortoise recovery. Experimental Management Zones could be established in which to conduct research relating to desert tortoise habitat and nutritional needs. The installation of crossing culverts would benefit tortoises and other wildlife species. This mitigation would require consent and cooperation from the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad. 4-36 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Table 4-5. Proposed DWMAs with acreage and estimated current tortoise populations. DWMA NAME ACRES EST. TORTOISE NUMBERS PER SQ. MILE EST. TORTOISE POPULATIONS PER UNIT Coyote Springs DWMA 9,600 25 -75 375 - 1,125 Mormon Mesa DWMA Area A 56,300 Area B 241,100 25-75 10-20 2,199 - 6,597 3,767 - 7,534 DWMA Totals 307,000 6,341 - 15,256 The lack of management direction to initiate predator control within the proposed DWMAs could impair the recovery of the desert tortoise. Predation by ravens and other predators is considered to be a significant impact on desert tortoise populations, accounting for as much as 85 percent of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles in the western Mojave Desert (Berry 1986, 1988). Failure to coordinate predator control with the appropriate agencies (NDOW, USFWS, U.S. Department of Agriculture) could lower recruitment rates among young tortoises and affect population trends. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs, as per the direction in the Recovery Plan. This could result in downward population trend in these locales. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. From Forestry and Vegetative Products Management Within DWMAs Not authorizing desert vegetation harvest (seed and/or plants) within DWMAs would have a beneficial effect on desert tortoise habitat. Mature plant species sought after by the harvester would remain within the DWMAs to provide cover and forage for the tortoise; seeds would be allowed to disseminate and germinate providing cover and forage for the tortoise in the future. Commercial demand for seed or native plant salvage harvesting has historically been very low in the planning area. This restriction would preclude commercial collection or harvesting by an estimated two operators per year, over the life of the plan. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action 4-37 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. From Livestock Grazing Management Within DWMAs Under this alternative, approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be closed to livestock grazing and 3,688 AUMs eliminated, benefitting the desert tortoise in the short and long term. Competition with domestic livestock would be eliminated, providing a greater amount of quality forage for the desert tortoise. Fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition and possibly reduced occurrences of osteoporosis. Improved nutrition could reduce the susceptibility of individual tortoises to diseases, including the Upper Respiratory Tract Disease which currently impacts many wild tortoises in all age classes. In the long term, the elimination of livestock grazing should improve the tortoise habitat. At this time, it cannot be determined how many years it would take for habitat to improve to a point that would be of greatest benefit to the tortoise. Improvement, however, would be at a rate similar to the Proposed Action and faster than Alternatives A and No Action. As native species gradually become part of the vegetative communities, tortoises would benefit from better quality forage and habitat conditions. The above-ground biomass of perennial grasses and forbs would increase, providing thermal and protective cover for hatchlings and juvenile tortoises. With improved cover, juvenile tortoises would be less susceptible to predation. Tortoises and their burrows would also be protected from trampling by livestock. Outside of DWMAs Livestock grazing would be authorized on approximately 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMA. Impacts could include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows, increased forage competition, and reduced native plant diversity (USFWS 1994c). Grazing practices could maintain but would most likely decrease the current serai stage of the vegetative community, resulting in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. From Wild Horse and Burro Management Within DWMAs Desert tortoise would receive beneficial impacts from the management of the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HAs for zero wild horses and burros. Increased forage and cover would be available for tortoise and the possible trampling of tortoise and buiTOws would be eliminated. Impacts associated with wild horse and burro grazing include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows, and forage competition. Also, see analysis concerning livestock grazing management within DWMAs, above. 4-38 "W%fl^Y CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs Wild horse and burro management would continue within HMAs in desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Impacts would include the trampling of tortoise and burrows, continued forage competition, and reduced native plant diversity (USFWS 1994a). This could result in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. From Lands Management Disposal Areas Within DWMAs Approximately 307,000 acres within DWMAs, including a total of 126,700 acres of designated critical habitat, would be retained in federal ownership and managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Outside of DWMAs Portions of 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 118,200 acres of designated critical habitat, could be disposed of under appropriate authorities outside of DWMAs. This would contrast with the Proposed Action, where 41,200 acres of designated critical habitat outside of proposed special management areas (ACECs) would be retained in federal ownership. Disposal of habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs could result in the loss of federal protection for designated critical habitat and potential destruction or degradation of desert tortoise habitat. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would lessen the impacts. Land Use Authorizations Within DWMAs Land uses that result in surface disturbances would not be authorized within DWMAs. This would impact desert tortoises by eliminating habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and the potential of taking a tortoise. By authorizing non-surface disturbing land uses on a case-by-case basis, protective measures for the desert tortoise and habitat could be placed on the permit to ensure that the potential of take is eliminated. Outside of DWMAs Both non-surface and surface disturbing activities could be authorized. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, and the constraints of meeting the non-impairment criteria for WSAs would lessen the impacts. A total of 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would be available for land use authorizations under this alternative. Acquisitions Within DWMAs By acquiring available private land or rights (such as easements) from willing sellers, those parcels could be managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Since the acquisition of any private lands would be dependent on private sector willingness and the support of the local governmental entity, the acreage and timing of such 4-39 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) acquisitions cannot be predicted. Any acquisitions would help to meet the reserve design criteria for large blocks of habitat to be managed for desert tortoise and other Mojave Desert species. Outside of DWMAs Should the 7,370 acres of the legislatively-leased private property of Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) become available and be re-acquired, they would be included within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. The inclusion of this large block of habitat would help to meet the reserve design criteria recommended by the Recovery Plan. No other special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. Unauthorized Use Within DWMAs While there is currently no known problem with unauthorized use, in the future resolving unauthorized use within ACECs to allow for title retention and reclamation of the site would be beneficial for the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. The parcels would remain in federal ownership and be managed for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Reclamation efforts would improve the quality of desert tortoise habitat in the long term. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Withdrawals Within DWMAs Administrative withdrawals would be authorized within the DWMAs for the development of public information/education facilities. Public education relating to the desert tortoise and the Mojave Desert ecosystem would be conducted at these facilities, possibly assisting the recovery efforts through greater public awareness and the fostering of a public land etiquette. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. Right-of-Way Management Within DWMAs New corridors would not be designated within DWMAs, benefitting desert tortoise and other species in the long term. Power and other types of utility lines would not proliferate in 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat, 4-40 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) reducing habitat loss and predator perching localities within the special management areas. Outside of DWMAs The remainder of the planning area (447,600 acres) would remain open to rights-of-way that could include surface disturbance of an estimated 1 1 8,200 acres of designated critical habitat. Utility rights-of-way could be granted in desert tortoise habitat outside DWMAs. Other management constraints, including the non-impairment constraints of the IMP, could limit or mitigate the scope and intensity of these impacts. Mineral Rights-of-Ways Within DWMAs By not authorizing mineral leasing rights-of-way within DWMAs, the impacts associated with these rights-of- ways would be eliminated on approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Outside of DWMAs The 447,600 acres outside DWMAs would remain open to rights-of-way that could include surface disturbance of 118,200 acres of designated critical tortoise habitat. Mineral leasing rights-of-ways could be granted in desert tortoise habitat outside DWMAs, subject to Section 7 consultation. From Recreation Management Casual OHV Use Within DWMAs Desert tortoise and other wildlife would benefit minimally by limiting vehicle travel to designated roads and limiting speeds within the DWMAs. Impacts associated with off highway activities, such as habitat fragmentation and degradation, the proliferation of roads, harassment, vandalism, and direct mortality, would be minimized. Outside of DWMAs The above-described impacts could occur within 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs because the OHV designation would remain open allowing casual use to occur throughout the area without limiting travel to roads and trails. Organized OHV Events Within DWMAs Desert tortoise and other wildlife would benefit by prescriptions which would not authorize OHV events within DWMAs. The closure of the DWMAs to OHV events would eliminate the slight potential for habitat destruction and incidental take of a tortoise. 4-41 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs Impacts associated with organized OHV events could occur outside of the DWMAs. These include direct mortality and indirect effects, soil compaction and erosion, creation of new roads and trails by spectators, and increased potential for harassment of tortoises. However, these impacts could be lessened because of the OHV limitation within adjoining districts (Las Vegas & Arizona Strip). Events from these districts will not be able to proceed through the Ely District of into these district unless they are in conformance with that particular districts limitations. Non-OHV Organized Events Within DWMAs By not authorizing non-OHV and commercial events within DWMAs, the slight potential for taking of a tortoise or degradation of habitat as a result of these activities would be eliminated. Outside of DWMAs The approval of some types of non-OHV and commercial events within the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside the DWMAs has the slight potential of taking a tortoise or degrading of habitat. Stipulations developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat. General Recreation Within DWMAs If necessary, sites for parking and camping could be established where appropriate within DWMAs to reduce or avoid impacts to tortoise and/or habitat. By allowing only recreational activities within DWMAs that do not cause surface disturbances, the impacts to tortoise and their habitat would be reduced. Improving opportunities for non-motorized recreation would neither benefit nor hinder recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. By improving these opportunities, recreational use could increase slightly within the DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed to the 447,600 acres desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Section 7 consultation would be completed for any federal action that may affect listed species or their designated critical habitat prior to the issuance of authorizations, thereby mitigating impacts to the extent possible. From Wilderness Management Within DWMAs Approximately 245,500 acres of lands under wilderness review (Delamar, Evergreen ABC, Fish and Wildlife #1, Meadow Valley and Mormon Mountains WSAs) are contained within the boundaries of the two proposed DWMAs. Until congressional release or designation as wilderness, this acreage would be managed under the IMP which mandates that proposed activities meet the non-impairment criteria. Desert tortoise recovery efforts would be enhanced by IMP criteria, which restricts surface disturbance and vehicular access. Habitat loss or degradation and the possibility for incidental take would be minimized within the 245,500 acres managed under 4-42 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) the IMP. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, management within DWMAs would continue to restrict surface disturbances and habitat degradation. Outside of DWMAs The non-impairment criteria of the IMP would benefit desert tortoise habitat outside of proposed DWMAs by restricting many surface disturbing activities and imposing constraints on the creation of new roads. The restrictions on human activities within WSAs would also minimize the possibilities for habitat fragmentation or loss. Should the WSAs be released from further consideration as wilderness, the protection provided under the IMP would be eliminated. More traditional multiple uses would be expected to occur within those areas with an increase of surface disturbance and habitat degradation. From Minerals Management Within DWMAs Approximately 307,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat within the DWMAs would be closed to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing, to the operation of the mineral laws, subject to valid existing rights. Existing mining claims would be reviewed through validity exams. If the claim is valid, mining operations can occur. Existing permits and leases would remain in effect until they expire. The desert tortoise and its habitat would benefit from these closures. The potential for direct mortality, burrow crushing, and habitat loss would be lessened under this alternative. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal, including habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise would be reduced. It is anticipated that the Nevada Department of Transportation would continue to hold 17 mineral material rights-of-way, some located within the proposed DWMAs. The only pits projected to be used within the DWMAs would be those along U.S. Highway 93. These would continue to be needed for highway maintenance. As outlined in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario an estimated 2 acres of disturbance per pit annually over the life of the plan could result, totaling approximately 1700 acres of habitat loss within the DWMAs. Mitigation measures outlined in Appendix E, and others developed through Section 7 consultation, would reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat and the potential for incidental take. Outside of DWMAs Desert tortoise habitat would remain open to the operation of all applicable laws. Habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as direct mortalities, could continue on approximately 447,600 acres of public lands. Mineral material sales would increase in the future, resulting in an increased need for mineral material needs. These actions could be located in desert tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs. Impacts associated with mineral material disposal include habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation, and the potential taking of a tortoise. It is estimated that one new community pit would need to be established every 5 years to handle this demand, disturbing a projected total of 20 acres of desert tortoise habitat over the life of the plan. From Fire Management Within and Outside DWMAs By minimizing surface disturbance during fire suppression within the DWMAs, the desert tortoise would benefit. Impacts from this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4-43 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) SOIL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Soil disturbance occurs as a result of grazing by domestic livestock, wild horses, burros, wildlife and human activities such as hiking, biking, and OHVs. Such compressional activities compact soils and directly damage microbiotic crusts. The effects can accelerate both wind and water erosion. Surface soil permeability and infiltration decreases variably according to the soil texture. Sheaths and filaments of microbiotic crusts are broken up and reduces the crusts capabilities to fix nitrogen and hold soil aggregates together. Runoff can increase by half and soil loss rates can increase six fold without apparent damage to vegetation. Grazing management practices which increase shrub components of range sites also can reduce the nitrogen fixing capabilities of crusts by as much as 80 percent. The management prescriptions for the DWMAs would not authorize livestock grazing and severely limit human induced compressional activities in two DWMAs. As a consequence of removal of large grazing animals and limiting human activities, microbiotic crusts would slowly recover, biodiversity would increase, and soil erosion would decrease. Cyanobacterial and green algae components of the crust could recover in as little as 1 to 5 years given average climate conditions and a nearby source of inoculum. Longer recovery time may be needed if no such sources exist nearby. Crust recovery would on a site specific basis reduce soil runoff and erosion and increase soil permeability and infiltration. Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed toward soil resources on the 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat located outside of the proposed DWMAs. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts to habitat associated with project specific activities. Grazing by both livestock and wild horses and burros would continue outside of the proposed DWMAs, resulting in soils compaction. WATER RESOURCES/RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Actions under this alternative would affect a total of nine livestock grazing allotments and two HAs within the proposed DWMAs, resulting in a reduction of 3,688 AUMs. Since grazing animals often concentrate their use on and around spring sources, streams, and their associated riparian habitats, a reduction in the numbers of large grazing animals would positively impact water and riparian resources in the proposed DWMAs. Positive impacts to four spring sources and their associated riparian zones would result from the removal of trampling and heavy use. The water source to the riparian zones would return in some cases, allowing the riparian habitat to expand. Meadow Valley Wash would benefit from reduced use by grazing animals. Banks would stabilize, sedimentation, salinity loads, and water temperatures would decrease, and peak flows would be moderated along portions of the drainage. 4-44 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs No special management attention would be directed toward water/riparian resources on the approximately 447,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would lessen impacts associated with project-specific activities. Grazing by both livestock and wild horses and burros would continue outside of the proposed DWMAs, resulting in impacts to water and riparian resources. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Grazing would be eliminated within the proposed Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs, affecting the nine allotments shown in Table 4-6. These allotments encompass 857,600 acres and 18,501 AUMs of which 307,000 acres and 3,688 AUMs are within DWMAs. The elimination of grazing would result in a loss of 3,688 cattle AUMs. The 7 allotments located partially within the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs would also be affected by the prescription to eliminate livestock grazing within the DWMAs, since no structural barriers (e.g. fences) are currently in place that would restrict livestock access to the proposed DWMAs. Fences would have to be constructed in the Grapevine, Delamar, Lower Lake East, Henrie Complex, White Rock, Mormon Peak and Gourd Spring Allotments, in order to authorize livestock grazing on those portions of the allotment that are not within the DWMAs. Constraints on the construction of some of these fences could be imposed by the requirements of the non-impairment criteria for the Meadow Valley Mountains and Mormon Mountains WSAs. Outside of DWMAs The 16 allotments located outside of the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs within the planning area, would not be affected by this alternative. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs The Recovery Plan states that wild horses and burros should not be managed within DWMAs. In order to eliminate wild horses and burros within the Mormon Mesa DWMA, the Mormon Mountains and Meadow Valley Mountains HAs would be managed for zero wild horse and burros (Map 2-15). The proposed DWMA would overlap over 80 percent of the Mormon Mountains HA. Approximately 25 percent of the Meadow Valley Mountains HA is located within the proposed DWMA; the only reliable water sources for the wild horses occurs within that portion of the HA located within the DWMA. Approximately 35 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the Mormon Mountains HA, while approximately 40 wild horses would be removed from within and adjacent to the Meadow Valley Mountains HA. All of the adoptable age class wild horses and all age classes for the burros would be placed into the adoption system. Any remaining animals would have to be relocated to another HMA, as mandated by BLM policy. This relocation effort could impact the relocated horses since they would not know where the reliable water sources 4-45 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Table 4-6. Allotments partially or entirely within DWMAs. Allotment Name Allotment Within Proposed DWMAs Permitted Use Total Acres Total Allotment Acres Use Area Acres Allotment Total Within DWMAs Percent Reduction within Allotment Current Proposed MORMON MESA DWMA Breedlove 121,500 114,100 54,100 864 864 0 100 Delamar 245,400 47,000 0 5,558 0 0 0 Grapevine 34,200 12,400 10,200 560 217 0 39 Gourd Springs 97,200 22,200 12,100 3,458 974 0 28 Henrie Complex 169,100 36,200 7,000 3,185 228 0 7 Lower Lake East 53,700 1,400 0 640 0 0 0 Mormon Peak 77,900 32,300 4,800 600 217 0 36 Rox-Tule 25,600 25,600 N/A 756 756 0 100 White Rock 33,000 6,200 4,100 2,880 432 0 15 TOTALS 857,600 297,400 92,300 18,501 3,688 0 20 COYOTE SPRINGS DWMA Delamar 245,400 4,900 0 5,558 0 0 0 Lower Lake East 53,700 4,700 0 640 0 0 0 TOTALS 299,100 9,600 0 6,198 0 0 0 and favorable foraging areas were located. A small number of individual animals could die as a result of the relocations. The resident horses within the relocation HMA(s) would be affected by the increased competition for forage and water supplies. Outside of DWMAs Wild horses would be managed in the Blue Nose Peak HMA at an appropriate management level (AML) established through the allotment evaluation process. Reliable water for these wild horses is located far enough from the proposed DWMA boundary so that the animals would not enter the DWMA. 4-46 n CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) LANDS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Disposal Areas Within DWMAs Disposal would not be authorized within the two DWMAs. Outside of DWMAs Up to 118,200 acres of designated critical habitat could be disposed, through appropriate authorities, since no special management attention would be directed toward desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed DWMAs. Should any disposal occur, the lands might not be managed to meet the recovery and delisting objectives for desert tortoise. Acquisitions Within DWMAs Alternative B proposes the acquisition of private lands or rights from willing sellers, for inclusion within the Coyote Springs and Mormon Mesa DWMAs. Should the 7,370 acres of the legislatively-leased property of Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) become available and be re-acquired, the acreage would be included within the Mormon Mesa DWMA. In the event that such acquisitions are completed over the life of the plan, a substantial block of public land would be managed for the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise, helping to meet the reserve design criteria recommended by the Recovery Plan. Since the acquisition of any private lands is dependent on private sector willingness and the support of local governments, such acquisitions cannot be scheduled nor predicted to occur. Outside of DWMAs No special management direction would be directed to acquisitions of tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Utility corridors would not be designated within the proposed DWMAs. Rights-of-way authorizations requiring surface disturbance would not be granted. Avoidance of the DWMAs could increase the length of utility lines and, as a consequence of the increased distances, the construction costs for utility companies and rate payers. The requirements to avoid siting facilities within DWMAs would likely affect only a limited number of future right-of-way projects. The local users and applicants would not be impacted since the regional population centers (Alamo and Mesquite, Nevada) are located outside of the DWMAs. 4-47 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) Outside of DWMAs The requirements for Section 7 consultation prior to the authorization of rights-of-way in desert tortoise habitat could continue to impose time delays, unless a programmatic consultation were in place, and additional compliance costs on utility companies and rate payers. This would impact all future grants. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Casual OHV use All vehicles within DWMAs would be limited to designated roads and subject to speed limits. Since the designation of roads would be largely in response to public input, and intended to ensure all desirable public access, there would be very little impact to the recreational user. Most existing access would be maintained. Posting speed limits to encourage drivers to limit their speed would have little, if any, effect since travel over most of the roads within the DWMAs is limited by the condition of the road and surrounding terrain. Organized OHV events The DWMAs would be closed to all competitive and organized events, forcing all OHV events otherwise planned for the area to be conducted along the Toquop Wash corridor. As the only OHV corridor in the area, it could create competition for available use dates, and could cause the route to become deteriorated over time, reducing user satisfaction. The repetition itself would also be likely to reduce user satisfaction. Non-OHV Organized events Closing DWMAs to all organized (non-OHV) events would eliminate the very slight potential for mortality or harassment of tortoises, and would eliminate the slight amount of habitat degradation that might occur as a result of these activities. Demand for organized non-OHV events would increase as regional populations expand and public lands uses are displaced from metropolitan Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. General Recreation Restricting all parking and camping to specific, designated areas would confine the relatively few users of the planning area to specific locations. Although it would not effect a large number of people, it would change their experience from one of freedom from regulation, to one where they must be aware of the regulations. Most users of this area choose to go there for the remoteness, and the primitive, unconfined recreational experience. This experience would be altered or degraded by the requirement of designated camping and parking areas. 4-48 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs The DWMAs would be withdrawn from mineral entry. The DWMAs would require a withdrawal application to be approved by the Department of Interior. There are 30 existing mining claims within the DWMAs. Existing mining claims would have valid existing rights. Existing mining claims would require a validity exam prior to operations. If they are found to be valid, the mining operations could occur in the DWMAs in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Leases that have been issued within the DWMAs would be allowed to operate under current lease terms. The operations would be required to have an approved application to drill or a plan of operations and have received a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS to start operations. Industry would not be able to explore or produce any minerals from the 307,000 acres within the DWMAs (Table 4-7) accept on existing mining claims and leases. Minerals with high to moderate potential would not be developed during the life of this plan unless the withdrawals are removed. Should mineral prices rise, known deposits of gypsum and lead could become economically feasible to recover. These opportunities would be lost as a consequence of closure. Loss of mineral revenues would be experienced by the public. Royalties, payments and leasing rentals would not be paid to the federal government and these monies would not be distributed to the states. Mineral material pits would not be authorized within DWMAs. The materials industry would be impacted to varying degrees, ranging from loss of income to irreversible and irretrievable losses of access to the mineral resource. Fair market value revenues from mineral material sales would not be available to the federal government. Overall, loss of access into the DWMAs would deny industry the ability to explore, discover, develop and produce mineral commodities. This loss would result in the economic loss of minerals produced and the loss of monies to governments. Outside of DWMAs Section 7 consultation would continue to be required for mineral plans of operations outside of DWMAs. Mitigation measures required as a result of Section 7 consultation could impose seasonal restrictions or other constraints on the development of mineral deposits and increase the costs of production. The operation would be required to receive a no jeopardy opinion from the USFWS before it could begin. Reclamation standards would require that all efforts be successful, increasing bonding cost and expenses for operators. Table 4-7. Minerals Management Acreage-Alternative B. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 447,600 0 307,000 Leasable 447,600 0 307,000 Mineral Materials 447,600 0 307,000 4-49 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) FIRE MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Within DWMAs Pre-plan dispatch, Resource Advisor notification, and pre-season coordination would be used to meet resource objectives and prevent the loss of life, property, and unacceptable resource damage. As fire activity increases during the season, safety concerns would take precedence over other values. Increased fire management intensity, including surface disturbance related to suppression activities, could result in tortoise habitat loss or degradation in DWMAs. Implementation of suppression tactics that minimize vegetative losses and surface disturbance could increase the costs of fire suppression. Outside of DWMAs Impacts to fire management would be similar to those described for Alternative C (No Action Alternative), since no special management attention would be directed to desert tortoise habitat outside of the DWMAs. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS From Livestock Grazing Management Within DWMAs This alternative affects nine livestock permittees on nine allotments. However, only six permittees with seven allotments have current active use. Of the six permittees with current active use, only five, in five allotments, have active grazing use within the proposed DWMAs. Two of these operators, utilizing the Gourd Springs Allotment would lose a total of 974 AUMs. This represents about 28 percent of their total available AUMs or an estimated $4383.00 in net ranch income, and $48,700 in capital asset value. These operators should be able to continue current operations because sufficient permitted AUMs would remain available to continue their five year average use. One operator, utilizing the Breedlove, Grapevine, and Henrie Complex Allotments would lose 1,195 AUMs of the total 2,399 AUMs available on these three allotments. This represents a loss of about 50 percent of the available forage, and a potential loss in net ranch income estimated at $5377.50; capital asset value would decline by $59,750. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with a reduced herd size could make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. A fourth operator, utilizing the Rox-Tule Allotment, would lose 756 AUMs, or 100 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $3,402, and a loss of $37,800 in capital asset value. However, this allotment was, until recently, utilized by a third-party under a base property lease, and is currently not being grazed. Whether leased or owner-operated, the loss of 100 percent of their licensed AUMs would force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. 4-50 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) A fifth operator, utilizing the Henrie Complex Allotment, would lose 1 14 AUMs, or five percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $513, and a loss of $5,700 in capital asset value. This permittee's operation would be adversely affected; alternative sources of feed or forage would be prohibitively expensive, and a reduction of herd size may be the only recourse. Operating with such a small reduction in herd size should not make the operation economically untenable, and should not result in the abandonment or sale of the business. A sixth operator, utilizing the Mormon Peak Allotment, would lose 217 AUMs, or 36 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $976.50, and a loss of $10,850 in capital asset value. However, this allotment is currently not being grazed. The loss of 36 percent of their licensed AUMs could force this operation to discontinue any proposed future utilization of these AUMs. With no current grazing use of these AUMs, there is no actual income loss and no adverse economic effects to an existing operation. A seventh operator, utilizing the White Rock Allotment, would lose 432 AUMs, or 15 percent of current permitted AUMs. This represents a total potential loss in net ranch income of $1944, and a loss of $21,600 in capital asset value. This operator should be able to continue current operations because, he has two other allotments in close proximity to the White Rock allotment with sufficient permitted AUMs available to continue his five year average use. With a total of 18,501 currently permitted AUMs available to grazing operators who are affected by Alternative B, the reduction of 3,688 AUMs represents an overall reduction of 19.9 percent, and a loss of capital asset value of $184,400. A decline in capital asset value affects the market value of the ranch property and the ability to obtain short-term operating loans. The total potential loss of net ranch income is estimated at $16,596. In summary, 5 livestock permittees with active grazing operations would be adversely affected; 4 of these permittees can continue to sustain their grazing and herd size, based on 5 year average active use; their opportunity to expand their herd size would, however, be limited. The fifth permittee would suffer severe adverse effects and be required to reduce herd size or go out of business. This permittee does, however, have recourse to the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan to receive financial compensation for the licensed public land AUMs, which would serve, in some measure, to ameliorate the economic loss. Additional temporary losses may occur if it proves necessary to limit grazing on those portions of these allotments which lie outside of the DWMAs until such time as fence construction can be completed. Actual losses in net ranch income would probably be much higher as ranchers would be forced to cut their herd size to cope with the lack of availability of seasonal forage. One operation would have no choice but to abandon the business. All would be forced to reconsider the feasibility of remaining in the cattle business. Little economic impact would accrue to Lincoln County. Some very small reduction in livestock tax revenues might occur estimated at about $198.00, but there will be no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchases and sales, or income and employment. Outside of DWMAs The 17 allotments outside of the boundaries of the proposed DWMAs are open to grazing without seasonal utilization limits. No adverse economic effects are identified. 4-51 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) From Lands Management Within DWMAs Restriction imposed on land disposal actions could have adverse economic impacts on private individuals and public entities that have proposed or applied for transfer of these lands for suitable purposes. Desert Land Entry, Carey Act, and Indian Allotment applications would not be accepted. Outside DWMAs The additional acreage available for disposal under this alternative would not result in any direct or immediate economic benefit, but would enhance the possibility of future potential for economic development. Desert Land Entry, Carey Act, and Indian Allotment applications will not be accepted. From Rights-of-Way Management Within DWMAs Designating the DWMAs as avoidance areas could affect the efficiency of planning for future energy, communication, and transportation facilities. Restrictions and route realignments would increase the costs of planning and permitting with longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Alternative routes are also likely to entail higher utility rates. The increased costs would be borne by consumers throughout the Western States. Such potential additional costs cannot be estimated except on a case-by-case basis. Some utility companies might choose less restrictive or less costly routes, which could result in a proliferation of utility lines. If such alternative routes were to avoid Lincoln County, substantial tax revenues could be lost. Outside of DWMAs Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses and in the establishment of their utility rates. Often such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. From Recreation Management Within DWMAs No economic gains or losses can be identified. No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and the employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. 4-52 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative B) From Minerals Management Within DWMAs DWMAs would be closed to mineral entry. Within DWMAs any potential gypsum mine or producing oil field, as anticipated in Alternative C, could not occur. Any potential tax revenues would not be realized by Lincoln County, and the possible income and employment would not be generated throughout the period of closure. Mineral material pits would not be authorized and existing pits would be closed within DWMAs. While also abundant in the area outside of DWMAs, the cost of hauling mineral materials could be substantially increased, depending upon location and proximity to access and use. Transportation costs increase by about 25 percent for each doubling of the haul distance (Mine Cost Service, 1998). Distances range from 50 to 100 additional miles to available sources, with costs of 45 to 70 cents per mile. Outside of DWMAs Minerals development outside of the DWMAs could proceed as discussed in Alternative C. The potential gypsum mine and producing oil field could be developed in locations outside of the DWMA boundaries. Required mining plans of operations and section 7 consultation and mitigation would have a discouraging effect on smaller operations. However, in all such situations the decision to proceed will be based on estimated returns over costs. Such additional costs are usually incidental, not prohibitive, and may be found to exist, in one form or another, in most mineral exploration and development areas. 4-53 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) ALTERNATIVE C (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE) Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the approved Caliente MFP and activity plan decisions. Management recommendations from the Recovery Plan would not be implemented. The MFP objectives and decisions have been maintained and updated to conform with current BLM regulations and policy. Biological opinions which have resulted from Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act have also modified management direction for livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, and OHV events in the MFP. This alternative, required by NEPA, serves as a baseline against which to compare the impacts of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. Section 7 consultation on any federal action that may affect listed species would continue to be completed prior to the issuance of surface-disturbing land use authorizations. Other management constraints, including IMP for Wilderness Study Areas, could limit the scope and intensity of impacts related to surface disturbance. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES MANAGEMENT: From Special Management Areas By not designating special management areas for the desert tortoise, the benefits of the management prescriptions identified for these areas would not be obtained and desert tortoise habitat would not improve. These would include management of these areas to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate surface disturbances and conflicting land uses within 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat, of which 244,900 acres have been designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. In addition, there would be no connectivity to special management areas in adjoining planning areas. Human caused mortalities and illegal collection of desert tortoise would continue at their current rates. No increased emphasis on public awareness of the Mojave ecosystem through environmental education programs would occur. From Forestry and Vegetative Products Management The sale of seed from desert vegetation would be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Mitigative measures would be placed on the permit to reduce the threat of taking a desert tortoise and reduce the impacts to tortoise habitat. From Livestock Grazing Management Implementation of grazing Prescriptions 1 and 2 should maintain the present quality of desert tortoise habitat. Under Prescription 1, livestock would not be allowed to graze from March 1 to June 15 during the critical spring period for the tortoise, thus eliminating competition during the critical spring period. Under prescription 2 grazing maximum utilization limits of 40 percent (during spring and summer) would be set on the annual growth of key forage species making more forage available to the tortoise. However, without improvement in the quality of desert tortoise habitat, recovery efforts might not be successful and population trends could decline. From Wild Horse and Burro Management Wild horses and burros would be allowed to graze unrestricted in desert tortoise habitat. Impacts associated with wild horse and burro grazing include the potential for trampling of tortoise and burrows, increased forage 4-54 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) competition, and alteration of perennial vegetation (USFWS 1994a). This could result in a decrease in tortoise populations and the health of those populations. From Lands Management Impacts to desert tortoise and their habitat from land uses, such as rights-of-way and other surface disturbing activities, could occur. Increased raven predation could occur as new powerlines and other facilities increase roosting and nesting locations. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation would occur, as well as direct mortality during construction activities. Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would minimize, but not eliminate, these impacts. From Recreation Management Casual OHV use Uncontrolled OHV activities could increasingly impact the desert tortoise and its habitat over the life of the plan, although activity levels are currently very low in the planning area, due to the distances from major metropolitan areas. Use levels would be expected to increase as populations grow in Las Vegas and Mesquite, Nevada, as well as St. George, Utah. Many OHV uses could be displaced to Lincoln County, as other administrative units implement land use restrictions. Increases in use would be expected to remain small to moderate, due to the remoteness of the planning areas. Organized OHV events OHV use in desert tortoise habitat has been limited to approximately one organized event per year. Organized events have been limited to existing, maintained roads and restricted by the mitigation measures and special stipulations imposed under the USFWS Section 7 Biological Opinion on the Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits in the Las Vegas District (USFWS File #l-5-95-F-237, USFWS, 1995b). (Special stipulations/mitigation measures are attached as Appendix D.) At current levels, based on data from prior OHV events, one tortoise could be killed approximately every 30 years, as a result of speed competitive events conducted within tortoise habitat (based on Section 7 Biological Evaluation #NV-054-95-009, 4/17/95 BLM, 1995). Based on the projected increases in the number of events conducted annually within the planning area, one tortoise would be expected to be killed every six years (if five events occurred annually). The monitoring data from previous OHV events may underestimate desert tortoise mortality. Other impacts to tortoise habitat associated with organized events would be expected to occur as a result of continued authorization. These would include soil compaction and erosion, creation of new roads and trails by spectators, and increased potential for harassment of tortoises. General Recreation By allowing permitted commercial events, organized non-OHV events, and unrestricted casual recreational use to continue within the planning area, impacts to the desert tortoise and its habitat could increase in intensity. These impacts could include mortality of desert tortoises above and below the ground, crushing of burrows, and habitat deterioration by crushing or killing vegetation. Permitted commercial, or organized non-OHV events, and casual recreational use of the planning area have been very limited in number. Given the current growth of surrounding population centers, use levels in the planning area could increase, causing greater impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat. Mitigation measures developed through Section 7 consultation would reduce, but not eliminate, the impacts on the tortoise and its habitat. 4-55 ^>'%-^-<^ -^y^^K:.r^~y:i^m^ CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) From Wilderness Management The non-impairment criteria under IMP would continue to provide habitat protection for the 312,500 acres currently under wilderness review in the planning area. Meeting non-impairment criteria would limit the scope and intensity of surface disturbing activities, until congressional designation or release from wilderness consideration. Should these areas be released from further consideration as wilderness, increases in surface disturbing activities and vehicular use would be expected to occur causing degradation and fragmentation of tortoise habitat and increasing the potential for direct mortality due to these activities. From Minerals Management Exploration and extraction of locatable minerals, fossil fuels, geothermal resources, and other types of mineral resources could occur within desert tortoise habitat. Impacts resulting from these activities could include cross- country travel by vehicles during exploration phase; construction of roads; habitat fragmentation; destruction of the soil surface and vegetation for access to the mineral resources, production of toxic products and byproducts; development of small towns and settlements to support large mines; temporary oil and gas leases; permanent transfer of title of public lands to the private sector; refuse left from exploration and/or extraction; habitat loss/degradation; and direct mortality of desert tortoise both above ground and below ground by crushing burrows (USFWS 1994a). Mitigative measures, developed through Section 7 consultation, would be enacted (where in accordance with mining regulations) to lessen impacts on the desert tortoise and its habitat. From Fire Management Current fire suppression policy in desert tortoise habitat would include the use of resource advisors, yet does not require camp locations to be designated inside critical desert tortoise habitat. Education of suppression personnel on tortoise issues is generally conducted, yet not specifically required. Impacts to desert tortoise, including small amounts of habitat destruction, off road travel and the proliferation of new access routes, and the possibility of direct mortalities of tortoises could continue under this alternative. SOIL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Livestock Grazing and Wild Horse and Burro Management Soil disturbances occurring as a result of grazing by domestic livestock, as well as wild horses and burros, would continue. An estimated 28,000 tons per year of dissolved solids are currently contributed from the Muddy River basin in Nevada to the Colorado River; the contribution from the planning area has not, to date, been quantified. Approximately 283,000 tons per year of salt is currently contributed to the Colorado River from the Nevada portion of the drainage system; the contribution from the planning areas is not yet known. The amount of salt contributed to the Colorado River Drainage System from the desert tortoise habitat as result of grazing activities would continue at the present rate. Soil loss as result of OHV racing, mining actions would continue at current rates and possibly accelerate as a result of regional population growth and increased demands by public land users. 4-56 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) WATER/RIPARIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT From Livestock Grazing and Wild Horse and Burro Management Impacts to water and associated riparian resources would continue at the present level at 1 8 springs, as a result of continued grazing by large animals. Trampling and heavy use of springs and their associated riparian zones would continue at current levels. Degradation of sources and loss riparian habitat would continue at all unfenced springs in desert tortoise habitat. An unknown number of springs in desert tortoise habitat would be enhanced by fencing or other protective structures over the life of the plan; such activities would be dependent on funding and resource management priorities. Sediment and salinity contributions from Meadow Valley Wash to the Colorado River Drainage System would continue at present rates. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Livestock grazing would continue to be authorized within desert tortoise habitat, in accordance with the USFWS Biological Opinions (1991, 1994c) or in accordance with any future Section 7 consultations. Current management does not eliminate or reduce AUMs for any of the grazing allotments within the planning area. Grazing is eliminated between March 1 and June 14 and utilization limits (see "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" in this alternative for utilization limits) are imposed on all or portions of the following allotments: Beacon Breedlove Delamar Grapevine Gourd Springs Grapevine Henrie Complex Lower Lake East Mormon Peak Pahranagat East Rox-Tule Snow Spring Terry Sand Hollow The remaining allotments (Boulder Spring, Hat Top Mesa, Garden Spring, Jackrabbit, Lower Lake West, Pahranagat West, Pulsipher Wash, Summit Springs and White Rock) within desert tortoise habitat do not have a seasonal restriction, but utilization limits are imposed (see "Constraints on Livestock Grazing" for utilization limits). Season of use restrictions and utilization limits impact management flexibility to promote a healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystem. The lack of flexibility could result in the permittees having to remove their livestock from the allotments or obtain forage elsewhere. WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Wild horse and burro grazing would continue in the Mormon Mountains, Meadow Valley Mountains, and Blue Nose Peak HMAs at existing wild horse numbers until allotment evaluations are completed to establish AMLs, based on resource monitoring. Once AMLs are established, periodic removals would occur within the HMAs to maintain the herds at AML and manage wild horses and burros only within the boundaries of the HMAs. The capture and removal of wild horses and/or burros from outside of the boundaries of HMAs could be completed as needed over the life of the plan. 4-57 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) LANDS MANAGEMENT From Lands Management Lands would be provided as needed for urban and suburban expansion adjacent to planning area communities. Desert Land Entry applications would be evaluated and classified for agricultural suitability. Those classified as suitable for agricultural purposes would be allowed entry and could go to patent. Activities that could adversely affect tortoises may be limited to the period between October 15 to March 15, when tortoises are in hibernation. Minimal impacts to lands management would be anticipated as a result of implementation of this alternative. This alternative could authorize the disposal of up to all designated critical tortoise habitat (244,900 acres), if the proposal conformed with direction contained in the Caliente MFP. RECREATION MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Casual OHV Use Data is generally unavailable on the types and intensity of casual OHV recreation uses in the planning area, but recreation use is estimated to be very light. Under this alternative, such uses would be anticipated to increase over the life of the plan, as regional metropolitan areas grow and recreational uses are dispersed to more remote locations. A total of 2,000 visitor days per year of casual OHV use is projected in the short term. A portion of the planning area is limited to existing roads and trails for casual OHV use; this designation would continue to have negligible impacts on recreational users, since the areas are not signed, no maps are available to indicate these locations, and agency presence in the area is very rare. Organized OHV Use Organized OHV use has historically been very limited in the planning area, with an average of one event permitted per year. An area in the Kane Springs Valley is designated to limit competitive events to existing roads for protection of the banded gila monster. This designation would continue to have minor impacts on users, potentially requiring course routing changes or other modifications. Section 7 consultation would continue to be completed for any organized OHV use not addressed by the USFWS Biological Opinion, developed for the issuance of Special Recreation Permits in desert tortoise habitat (USFWS 1995c). Stipulations attached to the Special Recreation Permits, as a result of Section 7 consultation, could require course changes or delays in the scheduling of events. General Recreation Use General recreation would be anticipated to continue at current levels and increase modestly over the life of the plan. The remoteness of the planning area from major urban centers would inhibit the growth of intensive recreational use. An estimate of 3,000 visitor days per year is projected; uses would continue to be casual, dispersed activities such as hunting, trapping, hiking, camping, horseback riding, and casual OHV riding. 4-58 ■ ■ ■■ MW; CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Management direction under this alternative would encourage power distributions lines of voltage higher than 69 kV, major pipelines, and cross country communication lines to locate adjacent to existing rights-of-way. All rights-of-way applications would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Power distribution lines of less than 69 kV, local telephone and cable lines, and access roads to private parcels, federal oil and gas leases, and mining claims would be granted to qualified applicants. Nevada Department of Transportation would be provided with Federal Aid Highway Act material site rights-of-way. Material site rights-of-way would be granted throughout the planning area, including within designated critical habitat. Section 7 consultation would continue to be conducted prior to any surface-disturbing land use authorizations and mitigation measures developed as terms and conditions of the grant. Designated critical habitat adjacent to an approximate 8-mile section of U.S. Highway 93 would be expected to be disturbed as material sites are authorized for highway maintenance. This activity may result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of some designated critical habitat, as mitigated through Section 7 consultation. MINERALS MANAGEMENT From Special Management Areas Approximately 754,600 acres of desert tortoise habitat would remain open to mineral entry under standard terms and conditions and Standard Operating Procedures (Table 4-8). Leasing restrictions would apply only to the 2,880 acres near Mormon Peak Cave, as required by the approved Caliente MFP. Areas outside of any wilderness areas that might be designated by Congress would remain open to mineral entry. Section 7 consultations would continue to be required for any authorized surface-disturbing activities and mitigation measures developed to lessen any effects on desert tortoise and its habitat. Consultation requirements could cause delays in operations and could result in greater costs to proponents. This alternative would impose the fewest restrictions on mineral operations and would afford the greatest flexibility for minerals operations. Table 4-8. Minerals Management Acreage-Alternative C. Open Open with Restrictions Closed Locatable 754,600 0 0 Leasable 751,720 0 2,880 Mineral Materials 754,600 0 0 FIRE MANAGEMENT From Special Status Species Management Full suppression tactics would continue to be employed, within the constraints imposed by IMP for wilderness study areas. Suppression costs would continue to be balanced with values at risk, in order to protect life, property, and resources. Fire management intensity and associated costs would not increase under this alternative. 4-59 '-•■.■ : CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS From Livestock Grazing Management Future constraints that might be imposed upon livestock grazing, designed to achieve habitat objectives for desert tortoise, could result in adverse economic impacts to individual livestock grazing operations. The potential occurrence or extent of these effects would be variable and dependent upon future vegetative conditions and management decision criteria. The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch income (profit after all costs), and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset value. From Lands Management The acreage available for disposal under this alternative would not result in any direct or immediate economic benefit, but would enhance the possibility of future potential for economic development. Desert Land Entry applications would be evaluated and classified as to their suitability or unsuitability for agricultural purposes. The current consensus of professional opinion regards Desert Land Entries as uneconomic unless an entry is developed by the owner of an adjacent existing agricultural operation with sufficient equipment and irrigation facilities to expand the operation. In almost all cases, it has been determined that, at current prices for existing developed agricultural land in Nevada, it is more economic, more profitable, and more feasible to purchase an existing agricultural property than it is to spend the time, money, and labor to develop a new, raw property. Based on previous analyses, it is clear that, at least initially, the economic viability of a proposed operation may be marginal. But the net return over total costs must be sufficient to provide a profit. And such profit should be adequate to ensure the expectation of continued cultivation. Major considerations include initial capitalization for land and irrigation development costs and the possibilities of cash-flow problems. Problems related to the availability of sufficient cash when necessary are a matter of financial management skills, timing of events, and the entrepreneurial utilization of short-term borrowings. An additional, and potentially prohibitive, cost for this operation would be the necessary Section 7 consultations and mitigations for the protection of the Desert Tortoise. Even those entries that indicate a potential for economic viability demand good management and hard work to succeed. Such an application would bring at least 200 acres into production of an alfalfa crop, yielding about 4 tons per acre. A net return of about $72.50 per acre, after costs, which would include a reasonable return for proprietor and hired labor, would be economically viable. This would yield a total net return of about $14,500, which would be sufficient to assure continued cultivation and allow a margin for error to cover any additional annual amortization costs that might be necessary for land and irrigation development. This operation would yield one full-time job within the county, and provide for the modest sustenance of one small family. However, in many such cases, one or more of the family members retains another full or part- time job. Lincoln County would realize some additional tax revenues from this enterprise, but oftentimes the tax revenues generated are not equal to the cost of community services and infrastructural requirements, such as schooling, that the agricultural family may require. Economic benefits to the county would likely be very small. Most of the tools and equipment would probably be purchased in St. George, Utah; and local expenditures would be incidental. Nevertheless, such an agricultural entry would provide one increment of development in an area where such development is regarded as useful and beneficial to the community. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and development of a Desert Land Entry more expensive than in those areas where it is not required. Other land disposals, as well, throughout the planning area would have to bear the additional costs associated with Section 7 consultation and mitigation requirements. In some cases these additional costs could be prohibitive to the proposal. 4-60 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) From Rights-of-way Management The existence of designated corridors enables more efficient planning of future energy, communication and transportation facilities. A lack of such designated corridors, or the avoidance of existing corridors, engenders higher planning costs to utility companies and results in longer processing time for rights-of-way applications. Section 7 consultation and mitigation fees would make permitting and construction of rights-of-way more expensive than those areas where it is not required. Companies will take such costs under consideration in their analyses. Often, such costs are not of sufficient magnitude to discourage development of the most efficient and effective route. Alternate routes and the obstacles they might encounter can also entail great costs. However, individuals and local governments sometimes find these costs to be prohibitive and forego a proposed project. Such consultation and mitigation fees have, in the past, created distrust for the Federal Government and provoked criticism from Lincoln County residents. The planning area has three major power and communication transmission corridors as proposed in the Western Regional Corridor Study done by the Western Utility Group in 1986. Two of the three routes have existing major transmission facilities: a natural gas pipeline, 260 kV and 500 kV power transmission lines, and a fibre optic line. The other is encumbered with a right-of-way that has been granted for a 500 kV transmission line that has not as yet been constructed. Construction costs for these types of facilities range from $250,000 to $1,500,000 per mile. Although construction materials and a skilled workforce would likely be brought in from out of the area, Lincoln County would experience a short-term economic benefit from local spending of the workforce temporarily located there. The Southwest Intertie Project, which plans to build a 500 kV power transmission line through the planning area estimates that it would pay $4,935, per mile, to Lincoln County in property tax. Even with the additional costs of Section 7 consultation and mitigation, this project is expected to be completed as proposed, These costs, associated with a power transmission line, are not likely to be near as expensive as the costs of planning and analysis, and the additional mileage that might be involved, for alternative routes. From Recreation Management No reduction in recreation visitor days is expected to occur. Indeed, the growing population in Clark County should have the effect of increasing recreation visitor days and associated expenditures. Very limited restrictions on informal OHV use would not preclude such recreation, which is already largely confined to existing roads and trails. Such restrictions may, however, encourage the displacement of some of those activities to adjacent public lands outside of the Planning Area. Formal OHV events might encourage some limited spectator recreation in the area, but this is undocumented. These events originate primarily in Clark County, and provide little economic benefit in either jobs or income to Lincoln County. While all public land recreation activities do contribute, in some measure, to the local economy, the associated expenditures represent less than 5 percent of any sector of the regional economy's income and employment. Any potential gains or losses would not be of sufficient magnitude to have any noticeable impact. 4-61 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) From Minerals Management Locatable Minerals For locatable minerals, there are 68 active mining claims, with little mining activity. And the distance to potential markets renders production from such deposits with only marginal economic viability. Section 7 consultation and mitigation could add additional costs to any operation in the planning area, as well. However, the demand for construction materials due to booming development in the Las Vegas area offers a strong potential market for gypsum for fabrication of wallboard. Gypsum sells for about $30 per ton, with a profit of about $3 to $5 per ton. Exploration is ongoing in the planning area at the rate of 8 to 10 operations per year for all types of locatable minerals. And, for purposes of analysis it is assumed that a small mining operation for gypsum may occur, totaling surface disturbance of approximately 75 acres. Exploration activities would begin with 2 men and 1 truck, and include research and mapping. Exploratory drilling requires about 10-20 holes, and would take about 1 week to delineate parameters of the deposit. Drilling requires a separate crew of 4 people (1 driller, 2 steelmen, and 1 helper). The initial exploration and drilling crews are most likely to be the companies regular employees from outside the local area. The drill rig is truck mounted; equipment would also include one water truck and one access pick-up truck. Local area economic benefits would derive only from incidental expenditures for fuel, food, entertainment, and possibly lodging. Open pit production for gypsum would last 2-3 years for a 75-acre pit. No construction would be involved in an open-pit operation, and all equipment is portable or semi-portable. Equipment would probably include one 3-trailer dump truck, two front-end loaders, and one bulldozer. The number of employees on-site would range from 7 to 9, and include one supervisor, one welderVrepairman, one bookkeeper\office manager, and four to six equipment operators. All employees would most likely be the companies regular employees that are retained from operation to operation, and would live in trailers on-site, possibly returning to Las Vegas each weekend. It is possible that some local hiring in Lincoln County could result, but most of these mining operations prefer to retain, and provide work for, their regular hires. Local purchases would be minimal, consisting of gasoline, diesel fuel, and incidental tools and equipment. Some local expenditures would occur for food and entertainment. But economic benefits to the local area would be small. The state would collect up to a 5 percent Net Proceeds of Mines Tax, and Lincoln County would receive revenues from tax on possessory interest but there would probably be no property tax revenues to the county because there would be no capital improvements. Fluid Minerals The 26 oil and gas leases in the planning area, based on a broad favorable potential for oil and gas, have remained without exploration activities, either ongoing or proposed. However, for analytic purposes it is assumed that geophysical exploration would occur and that one producing oil and gas field would be developed. Section 7 consultation and mitigations could add costs to any operations in the planning area. Very little, if any, direct local employment results from oil and gas exploration and development. All of the work entails considerable investment, planning, and preparation, and requires employees with specialized education, skills, and experience. Some of the workforce are regular full-time company employees, primarily supervisory; others may be consultants or contract-hires employed through the exploration companies' established sources. 4-62 wi'iMiiiran CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) However, very real, but small, indirect local income and employment may result from field crew expenditures for food and lodging, gasoline and tire purchases, and vehicle maintenance. Industry sources estimate daily local expenses to be $200-$300 per day. Geological exploration usually occurs during a three-month summer field season, and may, on average, consist of three crews of from one to three geologists, each, doing general field and site specific evaluations. Geophysical exploration may occur throughout the year, and consists of two distinct data gathering and analysis phases. The first, seismic acquisition, generally requires a crew of from 15 to 20 people, who will intensively work in the local area for two to three weeks. The second phase, gravity and magnetic acquisitions, involves a smaller crew, generally two men, and requires three to four months in the field. From time to time, the magnetic survey crew may need to hire a local pilot and aircraft. Expenditures in the local community are estimated to average about $500 per day. Exploratory drilling is conducted as a 24-hour per day operation, and generally requires two crews of five men each (1 driller, 3 assistants, and 1 "mud-logger"), plus a support group consisting of a "tool-pusher" and a company supervisor. The exploratory drilling crew, too, are non-local hires brought in with the equipment. These crews may or may not require local food and lodging, depending upon the location and conditions of the particular operation. Expenditures for food and lodging are estimated by industrial sources at $500 per day for each crew. Production royalties to the Federal Government are 12 1/2 percent of gross (priced at the well-head), with 50 percent of those proceeds distributed to the State of Nevada. The State would also receive taxes from net proceeds of mines, while the County would collect a tax on possessory interest. Based on potential production outlined in the development scenario, this would add an estimated $3000 per year to County revenues. Drilling a well may take anywhere from 3 weeks to (in extreme cases) 3 months to complete; with 1 in 10 to 1 in 16 wildcat wells successfully producing significant amounts of oil and gas. The development, or production, phase generally employs two people who remain on-site on a 24-hour basis. One of these employees, the Pumper, may be hired locally; the other, the sales-representative (or bookkeeper) is ordinarily a company representative. The majority of all equipment needs for the above operational phases are purchased non-locally from regional equipment suppliers to the industry, located in Bakersfield, California; Vernal, Utah; Denver, Colorado; or Rock Springs or Evanston, Wyoming. Incidental tool and equipment requirements may, of course, be purchased locally. Generally, for the reclamation effort, the operators would employ temporary local labor and custom workers who possess the necessary heavy equipment to conduct the reclamation work attendant to abandonment of a site. Estimated costs for reclamation range from $4,000 to $10,000 per well pad. The population, direct income, and employment effects of oil and gas operations in the local area, then, may be seen to be moderate, and insignificant in terms of the local economy. Local expenditures for food, lodging, entertainment, vehicle maintenance, gasoline, incidental tools, equipment, and supplies are also not sufficient to represent a significant contribution to the local economy; but do represent a part of the everyday transfer of goods and services that contribute to the regions economic health and viability. To individual operators of motels, restaurants, gas stations, etc., such expenditures may represent an important increment of their incomes. 4-63 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Alternative C) Mineral Materials Four minerals materials sites, for sand and gravel, are currently operating in the planning area. One pit is utilized to provide material for the maintenance of Highway 93. A private operation is conducted on a contract of sale basis, for which BLM receives a royalty on production. Contracts of sale are issued for a specific amount of materials to be extracted within a specified period of time. Local community use is assessed at 50 cents per ton, and free use is provided for public purposes. Sole source contracts are awarded for separate pits for periods up to 10-years. The current private operation extracts about 30,000 tons per month for sale in the Las Vegas area. Free-use permits, for public purposes, and community pits are usually separate pits, but free-use operations may, from time-to-time, utilize the community pits. The State receives 4 percent of the revenues from sand and gravel sales for the State School Fund. Sand and gravel sources are distributed widely throughout the planning area. It is projected that one new source would need to be developed, to satisfy growing demand, every 5 years, for a total of 5 additional pits over the 25-year period covered by this amendment. Should the sand and gravel requirements necessary to support the burgeoning growth of the Las Vegas area make it necessary to utilize mineral material sites in Lincoln County, it is estimated that up to $1 million in sales could result. 4-64 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING Mitigation Measures: Issue: Water loss in tortoise habitat for other wildlife species from closure of grazing allotments. Mitigation Measure 1: Construct wildlife guzzlers or catchments with tortoise exclusion devices to mitigate loss of water, Effectiveness: This measure would provide water for wildlife species to offset the closure of grazing stock water locations. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action and Alternative B. Impacts: Small amount of habitat loss due to construction of guzzler, no other impact. Mitigation Measure 2: Maintain range improvements. Effectiveness: This measure would provide for current range projects to be maintained and not removed from the area. These water sources would continue to be available to wildlife species. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Loss of tortoise from drowning in water developments. Mitigation Measure 3: Retrofit existing wildlife guzzlers and catchments with tortoise exclusion devices to prevent drowning. Effectiveness: This would reduce the mortality of desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Loss of desert tortoise habitat Mitigation Measure 4: Implement immediate removal of wild horses and burros that establish home ranges within designated special management areas for desert tortoise. Effectiveness: The removal of wild horses is needed to protect tortoise habitat. Removal of wild horses immediately would allow immediate recovery of desert tortoise and their habitat. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action and Alternative B. Impacts: No additional impacts. 4-65 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Mitigation Measure 5: Where possible, limit future disturbances to previously disturbed areas. Effectiveness: The reduction of the amount of disturbance to habitat will protect desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 6: All disturbed areas will be reclaimed to provide for desert tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Offset the loss of surface disturbance activities with the reclamation of the site. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: There will be cases where the cost of reclamation could out weigh any habitat reclamation benefits received. Timing and low success probabilities may be an undue cost burden for bond holders. Management discretion and flexibility would be impaired if rigidly held to this standard in all cases. Mitigation Measure 7: Assess renumeration fees for disturbance or loss of desert tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Offset the loss of habitat from surface disturbance activities with monies to be used in preserving desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Vegetation Mitigation Measure 8: Aerial seed native species of tortoise preferred vegetation during periods of winter moisture within special management areas in suitable tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: The seeding will allow native species to grow with moisture and provide forage vegetation to tortoises during active periods. However, this measure would be limited since the probability for seeding success is very low in desert ecosystems. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action, Alternative A and Alternative B Impacts: Possible increase in forage for desert tortoise. Mitigation Measure 9: Establish EMZs where management techniques are developed to replace non-native annuals with native perennials. Effectiveness: The removal of non-native vegetation would allow better forage habitat for the desert tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for the Proposed Action, Alternative A and Alternative B. 4-66 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Predators Mitigation Measure 10; Install effective anti-perching devices on all transmission towers and pole line structures within tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Eliminate perching areas from which avian predators can prey on tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 11: BLM will initiate procedures to clean up dumps. Effectiveness: Reduce food sources for predators that could prey on tortoises during the active periods. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: Additional surface disturbance as result of clean up. Mitigation Measure 12: In cooperation with landfill operators, State and Federal regulatory agencies, establish measures to prevent raven and coyote use of garbage as a food source. Effectiveness: Reduce the number of predators that could use tortoise as a prey. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Mitigation Measure 13: Encourage the county and state highway departments to clean up dead animals, e.g., jackrabbits along roads and highways in order to make this food source unavailable for ravens and coyotes. Effectiveness: Reduction of alternate food sources that support predators during tortoise inactive season. This would reduce the number of tortoise killed for prey. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Education Mitigation Measure 14: Education of workers for events and construction projects in tortoise habitat. Effectiveness: Protection of the tortoise would occur from enhanced overall understanding of the recovery program. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. 4-67 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts: No additional impacts. Issue: Fire Mitigation Measure 15: Use green-stripping and/or firebreaks in or around critical tortoise habitat to help prevent spread of wildfire. Effectiveness: Reduce the amount of acreage that can be damaged from wildfire. More forage available for tortoise. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: Short term losses of cover. Increased costs for revegetation. Limited success of revegetation due to lack of precipitation. Temporary habitat disturbance if drilling is used. Mitigation Measure 16: Rehabilitate wildfires with native species that are desirable forage for desert tortoise. Effectiveness: The seeding will allow native species to grow with moisture and provide forage vegetation to tortoises during active periods. However, this measure would be limited since the probability for seeding success is very low in desert ecosystems. Application: This measure would be applicable for all Alternatives. Impacts: Cost of this measure would be high relative to the limited success anticipated. Monitoring: Monitoring of tortoise habitat conditions would continue to determine effectiveness of the management prescriptions. Also see the section labeled monitoring beginning on page 2-8 of this document. Monitoring OHV uses, direct and indirect effects on the tortoise and habitat would occur in coordination with an interagency team (adjoining BLM Districts, USFWS, NDOW, MOG, and research institutions). Census wild horse and burro populations within the planning area to determine wild horse and burro use within ACECs/DWMAs following removal activities, and to monitor population levels within HMA boundaries but outside of ACEC/DWMA boundaries. Monitor wild horse and burro utilization levels within HMAs to determine if identified AMLs are still representative of management objectives for each HMA within the planning area. Monitoring of livestock grazing will occur on those areas outside of ACECs. Monitoring will be in accordance with BLM's policy and technical procedures. Monitoring of mineral operations would occur before, during, and after operation and continue yearly until reclaimed. Each operation would be reviewed yearly and depending on the mineral program requirements more often. 4-68 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES RESIDUAL ADVERSE EFFECTS UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of the desert tortoise habitat protection measures and the potential mitigation measures identified earlier would reduce most adverse impacts that would result from the Proposed Action or alternatives. Those unavoidable adverse impacts that would remain are summarized below. Table S-2 provides a summary comparison of impacts among alternatives. Soils No unavoidable adverse impacts. Vegetation No unavoidable adverse impacts. Wild Horses and Burros Required management for zero wild horses and burros on 1-2 herd areas, depending on the alternative selected, resulting in the permanent loss of 20-75 wild horses and burros. Land Uses Closure of grazing allotments, depending on the alternative selected. Reduction of up to 5,877 AUMs of livestock use within the planning area, depending on the alternative selected. Closure of up to 92,300 livestock use acres depending on the alternative selected. Closure of up to 214,700 livestock non-use acres depending on the alternative selected. Loss of 15,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat outside of SMAs through land disposal. Minerals Closure of 65,900 acres to mineral entry and development under Proposed Action. Closure of 307,000 acres to mineral entry and development under Alternative B. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Designation of ACECs or DWMAs could result in either the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of certain resources. Irreversible commitment of resources for the purposes of this section has been interpreted as a term that describes the loss of future options. Irretrievable commitment of resources has been interpreted to mean the loss of production, harvest or use of natural resources, or those resources once committed to the proposal would continue to be committed until the desert tortoise population is recovered. For example, livestock forage production within a Special Management Area is lost irretrievably (as livestock forage) while the area is being 4-69 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES managed for the benefit of desert tortoise. That forage loss is irretrievable but the action is not irreversible. When the tortoise population recovers, it may be possible to resume livestock forage production. These commitments are summarized in Table 4-9. Table 4-9. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Resource Irreversible Impacts Irretrievable Impacts1 Explanation Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species No No Habitat destruction would not be allowed in SMAs and mitigated outside SMAs. Forestry and Vegetative Products No Yes Annual production of Vegetative products could not be harvested within SMAs. Livestock Grazing Management No Yes Livestock grazing would not be allowed in SMAs. Forage resources could not be utilized by livestock grazing in SMAs. Conversion from cattle to sneep will not be allowed within the planning area. Wild Horse Burro Management No Yes Horses removed and AML set at zero in SMAs until Desert Tortoise population recovery. Forage resources could not be utilized in SMAs. Lands Management No Yes Exclusion of residential, business, agricultural and public infrastructure development within SMAs and highly restrictive outside SMAs. Right-of-Way Management No Yes Routes and corridors would be restricted within SMAs. Material sites would be unavailable within SMAs. Recreation Management No Yes Organized events restricted and routes limited. Wilderness Management No No WSAs will be managed in accordance with IMP. Minerals Management No Yes Mineral material sales will be restricted within SMAs. Kane Springs ACEC would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Fire Management No No Prescribed fires may be allowed within SMAs. 1 These resources have irretrievable impacts only to the extent that the SMAs require restrictions. Once the tortoise populations recover it is possible that some of the restrictions will be lifted or lessened, hence be reversible. 4-70 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Short-term is defined as the life of the plan (25 Years); long-term is defined as the future beyond 25 years. The different alternatives could cause some uses to be altered, reduced or eliminated to varying degrees until the desert tortoise is recovered and delisted. Livestock grazing would not be authorized in special management areas (ACECs or DWMAs) under the Proposed Action and Alternative B (DWMA Alternative). Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would manage livestock grazing under the terms and conditions of Biological Opinions issued by the USFWS. Wild horse use would be eliminated in the special management areas under all alternatives except Alternative C ( No Action). Mining activities would be restricted under the Proposed Action and Alternatives A and B; more restrictions would occur under Alternative B. Grazing restrictions and closures would enhance vegetative community diversity and productivity in the long term. Mineral productivity is not expected to be impacted under the Proposed Action, Alternative A, or Alternative C. Mineral productivity would be reduced or delayed until after the life of the plan (25 years), under Alternative B. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL The basic energy requirements cannot be determined specifically for each alternative due to the variability of potential activities. But based on the stipulations and restrictions applied on each alternative, energy requirements can generally be identified. Alternative C (No Action Alternative) would potentially use the most energy, based on fewer restricted uses. Minerals, recreation and lands activities would use fuels and electricity to complete their authorized activities. The least amount of energy would be required under Alternative B (DWMA Alternative) since many land use authorizations would be restricted throughout the approximately 307,000 acre DWMAs. Alternative A (Habitat Management Alternative) and the Proposed Action would require fuels and electricity at levels between the other alternatives. 4-71 *■ •-'■' ;mi|ii®il?|; v^;v--:-.^^^ CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts could result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taking place over a period of time (Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementation of NEPA, 1508.7). This section identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions so that their contribution to cumulative impacts toward recovery of the desert tortoise can be considered. Past actions are those that have been completed to date, present actions may have been started in the past but are ongoing and not completed yet, and future actions are anticipated but have not yet begun. This analysis of cumulative impacts considers the connected actions of BLM and other agency efforts to implement the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (see Map 4-1). Certain land jurisdictions, or programs, consisting of the Washington County HCP, Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge, Las Vegas Piute Reservation, Bureau of Reclamation, Spring Mountain National Recreation Area, Utah State Lands, Arizona State Lands, and California State Lands include insignificant amounts of the tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and are inconsequential to the analysis or to the decision to be made. Therefore, their contribution to cumulative impacts will not be considered further. ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYSIS Certain assumptions are necessary for analysis. These assumptions help form the basis for the Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions (RFFA) projections, and may also suggest areas for needed research. Approximately 1.5 million acres of BLM Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The Desert National Wildlife Range also includes a proposed wilderness area. Management of these WSAs and future designated wilderness have implications for management of the desert tortoise (see Wilderness Analysis in Chapter Four). It is assumed that these areas will remain in a WSA status until after the ongoing BLM Tortoise EA/EIS/Land Use Plans within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are finalized. While Congress could eventually designate none, all or even areas outside of WSAs as wilderness, it is assumed for analysis purposes that the congressional wilderness designations will include portions of these WSAs below 4,000 feet in elevation which contain tortoise habitat. For the BLM land use plans or amendments in progress within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (Las Vegas, Caliente, Tonopah, Dixie, and the Arizona Strip) it is assumed that the ultimate decision will be the current agency preferred alternative or the agency proposed action. Desert tortoise habitat consists of all portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit below 4,000 feet in elevation with suitable vegetation present. It is assumed that the human population within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit will continue to grow; at a rapid rate within the urban areas and at a slower rate in the rural areas. 4-72 Map 4-1 Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit Proposed Desert Tortoise Management Areas 20 0 i i ~r 20 40 Miles Z] 4-73 Recovery Unit Boundary Kane Springs ACEC Mormon Mesa ACEC Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Coyote Springs ACEC Cold Butte-Pakoon ACEC Virgin ACEC Piute-Eldorado ACEC mmmi mmm ■■-,'- ■ ' ■"....::' lilts CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS It is assumed that recreational use of the desert environments will continue to grow as a direct result of the increase in human populations and the increase in sales and use of Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs). Based on projections in the Las Vegas District RMP and considering the size and extent of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, it is assumed that about 170,000 acres of public lands within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit will be transferred into private ownership during the life of the plan. Of the 170,000 acres it is assumed that 80% would be within tortoise habitat. It is assumed that all 113,900 acres of private land authorized to be developed during the 30 year life of the Clark County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will be developed. AREA OF ANALYSIS The area of analysis for cumulative impacts is the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (see Map 4-1). This is the appropriate area of analysis since the USFWS will evaluate tortoise population recovery on a Recovery Unit basis. "Recovery units are considered distinct population segments and may be individually delisted if they meet the recovery criteria." (USFWS, p. 43, 1994a) This includes portions of four states (Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California), six BLM Districts, USFWS Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Department of Energy (Nevada Test Site), and Department of the Air Force (Weapons and Tactics Center Range Complex) and a variety of other land administrations. The Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit was identified by the USFWS based on genetic, morphological, ecological and physiological similarities among the desert tortoise. A total of 6.4 million acres has been designated by the USFWS as critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Approximately 1 .5 million acres of this designated critical habitat occurs in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Of this, 1.2 million acres of the critical habitat is in Nevada. Of this, approximately 846,000 acres of the designated critical habitat in Nevada is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. In Nevada, the majority (approximately 87%) of the total desert tortoise habitat is managed by the BLM. The Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit includes the Gold Butte-Pakoon, Mormon Mesa, Beaver Dam Slope, Coyote Spring, the eastern third of the Ivanpah and the northern third of the Piute-Eldorado DWMAs as proposed in the USFWS Recovery Plan (see Map 4-1). While the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is the area of analysis, tortoise habitat is assumed to only occur below 4,000 feet in elevation within the area. Therefore, actions or projects above this elevation would not directly affect tortoise or its habitat but could result in indirect effects. TIMEFRAME FOR ANALYSIS The timeframe for impact analysis for this LUP Amendment is 25 years, which represents one tortoise generation. The appropriate timeframe for cumulative impact analysis defines how far into the past and how far into the future additive impacts will be considered. The appropriate timeframes for cumulative impact analysis varies by impact or resource consideration. For example, while the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit has been grazed by domestic livestock since the mid 1800s, the explosive human population growth in the Las Vegas Valley is a relatively recent development. It is recognized that the cumulative impact of recovery of the desert tortoise which could result from the combination of proposals in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, would likely extend beyond the life of the plan. 4-74 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RELEVANT PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS Introduction Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions which impact management of desert tortoise or their habitat must be identified so that their contribution to cumulative impacts in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit can be considered. Certain actions have been administrative or planning in nature and did not, by themselves, directly impact desert tortoise, but they are identified since they could have indirect impacts by providing management direction. Quad-State County Government Coalition Eight counties, (including Lincoln County) in four southwestern states, have founded the Quad-State County Government Coalition. "The coalition will seek to overturn the desert tortoise 'critical habitat' designation and to stop enforcement of the Tortoise Recovery Plan, efforts which the counties argue go too far and tie up too much otherwise useable land." (Las Vegas Review Journal, March 23, 1998). Catron County Ruling on NEPA Compliance for Designation of Critical Habitat The Catron County Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, issued February 2, 1996 (No. 94-2280) determined that the USFWS is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when designating critical habitat for threatened species. This was not done for designation of critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The parts of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit which are in Utah and Arizona are within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit Court. The other parts of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled in Douglas County, Oregon vs. Babbitt that the USFWS did not have to comply with NEPA when designating critical habitat. U. S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Endangered Species Act The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 18, 1997 that people whose economic interests are affected by actions taken to protect endangered species may sue under the Endangered Species Act to stop what they view as overregulation. Property owners affected by decisions made under the Act now can challenge in court under the Act whether those decisions were properly made and necessary to protect a species from extinction. People who suffer economic harm as a result of efforts to protect endangered species have standing to sue under the Act. Protection Under State Laws The desert tortoise has been classified in Nevada as protected since 1969 (NRS 501.110). The Arizona Game and Fish Commission extended full protection from take to the desert tortoise effective January 1, 1988. The California Fish and Game Commission listed the desert tortoise as a state threatened species on June 22, 1989. In Utah the desert tortoise is considered a "prohibited reptile" and is protected from collection, importation, transportation, possession, sale, transfer or release. 4-75 :,.,..--■-,:,;,; ■:.;-.. ;^ , ■■■••;-^-^^-- ;•:■■■;■. -:-;,;:■* ^^^?^^?a^T^ CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BLM In November of 1988 the BLM published their "Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan". This Plan which considered the tortoise habitat in Nevada, California, Utah and Arizona identified management actions and goals meant to prevent "listing" of the tortoise. This Rangewide Plan required that BLM categorize all tortoise habitat in regard to four pertinent criteria. The BLM has categorized tortoise habitat in Nevada into 341,400 acres of Category I, 643,600 acres of category II, and 1,704,800 acres of Category III. The BLM committed to maintaining viable populations in category I and II habitats and identified objectives and management actions to benefit tortoise and protect their habitat. This plan, however, "does not address site-specific, population-specific, or individual on-the-ground management actions." In spite of this BLM effort, the Mojave tortoise population was listed as threatened approximately one and one half years later. Due to the listing of the desert tortoise as a threatened species and through consultation with the USFWS, the Las Vegas Field Office of the BLM established a policy prohibiting speed OHV events in category I and II tortoise habitat, with a few minor exceptions. Due to the listing of the desert tortoise, BLM initiated Section 7 consultation on the Bureau's livestock grazing program in desert tortoise habitat. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to: 1) Consult with the Service on discretionary actions that may affect listed species, and 2) assist in recovery of listed species. Federal agencies then review their activities and when consultation is necessary, prepare a biological assessment or evaluation which evaluates the affects of the agency -proposed action on the listed species and designated critical habitat. This is then submitted to the Service, which 1) determines whether the proposed action will jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, and 2) prepares and issues a biological opinion. Full Force and Effect grazing decisions (69) were issued from January 1992 to March 1993 to implement the Biological Opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Approximately 70 additional full force and effect decisions have been issued since the first set of 69. These decisions prohibited livestock grazing from March 1 to June 14 in all Category I and II and III Intensive desert tortoise habitat. In category III non-intensive desert tortoise habitat grazing is restricted by percent utilization and not by season of use. The 20,800 acre Beaver Dam Slope ACEC in Arizona was established by the BLM in 1992 to protect sensitive tortoise habitat. The Desert Tortoise Conservation Center was established pursuant to a $2.5 million research program under a Section 10(a)(1)(A) research permit as part of the Las Vegas Suit Settlement Agreement in March 1991. The Center is owned and operated by the Bureau of Land Management which also coordinates all research activities at the facility. Research is primarily focused on information which will help the long-term survival of the tortoise in the wild. Research completed at the Center between 1991 and 1993 included Desert Tortoise Physiology, Behavior, and Reproduction; Reproductive Biology; and Cause and Transmission of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease. Opportunities for tortoise habitat acquisition through land exchanges or other means in Nevada have been limited because of a lack of significant private tracts within key desert tortoise habitat areas. A wide variety of activities on public lands in Clark County have undergone Section 7 consultation. These have resulted in take of tortoise and the loss of habitat. There have been few Section 7 consultations for desert tortoise in Nevada outside of Clark County. 4-76 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BLM and the State Trust Administration in Utah have exchanged State lands that possess critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise with public lands that would enhance Utah's future urban development needs. In reference to the California portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit the USFWS states, "Thus, BLM has a 13-year history of considering virtually all desert tortoise habitat as significant and important in this region." (USFWS, p. 39, 1994a) The BLM manages over 3.5 million acres of the approximately 5 million acres of desert tortoise habitat in Nevada. The BLM is cooperating with NDOW and the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the USGS in the ongoing monitoring of tortoise study plots in order to collect trend information (censusing of desert tortoise study plots is done by qualified biologists). Routine law enforcement patrols are done which protect the tortoise. The BLM, throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit covering portions of four states, is amending their Land Use Plans to implement the goals and objectives of the USFWS Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise. There are four other BLM planning efforts which have been completed. The BLM has completed the Las Vegas RMP, the Tonopah RMP, the Arizona Strip RMP amendment, and the Dixie RMP; all of which propose Special Management Areas for tortoise and management actions to implement the goals and objectives of the USFWS's Recovery Plan. These are being coordinated for consistency in regard to the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan by the BLM Arizona Strip Field Office. Ongoing BLM actions include monitoring livestock grazing, monitoring vegetation condition and trend, routine law enforcement patrols and full suppression of wildfires in tortoise habitat. Tonopah RMP The Nevada Tonopah Field Station of the BLM manages 70,600 acres of tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. They have completed an RMP and FEIS which was approved on October 6, 1997. In the LUP it is proposed to maintain population numbers of desert tortoise, restrict grazing to be consistent with the Biological Opinion, and limit vehicle use to existing roads and trails within all 70,600 acres of tortoise habitat. Approximately 30,000 acres of known desert tortoise habitat is identified for disposal. Dixie RMP The Dixie Draft RMP was published in Draft in October 1995. The Dixie Field Office manages desert tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The Beaver Dam Slope portion of the Dixie Field Office contains a population of desert tortoise which are within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Under the preferred alternative the BLM would acquire up to 16,000 acres, partially within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, of some of the highest quality desert tortoise habitat in Washington County. There could be up to 6,205 acres of additional surface disturbance in the Beaver Dam Slope area from powerline and pipeline construction from ROWs already issued. There would be additional surface disturbance from mining on 800 acres within the 63,630 acres of high mineral potential areas in the Beaver Dam Slope but are outside of the ACEC and tortoise habitat. Also, 83,765 acres outside of the proposed corridors within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would be established as ROW avoidance and exclusion areas. Approximately 2,000 acres in the Beaver Dam Slope Area would be withdrawn from mineral entry. Spring grazing would be deferred on 61,150 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat in the Beaver Dam Slope Area. All desert tortoise habitat in the Beaver Dam Slope Area would be limited to designated roads for OHV use. No off-road vehicle use for fire suppression would be allowed in the Beaver Dam Slope. 4-77 mwm V^;;:V:^ | . CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Arizona Strip Land Use Plan Amendment The Arizona Strip contains 300,000 acres of tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Their Land Use Plan Amendment for the purposes of incorporating the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan has been completed and the Decision Record signed in December of 1998. The Amendment designates three ACECs (169,160 acres) to be managed primarily for recovery of the desert tortoise. One of these ACECs, the Beaver Dam Slope, is adjacent to ACECs being considered in the Caliente Land Use Plan Amendment. Las Vegas District RMP In October of 1998, the BLM issued the Record of Decision for the Las Vegas RMP for management of 3.3 million acres of public lands in Clark and Southern Nye Counties. Four areas of Critical Environmental Concern were established for management of the desert tortoise. These four areas totaled 1,005,031 acres. The Mormon Mesa and Coyote Springs ACECs, are adjacent to ACECs being considered in the Caliente Land Use Plan Amendment. Part of their objective is to maintain functional corridors of habitat between ACECs to increase the chance of long-term persistence of desert tortoise populations within the recovery unit. Activity Plans All desert tortoise habitat in Arizona is within the Arizona Strip BLM Pakoon Basin Habitat Management Plan, a cooperative Sikes Act document written by the BLM and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. In June 1992, a Piute-Eldorado HMP (which included a portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit) was prepared by the BLM Las Vegas Field Office in cooperation with the NPS, Nature Conservancy and NDOW. It proposes management plans and policies for about 430,000 acres in the Eldorado, Cottonwood and Piute Valleys. It is not yet finalized and approved. Management established in the Piute/Eldorado DWMA under the Clark County Short-Term HCP will be carried forward into the Las Vegas RMP as valid existing management. Grazing allotments currently under non-use status would be closed to grazing. OHV designations would be set in the plan, replacing an interim closure which is currently in effect. USFWS On August 20, 1980 the USFWS determined the Beaver Dam Slope population of the Desert Tortoise to be threatened and also designated 35 square miles of critical habitat. In August of 1989 the Mojave population of tortoise north and west of the Colorado River was listed as endangered by the USFWS under emergency rule. Emergency listings are only effective for 180 days and the desert tortoise (Mojave population) was listed as threatened under the normal listing procedure in 1990. In January 1993 environmental organizations sued the USFWS for not designating critical habitat pursuant to the 1990 Federal listing of the desert tortoise as a threatened species throughout its range in the Mojave Desert (north and west of the Colorado River). As a result of this suit, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the listed populations of desert tortoise on February 8, 1994. Of the acreage designated, 846,000 acres of critical habitat were designated within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Critical habitat was not designated within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area nor the Desert National Wildlife Refuge because land management practices already provided sufficient protection. 4-78 CHAPTER 4 ^ ^ CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise was completed in June 1994. The Plan provided direction to land management agencies on geographic areas to be protected for the tortoise and management prescriptions for these areas. The objective of the Recovery Plan is the recovery and delisting of the desert tortoise. The USFWS is working with the BLM and other land management agencies to implement the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise. They are also doing informal and formal Section 7 consultations on proposed surface disturbing activities within desert tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The Service has a contract with the Nature Conservancy to develop site-specific management plans for the DWMAs in Nevada and to retrofit the fence along Highway 95 with tortoise-proof fencing. Section 7 funding has been authorized for purchase of grazing .allotments, a monitoring program and signs for tortoise management areas, removal of burros, a public education program, testing tortoise for exposure to upper respiratory tract disease prior to release, a study of barrier effectiveness, data development and habitat restoration. The USFWS will revise critical habitat in the future as land management plans, recovery plans, or other conservation strategies are developed and fully implemented and reduce the need for the additional protection provided by critical habitat designation. All habitat disturbing activities which may affect desert tortoise on Federal land, or involving Federal funds, within the range of the desert tortoise will undergo a section 7 consultation with the USFWS and the subsequent "terms and conditions" of the biological opinions will be incorporated in the decision document and the permit or grant issued. In a January 26, 1996 memorandum the USFWS recommended inclusion of a $587.00 per acre compensation fee for disturbance of tortoise habitat outside of tortoise ACECs/DWMAs and critical habitat. Alternative compensation measures are sometimes accepted on a case-by-case basis. Clark County Short Term and Long Term Habitat Conservation Plans In July 1991 the Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Desert Tortoise in Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada (short-term HCP) was approved. It allowed incidental take of 3,710 tortoise on 22,352 acres in the Las Vegas Valley for a period of three years. Prior to habitat disturbance, a survey and removal of desert tortoise was required. In July 1994, an amendment to the permit was issued that increased the acreage to 30,352 and extended the period by one year. On August 1, 1995 the Service issued Clark County a long-term 30-year Incidental Take Permit and approved the accompanying Desert Conservation Plan. The long-term permit extended coverage county-wide. In 1991 a tortoise management area was established in Piute and Eldorado Valleys in southern Nevada. This tortoise management area was established through the implementation of the Clark County Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan which allowed for the incidental take of desert tortoise and their habitat in the Las Vegas Valley. In order to qualify as conserved habitat, certain land-use controls had to be implemented by the Land Management Agency. This included the removal of livestock from the area, restriction of vehicles to designated roads and trails and further limitations on commercial and competitive OHV events and the hiring of a law enforcement officer. The BLM and NPS established an area including approximately 541,000 acres of conserved habitat. Of this about 139,500 acres is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Most of the conserved habitat was designated as critical habitat by the USFWS. In 1995 Boulder City acquired 107,500 acres of Public Lands under the authority of the Eldorado Valley Transfer Act. In conjunction with this purchase Clark County acquired a conservation easement on approximately 85,000 acres of the purchased lands. The conservation easement requires that the covered lands be managed consistent with the Recovery Plan for the conservation of desert tortoises and other species as 4-79 ':v>;: *'3SS?'?*'**;-'';f-;i''::'V?: CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS identified in Clark County's Desert Conservation Plan. This conservation easement is contiguous to the proposed Piute/Eldorado ACEC and tortoise habitat on Lake Mead NRA. Under the HCP, the BLM agreed to manage public lands in which Clark County acquired the grazing privileges on a willing seller basis as part of a "Tortoise Management Area" (TMA) for the conservation of desert tortoises. From 1991 to 1994 Clark County, through an agreement with the Nature Conservancy, acquired three grazing allotments (Christmas Tree Pass, McCullough Mountain and Jean Lake) of which the first three listed became the foundation for the establishment of the TMA in the Piute/Eldorado Valley. Ireteba Peak and Crescent Peak Allotments were subsequently purchased by the Nature Conservancy to be managed as a TMA in conjunction with the allotments acquired. As a signatory to the Implementation Agreement for implementing the Short Term HCP, the BLM agreed to: 1) allow nonuse of the allotments for conservation reasons; 2) implement a road closure by designating certain roads and trails as open and closing others; 3) not approve competitive, commercial, or organized events within the TMA (except for parts of Eldorado Valley); 4) not allow additional landfills to be established within the TMA; 5) not take any action which would increase the recreational activities within the TMA; and 6) otherwise manage the TMA on public lands for the conservation of desert tortoises. These conservation actions were to be incorporated into the Las Vegas RMP once approved. Since the creation of the first TMA which includes land managed by both the BLM and the NPS's Lake Mead National Recreation Area, approximately 541,000 acres are currently being managed for the conservation of desert tortoises including 373,500 acres managed by the BLM. Approximately 139,500 acres of this occurs within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Since approval of the Short Term HCP in 1991, the BLM has implemented all of the required actions except for the mining claim validation. Three interim road closures were implemented between December 1992 and July 1994. The OHV designations were changed from "open" or "limited to existing roads and trails" to "limited to designated roads and trails". These management actions were implemented on approximately 401,000 acres of BLM lands. Of this approximately 73,500 acres is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Under the Short-Term HCP, a trust fund of over $3,000,000 was established to assist ongoing management of conserved habitat. An additional $1,000,000 was added to the trust fund as mitigation for a one-year amendment and extension of the section (10)(a) permit. There were a total of 1,835 tortoises collected (including the progeny thereof) and brought into the BLM Tortoise Conservation Center during the effective period of the short term HCP including a one year extension ending July 1995. This total included Section 7 collections, Section 10 collections and progeny thereof, The disposition of these tortoise has included: transferred into other ownership, died, euthanized due to being seriously injured or symptomatic to the Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD), and 360 are currently in holding. In July 1995, the Clark County Short-Term HCP with a one year extension, expired. The subsequent long-term HCP, called the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan, was approved on July 11, 1995 and became effective on August 1, 1995. This plan provides funding for implementation of recovery actions, research and environmental education. The Section 10(a) permit associated with the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan provides for incidental take of desert tortoise on private land in Clark County for a 30 year period. The area covered by the Section 10 (a) permit includes all non-Federal lands in Clark County (412,000 acres) which consists of 170,000 acres of developed land and 242,000 acres of undeveloped land. Take of desert tortoise is authorized on up to 113,900 acres of non-federal lands. Disturbance is expected to occur mostly within the Las Vegas Valley. 4-80 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Clark County Desert Conservation Plan requires a $550 per acre development fee on disturbance of private property throughout Clark County. Fees collected are held in an endowment fund. Clark County administers and invests the endowment fund in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada. The Clark County Desert Conservation Plan proposes to mitigate the impacts of incidental take of tortoises on nonfederal lands in Clark County through the expenditure of funds to assist in implementation of conservation activities, primarily within DWMAs or tortoise ACECs defined in the Las Vegas RMP. Between $1.35 and $1.65 million per year will be available for the first 10 years and a minimum of $1.35 million per year for the rest of the 30 year period will be allocated and spent for mitigation measures outlined in the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan. Specific conservation measures to be funded include: funding for law enforcement; designation, signing, and closure of roads; restoration or acquisition of habitat; construction and maintenance of tortoise barriers along roads; tortoise inventory; monitoring and multiple species inventory; and protective measures within Clark County. It is possible that some of the money could be spent outside of Clark County, and may be used to purchase grazing permits within tortoise habitat in Lincoln County. In the event that grazing permits are acquired, the BLM has agreed that Clark County need not maintain or remove any range improvements because the land would be retained as habitat. While survey and collection of desert tortoise is optional under the Long Term HCP, as of February 1998, there have been 2,333 tortoise collected, including the progeny thereof, and turned in to the Tortoise Conservation Center since July 1995. Approximately 30,000 acres of BLM land in Piute/Eldorado DWMA are being managed as conserved habitat as defined in the Clark County Short-Term HCP. Management actions are consistent with the Tortoise Recovery Plan, i.e, no livestock grazing, no organized events (except in one part of Eldorado Valley where they are specifically allowed by the HCP) and casual use is limited to designated roads and trails. Part of this land is in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, the remainder is in the Eastern Recovery Unit. In addition to conserved habitat on public lands, 85,000 acres of private land are being managed under a conservation easement to Clark County and 188,000 acres of Lake Mead NRA is being managed as conserved habitat. As of February 1998, 365 desert tortoises reside at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center and an additional 600 reside in the BLM portion of the Conservation Center. Tortoises have been translocated to an area of public lands outside of the Las Vegas Valley. The translocation site is located west of 1-15, south of Highway 161 between Goodsprings and Jean, Nevada and south to approximately three miles north of the California border. The purpose of the translocation is to 1) provide a means in which otherwise healthy desert tortoise may have a reasonable chance of long-term survival in the wild; 2) study various translocation techniques; 3) determine if large scale translocations can be successfully implemented where existing tortoise populations occur or once occurred; and 4) to reduce the number of tortoise held at the Conservation Center which is nearing capacity. The project is mostly funded with Clark County HCP funds with some contributions provided by USFWS section 7 off-site mitigation funds. Nine hundred and sixty tortoise have been released there since April of 1997; 360 will be released this spring; 300 in October; and 300 in December (Labarr, April 7, 1998, per. comm.). There is a potential loss through development of 113,900 acres of privately owned land within desert tortoise habitat authorized under the permit to Clark County. This permit includes incidental take of the desert tortoise over a 30 year period. The permit area includes all of the non-Federal lands within Clark County, approximately 325,000 acres. 4-81 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The FEIS for Clark County Desert Conservation Plan may impact up to 1 13,900 acres, less than 4% of the more than 3.5 million acres of desert tortoise habitat in the county. (USFWS, p 82, 1995b) Of that 113,900 acres, 80% is likely to support desert tortoise habitat. (USFWS, p. 83 1995b) It is projected that during the life of the permit (1994-2023) $44,757,642 will be raised to be used for conservation of the desert tortoise. (USFWS, 1995b) For a two year period after issuance of the July 1995 permit, payments from the principal of the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan endowment fund were committed to purchase (on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis) grazing privileges and/or private inholding, provided the cost does not jeopardize the ability of the fund to provide sufficient money to fulfill the other minimization and mitigation requirements of the plan for the term of the permit. In order to qualify, contracts or options to purchase grazing privileges and other real property must have been entered into within two years after the long-term permit is issued (July 1995) and the money must actually be expended within five years after the long-term permit is issued. Grazing privileges which have been canceled will not be purchased. However, in the event the decision canceling any grazing privilege is under review by the Interior Board of Land Appeals or any court, that grazing privilege shall still qualify for purchase. Until the Las Vegas RMP is approved the non-use provision of the Implementation Agreement for the Clark County Desert Tortoise HCP is in effect. It reads, "Non-use status for conservation and protection purposes shall be approved and grazing shall not be permitted. ..until such time as a definitive study of livestock/tortoise interrelationships has been completed and has scientifically demonstrated that livestock grazing can be conducted on the acreage affected by the acquired grazing permits under conditions that will improve tortoise habitat and will not impair recovery of the species." Nye County HCP A 30-year Permit issued by the Service to Nye County became effective on February 10, 1995. It allows for the incidental take of 20 desert tortoise during construction, operation and rehabilitation of the Pahrump Landfill, which will affect 80 acres of desert tortoise habitat. The HCP submitted with the permit application outlines measures to minimize and monitor the effects of the take. Over the term of the permit, Nye County shall transfer up to a total of $25,920 into a desert tortoise trust fund as mitigation for the alteration of these 80 acres. These funds will be used to purchase, install, and maintain cautionary tortoise road signs. Surplus funds will be used for public education on the Mojave Desert and its inhabitants, including the desert tortoise. Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group A Management Oversight Group consisting of the BLM State Directors for Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California; the three Regional Directors of the USFWS regions which cover desert tortoise habitat; the four state wildlife agency Directors; representatives from the National Park Service, and Military Departments provides direction for the coordinated management of desert tortoise habitat. In 4-82 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS addition, the group, through their Technical Advisory Committee, prioritizes research activities for the BLM and the BRD to benefit desert tortoise. In November 1990, the MOG established priorities for 16 different tortoise research topics. These research priorities are updated periodically. The MOG also proposes rangewide management policies. Desert National Wildlife Range The Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) was established in 1936 primarily for the preservation of the desert bighorn sheep. The Refuge originally contained 2,250,000 acres. In 1966 it was reduced in size to it's current 1,588,000 acres which includes 150,000 acres of low density tortoise habitat. The Nellis Air Force Range utilizes approximately 836,000 acres of the DNWR for air-to-air and air-to-ground testing and training. Historic desert tortoise habitat loss in this area can be attributed to military bombing and gunnery activities. Public use of the Range has historically been severely restricted through control of vehicle access. The 150,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat in the Desert National Wildlife Range is managed in accordance with the Recovery Plan for the desert tortoise. Critical habitat for the tortoise was not designated within the Desert NWR because land management practices were determined to provide sufficient protection. Public use of the Range is severely restricted and vehicle access is controlled. While the number of tortoises that currently occupy these denuded sites is unknown, bombing continues to kill some tortoise and disturb remaining tortoise habitat within the 100,000 acre target impact area portion of the Desert National Wildlife Range which overlaps with the Nellis Air Force Range. There are 800,000 acres in use by the USAF with a target impact area of 100,000 acres with active bombing on 50,000 acres of low density tortoise habitat. A "jurisdictional" exchange has been proposed by the USFWS to relieve the Service and the DNWR of incompatible uses as represented by the military use. This is currently under negotiation with the Military. The Department of Defense The Department of Defense manages approximately 275,000 acres of tortoise habitat on the combination of the Nellis Air Force Range, the Small Arms Range and the Nellis Air Force Base. The Nellis Air Force Range contains about 260,000 acres of mostly low density tortoise habitat. The 10,240 acres within the Small Arms Range is of low to moderate habitat value for tortoise. Sixty three percent of the historic ordnance impact areas (67,655 acres) are in desert tortoise habitat. Portions of 21 historic target impact zones (1,056 acres) are within desert tortoise habitat. The habitat supports very low to moderate density tortoise populations. The Nellis Range is restricted to public access. This protects tortoises from collection or harassment by the public. These animals are also isolated from exposure to released pet tortoises which may be infected with URTD (Upper Respiratory Tract Disease). No off-road travel is allowed. There is no livestock grazing or mining. A few wild burros may use tortoise habitat, however, numbers are low. Air Force personnel and contractors using the range must complete a tortoise education program. Because of target closures, only 970 acres of disturbed desert tortoise habitat within the Nellis Air Force Range will continue to be degraded by weapons testing/training. The Biological Opinion with the USFWS was recently modified to eliminate the fencing requirement around active bombing sites. As a term and condition in their Biological Opinion, tortoise-proof fences are required around specific target impact zones as mitigation. Fences would be required around other target impact zones if surveys indicate they are necessary. Weapons testing will continue. 4-83 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Nevada Test Site The Nevada Test Site contains 285,440 acres of which most are low density tortoise habitat. Natural resources within the Test Site are managed under a 5-party Cooperative Agreement (pending) among the DOE, Air Force, NDOW, BLM and the USFWS. Defense related, nuclear testing activities have disturbed an unknown acreage of desert tortoise habitat. Public access and use has always been severely restricted. Portions of the area have remained in primarily a natural condition with no other uses allowed. DOE/NV manages approximately 285,440 acres of tortoise habitat which occurs on the southern third of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The tortoise habitat is contiguous with tortoise habitat on public land to the south and the Nellis Air Force Range to the east. It is isolated from the proposed Coyote Springs DWMA by the Nellis Air Force Range and is not identified as a potential DWMA in the Recovery Plan. Tortoise densities on NTS range from very low to low. No critical habitat was designated by the USFWS on the Nevada Test Site. As of spring 1997 the Yucca Mountain Project is beginning an EIS with the BLM as a cooperating agency. The EIS will include consideration of desert tortoise. The Draft EIS for the Nevada Test Site and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada was completed in January 1996. This DEIS covers the entire Test Site and includes comprehensive considerations of the desert tortoise. On August 22, 1996 the Service issued a programmatic biological opinion (File No. 1-5-96-F-33) to the Department of Energy/Nevada Operations which covered implementation of proposed actions on the Nevada Test Site. The Yucca Mountain EIS for construction and long-term storage of nuclear waste will evaluate effects on natural resources. Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) On March 31, 1988, PL 100-275, the Nevada Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988 was passed. This legislation authorized the transfer of approximately 29,000 acres of very good tortoise habitat on Public land in Clark and Lincoln counties to Aerojet Corporation. An additional 13,800 acres of tortoise habitat were leased to Aerojet for a term of 99 years. These transferred and leased lands create a doughnut hole within the proposed Coyote Springs DWMA. Recent transfer of the leased lands to Harrich Investments, LLC lands was approved by the BLM on November 15, 1996. Approximately 13,800 acres of tortoise habitat are leased to Harrich Investments, LLC (formerly Aerojet) under a 99 year lease (6,400 acres in Clark County and 7,370 acres in Lincoln County). Under the terms of the lease, these lands are withdrawn from mineral entry and livestock grazing. The area is closed to OHV use. While Harrich has the authority to construct various facilities on the leased land, they are required to minimize impacts to desert tortoise and to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Minimization measures include fencing of construction sites and roads which traverse high density tortoise habitat, providing a tortoise education program for all workers and relocating tortoises from fenced areas to undisturbed areas. Development of the leased lands is also subject to section 7 consultation. The Lease Agreement allows for construction of roads, utility lines, storage facilities and wells on the leased lands. Approximately 1 6,000 acres of the these lands are still up for sale. It is anticipated that most of this land will eventually be sold and developed. If the land were to become available, it could be purchased for tortoise conservation. If acquisition of these lands is not possible, this amendment allows for a land exchange that will enhance ACEC reserve design as well as improve critical desert tortoise habitat. 4-84 "— ™ -—""■»■ —bt CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Rural Lands Initiative This proposal would transfer 16,377 acres of public lands in Lincoln County into private ownership in exchange for conservation easements in Douglas County. Between 6,000 and 7,000 acres of the identified lands in Lincoln County are in desert tortoise habitat. Bureau of Reclamation Hoover Dam, built between 1931 and 1935 inundated 157,900 acres under 1,221 feet in elevation within what is now the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Due to the steep, rugged terrain of what is now Lake Mead it is doubtful that much tortoise habitat was impacted except for along the margins of portions of the lake such as around the Overton Arm. Lake Mead National Recreation Area The establishment of this NRA on one hand protected tortoise habitat from development, but on the other hand focused intense recreational use on portions of tortoise habitat. The northern portion of the NRA contains tortoise habitat around the edges of Lake Mead within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The area is managed to maintain natural conditions while providing for visitor recreational use. The National Park Service emphasizes public education and preservation of the desert ecosystem. The National Park Service administers the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The NPS has completed a draft management plan for the desert tortoise to implement the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan. This area is managed by the National Park Service to maintain natural conditions while providing for visitor use. Desert tortoise are managed within areas recommended as DWMAs in accordance with the Recovery Plan recommendations. Valley of Fire State Park This State Park manages for natural conditions and visitor use within 36,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat and environmental education for the desert ecosystem, including the desert tortoise, is emphasized for the visitors. Moapa River Indian Reservation The Reservation contains 72,000 acres of tortoise habitat. There is no known religious or cultural use of tortoise. Environmental Education A Public Affairs Plan was developed by the BLM Las Vegas Field Office in October of 1989 as a result of the BLM Rangewide Plan. This was used to guide public education efforts in regard to protection of the desert tortoise. Four "Fact Sheets" have been developed and are being distributed to the public. Clark County in cooperation with BLM, other governmental agencies and interest groups, has developed public education videos for desert tortoise environmental education. Clark County has also developed several desert tortoise environmental education "public service announcements" for radio and TV broadcast which have been aired in the Las Vegas area. 4-85 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The BLM is currently working on establishing two kiosks in the Piute/Eldorado Tortoise Management Area and developing a pamphlet about the TMA. A school curriculum on desert etiquette has been developed by the Nevada Cooperative Extension Service under contract to Clark County. Environmental education to assist survival of the desert tortoise is done at the local schools and is also conducted at The Spring Mountain National Recreation Area, Tortoise Conservation Center, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and Valley of Fire State Park. Environmental education efforts will continue to be important. According to the Recovery Plan (p. 71) it is the lead responsibility of the USFWS to develop and implement environmental education programs to be primarily focused on those groups of people who use the desert most frequently. Research Research continues to be conducted at the BLM-managed Tortoise Conservation Center. The Smithsonian is currently conducting desert tortoise nutrition research at the Center with funds provided by the Clark County HCP and Section 7 mitigation funds (5320 account) derived from community sand and gravel pits on public lands. In the Desert Tortoise Translocation and Habitat Efficiency Study, desert tortoise are being released on land south of Las Vegas. The purpose of the project is to provide researchers and land managers with techniques for improving desert tortoise translocation efforts at other underpopulated sites, and learn more about the habitat requirements of desert tortoise. There is ongoing research to aid in the recovery of the desert tortoise. The Recovery Plan identified 10 research needs among the recovery tasks recommended for agency implementation. The BRD will continue a Desert Tortoise Research Project to address tortoise-related concerns. The research is being coordinated by the Management Oversight Group. Implementation of the results of the current research by BRD and the Smithsonian will provide scientific data as guidance for more effective management of the desert tortoise. The ongoing research includes such topics as effects of livestock grazing on tortoise growth rates, effectiveness of fences and culverts in preventing tortoise highway mortality, and effectiveness of raven control in reducing juvenile tortoise predation. There may be Experimental Management Zones (EMZ) established within the DWMAs/ACECs in response to approved research plans. EMZs are allowed by the Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise. Monitoring will be done in accordance with the methods developed through the MOG. Clark County has proposed three experimental habitats for release and study of collected tortoises. These are located— at different elevations— Bird Spring Valley south of Las Vegas, Nevada, a peninsula on Lake Mead, and a site northwest of St. George, Utah where no tortoise exist. (Las Vegas Review Journal, 1 1/9/95) The College Of Natural Resources at Utah State University has received funding to study the Mojave Desert ecosystem which would include considerations of desert tortoise. The principals in this "Mojave Desert Ecosystem Initiative" are the Department of Defense, the BLM and USU. This study would provide an ecological data base for future management decisions within the Mojave. CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Transportation Corridors Highways, roads and railroads have been built throughout desert tortoise habitat to interconnect the population centers within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, with concentrations located around the major population centers. Major roads and highways are identified on Map 2-8. NDOT manages approximately 1,000 miles of roadway through desert tortoise habitat in Clark, Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties. About 900 miles of this is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. In addition there are many miles of County and BLM roads throughout tortoise habitat. The Clark County Desert Conservation Plan (DCP) specifies procedures for NDOT to follow during normal and emergency maintenance activities and construction activities in order to protect tortoise. For example, mowing of vegetation will only be allowed from June 16 through February 28. The area of NDOT activity covered by this plan includes approximately 1000 miles of roadway (affecting about 2,900 acres) through desert tortoise habitat in Clark, Nye, Lincoln, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties that are presently maintained by NDOT. Incidental take was approved and will be allowed in connection with the maintenance of roads, highways and material sites. NDOT and Federal Highway Act material sites remain in use until relinquished. During 1997, part of the highway barriers were installed along 1-15 and along State Route 161 in conjunction with a tortoise relocation program. Tortoise proof barriers are also being installed along US Highway 95 in Piute Valley. These barriers will have been completely installed by February 1998. These barriers will be monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness and longevity. Currently, Clark County's Implementation and Monitoring Committee is looking at which roads should have priority for fencing over the next few years. The Nevada NDOT anticipates 26 road widening projects resulting in 494 acres of disturbance and the need for about three new materials sites per year for the next three to five years and one per year thereafter adjacent to existing roadways in Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties. A maximum of about 2,400 acres of land may be developed as material sites over the thirty year term of the USFWS Section 10 (a) permit. While this permit includes the majority of desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, similar types of disturbances will occur in other portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in Utah, Arizona and California, but to a lesser degree. As specified in the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan, NDOT will relinquish and rehabilitate unused and unneeded material sites (about 200 acres) within the proposed tortoise Special Management Areas. An estimated 120 acres of these would be within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Road traffic is expected to increase in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit as a direct result of the anticipated increase in population growth. Highway barriers and underpasses will continue to be constructed for the benefit of desert tortoise as the ongoing monitoring demonstrates the effectiveness of the current barriers and openings. Clark County through HCP funding intends to spend at least $500,000 per year to construct tortoise proof barriers along highways and roads where tortoise mortalities are known or expected to occur due to traffic. Underpasses for tortoises would probably be installed during new road construction projects. Current culverts may be somewhat modified to provide greater access for tortoises. Residents of Scenic, Arizona have approached Mojave County and the BLM in regard to a potential bridge over the Virgin River near Big Bend that would connect with Highway 91. This would alter travel patterns within that portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 4-87 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Collection as Pets Desert tortoise have been taken from the wild and brought home as pets for many decades. According to the USFWS, throughout its range, over 100,000 individuals of this species existed in captivity prior to its listing in 1990. Landfills In the past, landfills had developed near all populated areas throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. As a result of the EPA regulations for landfills, Clark County has closed all but two landfill sites in the County; Apex and Laughlin. A majority of the solid waste in the County will be sent to the Apex site. (USFWS, p. 77, 1995b) Other landfills throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit have been closed and regional, more closely regulated landfills established as a result of the EPA regulations. Unregulated landfills served as a food source to maintain populations of ravens and other natural predators of the tortoise. BLM is in the process of identifying and closing illegal dumps which are located on public lands. Landfills in Searchlight, Mesquite, Indian Springs, Sandy Valley, Logandale, Overton, and Pahrump have been closed. Silver State Disposal has proposed the development of transfer stations throughout Clark County. Pahrump has worked with the USFWS to develop an HCP for a landfill near Pahrump. A landfill has been opened on private land near Mesquite. A 30 year permit issued to Nye County became effective on February 10, 1995. It allows the incidental take of 20 desert tortoise during construction and operation of the Pahrump landfill, which will affect 80 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Urban Development "Historically, habitat reduction and fragmentation have not been uniform throughout the desert tortoise's range, but have been concentrated around populated areas, such as; Las Vegas, Laughlin, and Mesquite, Nevada and St. George, Utah." (USFWS, p. 5823, 1994d) "Urban development in Las Vegas Valley has all but eliminated what may have been one of the largest and densest tortoise populations in Nevada" (USFWS, p. 68, 1995). In addition, the remaining habitat in the Las Vegas Valley has been seriously fragmented. On August 4, 1989, the date of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise, there were a variety of urban development construction projects underway in the Las Vegas Valley which involved more than 7,000 acres of tortoise habitat. The resolution of the continuance of this urbanization in light of the emergency listing included the construction of the Tortoise Conservation Center and removal of the tortoise on the affected acreage to the Center. Over 100 miles of flood control channels, pipelines, dikes and levees have been built in tortoise habitat in southern Nevada to help protect the Las Vegas area from floods. On April 11, 1996 the Service issued a programmatic biological opinion to the Bureau's Las Vegas Field Office for implementation of the land disposal portion of their MFP and Stateline Resource Management Plan within the Las Vegas Valley. Consultation was reinitiated on a 1991 opinion to expand the programmatic boundary from 263,267 acres to 378,956 acres to meet the needs of development in the Las Vegas Valley and to implement Bureau land use plans. The opinion concluded that increasing the acreage of desert tortoise habitat potentially affected within the expanded programmatic area to 121,000 acres, and taking all of the tortoise occurring on those lands was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 4-88 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Clark County is one of the fastest-growing counties in the nation. Clark County contains nearly 65% of the population of Nevada. The Las Vegas Valley is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. Approximately 4,000 new residents move to the area each month. The BLM Las Vegas Field Office has on file more than 20 proposals for land exchanges which involve property within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit within the Las Vegas Valley. On April 1 1, 1996 the USFWS issued a programmatic Biological Opinion to the Bureau's Las Vegas Field Office for implementation of the land disposal portion of their MFP and Stateline RMP within the Las Vegas Valley. The opinion concluded that increasing the acreage of desert tortoise habitat potentially impacted within the expanded programmatic area to 121,000 acres was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise. The programmatic area also includes a 4,000 acre "exclusionary zone" which is highly urbanized and developed and does not contain suitable desert tortoise habitat. The programmatic area does not include desert tortoise critical habitat or areas proposed as ACECs for desert tortoise. The Las Vegas metropolitan area ranked second in the nation with an economic growth rate of 10.8 percent. From 1983 to 1993 Clark County's population increased from 535,108 to 919,388. By 2020 the population is expected to grow to 1,450,409. (USFWS, p. 79, 1995b). Over the next ten years the Valley as a whole is expected to gain over 215,000 residents, with about 43% of the increase occurring in the Valley's unincorporated areas. (USFWS, p. 80, 1995b) This explosive growth is expected to continue, resulting in an increasing demand on public lands in southern Nevada for infrastructure needs, utility and road corridors and recreational opportunities. Other portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit including Moapa, Mesquite, Alamo and Ash Springs, SE Utah, NW Arizona and southern California will likely also experience population growth. According to the USFWS, few human activities are expected over the next several decades within the mostly undisturbed, isolated and rugged terrain of the proposed Gold Butte-Pakoon DWMA and the Coyote Springs DWMA. (USFWS, 1994b) Public lands within the proposed ACECs would not be available for sale, lease or exchange. There is relatively more private land within the Coyote Springs ACEC, due to the Apex Legislation. Some of this land is expected to be developed. About 1 70,000 acres of land in tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Recovery Unit is projected to be developed during the life of the plan. This would include private lands developed for sand and gravel operations such as Bedrock in the Caliente Resource Area and the proposed expansion of the resort area at Ash Springs. Minerals Minerals activities have historically been minimal within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Locatable and salable minerals have accounted for the majority of minerals surface disturbance within the recovery unit. The Nevada portions of the recovery unit have had the most activity with the resulting surface disturbance. Mineral potentials average between low to high for fluid minerals; low for non-energy leasables; high for locatable minerals; and high for mineral materials. Development of mineral materials appears to be the most economic during the past and is projected to be so into the future. Most of this development is from the demand created by the expansion of Las Vegas, and Mesquite, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. The total disturbance in the recent past is estimated to be 6,030 acres 4-89 WWf£M^$$W0$IMWX£ CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS within the Northeastern Recovery Unit. This includes mineral material right of ways for the various state Departments of Transportation. With the known mineral deposits in Nevada and the high mineral potential for locatable minerals, development is expected within the life of this plan. Exploration and development has been moderate with an estimated 1,012 acres of disturbance within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Exploration and development of leasable minerals has been low and an estimated 22 acres of surface disturbance has occurred in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Within the Caliente Resource Area there has been an estimated 200 acres disturbed by mineral development which is in the process of being reclaimed. There is very little ongoing mineral exploration or development within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Since 1992, changes in the mining regulations have resulted in approximately a 50% reduction in the number of notices filed annually within the Las Vegas Field Office (formally the Stateline RA). This is representative of the decline in Notices throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Extensive reclamation is being completed on minerals activities within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. All past surface disturbances for leasable minerals and an estimated 512 acres of locatable minerals activity has been reclaimed. Mineral material pits have not been reclaimed and to meet the increasing demand a 200 acre community pit has been established in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Total surface disturbance for mineral materials is 6,230 acres and 500 acres from locatable minerals. Future development scenarios have been developed based on the potential future market demands and commodity prices. These scenarios are projections for analysis purposes only. Leasable minerals have been determined to have continued exploration in Nevada and potential development of a small producing field. This type of activity would result in development of roads, drill pads, geophysical exploration and field development. There would be an estimated 325 acres of disturbance for this type of activities. It is expected that the exploration for locatable minerals will continue at its present rate. Most of the activity will occur in portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in Nevada but activity is expected in Utah and Arizona portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. This activity will mainly occur under Notices outlined under 43 CFR 3809 regulations. These operations are usually under five acres and consist of exploration drilling and trenching. It is expected some minerals development would occur under plans of operation which would include larger exploration/development plans and mining operations. It is expected that any mining operation would be small in size and range between 50 to 150 acres. There would be an estimated 2,130 acres of additional disturbance from locatable mineral activity. Demand for mineral materials would remain high. There would be the need for additional community pits and the expansion of existing material sources. A community pit would be opened once every five years and would be restricted to 20 acres. There would be an expansion of the current pits. The NDOT anticipates the need for about three new material sites per year for the next three to five years and one per year thereafter adjacent to existing roadways in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. (Clark County, p. 53, 1994)). A maximum of about 2,400 acres of land may be developed as material sites over the thirty year term of the USFWS Section 10 (a) permit. (Clark County, p. 53, 1994). While this permit includes the majority of desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, similar types of disturbances will occur in other portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in Utah, Arizona, and California, but to a lesser degree since there is a lower rate of population growth in these rural areas. It is, therefore, estimated that there would be an additional 3,500 acres of surface disturbance form mineral materials throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. There are existing mining claims throughout the projected DWMAs/ACECs in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Some surface disturbance from exploration and mine development is expected to occur. Any 4-90 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Mining Plan of Operation, which is required within an ACEC, would be subject to Section 7 Consultation from the USFWS. There are three gypsum mineral patents in or near the Gold Butte ACEC. However, due to the distance from the market, it is unlikely that they would be economical to mine in the near future. Should the patents be developed in the future the only access into the area is through the proposed Gold Butte ACEC. OHV Use OHV use in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit has increased and proliferated since the 1960s. (USFWS, p. D-16, 1994a) "As of 1980, OHV activities affected approximately 25% of all desert tortoise habitat in California, as well as substantial portions in southern Nevada." (USFWS, p. 5823, 1994d) After the listing of the desert tortoise, the Las Vegas Field Office set a policy prohibiting high-speed OHV events in Category 1 and 2 tortoise habitat. Traditional OHV events were relocated to courses outside of Category 1 and 2 habitat, with minor exceptions where no other alternative was available. After approval of the Clark County Short-Term HCP, the BLM agreed to prohibit high-speed OHV events in the Piute/Eldorado Tortoise Management Area except for that portion of Eldorado Valley and Nelson Hills where racing was currently ongoing. The BLM, Clark County and USFWS agreed that up to nine OHV events would be allowed in this area annually. Based upon the DWMAs proposed in the Recovery Plan and the designation of critical habitat, the areas closed to OHV events were redefined to be the proposed tortoise ACECs. Some areas of category 2 habitat that were previously closed, were reopened to OHV events. Las Vegas Field Office policy established shortly after the desert tortoise was listed as a threatened species in 1989 forbid competitive OHV events in Category I and II areas with few exceptions. The Programmatic Section 7 on OHV events in the Las Vegas District changed that to be no high-speed OHV events to be allowed within proposed ACECs/critical habitat except in Eldorado Valley where 9 events are allowed annually. Most of the races held within the Las Vegas District are within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. "In recent years as many as 50 competitive OHV events have been held in Clark County annually with over 5,000 participants and over 100,000 spectators." (USFWS, p. 76, 1995b) As of April 1, 1994, and for the next three years, the BLM determined that in the Ivanpah Valley OHV Area, seven (7) existing OHV events would be allotted a "grandfathered use", and would allow three other first-come, first-served use, for a total of ten (10) events. The BLM determined that in the Eldorado Valley TMA, eight (8) existing OHV events would be allotted a "grandfathered use", and would allow one (1) other first-come, first- served use, for a total of nine (9) events annually. In addition permits are issued for events in other parts of the District. About 25 to 30 OHV events are permitted annually. A programmatic biological opinion (File No. 1-5-95-F-237) for speedbased OHV events in the Las Vegas Field Office (Stateline and Caliente Field Stations) and Battle Mountain Field Office (Tonopah Field Station) was issued to the Bureau on August 30, 1995, which encompassed or replaced previous biological opinions issued to the Bureau for OHV events. Off-Highway Vehicle events are a popular activity on public land in southern Nevada. OHV racing is expected to continue to increase in the future. Non-competitive events such as dual sport rides and poker runs will probably increase due to overall increased population within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Also, mountain bike events and motorcycle trials are becoming very popular in the Las Vegas area. 4-91 .... ... ,»-,,j ,.<;., . ....... CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Las Vegas District RMP proposes to limit OHV speed events to approximately one-third of the Las Vegas District. This will preserve most areas where racing is currently allowed while prohibiting racing in tortoise ACECs. Most OHV activity would be restricted to existing race courses which will limit new disturbance. Non-speed OHV events may be allowed on designated roads within tortoise ACECs/DWMAs. There would be no competitive OHV events allowed off of designated roads in DWMAs/ACECs throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Access would be limited to designated roads and trails. The Biological Opinion for OHV races allows for transfer sections of one motorcycle rally annually in the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. "Recreational and OHV use is expected to increase, especially with the projected human population growth near Littlefield and Mesquite." (USFWS, p. 49, 1994b) "The ruggedness of the terrain and relatively few roads, especially in the Gold Butte and Pakoon Basin areas, tend to limit human impacts to desert tortoise habitat. Recently, however, there have been noticeable increases in OHV activity, especially both north and south of the Virgin River in Arizona and Nevada." (USFWS, p. 56, 1994b) The BLM in 1989 designated the Bitter Springs and Gold Butte Back Country Byways, which will likely increase vehicle use in tortoise habitat. Fire Management During the period 1980 to 1990 a total of 5,126 fires burned 554,569 acres in the Mojave Desert. (USFWS, p. D-24, 1994a) Over the years, fires have been more frequent and more intense within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit because of the introduced annuals which dry out and serve as a flash fuel, and the presence of increasingly more people who can accidentally start fires. Grass fires have increased in the Mojave Desert since the 1970s. (USFWS, 1991) BLM has reported that the Mojave Desert did not have enough vegetation to keep a fire burning more than a few yards. However, the introduction of the prolific non-native annuals provides a flash fuel source that easily carries fires, (USFWS Bio Op, p. 9, 1991). Many native desert shrubs did not evolve with fire and have no particular adaption to survive any but very low intensity fires. Intense fires and repeated burning lead to the replacement of native species by non-native species. (USFWS, Bio Op, p. 13, 1991) Full suppression of wildfires is done in tortoise habitats with restrictions on surface disturbing activities and with optional educational briefings for the fire crews. Fires are expected to increase in numbers with the increase in human population within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Also, the limitations and reductions in grazing could result in a buildup of fuels which could contribute to larger and more intense fires. Fires would be suppressed within DWMAs/ACECs with as little surface disturbance as possible. Domestic Livestock Grazing Grazing by cattle and sheep has occurred in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit since the mid 1800s, with an increase in intensity near the turn of the century to the mid- 1930s. (USFWS, p. 5824, 1994d) This has caused changes within portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit including change in vegetation composition to include more exotic annuals, an increase in brush species, a reduction in perennial grasses, and increased soil compaction and erosion. "There is little doubt that livestock grazing has changed the vegetative composition in the Mojave Desert during the past 140 years..." (Oldemeyer, p. 97, 1994). Some trampling of tortoise, tortoise burrows, and/or dens has also occurred. 4-92 CHAPTER 4 ^ CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As recently as 1988, about 30,000 AUMs of use occurred within the Las Vegas Field Office. The AUMs of use decreased to 7,730 by 1994, for a variety of reasons. In February of 1994, critical habitat for the Mojave population of desert tortoise was designated by the USFWS. Due to the listing of the desert tortoise, BLM initiated Section 7 consultation on the Bureau's livestock grazing program in desert tortoise habitat. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to: 1) Consult with the Service on discretionary actions that may affect listed species, and 2) assist in recovery of listed species. Federal agencies then review their activities and when consultation is necessary, prepare a biological assessment or evaluation which evaluates the affects of the agency proposed action on the listed species and designated critical habitat. This is then submitted to the Service, which 1) determines whether the proposed action will jeopardize the listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, and 2) prepares and issues a biological opinion. Full Force and Effect grazing decisions (69) were issued from January 1992 to March 1993 to implement the Biological Opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Approximately 70 additional full force and effect decisions have been issued since the first set of 69. These decisions prohibited livestock grazing from March 1 to June 14 in all Category I, II and III Intensive desert tortoise habitat. In category III non-intensive desert tortoise habitat grazing is restricted by percent utilization and not by season of use. The BLM initiated Section 7 consultation on the interim livestock grazing program with the USFWS in 1991. The "terms and conditions" of the Biological Opinion were included in grazing permits issued for allotments in the Las Vegas Field Office and the Caliente Field Station in desert tortoise habitat. In category I, II and "intensive" III habitat areas livestock grazing in Nevada was restricted through full force and effect decisions to the period of June 14 to February 28 and utilization restrictions were established. The BLM decision to implement this seasonal restriction was initially stayed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and upheld by IBLA. However, on November 11, 1995 a decision by ALJ Child upheld the BLM decisions on 49 grazing/tortoise appeals for decisions issued 1992 and 1994. The BLM and appellants have appealed his decision to IBLA. Several programmatic and other biological opinions have resulted in limitations of activities within desert tortoise habitat in California. Biological opinions have resulted in the limitation of sheep grazing to category 3 habitats on public land within the North Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit in California. (USFWS, p. 5829, 1994d) Under the Clark County HCP, the BLM agreed to manage public lands in which Clark County acquired the grazing privileges on a willing seller basis as part of a "Tortoise Management Area" (TMA) for the conservation of desert tortoises. From 1991 to 1994 Clark County, through an agreement with the Nature Conservancy, acquired three grazing allotments (Christmas Tree Pass, McCullough Mountain and Jean Lake) of which the first three listed became the foundation for the establishment of the TMA in the Piute/Eldorado Valley. Ireteba Peak and Crescent Peak Allotments were subsequently purchased by the Nature Conservancy to be managed as a TMA in conjunction with the allotments acquired. As a signatory to the Implementation Agreement for implementing the Short Term HCP, the BLM agreed to: 1) allow nonuse of the allotments for conservation reasons; 2) implement a road closure by designating certain roads and trails as open and closing others; 3) not approve competitive, commercial, or organized events within the TMA (except for parts of Eldorado Valley); 4) not allow additional landfills to be established within the TMA; 5) not take any action which would increase the recreational activities within the TMA; and 6) otherwise manage the TMA on public lands for the conservation of desert tortoises. These conservation actions were to be incorporated into the Las Vegas RMP once approved. Approximately 540,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat have been conserved by federal land managers as a direct result of the Clark County's habitat conservation efforts. Grazing privileges on five allotments totaling 753,500 acres of BLM managed land have been purchased and put into non-use. Some of these allotments included 4-93 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS NPS lands. Those portions of the allotments in Lake Mead NRA, approximately 435,900 acres were closed to grazing. Approximately 594,900 acres in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (435,900 BLM and 159,000 NPS) has either been closed to grazing or is managed under voluntary non-use. An estimated 419,150 acres of this is tortoise habitat. According to Jim Moore, Director of Public Lands for the Nature Conservancy, there has been drift of trespass cattle onto TNC Allotments, negating some of the non-use intentions. The two year start-up period has expired. Only allotments with transactions in progress now qualify for purchase by Clark County. Additional livestock grazing permits within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit may be purchased in the future for the benefit of desert tortoise through other funding sources. Negotiations involving the permittees on the Sand Hollow and Beacon allotments have been ongoing regarding the retirement of grazing privileges which include lands in the Beaver Dam Slope (Nevada) tortoise critical habitat unit. Once this Plan Amendment is completed, both the Sand Hollow and the Beacon allotments would be closed to grazing. Negotiations are also underway with the Moapa Piute concerning retirement of the grazing privileges on the Rox Tule allotment. Predation A variety of animals prey on the desert tortoise or their eggs including foxes, coyotes, raptors, badgers and ravens. Ravens are federally protected through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They continue to grow in population and have an important impact on juvenile tortoise (see Chapter 3). Even at the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in Las Vegas the juvenile desert tortoise must be kept in raven-proof cages, or they may be eaten. Populations of ravens have increased in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit because of a variety of factors: increased numbers of landfills and feedlots which provide a source of food, range developments have provided a source of water, construction of electrical transmission lines provide an unnaturally high number of nesting and roosting sites, increased miles of roads and highways which result in increased roadkills which ravens use as a food source and protection of the species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 1994 a raven control program was initiated by the BLM in California in cooperation with the National Biological Service and the Wildlife Service. The need for such a program was based on such evidence as 250 juvenile tortoise shells being found beneath single raven nests. Because of public concern with killing of the ravens the program was short-lived and the effectiveness of the program could not be evaluated. "...the Fish and Wildlife Service's Breeding Bird Survey Program provided data to show a 15-fold increase in raven populations in the Mojave Desert..." (USFWS, p. 6, 1994a) Raven populations will likely continue to increase within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit because of a combination of factors including their recent population trends and their status as a Federally protected species. Populations of other predators such as kit fox and coyotes have not shown such a dramatic increase in populations. Utilities A wide variety of utilities including transmission lines, telephone lines, fiberoptic lines, and pipelines have been installed throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, 4-94 CHAPTER 4 ^ CUMULATIVE IMPACTS concentrated around population centers. This type of development has also resulted in surface disturbance in previously undisturbed, backcountry areas. The maintenance roads created to serve these linear facilities have provided access routes for the public into the desert backcountry. Hoover Dam, constructed in the 1930s and 1940s is located Northeast of the Piute/Eldorado ACEC. A portion of the power generated at Hoover Dam is distributed locally by Nevada Power Company through its transmission network. However, the bulk of the power generated is transmitted to California through Southern Nevada Edison and Los Angeles Water and Power lines. In addition, the Navaho-McCullough transmission line transmits power from Page, Arizona to southern California. Several large interstate transmission lines cross the Mormon Mesa proposed ACEC. In addition, the Kern River Natural Gas Pipeline ROW crosses the proposed ACEC and extends through the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. There is an existing Nevada-McCullough powerline across the Utah, Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. A mile wide corridor has been legislatively designated by the Nevada-Florida Exchange Authorization Act of 1988, which parallels US 93 on the east side of the highway. A corridor exists on the Moapa Indian Reservation, which extends 1500 feet westerly from the Reid Gardner-Pecos transmission line and 1500 feet easterly of the ROW for the McCullough transmission line. The Intermountain Power Project transmission line traverses the Recovery Unit. These powerlines provide roosting and nesting sites for ravens and the associated maintenance roads provide public access into the backcountry. Utility transmission line corridors and access roads increase the visibility of tortoises to predators, particularly hatchlings and juveniles. The USFWS and the BLM are currently developing a programmatic approach to long-term pipeline maintenance. (USFWS, p. 5829, 1994d) A second yet unconstructed powerline will parallel the existing Navaho-McCullough ROW across the Beaver Dam Slope. About 5,000 acres of lands in DWMAs within the Las Vegas District could be disturbed due to anticipated utility corridors. Approximately 1,800 acres are in the Rainbow Gardens corridor which cannot be activated unless released from wilderness consideration. The final EIS for the Southwest Intertie Power Project (SWIP) has been completed and a Record of Decision issued. This project is anticipated to begin construction during the timeframe of this analysis and is projected to disturb tortoise habitat along 52 miles of the line. Approximately 30,000 acres within the proposed ACECs in the Las Vegas District would be designated as utility corridors. Approximately 13,000 acres of this are within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. There would be designated corridors through all of the proposed ACECs except for Gold Butte. In addition, about 12,400 acres of the Boulder City Conservation Easement is within reserved corridors. Approximately 6% of the proposed ACEC acreage within the Las Vegas District would be within designated utility corridors. If the Sunrise Mountain WSA is released from wilderness consideration, it would open the Rainbow Gardens Corridor for use. This would increase the likelihood of transmission lines from northern Nevada going through the Boulder City Conservation Easement or the Piute/Eldorado ACEC. The Intermountain Power Project could have an additional powerline added to their corridor during the life of this plan. This would disturb tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 4-95 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Human Predation Desert tortoise served as a staple food for thousands of years for the aboriginal inhabitants of what is now the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, as evidenced through data recovered through archeological sites such as tortoise roasting pits, and ethnographic reports of early explorers. "Human 'predation' is a major factor in the decline of the desert tortoise" (USFWS, p.6, 1994a) Mortality of desert tortoise due to gunshot is common in many parts of the Mojave Region. "At the BLMs Western Mojave Desert Study Plots, 14.6% to 28.9% of all desert tortoise carcasses bore evidence of gunshots..." (USFWS, p. D-6, 1994a) Approximately 10% of the tortoise shell remains from a study plot near Littlefield, Arizona had gunshot wounds. (USFWS, p. 5823, 1994d) "The threat of collections should not be underestimated and will continue to remain high for three reasons. First, most new arrivals to the Southwest are unaware that desert tortoises are protected. Second, the presence of law enforcement officers in open desert lands is inadequate. And third, commercial poaching of rare, threatened, and endangered species is well documented, and in some cases, a lucrative business." (USFWS, p. D-5, 1994a) Tortoise are a traditional food in some developing countries and, "...many former residents of these areas are bringing their traditional practices with them as they migrate to... Las Vegas and elsewhere in the west." (USFWS, p. D-3, 1994a) Wilderness Study Areas There is a total of 1,507,821 acres of BLM WSAs within Nevada within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. A total of 406,266 acres of these have been recommended to Congress as "suitable" by the BLM for wilderness designation. A portion of these areas contain tortoise habitat, below 4,000 feet in elevation. These lands are managed under "interim management". The primary objective of the management of these lands is to manage them in such a manner as to not to impair their suitability for designation as wilderness. (FLPMA, section 603) Wilderness study area status would continue to provide interim protection from surface disturbance within some of the tortoise habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Portions of the existing WSAs are projected to be designated as Wilderness by Congress during the life of this plan. Portions of tortoise habitat released from wilderness consideration would still be subject to Section 7 Consultation with the USFWS. Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) URTD is a respiratory disease which is easily transmitted and is potentially fatal to the desert tortoise. "URTD appears to be spreading and may have been introduced to wild populations through illegal releases of diseased captive desert tortoises. Reduced nutritional conditions for desert tortoise, as a result of alterations in native vegetation communities and the native forage species availability caused by years of livestock grazing, has increased desert tortoise susceptibility to this and other diseases. Wild desert tortoises with signs of URTD are commonly found near cities and towns with concentrations of captive tortoises." (USFWS p. 5824, 1994d) URTD has been documented in Nevada tortoise populations. Since 1990, signs of URTD have been documented on five of the permanent study plots in Nevada (Coyote Springs, Christmas Tree Pass, Piute Valley, Mormon Mesa and Gold Butte). WHAT RESOURCES WOULD BE IMPACTED CUMULATIVELY According to the BLM "Guidelines For Assessing and Documenting Cumulative Impacts" handbook, the amount of analysis that is necessary can be greatly reduced by limiting cumulative analysis only to those issues and resource values identified during scoping that are of major importance. (Bureau of Land Management, 1994f) The issues and resource values of major importance or public concern which will be analyzed for cumulative impacts are impacts to the desert tortoise, OHV events, and livestock grazing. 4-96 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IMPACT ANALYSIS Desert Tortoise Introduction This impact discussion is common to all action alternatives. All habitat disturbing actions and actions funded, authorized or carried out by Federal agencies which may affect the desert tortoise must undergo a section 7 consultation with the USFWS. The subsequent "terms and conditions" of the biological opinions would be incorporated in the decision document and the permit or grant -issued. Federal actions within designated critical habitat would be more likely to result in a jeopardy opinion since this type of designation is evaluated for "adverse modification of habitat" as well as "take". This would minimize the effects of activities on the desert tortoise throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Management Direction There are 856,000 acres of designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. These are managed by a variety of agencies. In the attempt to recover the desert tortoise, the goals and objectives of the USFWS Recovery Plan would be implemented through a combination of management directions including the Arizona Strip RMP Amendment; Tonopah RMP; Las Vegas RMP; Caliente MFP Amendment; Dixie, Utah RMP; Lake Mead National Recreation Area General Management Plan; and the Clark, Washington and Lincoln Counties Habitat Conservation Plans. Table 4-10 "Proposed Management Areas Within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit", shows the proposed acreage within each DWMA or ACEC by jurisdictional unit. This table was used on June 11, 1976, by the BLM in "Proposed Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit". It was used for informal consultation on implementation of the Recovery Plan in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. There are approximately 1,780 square miles of desert tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit proposed for tortoise management by the BLM. An additional 280 square miles have been proposed for ACEC designation for the management of tortoise, by the BLM. These ACECs would be managed for recovery of the desert tortoise. Additional acreage would be designated in the Ivanpah Valley in California by the NPS, but further details are lacking. This table does not include the acreage within the Desert National Wildlife Refuge nor the portion of Lake Mead National Recreation Area that is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The USFWS and the NPS have committed to manage tortoise habitat on these administrative units in accordance with Recovery Plan recommendations. For a comprehensive overview of the implementation of management prescriptions for DWMAs/ ACECs on BLM administered lands in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, see Table 4-11 "Proposed Management Prescriptions for Desert Tortoise Management Areas in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit". This is the table that was used in June of 1997 for informal consultation between the BLM and the USFWS on a Recovery Unit Basis. The table is different in some respects from the proposed action for the Caliente land use planning effort since application of the recommendations in the Recovery Plan have been modified through discussion with USFWS to provide for multiple uses while recovering the tortoise. The combination of protective designations and management prescriptions would implement the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan and ensure management attention for the desert tortoise. The combination of DWMAs/ACECs which are proposed can be seen on Map 4-1. The boundary of the combination of areas does not follow the preferred reserve design as recommended in the Recovery Plan, particularly in regard to having a low edge to area ratio, and being unfragmented. It must be understood, 4-97 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4-10. Proposed Management Area Within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. MANAGEMENT AREA UNIT AREA (SQ. MI.)1 AREA (ACRES)2 COYOTE SPRING ACEC/DWMA (NEVADA BLM) STATELINE RA 118 75,500 KANE SPRINGS ACEC/DWMA (NEVADA BLM) CALIENTE RA 103 65,900 MORMON MESA ACEC/DWMA (NEVADA BLM) STATELINE RA CALIENTE RA 237 172 151,400 109,700 PAKOON - GOLD BUTTE ACEC/DWMA (AZ/NV BLM, NPS) STATELINE RA SHIVWITS RA LMNRA 293 128 81 187,400 81,900 51,800 BEAVER DAM SLOPE ACEC (AZ/NV/UT BLM) CALIENTE RA SfflVWITS RA DIXIE RA 69 76 64 44,000 48,400 41,100 VIRGIN SLOPE ACEC (ARIZONA BLM) SfflVWITS RA 72 45,900 DESERT WILDLIFE REFUGE (NV FWS DWMA) 241 154,000 PIUTE/ELDORADO ACEC/DWMA (BLM, NPS DWMA) STATELINE RA LMNRA 327 83 209,800 53,400 IVANPAH VALLEY (NPS MOJAVE NP, CA BLM) No data available on future designations. Total of approximately 450 sq. miles within NE Mojave RU in California. No data available on future designations. Total area within NE Mojave RU in California is equal to approximately 300,000 ac. TOTAL ACEC/DWMA TOTAL ACEC '" 1,7833 280 1,141,0003 179,400 1 - Area in sq. miles rounded to nearest mile. 2 - Area in acres rounded to nearest 100 acres. 3 - Area in California not included in total acreage. 4-98 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4-11. Proposed Management Prescriptions for Desert Tortoise Management Area in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (as of June 1997, for consultation purposes). DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT DESERT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA/AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN PRESCRIPTION PROPOSALS RECOVERY PLAN RECOMMENDATION smvwrrs RESOURCE AREA, ARIZONA BLM DIXIE RESOURCE AREA, UTAH BLM CALIENTE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA BLM STATELINE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA BLM PROHIBITED: All vehicle activity off of designated roads, all competitive and organized events on designated roads. Limit vehicle activity to designated roads - no competitive or commercial organized events. Allow limited non-speed and other permitted events on existing, designated roads. Maintenance of designated roads. Limit vehicle activity to designated roads - no competitive speed events within ACEC/DWMAs. Allow limited non-speed and other permitted events on existing, designated roads. Consider non-OHV and commercial uses only on a case-by-case basis and evaluate any proposals against recovery objectives. PROHIBITED: Habitat destructive military maneuvers, clearing for agriculture, landfills, and any other surface disturbance that diminishes the capacity of the land to support desert tortoises, other wildlife, and native vegetation. PROHIBITED: Domestic livestock grazing. Closed to sheep use. Pakoon ACEC/DWMA: closed to grazing. ACECs: non-active season grazing from Oct. 15 to March 15. Beaver Dam Slope ACEC: allow non-active season grazing from Oct. 15 to March 15. Closed to sheep use. No domestic livestock grazing authorized inside ACEC/DWMAs. Each BLM office that plans to continue to authorize livestock grazing on a seasonal basis would authorize non-use if requested by a permittee (for example, if an allotment were to be purchased by a conservative group). PROHIBITED: Grazing by wild burros and horses. Set Tassi herd level to 0. Remove all burros from Pakoon ACEC/DWMA. N/A The Beaver Dam Slope has no burros or wild horses. Set herd level at 0 within ACEC/DWMAs. Remove horses and burros in ACEC/DWMAs but outside of HMA. Maintain herds outside of ACEC/DWMAs. PROHIBITED: Vegetation harvest, except by permit. No commercial vegetation harvest, except on salvage basis after consultation. No vegetative material sales. Allow vegetative harvest on salvage basis only after consultation. PROHIBITED: Collection of biological specimens, except by permit. PROHIBITED: Dumping and littering. PROHIBITED: Deposition of captive or displaced desert tortoises or other animals, except under authorized translocation research projects. COMPATIBLE: Limited speed travel on designated, signed roads. Allow organized, limited non-speed events on designated roads within ACEC/DWMAs and ACECs. Casual use limited to existing designated roads and trails. ACEC/DWMA and ACECs closed to speed competitive OHV events. 4-99 &'*l ssmmsK CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4-11. Proposed Management Prescriptions for Desert Tortoise Management Area in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, (as of June 1997, for consultation purposes) continued. DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT DESERT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA/AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN PRESCRIPTION PROPOSALS RECOVERY PLAN RECOMMENDATION SHIVWITS RESOURCE AREA, ARIZONA BLM DIXIE RESOURCE AREA, UTAH BLM CALD3NTE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA BLM STATELINE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA BLM COMPATIBLE: Non-consumptive recreation (e.g., hiking, birdwatching, casual horseback riding, and photography). Non-consumptive recreation allowed subject to OHV and commercial restrictions. Evaluate proposals against recovery objectives. COMPATIBLE: Parking and camping in designated areas. Parking within 25 feet of designated roads, all areas open to camping. Camping limit 14 days. Camping limit 14 days. Restrict camping within Vt mile of catchments, guzzlers, designated waters. Establish sites for parking and camping as appropriate and necessary. Camping limits of 14 days. COMPATIBLE: Fire suppression that minimizes surface disturbance. Same as Recovery Plan. Emphasize aerial, hand attack. Minimize surface disturbances. Desert tortoise resource advisor on site whenever possible, firefighter education program. Locate camps and staging areas in previously disturbed areas wherever practical. COMPATIBLE: Permitted or otherwise controlled maintenance of existing utilities. Non-emergency maintenance limited to inactive season. No restrictions other than those in ROW grant specific for each utility. COMPATIBLE: Surface disturbances that enhance the quality of habitat for wildlife, enhance watershed protection, or improve non-motorized recreation opportunities. Permitted activities include surface disturbance that enhance quality of other uses such as wildlife habitat, watershed protection, etc., including population enhancement of other wildlife species, except tortoise predators. Surface disturbance allowed where no impact to listed or candidate species would occur. Allow construction of upland game guzzlers and other waters for wildlife as long as it doesn't conflict with desert tortoises. Authorize no land uses that would result in surface disturbance within ACEC/DWMAs. 4-100 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Table 4-11. Proposed Management Prescriptions for Desert Tortoise Management Area in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (as of June 1997, for consultation purposes) continued. DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - NORTHEASTERN MOJAVE RECOVERY UNIT DESERT WUTJLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA/AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN PRESCRIPTION PROPOSALS SHTVWITS DIXIE RESOURCE CALD2NTE STATELINE RECOVERY PLAN RESOURCE AREA, RESOURCE AREA, RESOURCE AREA, RECOMMENDATION AREA, ARIZONA BLM UTAH BLM NEVADA BLM NEVADA BLM Realty Retain all habitat Retain all habitat ACEC/DWMAs consider ROW avoidance areas; Actions/Rights-of-Ways within within ACEC. all applications evaluated on a case-by-case in (Not addressed in ACEC/DWMA and Beaver Dam Slope is the context of the recovery. New communication DTRP) ACECs. ROW avoidance area, sites would be limited to existing sites whenever ACEC/DWMA and except within fenced feasible. The ACEC/DWMA and ACEC would ACECs are boundary of Highway be ROW exclusion areas for new material site avoidance areas; 91. ROWS under Fed. Aid Highway Act. ROWs not allowed in ACECs unless no reasonable alternative exists. Require compensation for unmitigated impacts. COMPATIBLE: Locatable: Plan of Locatable: Plan of Locatable: Plan of Locatable: Plan of Mining on case-by-case Operation required. Operation required. Operation required. Operation required. basis, provided that Same as Recovery Leasable: Cateeorv 2 Leasable: Open to Same as Recovery cumulative impacts do Plan. Bonding as special stipulations. development. Plan. not significantly impact appropriate to Saleable Minerals: Exploration limited to Leasable: No surface desert tortoise habitants assure restoration. Closed. Oct. IS to March 15, occupancy. or populations, that any Leasable: Seasonal and limited to Saleable: Closed to potential effects on restrictions; no designated roads and sales except allow tortoise populations are surface occupancy trails. free-use material sales carefully mitigated authorized until Saleable Minerals: ROW to local during the operation, after completion of Closed, except for government agencies and that the land is consultation. existing designated within one mile of restored to its Saleable: Closed to material pits, highways or county predisturbance sales except hand community pits, and roads. condition. picking of rocks within 100' of designated open roadways. common use areas. COMPATIBLE: Same as Recovery Enhancement of other Allow enhancement of Population Population Plan. Population species allowed when native wildlife species enhancement of enhancement of native enhancement of consistent with desert if it is consistent with native wildlife species. wildlife species. native wildlife species. tortoise objectives. desert tortoise recovery. 4-101 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS however, that the Desert Tortoise Recovery Team frankly admits that it would not be possible for two out of the five proposed DWMAs in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit to meet the preferred reserve design. In regard to the Beaver Dam Slope DWMA the Recovery Team states, "A more compact, circular shape would be preferred, but is not possible." (USFWS, p. 47, 1994b). In regard to the Gold Butte-Pakoon DWMA the Recovery Team states, "The Gold Butte-Pakoon DWMA should contain between 270 and 310 square miles in an elongate 'C shape opening to the east..." (USFWS, p. 55, 1994b) An elongate "C" design does not meet the listed preferred reserve design. The proposed combination of DWMAs/ACECs contain a high percentage of the best remaining habitat, much of which is relatively inaccessible to human disturbance. "The plan recommends reserves that are at least 1,000 sq. miles in extent with boundaries that include the best examples of desert tortoise habitat." (Duck, p. 7, 1996) The combination of agency proposals within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is almost twice that which is recommended in the Recovery Plan. This vast amount of acreage set aside and more intensive management' for desert tortoise management compensates for the reserve design. In addition to the acreage set aside for protection of desert tortoise, more intensive management is being proposed outside of the ACECs for tortoise within the Caliente Planning Area. As the Recovery Plan states on pages ii, 43 and 47; more intensive management of tortoise habitat can compensate for any lack of appropriate acreage within a Recovery Unit. Surface disturbance would be minimized within the Special Management Areas, thus protecting tortoise habitat. Importance of Cumulative Impacts According to the Recovery Plan, it is cumulative impacts which have led to the listing of the desert tortoise. "A variety of other human uses have caused significant quantitative and qualitative losses of desert tortoise habitat. Urbanization; agricultural development; construction and use of transportation routes and corridors; development of utility corridors; exploration for and development of hard rock minerals, sand and gravel pits, oil and gas, and other mineral resources; and concentrated visitor use are all important causes of widespread habitat destruction. In some portions of the desert, military activities. ..also contribute to the degradation and loss of tortoise habitat.. .The combined effects of these various activities have resulted in extirpations and population declines of desert tortoise throughout the Mojave region." (USFWS, p. 10, 1994a) "The desert tortoise was listed as threatened primarily because a variety of human impacts which cumulatively have resulted in widespread and severe desert tortoise population decline and habitat loss. ..Some factors are likely more important than others; for instance urbanization has probably caused more habitat loss than light cattle grazing." (USFWS, p. 45, 1994a) "The most serious problem facing the remaining desert tortoise populations in the Mojave region. ..is the cumulative load of human and disease-related mortality accompanied by habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation." (USFWS, p. 3, 1994a) There would be long-term, cumulative impacts to the desert ecosystem, its wildlife and special status species from implementation of the combination of proposed actions throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Protection of desert tortoise habitat through DWMA/ACEC designation, implementation of management actions and protection from disturbance on approximately 1 . 1 million acres of tortoise habitat in southern Nevada, Northwestern Arizona, southeast California and southwest Utah would provide additional protection for the habitat of many wildlife and plant species. 4-102 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Tracking of Cumulative Impacts The potential, future tracking system for analyzing cumulative impacts within the DWMAs/ACECs in the Las Vegas District would help ensure that individually minor but collectively significant impacts do not occur. This tracking system can be considered for use throughout the desert tortoise habitat on public lands. This is consistent with the USFWS Conservation Recommendation in their Biological Opinion of August 14, 1991 which stated, that the BLM should use a Geographical Information System to analyze the cumulative impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise habitats on a range-wide basis. Urbanization of Tortoise Habitat According to the FEIS for the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan, "The greatest threat to the continued existence of the desert tortoise in Clark County has been and continues to be loss and degradation of habitat." (USFWS, Appendix A, p. 17, 1995b) According to the Tortoise Group public information pamphlet, "The rapid destruction of habitat in the Las Vegas area was one of the major reasons for the Federal listing of the tortoise as a Threatened species" "Urban development in Las Vegas Valley has all but eliminated what may have been one of the largest and densest tortoise populations in Nevada" (USFWS, p. 68, 1995c). In addition, the remaining habitat in the Las Vegas Valley has been seriously fragmented. The Las Vegas metropolitan area ranked second in the nation with an economic growth rate of 10.8 percent. From 1983 to 1993 Clark County's population increased from 535,108 to 919,388. By 2020 the population is expected to grow to 1,450,409. (USFWS, p 79, 1995b). Over the next ten years the Valley as a whole is expected to gain over 215,000 residents, with about 43% of the increase occurring in the Valley's unincorporated areas. (USFWS, p. 80, 1995b) This explosive growth is expected to continue, resulting in an increasing demand on public lands in southern Nevada for infrastructure needs, utility and road corridors and recreational opportunities. Other portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit including Moapa, Mesquite, Alamo and Ash Springs, SE Utah, NW Arizona and southern California will likely also experience population growth. According to the Companion Document to the Recovery Plan, (USFWS, 1994b) few human activities are expected over the next several decades within the mostly undisturbed, isolated and rugged terrain of the proposed Gold Butte-Pakoon DWMA and the Coyote Springs DWMA. Public lands within the proposed DWMAs/ACECs would not be available for sale, lease or exchange. "Population declines or extirpations attributable to cumulative impacts have occurred ... near Las Vegas, Laughlin, and Mesquite, Nevada; and St George, Utah... Future extirpations can be expected in the vicinities of all cities, towns and settlements." (USFWS, p. 3, 1994a) There are inherent impacts to the tortoise at the interface of the urban areas and desert tortoise habitat including uncontrolled dogs, OHV use, indiscriminate shooting, collecting of tortoise and vandalism. Human population growth and urbanization is projected to continue within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit which will have localized severe impacts on tortoise populations primarily through loss of habitat but also from increases in killing and harassment from people and domestic and feral dogs. 4-103 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Desert tortoise habitat around cities and towns will continue to be sacrificed to urbanization. Land disposal and conversion of habitat would continue to be one of the most important impacts to the desert tortoise and tortoise habitat. It is estimated that more than 170,000 acres of public lands, mostly in the Las Vegas Valley, would be transferred into private ownership within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit during the life of this plan. Much of this land would be developed and become unsuitable as tortoise habitat but will be mitigated through collection of a $550 per acre fee which would go into the tortoise conservation fund administered by Clark County. The money would be used to support efforts to recover and delist the tortoise. Habitat Conservation Plans in place within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit consist of the Washington County, Utah, Pahrump Landfill and the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan. The Ash Springs HCP is under consideration, and the Lincoln County HCP is being prepared. These HCPs provide a mechanism for community growth, take of tortoise, and elimination of tortoise habitat while providing money to fund projects, purchase habitat and research to help insure the survival of the species. During the Clark County Short Term HCP 1 ,300 tortoise were collected. The long-term Clark County Desert Conservation Plan may impact up to 113,900 acres, less than 4% of the more than 3.5 million acres of desert tortoise habitat in the county. (USFWS, p 82, 1995b) Of that 113,900 acres, 80% is likely to support desert tortoise habitat." (USFWS, p. 83, 1995b) It is projected that during the life of the permit (1994-2023) $44,757,642 will be raised to be used for conservation of the desert tortoise. (USFWS, 1995b) The short term Clark County HCP allowed incidental take of 3,710 desert tortoise on 22,352 acres. The long term Clark County HCP authorized disturbance of up to 113,900 acres, of which 80% is expected to support tortoise habitat. "It was determined that a numeric cap on take of desert tortoises in the permit area would be arbitrary and difficult to administer." (USFWS, p. 33, 1995f) The number of tortoise which will be directly and indirectly impacted through development of the 113,900 acres in the Las Vegas Valley is unknown. The Harrich Investments, LLC property (formerly Aerojet) includes some of the best remaining undisturbed tortoise habitat. (Karl, 1981) The future of this property is unknown. If it were to become available an attempt would be made by the Bureau of Land Management to acquire it for tortoise conservation purposes. There is a possibility that the BLM would enter into an exchange with Harrich, to exchange Harrich leased lands for Harrich patented lands. If this would occur, it would only do so to enhance ACEC reserve design as well as improve critical desert tortoise habitat and there would be no net loss of critical habitat to the BLM. Conversely, if more land were to be developed in this area, human impacts would increase in the Coyote Springs ACEC. Habitat fragmentation from human impacts would continue in tortoise habitat throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit except in the designated DWMAs/ACECs which would be managed to preserve and/or restore their natural integrity. In these areas the affects of existing habitat fragmentation would be lessened through reclamation. The public lands within these DWMAs/ACECs would be retained in public ownership. Management Oversight Group (MOG) The majority of land in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is public land, which facilitates recovery of the tortoise. The fact that these public lands are managed by a variety of agencies could potentially hamper efforts to achieve a consolidated approach to desert tortoise recovery; however, the MOG, as an interagency coordinating committee includes representatives of all affected agencies to ensure a coordinated effort in regard to implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan. 4-104 CHAPTER 4 ^___ CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Monitoring A monitoring method (Distance Sampling) has been selected by the MOG. The coordination of monitoring by the Interagency Monitoring Committee which is proposed in the Arizona Strip and the Caliente LUP Amendments would help to provide accurate information on population numbers and trends in order to successfully evaluate recovery of the desert tortoise. Transportation Routes and Corridors "Substantial numbers of desert tortoise are killed on roads." (USFWS, p. 58, 1994a) Tortoise would continue to be killed by vehicles on the roads and highways in proportion to the volume of traffic during the tortoise active season and the density of the tortoise population. "Heavy recreational use at Lake Mead National Recreation Area probably results in road mortality..." (USFWS, p. 57, 1994b) Disruption would also occur from construction, maintenance and loss of habitat. New barriers to movements would be created by the addition of roads within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. As the volume and speed of traffic increases in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit there would be the potential for increased numbers of tortoise killed on roads. This trend would be tempered by the construction of highway fences and road barriers as required in Clark County's Sec. 10 permit for their Desert Conservation Plan. Also, the impact would be reduced by modification of existing culverts to provide for better underpasses for tortoise. NDOT manages approximately 1,000 miles of roadway throughout desert tortoise habitat in Clark, Lincoln, Nye, Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties. About 900 miles of this is within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. In addition there are many miles of County and BLM roads throughout tortoise habitat. The Clark County HCP specifies procedures for NDOT to follow during normal and emergency maintenance activities and construction activities in order to protect tortoise. For example, mowing of vegetation will only be allowed from June 16 through February 28. The area of NDOT activity covered by this plan includes approximately 1000 miles of roadway (affecting about 2,900 acres) through desert tortoise habitat in Clark, Nye, Lincoln, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties that are presently maintained by NDOT. Incidental take will be allowed in connection with the maintenance of roads, highways and material sites. NDOT and Federal Highway Act material sites remain active until relinquished. During 1996, highway barriers were installed along 1-15 and State Route 161 in conjunction with a tortoise relocation program. Tortoise proof barriers are also being installed along US Highway 95 in Piute Valley. These barriers will be monitored and evaluated for their effectiveness and longevity. Currently, Clark County's Implementation and Monitoring Committee is evaluating which roads should have priority for fencing over the next few years. Clark County and the Nature Conservancy have begun constructing tortoise barriers along US Highway 95 within Piute Valley during the interim consultation period. The number of miles that will be completed is unknown at this time, as the project is experimental and it is being implemented privately by supervised volunteers. All roads within the proposed northern DWMAs (Coyote Springs, Mormon Mesa and Gold Butte-Pakoon) have been surveyed using GIS. The BLM will use this information to determine appropriate road designations so that when the planning efforts are completed the road designations can be made and the signs posted. Interstates such as 1-15, US 93 and US 95, and railroads, concentrated around major population centers, would continue to form important barriers to movement of the desert tortoise throughout the Northeastern Mojave 4-105 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Recovery Unit. The high speed roads constitute major barriers to tortoise movements and have created "sinks" where as tortoise are killed on roads, other tortoise move into the area to take their place, only to meet the same fate. The modification of existing underpasses would allow for movements and gene flow between populations. The proposed tortoise proof fencing along roads would limit their movement but would reduce the number of road kills. The proposed road closures in Special Management Areas and limitations of casual use to designated roads and trails would protect the tortoise by limiting and directing public backcountry use. Mining There is little surface disturbance from active mining or oil and gas activities throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Sand and gravel extraction is expected to be the most active future mining use. NDOT anticipates 26 road widening projects resulting in 494 acres of disturbance and the need for about three new materials sites per year for the next three to five years and one per year thereafter adjacent to existing roadways in Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties. (Clark County, p. 53, 1994). ■ A maximum of about 2,400 acres of land may be developed as material sites over the thirty year term of the USFWS Section 10 (a) permit. (Clark County, p. 53, 1994). While this permit includes the majority of desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, similar types of disturbances will occur in other portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in Utah, Arizona and California, but to a lesser degree since there is a lower rate of population growth in these rural areas. The material sites created to provide sand and gravel for the roads would disrupt tortoise habitat. However, NDOT has agreed to relinquish several material sites ROWs in the Piute/Eldorado ACEC. They would also be locating their regional material sites outside of any designated Tortoise Special Management Areas. No new material sites would be located within the designated DWMAs/ACECs for tortoise. Existing sites within these areas would be rehabilitated once they are relinquished by the permit holder. Recovery, however, would take a long time. Military Activities Continued weapons testing/training at Nellis may affect an estimated 12 desert tortoises annually. Plus, these activities would further annually degrade 971 acres of disturbed desert tortoise habitat associated with target impact zones. Desert tortoise may be impacted by vehicles on maintenance roads or traveling off-road, by ordnance activities within unfenced target impact zones, wildfires caused by ordnance, illegal collecting of tortoise, or from noise and vibrations. It is the Biological Opinion that continuation of the current weapons testing/training on the DNWR is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise. Department of Energy Any activity on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) which may affect desert tortoise is carefully regulated and efforts are made to minimize negative impacts. Access to NTS is restricted which protects tortoises from collection or harassment by the public. These animals are also isolated from exposure to released pet tortoises that may be infected with URTD. Since NTS is restricted access, no permits for commercial or competitive events are issued. DOE/NV security and management guidelines prohibit grazing, hunting, trapping, carrying firearms, off-road driving and harassing wildlife. Use of hazardous materials is strictly controlled. DOE/NV employees and contractors must complete a tortoise education program (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Field Office, Biological Assessment of the Effects of Activities of the U.S. Department of Energy, Field Office, Nevada on the Threatened Desert Tortoise, July 1991). 4-106 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Wilderness There are more than one and a half million acres within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit which are under consideration for designation as wilderness. Some of these lands include tortoise habitat. The eventual designation as wilderness of portions of tortoise habitat would serve to provide additional protection for the tortoise. For the tortoise habitat within existing WSAs which are not designated as wilderness, Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would provide protection. Those portions of DWMAs or ACECs within WSAs which are released from further consideration as Wilderness would be managed under their respective desert tortoise protective designation. Upper Respiratory Tract Disease URTD would continue to be endemic within the tortoise population and continue to cause fatalities. There is no known cure for infected tortoise. "In the Mojave population the outbreak and incidence of URTD appears to be closely correlated with known and suspected release sites for captives, as well as with the proximity to urban development and degree of human access." (USFWS, p. D-8, 1994a) Public education, law enforcement and limitations on public access would help to minimize release of diseased tortoises and spread of the disease. The tortoise populations within the more isolated habitats would be less likely to contract URTD since release of infected tortoise is unlikely to occur in the more remote locations. Improved nutrition for the desert tortoise through improvement in their habitats and perennial vegetative communities will cause the tortoise to be less susceptible to this and other diseases. Environmental Education The combination of environmental education efforts by the variety of agencies would promote public awareness and should help to reduce vandalism, unauthorized collection and the spread of URTD through fewer releases of diseased tortoise into the wild. Law Enforcement Implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan would strengthen existing regulatory mechanisms to protect tortoise and their habitat. Since the listing of the desert tortoise as threatened, protection of their habitats would also be a higher priority for law enforcement. OHV Activities Throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit "OHV activities are among the most destructive, widespread, and best documented of threats to the survival of desert tortoises. ..and to the integrity of their habitats..." (USFWS, p. D-16, 1994a) It is expected that all DWMAs/ACECs, once established through the BLM planning process, would be closed to motorized travel or use limited to designated roads and trails. On August 30, 1995, the USFWS completed their Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Proposed Issuance of Special Recreation Use Permits for Speed-Based Off-Highway Vehicle Events in the Las Vegas District. The purpose of the programmatic biological opinion was to better assess the overall impacts of the Bureau's OHV program, and replaces previous documents, with greater protection of areas designated for recovery of the tortoise, and will be in effect for a period of five years from the date of issuance. USFWS Terms and Conditions and Bureau Special Stipulations would be strictly adhered to, and OHV events in the Piute/Eldorado Valley ACEC/DWMA have additional Service Conditions and seasonal restrictions. 4-107 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS "OHV use has increased and proliferated since the 1960's" (USFWS, p. D-16, 1994a). Casual OHV activity not associated with organized events occurs continuously in the race areas near metropolitan areas, and has a much greater effect on the desert tortoise and its habitat than regulated OHV events. In their Biological Opinion for Las Vegas District and the Caliente Resource Area, the USFWS anticipated that two tortoise may be accidentally injured or killed during the speed OHV events each year and a total of 941 acres of disturbed desert tortoise critical habitat may be further degraded during OHV events each year. Recreational use of tortoise habitat outside of DWMAs/ACECs would continue to cause direct mortality of tortoise, habitat damage, and result in collection and unauthorized release of tortoise. "The use of OHVs appears to have a significant effect on tortoise abundance and distribution. Although road closures have been implemented in some areas illegal vehicle route proliferation has also occurred in many areas and can result in significant cumulative loss of habitat." (USFWS, p, 5824, 1994d) Outside of the DWMAs/ACECs for tortoise, impacts of competitive OHV events would continue and would include habitat impacts such as loss of soil from erosion, soil compaction, destruction of plants, burrows, and crushing of some individual tortoises. In addition to the OHVs, spectators at competitive events can have as much or more impact on tortoise and their habitat. This would be controlled through the use authorization and law enforcement. Casual OHV and recreational use on public lands is expected to increase. (USFWS Biological Opinion File No. 1-5-97-F-237) Impacts to tortoise habitat in proposed ACECs would be minimized by closing some of the existing trails, restricting organized OHV events to designated roads, and limiting casual use to designated roads and trails. Human Predation According to the Recovery Plan, (USFWS, p. D-3, 1994a) many former residents of other countries are bringing their traditional practices of using tortoise for human consumption as they immigrate to Las Vegas and elsewhere in the west. Also, "...commercial poaching of rare, threatened, and endangered species is well documented, and in some cases, a lucrative business." (USFWS, p. D-5, 1994a) Human predation and vandalism of desert tortoise would continue but at a lesser rate in spite of the increasing human population. Factors which would contribute to this decrease consist of the variety of environmental education efforts ongoing and proposed, increased law enforcement activity, and limitations on public access into the tortoise DWMAs/ACECs. According to the USFWS over 100,000 desert tortoise were in captivity prior to its listing in 1990. (USFWS, 1994a) People can now adopt tortoise from the Desert Tortoise Conservation Center. Predation "Predation by the common raven (Corvus corax) is intense on younger age classes of the desert tortoise and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Breeding Bird Survey Program provided data to show a 15-fold increase in raven populations in the Mojave Desert...from 1968 to 1988..." (USFWS, p. 6, 1994a) "Berry (1990, as amended) believes that predation pressure from ravens probably has resulted in such high losses of juveniles in some portions of the Mojave region that recruitment of immature desert tortoises into the adult population has been halted." (USFWS, p. 6-7, 1994a) Common raven populations have increased significantly in the southwestern deserts since the 1940s. Human use and activities have increased available foraging, roosting and nesting opportunities for ravens. These birds 4-108 CHAPTER 4 ^ CUMULATIVE IMPACTS are highly opportunistic in their feeding habits and concentrate on easily available seasonal sources of food such as juvenile tortoise. (USFWS, p. 5824, 1994d) The closure of the scattered open dumps throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would help to limit the raven and coyote population, both of which prey on the tortoise. In spite of this effort the trend of an increase in the raven population within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is expected to continue from a combination of factors including road kills as a food source, refuse, feedlots, range water developments and the raven's status as a Federally protected species. The anticipated increase in the raven population would increase the raven's detrimental impact to small tortoises, mostly less than 4 inches in shell length. A 20 year old tortoise is considered an adult and is not known to be preyed upon by ravens. "Towers supporting transmission lines also provide predatory birds with new perching and nesting sites which are otherwise scarce in the generally treeless habitat of the Mojave region..." (USFWS p. D-14, 1994a) In one three year California study 62% of the 564 shells of juvenile desert tortoise were found associated with raven perch or nest sites, most of which were along powerlines. (USFWS, p. D33, 1994a) The transmission towers would continue to serve as perches from which ravens will continue to prey on tortoise. "Raven predation on juveniles (up to 20 years old) can be a threat to the long-term persistence of desert tortoise populations." (USFWS, p. D-33, 1994a) Because raven populations are projected to increase throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit they will continue to have a serious impact on survival of juvenile tortoise. Localized control on predator populations, as proposed in the Caliente Amendment, and the Dixie RMP would allow for survival of a greater number of juvenile tortoise to a reproductive age. The proposed management actions which limit their food source, nesting and roosting opportunities may result in lower rates of increase in populations. As is pointed out in the Recovery Plan, however, a healthy population of desert tortoise only has a 2% survival rate from birth to adulthood and a substantial die-off of young is normal. Forage Utilization Grazing by domestic livestock has changed the vegetative composition within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. (Oldemeyer, p. 97, 1994) There is scientific disagreement as to whether or not this change in vegetation is permanent. With the existing surface disturbance, the establishment of exotic annuals and the fire re-burn cycle, the native perennial may never be able to become predominate again. Even with limitations on grazing in tortoise habitat, the low precipitation zones which exist throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would not allow for rapid improvement in vegetative conditions for tortoise. Shreve and Hinkley (1937) and other researchers have shown slow increases in native perennial grass cover in deserts with protection from grazing. Sid Slone, Wildlife Biologist for the BLM, has observed an increase in bush muhly in the Paiute Valley since grazing was eliminated. (Slone, 1997, personal communication) The acquisition of grazing privileges through implementation of the Clark County Short Term HCP was a conservation measure for the desert tortoise. An estimated 419,150 acres of tortoise habitat has been closed to grazing or is in voluntary non-use. However, there has been trespass livestock problems on some of the non-use allotments. If grazing privileges are retired as anticipated, then 36,900 acres of tortoise critical habitat in the Nevada portion of the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would be closed to grazing and 25,600 acres of the Rox-Tule Allotment would be closed to grazing. In addition, efforts are underway to fund the purchase of allotments in the Pakoon Basin which would then be retired. The combination of these proposals would lessen grazing use in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit and potentially provide more forage for the tortoise as well as improve the quality of forage in the long term. 4-109 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS One livestock grazing allotment and parts of three others would be closed to livestock grazing in Arizona. Five allotments in Arizona would have no spring or summer grazing. Grazing on one entire allotment and two pastures of a second allotment in Utah would be restricted to the period October 15 to March 15 of each year. Three allotments in Nevada would be closed and portions of 6 others, affecting approximately 12 operators. Monitoring of livestock grazing and vegetation utilization would help to maintain vegetation for the tortoise and other users. The designated critical habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is overlapped by 45 different grazing allotments. (USFWS, 1997b) Approximately 100% of the acreage within the designated critical habitat has been grazed by livestock in the past. (USFWS, 1997b) Twenty three percent (349,225 acres) of the critical habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit is not grazed by livestock because of voluntary non-use for conservation purposes under the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan. Limitations on grazing by domestic livestock and wild horses would increase the amount of spring forage available for desert tortoise and reduce the trampling of shallow dens. In the long term, the amount of perennial grasses would increase, improving forage and cover for desert tortoise. Outside of the tortoise ACECs and DWMAs grazing would be managed in accordance with the modified 1991 Biological Opinion on livestock grazing in tortoise habitat issued by the USFWS. Throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit tortoise could potentially benefit in the long term from reduction in grazing pressure from cattle since desert tortoise and cattle have an overlap in food habits (Oldemeyer, p. 100, 1994) The lessened competition would be most beneficial during the spring months. The desert tortoise obtains much of its annual nutrient intake during the spring blooms after the annual rains. It would be a long term impact since, "...the recovery of heavily used arid rangelands probably requires decades." (Oldemeyer, p. 97, 1994) In those areas where livestock are removed, the desert wildlife could be deprived of the use of livestock water developments which were formerly maintained by ranchers. The BLM would, however, determine which waters were needed and replace them for wildlife use. "An analysis of exclosures and other protected areas revealed the perennial-grass cover in deserts has increased with protection from grazing.. .The rate of succession is controlled to a large extent by the moisture conditions of the substrate.. .thus one expects deserts to improve very slowly after reductions in livestock numbers. However, the ecological condition may never improve as long as exotic annuals are a permanent component of the flora." (Oldemeyer, p. 98, 1994) Thus, the moisture conditions and the presence of exotic annuals will be determining factors as to whether or not there are changes in ecological condition after removal of grazing. The results of the spring 1997 Ely Field Office ecological status inventory (ESI) study of critical desert tortoise habitat within Lincoln County predicted that change in the vegetation to a dominance of native perennial plants after removal of grazing would not occur during the short term, and probably not during the life of the plan (25 years), but could occur in some portions of the Recovery Unit at some unidentifiable point in the future. Within the Clark County portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit where grazing by domestic livestock has been eliminated, 82 springs and 1.7 miles of perennial stream are being improved through reduced sedimentation and direct water quality deterioration from coliform bacteria. If vegetative ground cover improves there would be better infiltration, reduced surface runoff and improved groundwater recharge. This would also help to reduce the current rate of salt-loading into the Colorado River through improved stabilization of the soils. These types of impacts would also occur elsewhere within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 4-110 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Grazing by wild horses and burros would be excluded from special management areas in order to improve the habitat for desert tortoises. This would result in a reduction of twenty to seventy-five wild horses and the conversion of one to two herd management areas. The limitations on grazing would result in a change in the vegetation composition over the long-term in portions of the Northeast Mojave Recovery Unit to native perennials becoming a greater component in relationship to annual exotics. This would help to meet tortoise nutritional needs and likely result in greater reproductive success and better resistance to disease. The vegetation change would also provide for more escape cover from predators. If tortoise nutrition is improved they would grow to an adult size more quickly and there would be fewer years during which each individual would be vulnerable to predation. Fire Fires become more frequent as they feed on the exotic annuals. The cured annuals would also carry the fires into the desert shrub communities which can eliminate important thermal cover for the tortoise. "Fire causes loss of vegetation cover, changes in plant species composition and diversity, an increase in soil erosion and flooding, and direct mortality of desert tortoise (or their eggs). The effect on desert tortoise populations has not been quantified, but is potentially considerable." (USFWS, p. 48, 1994b) "Ironically, in years with high rainfall that could produce greater amounts of potential food for desert tortoises, more fires occur which endanger desert tortoises and destroy shrub cover necessary for suitable desert tortoise habitat." (USFWS, p. D-24, 1994a). Limitations on livestock grazing may create situations of greater fuel buildup and result in larger and more intense fires. The re-burn cycle would limit the potential for conversion of ecological sites from exotic annuals to native perennials. Fire and suppression activities in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would continue to affect tortoise and their habitat in direct and indirect ways. The direct effects include injury or death from heat or smoke, and crushing of the tortoise or their burrow from vehicles used in suppression activities. Indirect effects include the invasion of exotic annuals leading to a more flammable fuel type, more frequent, larger and intense fires; and a loss of shrubs which provide important thermal cover for tortoise. Fire suppression activities may create additional access for OHV into previously unroaded areas. Fire management would be done in accordance with the Recovery Plan and with consideration of the direction provided by the fire management guidance from the interagency effort at the Boulder City Fire Management for the Desert Tortoise Conference in January of 1995. Habitat Acquisition There is little opportunity for habitat acquisition within the proposed DWMAs/ACECs because of the lack of private properties. There could be only minimal benefit to the desert tortoise since there is little to acquire. Habitat Restoration The Las Vegas Field Office developed a land disturbance rehabilitation plan for the Piute-Eldorado DWMA in FY 1997. This rehabilitation plan could serve as a model for the rest of the DWMAs/ACECs within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. The successes could be repeated within other areas. Desert tortoise would benefit from the long-term rehabilitation of their native habitats. 4-111 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Utilities The more than 100 miles of flood control structures protecting Las Vegas would need to be maintained and would continue to function as barriers to movement of tortoise and fragment habitat. Powerline and telephone line structures would continue to provide nesting and roosting sites for predators of the desert tortoise in an otherwise treeless desert. The maintenance and access roads for these facilities would provide for public access routes into the backcountry. OHV Events The varied management strategies for non-speed OHV events among Districts would have the effect of limiting these types of events to the most restrictive management prescription in all cases where the event would cross administrative boundaries. The Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 8372.1-1) requires a special recreation permit to be issued in most circumstances involving 50 or more vehicles. Although the Ely Field Office continues to rely on this regulatory threshold for requiring a permit, the Las Vegas Field Office has proposed to require a permit for any organized event involving 26 or more vehicles. Together with other regulatory differences between jurisdictions, promoters would be faced with navigating through a variety of differences to conduct a multi-jurisdictional organized event. For instance, the Ely Field Office would allow a group of 35 vehicles to conduct a non-speed event through ACECs on designated roads at any time of year without a special recreation permit. However, if the event originated within the Las Vegas Field Office jurisdiction, the event would not be allowed at all between March 16 and June 14, or between August 15 and October 31. Outside of those dates, the event would likely be allowed, subject to approval of a special recreation permit (because the event would involve more than 25 vehicles). By the same token, the same event originating within the Ely Field Office jurisdiction would not be allowed to pass into the Las Vegas area without meeting their requirements. Since the Ely Field Office would not require a permit, the event organizer would have to apply for approval from the Las Vegas Field Office. Similar circumstances exist between Ely or Las Vegas, and the Arizona Strip Field Office, which would not allow the event to be conducted during the tortoise active season. Events that could be allowed during the tortoise active season by either Ely or Las Vegas would not be allowed to pass into the jurisdiction of the Arizona Strip Field Office. Of the five corridors designated for use by non-speed OHV events, only Kane Springs Road lies entirely within the Ely Field Office jurisdiction. The Kane Springs Road, which branches off highway 93 some 75 miles north of Las Vegas (and approximately 75 miles west of Mesquite via state highway 168) would be an unlikely place for an event promoter to begin their event since it would involve considerable shuttle time and cost for participants. It would not be expected to receive many, if any, events displaced by surrounding restrictions, but might be expected to be used as a corridor for events permitted through Las Vegas and using other lands within Clark County. Even if Kane Springs Road became the target of displaced events from other areas, the character of the road (a wide, hard-surface, county-maintained road) would easily accommodate OHV events without directly disturbing additional tortoise habitat. The differences between jurisdictions could result in confusion among event organizers, and perhaps a concomitant level of inadvertent non-compliance with restrictions in the more restrictive areas, at least in the short term. However, because there is no substantial population base in the vicinity of the planning area to originate events from the less-restrictive Ely Field Office jurisdiction, very few, if any, events would be likely to originate in Lincoln County and cross into the more restrictive surrounding jurisdictions. Virtually all events would continue to originate in Las Vegas, or Mesquite, Nevada; and St. George, Utah. 4-112 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The restrictions imposed in some areas would reduce use levels in the adjacent, less restrictive areas. Even though the Ely Field Office has not adopted the regulatory strategy of the surrounding field offices, use levels might be expected to drop off in Lincoln County due to event promoters' inability to navigate through surrounding field office's OHV regulations in order to gain access to southern Lincoln County, and points north. LIVESTOCK GRAZING For the entire Northeastern Recovery Unit, the reduction of 16,213 AUMs represents a decline in capital asset value of $810,650; and a loss of potential net ranch income estimated at $72,958.50. Because livestock grazing represents a relatively small portion of economic activity in Southern Nevada and Utah, no noticeable adverse economic effects would occur to the economy as a result of the reduction in livestock grazing activities. There would be no noticeable multiplier effects upon purchases and sales, or income and employment. Individual operators would have sustained personal losses, however that potential has been significantly ameliorated by the Clark County Desert Conservation Plan. Of the 16,213 AUMs proposed for reduction 12,122 AUMs have been or are in the process of being purchased by the Clark County Habitat Conservation Fund. The above reductions are within three BLM administrative areas; Las Vegas Field Office, Ely Field Office, and Arizona Strip Field Office. The purchases are primarily within Clark County, but a few have been made in Lincoln County, Nevada, and none have been purchased in Arizona. For individual impacts to operators refer to Chapter 4 in this plan and the other plans for Las Vegas, Arizona Strip, Tonopah, and Utah. Conclusion For an overview of the cumulative impacts as they specifically relate to the desert tortoise see the Cumulative Impacts Summary Table 4-12 at the end of this section. According to the Recovery Plan (USFWS, p. C-12, 1994a) the most important condition of extinction which desert tortoise must contend with today are the extrinsic forces which have increased to levels never encountered by the desert tortoise during its evolutionary history. These include urbanization, URTD, raven predation, habitat fragmentation and changes in the vegetative composition. "... maintaining high survivorship of adult tortoises is the key factor in the recovery of this species." (USFWS, p. 27, 1994) It is the cumulative impacts which have led to the listing of the species as threatened, not any one factor. Some of the important contributors to the demise of the desert tortoise are impossible to halt, such as the continued urbanization in the prime tortoise habitat of the Las Vegas Valley. Addressing all of the controllable factors which minimize the extrinsic forces and maintain survivorship of adult tortoises will maximize the potential for recovery and delisting. "An obstacle to past and current research is the preponderance of unpublished literature and lack of scientific hypothesis, especially on studies of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Important management decisions have been made without adequate knowledge about the biology of the affected species." (Germano, p. 187, 1994) "Retention of the threatened status of the tortoise is a conservative strategy for the conservation of natural resources but should be reassessed when additional data are available." (Corn, p. 85, 1994) The increasing knowledge of tortoise biology and the interagency monitoring of tortoise populations and trends will combine to provide the data needed to determine whether the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan are being met. 4-113 CHAPTER 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS There is professional disagreement regarding whether or not livestock can be allowed to graze and still provide for recovery of the desert tortoise. The cost of waiting to proceed until the agencies have more definitive information on this subject has been considered. Delaying implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan until more definitive studies of the interaction between livestock and desert tortoise have been completed, could prove detrimental to the survival of the tortoise species within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Since the desert tortoise has been listed as threatened by the USFWS, the mandate of the BLM is to help recover the species. While there are a number of subject areas for which there is less than 100% complete information, there is enough information to allow for a reasoned choice among alternatives. The cost of waiting to proceed with implementation of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan until more complete information was available has been considered. It was determined, however, that delaying implementation of the Recovery Plan could prove detrimental to the survival of the desert tortoise within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Also, see response to public comment 17.11 on incomplete and unavailable information. Implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan as coordinated by the MOG throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would help maintain portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in a natural condition; and would have important local but minor regional social and economic impacts. The cumulative effect of implementation of the Recovery Plan throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, would preserve and protect an adequate amount of habitat to meet the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan. Additionally, adverse impacts from human activities would be reduced in accordance with the Recovery Plan. Implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit would result in a long-term increase in the desert tortoise population and meeting the delisting criteria ultimately justifying the delisting of the species. There will be a period of time, however, during which beneficial impacts to the tortoise would still be forthcoming. "These populations grow slowly, and significant improvement in the status of the Mojave population will be a very long process..." (USFWS, p. 5823, 1994) 4-114 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Management Direction No special status prior to the state laws protecting tortoise. The 1988 BLM Rangewide Plan attempted to prevent the need for listing of the species by the USFWS. Listed as Threatened in 1990 by the USFWS. Critical habitat of 846,000 acres within the Northeast Mojave Recovery Unit designated in 1994. Recovery Plan completed in 1994. Land management agencies within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit are implementing the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan through modification of land use plans. MOG coordinating the effort. Implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan within the Caliente RA. Implementation of the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit by the land management agencies. More intensive management within the DWMAs/ACECs on approximately 2,000 square miles of tortoise habitat within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Perhaps more management attention to protect tortoise habitat outside of the Special Management Areas. The individual agencies efforts to recover and delist the desert tortoise would not, by themselves, achieve the purpose of the Recovery Plan. The proposed management actions, in combination, would enhance the probability of the tortoise being delisted within the Northeast Mojave Recovery Unit. 4-115 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Predation Major natural predators have been ravens and coyotes. Ravens are Federally protected species. Raven population increasing tremendously within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Some direct control of natural predators is proposed. Indirect control of predator populations through cleanup of dumps, routing of transmission lines, and placement of anti-perching devices on existing structures. Continued increase in raven population in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit in spite of the direct and indirect control. Some localized control of predator populations. Increasing raven predation on juvenile tortoise throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Localized predator control would minimize predation within small portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Higher survival of juvenile tortoise in those areas with predator control. Predicted long-term increase in perennial vegetation would provide for escape cover from predators. 4-116 HI TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative ; Future Actions Cumulative Effects Human Predation Historic use as food by Native Americans. Collection of the tortoise as pets or for food. Indiscriminate shooting of tortoise in the past especially near urban areas. Public education efforts to prevent shooting and collection. Tortoise available to be adopted from Centers. Law enforcement presence for control of human use within the DWMAs/ACECs. Public environmental education efforts to minimize human predation. Restrictions on public access into the Special Management Areas. Continued public education and law enforcement efforts and monitoring of road closures. Less human predation, vandalism and collection of the tortoise as pets throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. 4-117 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Urbanization/ Development of Habitat Establishment of cities and towns throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit within tortoise habitat. Growth of the cities and towns throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Use of Habitat Conservation Plans to allow growth of cities while mitigating impacts to tortoise. Lands within the DWMAs/ACECs and within designated critical habitat would be retained in public ownership. Continued urbanization within portions of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Development of more HCPs to allow for community growth and mitigation for habitat destruction. Desert tortoise habitat around cities and towns would be sacrificed to urbanization. Money raised through an impact mitigation fee would be used to promote recovery efforts for the tortoise. Critical habitat and lands within Special Management Areas would be retained in public ownership. Surface disturbances within Special Management Areas would be minimized. 4-118 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Transportation Routes and Corridors Visitor Use of Tortoise Habitat Development of a transportation network to connect and service the population centers and provide public access has created barriers to tortoise movements and created "sinks" where tortoise are killed. Relatively little recreation use of the backcountry in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Expansion and maintenance of the transportation routes. Expanding recreation use of the backcountry within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit as a result of increasing population, road proliferation and increasing ownership of OHVs. Public access limited into the Special Management Areas by restricting travel to designated roads and trails. Close some roads and trails. Caliente LUP would direct recreational use away from Special Management Areas and away from designated critical habitat. Public education efforts in regard to avoiding harm to tortoise while visiting the backcountry. Increased law enforcement presence to control visitor use. Future expansion and maintenance of the transportation routes would consider impacts to the tortoise in the design plans and mitigate as appropriate. Tortoise barriers would be erected to keep tortoise off of some of the roads. Underpasses created where tortoise can safely cross. Control public use of Special Management Areas, designated critical habitat and all others areas within known tortoise habitat. Continue public education and law enforcement efforts. Barriers to tortoise movements mitigated and road kills lessened to the extent of the effectiveness of the tortoise proof fences and underpasses. The major barriers of highways and railways would remain. Control of public recreational use, public education efforts, and increased law enforcement efforts should lessen backcountry visitors impacts on tortoise in spite of the projected increase in visitors. Vehicle use within Special Management Areas would be controlled. 4-119 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Fire Historically, there were few fires within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit The introduction of non- native annuals provided a fuel source to carry fire within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Fire size, intensity and frequency has increased over the past due to fuel buildup and the presence of more people who can accidentally start fires. Fire control with minimum impact to the tortoise and its habitat. Do fire control in accordance with accepted practices within tortoise habitat. Lessened grazing pressure may lead to more fuel buildup which may lead to greater fire size and intensity. Less grazing pressure may also lead to a decrease in annuals in some areas and an increase in perennials possibly reducing the chance of fire. Fire would continue to have direct and indirect impacts to tortoise. Minimum impacts to tortoise habitat from fire control methods. Wet years with no grazing could create greater potential for larger and more intense fires with direct and indirect impacts to tortoise. The reburn cycle would lessen the potential of conversion of ecological sites from exotic annuals to native perennials. 4-120 TABLE 4-12. DESERT TORTOISE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Issue Past Actions Present Actions Proposed Action or Reasonable Alternative Future Actions Cumulative Effects Forage Utilization Introduction of domestic livestock and buildup of wild horse herds within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Grazing by domestic livestock for the past 140 years. Wild horses are being kept within AML within herd management areas. Livestock use throughout the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit much reduced over historic levels. Some permittees being bought out. Close Special Management Areas to grazing. The Sand Hollow, Beacon, Rox-Tule, and portions of 6 other allotments would be closed to grazing upon completion of this land use plan. Purchase by Clark County of AUMs for domestic livestock within Special Management Areas on a willing seller basis. Eliminate wild horses from within the Special Management Areas. Purchase of AUMs within Tortoise Management Areas on a willing seller basis. Some allotments closed to grazing. Allotment evaluations will be completed which could result in adjustments to grazing. Overall less grazing within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, and none or very limited grazing within the Special Management Areas. More total forage and essential spring forage available for tortoise. Some change from exotic annuals to native perennials would occur but the change would be slow and would only be expected over the long term (>25 years). Lessened predation expected from an increase in escape cover. Tortoise nutritional needs more adequately met which would likely lead to more reproduction and better tolerance to diseases. 4-121 a^^mmmmiMmN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PAULCHRISTENSEN REY FLAKE DAK FREHNER JIM MANNER ED WRIGHT Letter 1 cfioaui of Goanfy (5omm£s$lon&zs SSlncolfi (Soimty, cAewda PO. BOX 90, PIOCHE, NEVADA 89043 TELEPHONE (702) 962-5390 FAX (702) 962-5180 DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILIP H.DUNLEAVY COUNTY CLERK CORRINE HOGAN June 5, 1998 Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301-9408 RE: Preliminary Comments to Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat Dear Mr. Drais: The Board of Lincoln County Commissioners, with the assistance of the County's Public Land Commission, have initiated a review of the Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat and offer the following preliminary comments thereto. 1. The Draft MFP and EIS considers only public land. Within the study area, several thousand acres of private land exist. In most cases, these lands are surrounded by public land and are often used in conjunction with permitted uses on public lands (ie. livestock grazing). Lincoln County is currently in the process of developing a habitat conservation plan for Desert Tortoise. The Board of County Commissioners recommends that the discussion in the Draft MFP and DEIS be broadened to include private land in Lincoln County south of the 38th parallel and below 4,000 feet in elevation. The County Anticipates that subsequent assessment in the EIS will result in limiting the impacted lands to those within designated Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat Areas. 1.1 Letter 1 Continued In addition to existing private land, the Draft MFP Amendment and EIS should also reflect the need for and likelihood that public land in Lincoln County will be transferred to private ownership through sale or exchange. During the next 20 years, Lincoln County anticipates that an estimated 15,000 acres of public land may be required to be converted to private ownership in order to assimilate anticipated industrial, commercial, and residential growth in the County. Much of this growth is expected to occur south of the 38th parallel and below 4,000 feet in elevation. Expected growth centers include the Pahranagat Valley; in the vicinity of Mesquite; and Coyote Springs Valley. The conversion of public land to private ownership will be an important determinant to the economic and fiscal future of Lincoln County. The addition of private lands to the coverage of the Draft MFP and EIS will not add appreciably to the total acreage of land included within the document. It will however, ensure that the management of desert tortoise habitat is well coordinated between actions of the BLM and Lincoln County (which has land use decision authority over private land in Lincoln County). 2. Page C-5 (2nd to last paragraph) identifies the acquisition of legislatively transferred private holdings (formerly Aerojet Corporation lands) for possible future acquisition and inclusion into the Kane Springs ACEC. This private land area represents a critical location for future mixed-use development in Lincoln County and a key to County economic diversification efforts. Acquisition of these private lands by BLM should not_ be considered. Rather, BLM should consider exchanging public lands in Coyote Springs Valley which are landlocked by the former Aerojet Corporation lands for private lands elsewhere in Lincoln County. This would block-up the former Aerojet Site further enhancing its development potential and value to Lincoln County's economic future. Lincoln County, through the actions of the Planning and County Commissions, is responsible for administration of private land use in the County. The Lincoln County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan will likely include recommended measures to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development of private land in the County. As in neighboring Clark County, such measures may provide funds for implementation of measures designed to manage designated desert wildlife conservation areas identified through the MFP amendment and EIS process. Close cooperation between BLM and Lincoln County in the design and implementation of HCP's relating to public and private land within the County the appears warranted. To facilitate such coordination, Lincoln County requests designation as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the final Caliente MFP amendment and EIS for the management of desert tortoise habitat. 12 13 Letter 1 Continued Lincoln County reserves the right to submit additional comments to the Draft MFP and EIS. On behalf of my fellow Lincoln County Commissioners, I would like to thank you for your consideration of these comments and the County's request for designation as a cooperating agency. Sincerely, Ed ^Vright Chairman '^tO^/f cc: Members, Lincoln County Public Land Commission Members, Lincoln County Planning Commission Ms. Pam Wilcox, Director, Nevada Division of State Lands Letter 2 COYOTE SPRINGS INVESTMENT, LLC June 24, 1998 Mr. Gene Kolkman Mr. Mike Dwyer District Manager District Manager Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Ely District Office Las Vegas District Office HC33 Box 33500 4765 W. Las Vegas Drive Ely, Nevada 89301 Las Vegas, NV 89109-2135 RE: Proposal To Exchange Private Land in Coyote Springs Valley for Public Land in Coyote Springs Valley Dear Messrs. Kolkman and Dwyer: Through this correspondence, Coyote Springs Investment (CSI) is expressing interest in exchanging CSI held land (former GenCorp Aerojet land) in Coyote Springs Valley (or other private lands to be acquired) for public land in Coyote Springs Valley. Specifically, CSI seeks to acquire through exchange 13, 767 acres more or less located within Townships 1 1, 12, and 13 South of Range 63 East. As shown on the attached map and more particulary described in Exhibit A, the subject parcel is located within Lincoln and Clark counties. CSI currently holds a leasehold interest from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the subject lands. As depicted on the attached map, the lands to be acquired by CSI are entirely surrounded by land held in fee simple title by CSI. CSI is prepared to offer private land it owns in Coyote Springs Valley which is adjacent to areas designated as critical desert tortoise habitat and proposed for designation as desert wildlife management areas (DWMA's) by BLM. Alternatively, CSI is willing to consider acquisition of other private lands as the basis for exchange. In either case, if necessary, CSI is prepared to consider the need for equalization of land values between offered and requested lands. The consolidation of CSI private lands will minimize development constraints and therefore enhance the economic development potential of these lands for Lincoln and Clark counties. The public interest will be served through this proposed exchange by enabling expansion of proposed DWMA's and helping to facilitate economic development opportunities in Lincoln and Clark counties. At their meeting on June 5, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners approved sending a letter to BLM requesting favorable Bureau consideration of the exchange proposed by CSI. Lincoln County has further requested that the proposed exchange be addressed within the scope of the Caliente MFP Amendment and EIS for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management which is currently out for public review and comment. CSI agrees with the merits of incorporating the proposed exchange within the Caliente MFP Amendment and EIS. To encourage a more efficient and effective exchange process, CSI would appreciate the opportunity to meet with Ely and Las Vegas District staff to discuss and share information and ideas about the proposed exchange. Either myself or Dr. Mike Baughman of Intertech Services Corp will contact the 2.1 2.2 Letter 2 Continued June 24, 1998 Messrs. Kolkman and Dwyer Page 2 your Ely and Las Vegas District offices next week to try to schedule such a meeting. CSI looks forward to working with the BLM to promulgate a land exchange which accomplishes important public interest objectives and enhances economic development opportunities in Lincoln and Clark counties. Your consideration of this proposal is very much appreciated. Sincerely, General Manager xc: Board of Lincoln County Commissioners Board of Clark County Commissioners Dr. Mike Baughman (Intertech Services Corp.) Letter 2 Continued EXHIBIT A A leasehold estate in and to the following: Mount Diablo Meridian Nevada: Township 1 1 South. Range 63 East (Lincoln County. Nevada!: Sections 19, 30 and 31, that portion lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93 and the Western boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being J4 mile Easterly from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Township 12 South. Range 63. (Lincoln County Nevada): Section 4, all Sections 5, 9, 16, 21, 28, 33, that portion lying Easterly of the Eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vi miles Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. The North Half (N Vi) of the North Half (N Vi) of Section 6 lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. 93 and Westerly of the Westerly boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being Vi mile Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Section 1 5, all; Section 22. all; Section 23, Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 26, West Half (W Vi); Section 27, all. Section 34, all; Section 35, all. Township 13 South. Range 63 East. fClark County. Nevada). Section 1, West Half (W Vi) of the West Half (W V4) of the East Half (E Vi), and the West Half (W Vi); Section 2, all, Sections 3, 4, 10 and 15, that portion lying Easterly of the eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vi miles from the Centerline of U S. Highway 93, Section 1 1, all; Section 12, all; 40-0621X12 5 ili-i 0>/SZ d OSKL Sfr88£8E20l SNIIIOO » H3AMVS 13N0l"H"OJd ^:>0 86-IZ-S0 Letter 2 Continued Section 13, all. Section 14. all. Section 22, that portion lying Northerly of a boundary lA mile from the Centeriine of State Highway 168 and Easterly of the eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vi miles Easterly of the Centeriine of U.S. Highway 93, Sections 23 and 24, that portion lying Northerly of a boundary Vi mile from the Centeriine of State Highway 168. MM1 15234001 40-652.1.02 2£9-d Of/92 d QSM. SfrSBESEZOi SNITI03 » d3AMVS 13N0n-i"QJd mr-W 86-IZ-S0 PETER G. MORROS Director Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Letter 3 BOB MILLER Governor PAMELA B. WILCOX Administrator State Land Office State Land Use Planning Agency Address Reply to Division of State Lands 333 W. Nye Lane, Room 118 Carson City, Nevada 89706-0857 Phone (702) 687-4363 Fax (702) 687-3783 STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of State Lands June 15, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Maud Naroll, Nevada State Clearinghouse FROM: Nevada Division of Lands SUBJECT: SAI # E1998-128 Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and EIS for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat. We would like to complement the BLM in drafting a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that in our view is clearly written, and provides a thorough and objective analysis based on available information. We particularly appreciated the information that described the assumptions and methodology used for the analysis, and the discussion related to incomplete and/or unavailable information. We believe the BLM has attempted to adjust the recommendations in the recovery plan to consider other multiple uses such as recreation and minerals, while still meeting the needs of the tortoise. We assume the BLM's Preferred Alternative has the support of the biology community concerned with the recovery of the tortoise. As clearly stated in the DEIS, significant controversy exists related to potential impacts on the tortoise from grazing. The reasons for closing the ACECs to grazing given in the DEIS are 1) livestock use has changed the vegetative type to one that is less than optimal for tortoises; 2) physical damages to the land have occurred from overuse, such as the loss of habitat plant cover, soil compaction etc., al. The DEIS provides for a "bundle" of management direction for a variety of resources, both within the ACECs and outside the ACECs to improve conditions for the tortoise. As stated in the DEIS, the potential impacts on the tortoise come from a variety of sources including predation, grazing, impacts from recreation users, development of utility corridors, mining, and items beyond the agencies control such as drought and disease. Because of the complexity of the potential impacts, we recommend the BLM (and the Fish and Wildlife Service) develop an ecosystem monitoring approach to measure changes to the tortoise, both within the ACEC and outside the ACEC. The monitoring would be designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the BLM's Preferred Alternative in providing for the tortoise. Designing a monitoring scheme to evaluate the tortoise population using an ecosystem or more "holistic" approach, rather than a narrow research effort may help us begin to understand the effects of a variety of uses on the tortoise. 3.1 Letter 3 Continued Although we understand why the agency may choose to close the ACECs to grazing, we are not convinced that closing these areas, based on the current level of grazing will materially result in an improved habitat for the tortoise. We hope that the agencies (including the Fish and Wildlife Service) would look for ways to manage livestock in a way that is compatible with the needs of the tortoise, rather than to rely on closures. 3.2 3.3 Existing family ranching operation are an important element in the Nevada lifestyle and we would encourage the BLM to look at all possible options to maintain these operations. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIS and please feel free to contact us if there are any qustions. Letter 4 BOB MILLER STATE OF NEVADA JOHN P. COMEAUX Governor Director DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Capitol Complex Carson City, Nevada 89710 Fax (702) 687-3983 (702) 687-4065 June 30, 1998 Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely,NV 89301-9408 Re: SAINV#E1998-128 Project: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortiose Habitat Dear Mr. Drais: Enclosed are the comments from the Nevada Divisions of Natural Heritage, State Lands, and the Bureau of Mines concerning the above referenced report. These comments constitute the State Clearinghouse review of this proposal as per Executive Order 12372. Please address these comments or concerns in your final decision. If you have questions, please contact me at 687-6367. Sincerely, ./WU-2Z3 /^O^L^C Heather K. Elliott Nevada State Clearinghouse Enclosures Letter 4 Continued DATE: May 12, 1998 NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Department of Administration Budget and Planning Division 209 East Musser Street., Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 (702) 687-4065 fax (702) 687-3983 RECEIVED may i-i RECEIVED m JUN2AI998 Governor's Office Agency for Nuclear Business & Industry Projects Agriculture Energy Minerals Legislative Counsel Bureau 1 \Yr?< of ADMINISTRATION „ .. ., , ,B DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Conservation-Natural Resources— Informat.on Technology Emp. Training & Rehab Research Div. PUC Transportation Director's Office State Lands Environmental Protection UNR Bureau of Mines Forestry Wildlife Economic Development Tourism Fire Marshal Human Resources Aging Services Health Division Indian Commission Colorado River Commission UNR Library UNLV Library Historic Preservation Emergency Management Washington Office Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Conservation Districts State Parks Water Resources Water Plannina 1 "Wa7 Horse Commission Nevada SAI# E1 998-1 28 Project: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat V_ Yes _No Send more information on this project as it becomes available. CLEARINGHOUSE NOTES: Enclosed, for your review and comment, is a copy of the above mentioned project. Please evaluate it with respect to its effect on your plans and program? the importance of its contribution to state and/or local areawide goals and objectives; and its accord with any applicable laws, orders or regulations with whic you are familiar. Please submit your comments no later than June 30. 1998. Use the space below for short comments. If significant comments are provided, please us agency letterhead and include the Nevada SAI number and comment due date for our reference. Questions? Maud Naroll, 687-6366. .Conference desired (See below) .Conditional support (See below) .Disapproval (Explain below) THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY REVIEW AGENCY: No comment on this project r Proposal supported as written *K"Additional information below AGENCY COMMENTS: In reference to the list (p. 3-21) of sensitive plant species found in the planning area, our records indicate the presence of three additional BLM special status species: Arctomecon merriamii (white bearpoppy, designated BLM sensitive) , Astragalus geyeri var.. triquetrus (threecorner milkvetch, listed critically endangered by State of Nevada) , and Eriogonum viscidulum (sticky buckwheat, listed critically endangered by State of Nevada) . The two State-listed species occur within the proposed Beaver Dam Slope ACEC, designation of which would enhance conservation management for these species. For these and the other conservation management reasons documented in the draft EIS, we support the proposed action. 4.1 \gim& J ) ll&re.£'telj Signature s:\shardat\dear\cleardoc Agency Date Letter 4 Continued DATE: May 12, 1998 NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE Department of Administration Budget and Planning Division 209 East Musser Street., Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 (702) 687-4065 fax (702) 687-3983 RECEIVED 0E.°? ECMiNISTRATiON" _ ERECTOR'S OFFICE Governor's Office Agency for Nuclear Projects Business & Industry Legislative Counsel Bureau Conservation-Natural Resources Agriculture Energy Minerals Information Technology Emp. Training & Rehab Research Div. PUC Transportation ._-_____ Director's Office State Lands Environmental Protection UNR Bureau of Mines Economic Development Tourism Fire Marshal Human Resources Aging Services Health Division Indian Commission Colorado River Commission Forestry Wildlife UNR Library UNLV Library Historic Preservation Emergency Management Washington Office Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Conservation Districts State Parks Water Resources Water Planning Natural Heritage Wild Horse Commission Nevada SAI# E1 998-1 28 Project: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat X Yes _ No Send more information on this project as it becomes available. CLEARINGHOUSE NOTES: Enclosed, for your review and comment, is a copy of the above mentioned project. Please evaluate it with respect to its effect on your plans and programs; the importance of its contribution to state and/or local areawide goals and objectives; and its accord with any applicable laws, orders or regulations with which you are familiar. Please submit your comments no later than June 30, 1998. Use the space below for short comments. If significant comments are provided, please use agency letterhead and include the Nevada SAI number and comment due date for our reference. Questions? Maud Naroll, 687-6366. THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY REVIEW AGENCY: _No comment on this project .Proposal supported as written X Additional information below AGENCY COMMENTS: .Conference desired (See below) .Conditional support (See below) .Disapproval (Explain below) The preferred alternative outlined in the Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan includes withdrawal of the 65,900 acre Kane Springs ACEC and restrictions to mining in two other ACEC's. The comment made that mineral potential is minimal within the Kane Springs ACEC is based mostly inferred information; very little mineral data exists for this area. For a proposed withdrawal of this extent, more definitive mineral information must be gathered. Although it is difficult to determine the exact boundary of the Kane Springs ACEC from the maps provided in the draft document, it appears the area may include outcrops of Paleozoic rock similar to those containing lead-zinc and precious metals mineralization at locations within the Desert National Wildlife Refuge to the west, and in districts to the south in Clark County. The proposed Kane Springs withdrawal may block access to public lands in the southern Delamar Mountains, restricting mineral exploration; how would access to these areas be managed? 4.2 s:\shardat\ciear\clear.doc Agency Date Letter 5 STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 209 E. Musser Street, Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298 Fax (702) 687-3983 (702) 687-4065 August 11, 1998 Mr. Gene L. Drais, Project Manager Bureau of Land Management HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV" 89301-9408 Re:1610(NV-910) SAI NV# 1998-128 Project: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat Dear Mr. Drais: Enclosed is an additional comment from the Nevada Division of Wildlife that was received after our previous letter to you. Please incorporate this comment into your decision making process. If you have any questions, please contact me at (702) 687-6367. Sincerely, for Heather K. Elliott Nevada State Clearinghouse/SPOC BOB MILLER Governor Letter 5 Continued STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE 1100 Valley Road P.O. Box 10678 Reno, Nevada 89520-0022 (702)688-1500 • Fax (702) 688-1595 Region III III-99-004 4747 Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89158 ' August 7, 1998 PETER G. MORROS Director Department of Conservation and Natural Resources WILLIAM A. MOLINI Administrator Mr. Gene L. Drais, Project Manager Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 RE: 1610 (NV-910) Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment for the Management of Desert Tortoise/Habitat Environmental Impact Statement Dear Gene: Only the Proposed Alternative was reviewed as it is the closest to covering all the bases regarding desert tortoise management and recovery concerns. A few typographical and punctuation errors were still encountered throughout the Draft Amendment and EIS, but not noted. A thorough review of spelling, grammar, context, and punctuation by BLM is recommended. Issue: Increased protection of desert tortoise populations and habitat to assist with recovery goals outlined in the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. Conclusion: Proposed Action of the MFP Amendment directs development of three Areas of Environmental Concern (ACECs) on which primary management emphasis will be for desert tortoise recovery. Land-use restrictions on ACECs benefitting the desert tortoise will generally allow other multiple-use management to continue. This MFP Amendment is not the panacea for resolving all management issues in the Caliente resource area, but it is a welcome breath of fresh air. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Table S-1 Summary of Alternatives: General Comment; No mention is made of enhanced protection of springs and desert riparian areas. What measures will be taken to maintain or enhance willow, cottonwood, and mesquite/acacia galleries and stringers that are important to special status species like but not limited to: endemic fish and amphibians, gila monster, phainopepla, Southwest Willow Flycatcher, and bighorn sheep. How will" BLM manage these areas? No where in Table S-1 is attention given to desert spring, seep, and riparian protection. It is not believed any of the statements in the SMA, Wildlife, Forestry, Livestock 5.1 Page 1 of 4 Letter 5 Continued Grazing, Feral Equid, or Recreation Management sections address protection inside or outside ACECs. Protection to springs, seeps and riparian is imperative, this is particularly obvious for areas outside the ACECs where livestock and equids will continue to roam. Page S-3, 2nd paragraph of Wild Horse and Burro Management: How will utilization levels be evaluated in areas where livestock use also occurs; does this help in AML and AUM adjustments? Is this another way for BLM to infer that feral equid removals will occur if conflict with AUMs for the Grazing Allotments occur? Will AMLs be set after utilization levels are exceeded and the number of feral equids (not other livestock) are removed until utilization levels are not exceeded? How will this interface with AUM adjustments? Table S-2 Summary of Impacts Page S-1 0, Proposed Action column. 4th paragraph: Simply stating "Upward" is biologically unreal and inappropriate concerning long-term population viability in context of the recovery plan. A more meaningful rewrite might be, "Encourage upward trend to attain long-term stability and viability goals; avoid long-term downward trends." Page S-1 1, Proposed Action column, last paragraph: How can numbers for horse removal be established a priori in this document. This seems inappropriate without documentation to justify setting this number in stone by the MFP. Page S-1 4. Minerals. Proposed Action column. 2nd paragraph: Is it too much to ask that the Mormon Mesa and Beaver Dam Slope ACECs be treated the same as the Kane Springs ACEC, i.e. closed to the operation of the General Mining Law Page S-1 , Minerals. Proposed Action column. 1 st paragraph, last line: Limit access to designated roads, no trails. 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 CHAPTER 1 Page 1-4. 2nd paragraph. 1st word of 3rd line: Replace "affected" with "afforded" | 5.3 Page 1-5. CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS. 1st paragraph, last line: Ely BLM should be consistent with the other BLM field offices/districts having significant linkages to desert tortoise critical habitat across jurisdictional boundaries. Ely BLM should find consistency on OHV management with Las Vegas BLM and Arizona Strip field offices, not the Dixie and Tonopah offices The most Ely BLM could do is restrict any OHV event, competitive, non-speed, commercial, or unorganized to occur outside the inactive season, i.e. 1 5 March to 1 5 October. The least Ely BLM could do is set maximum speed limits inside tortoise habitat between 25-35 mph or whatever RS2477 designations mandate which are more restrictive. Page 1-8. RELATIONSHIPS TO STATUES AND REGULATIONS: Self explanatory, check the spelling of the section title. CHAPTER 2 Bottom Page 2-4. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES MANAGEMENT. Parity of 3rd and 5th sentences: Confusion as to what is being stated. Is the last sentence, 5th, meant to replace the 3rd sentence, 5.11 Page 2 of 4 Letter 5 Continued or is BLM looking for direction from the MOG as to how to monitor species other than tortoise, if I 5 -j-j so why? I Page 2-5. FISH & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. 2nd paragraph (single line): Was the word I 5 ^ "disturbed" meant as opposed to "distributed?" Page 2-8, SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS section: For clarification, begin 1st sentence of 1st paragraph with, "In the context of delisting criteria, the recovery plan recommended " Page 2-1 1 . SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES/WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT section: Delete 5th statement, translocation research projects will never be necessary outside of Clark County, Nevada. "USFWS-approved" monitoring of special status species other than ESA listed species is inappropriate. Reword to indicate "implementation of special status monitoring through inter-agency cooperation." Page 2-13. Table 2-1, "PERCENTAGE OF ALLOTMENT IN PROPOSED ACEC" column: The percent figures in the "TOTALS" rows are not averages, they are the "percent of total acreage." 5.13 Page 2-16. FERAL EQUIPS section: I presume NDOW will be involved in setting AMLs for areas 5.14 outside of ACECs and the Mormon Mountain HMA? Page 2-18, last sentence on page: Perhaps the sentence should read, "Reclaim surface disturbances from unauthorized uses with the goal to achieve pre-disturbance conditions." Page 2-22: Areal Rights-of-Wav section: Is Areal a word or an acronym? | 5. 15 Last paragraph, last sentence: Clarify what kind and purpose of corridors. Page 2-23. QHV section: See comments above for Page 1-5, CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER I 516 PLANS section. ' Page 2-28. Leasing Stipulations. Item 2. 2nd line: Delete "and trails." Page 2-29, TRANSPORTATION/PUBLIC ACCESS. 2nd sentence of 2nd statement regarding temporary roads: What is implied by temporary upgrading? Will temporary upgrades be obliterated and rehabilitated immediately after the need is satisfied? 5.17 Bottom of Page 2-30, SEASON OF USE section, last sentence of 1st paragraph: AUMS and ACECS should read AUMs and ACECs. I ' Page 2-32, Table 2-3: Concern that over 1/3 of the allotments have a season of use which is year- round. Page 2-35. RIGHTS OF WAY MANAGEMENT. Management Direction. Areal rights-of way: • Again, is Areal a word or an acronym? ] 5.19 APPENDIX F: Page 3 of 4 5.23 Letter 5 Continued Would like to see glossary for species codes I 5 20 Would like to see footnote #6 placed beside every entry of BRRU2 in all of the tables f 5.21 Would like clarification if KRPA = KRAME | 5.22 Using red brome, bur-sage, and creosote as key species suggests these allotments are truly ephemeral in nature. Will a review/revision of key species ever be considered? I realize allotment categorizations will not be modified per the MFP Amendment, but can season of use be modified based on the key species and their composition? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this land management document for southeastern Nevada. If you have questions or require additional input, please contact the Region III of the Division of Wildlife at (702) 486-5127. i TO- * Comelio O. Padilla Supervising Biologist-Habitat COP:cop cc: Habitat - Bureau Chief Game - Las Vegas, Panaca, 3218 State Clearinghouse SAI# E1 998-1 28 Page 4 of 4 Letter 6 N-4 State Grazing Board P.O. Box 461 Panaca, Nevada 89042 July 16, 1998 Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 SUBJECT COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CALIENTE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT Dear Mr. Drais: The N-4 state Grazing Board would like to comment on the Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Desert Tortoise Habitat. This letter will start off with a few general comments and then proceed through some specific concerns with the draft document. A critique of the document illustrates another attempt to exclude livestock from grazing from public lands. Concepts such as ACEC's (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) only further constrict and reduce grazing opportunities. Grazing is compatible with proper resource management, and grazing is a tool that can be used to improve rangelands. These two concepts should not be forgotten. The N-4 State Grazing Board is a unit of government that operates under state statute and has great concern for maintaining natural resources in healthy conditions. Comments on the Sections Concerning: Livestock Grazing Issues Livestock grazing will be removed under the preferred alternative based on the assumption that livestock grazing has negative impacts on desert tortoise population recovery. Statements within the document suggest livestock grazing has a major negative impact on the recovery of the desert tortoise. There is a critical flaw in this logic. Several remarks throughout the document support other factors as the primary negative impact on 6.2 DRAIS 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 Rl'sjh 7-18 gjh Letter 6 Continued 6.2 6.3 6.4 tortoises or suggest that little scientific information exists on tortoise-livestock interactions, for example (italics are concepts contained in the draft): 1) Page 1-4, tortoise number declines are " ...more recently attributed to localized predation and disease. " If tortoise declines are more attributed to predation, why is so much emphasis place on livestock removal? Therefore, we suggest focusing management of the desert tortoise recovery on predation and disease, not livestock removal. 2) Page 3-13, "Some researchers warn that while populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers of densities, populations are dangerously low. " This idea is cited in a personal letter from Brussard. Where are the studies on population dynamics? Elsewhere in the Draft EIS it is stated that limited scientific research exists on population numbers and trends. Many recommendations in the Draft EIS are based on personal opinion, and therefore these opinions should be assessed accordingly - they are opinions, not fact based on research. 3) Page 3-15, "...85% of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles" is due to ra\>ens, and raven population increases are associated with human activities. If human activities (dumps, power poles, etc.) are causing 85% of juvenile losses, then more emphasis should be placed on reducing the human influence or on controlling ravens instead of removing livestock. 4) Page 3-16, 'Wo incidences of desert tortoise trampling by livestock have been documented in the planning area. " If no documented cases of cattle trampling exist, then less emphasis should be I placed on cattle as a negative impact. 1 6.6 5) Page 4-2, states directly there is non conclusive information on the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoise recovery. If information on livestock grazing impacts is non conclusive, then how can conclusions be drawn on the impacts of livestock? The discussion in the document continues on 4-2 to state that professional judgment of biologists in USFWS, BLM, USGS and Smithsonian support the negative impacts of livestock on tortoises. Who are these biologists and how can they have conclusive views on something in which they have no research? Again, more conjecture and subjectivity instead of research and factual information. If there are biologists who support the negative impacts of livestock grazing, then present their research 6.5 DRAJS 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 RPgjIi 7-18 gjh Letter 6 Continued findings. If no such research exists, then leave personal opinion out of the document. 6.7 6) Page 4-2, it is stated there is incomplete or unavailable information on trend of tortoise populations, and trend information that does exist was collected near urban areas. Urban settings are much different from the rural areas where livestock graze. If decreased tortoise populations are in response to human activities (other than management of grazing), then why is so much emphasis placed on livestock ' 6.8 grazing? Again we recommend focusing management of the desert tortoise on eliminating human activities that are detrimental to the tortoise. 7) Page 4-7, it is stated that fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition/osteoporosis if livestock were removed. However, on page 3-13 it is stated that data is lacking to support the contention of correlation of malnutrition to osteoporosis. The above two statements are contradictory - both can not be true. Several times in the document statements are made about the competition for vegetation between tortoises and livestock and that such competition contributes to the 6.9 decline (though no trend data exists) in tortoise numbers, yet no real data exists to support such claims. Information cited in the Draft EIS supporting the claim of the negative impacts of livestock grazing is most often not peer reviewed scientific journals. The following are given as examples of non non-peer reviewed scientific journal citations in the order in which they first appear on page 3-16 through 3-18: 1) Oldemeyer 1992, proposal 2) Oldemeyer 1994, report 3) Hohman and Ohmart 1978, proceedings 4) Hohman and Ohmart 1 980, report 5) Nicholson and Humphreys 1981 proceedings 6) Coombs 1979, proceedings 7) Berry 1984, report 8) Sheppard 1981, proceedings 9) Berry and Nicholson 1984, report 10) Berry 1984c, report 1 1) Coombs 1977, report 12) Nish 1964, Fish and Game publication 13) Karl 1981, unpublished report 14) Oftdal and Allen 1996, report 6.10 DRAJS 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 Rrgjh 7-18 gjh Letter 6 Continued Where are the scientific peer reviewed studies illustrating the negative impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise habitat and recovery? Conclusions on livestock removal must be based on scientific knowledge, not on the less rigorous opinions of biologists. Only a small percentage of citations offered in the Draft EIS supporting negative impacts of livestock grazing are scientific peer reviewed articles. Bostick 1990 is cited (peer reviewed article) as suggesting livestock and tortoises do not compete for forage. This paper, along with a Resource Concept, Inc. (RCI) unpublished report, is dismissed in the Draft EIS as not being supported by tortoise biologists. Again, who are these biologists? Where are their scientific based studies supporting their beliefs? The language in the Draft EIS regarding livestock grazing impacts is subjective and filled with opinion, and therefore has no reason for inclusion in the document. The RCI report, prepared on behalf of six counties in four states, reviewed over 850 documents relating to the desert tortoise. The report substantiates much of the concerns we have with the Draft EIS currently under review, including, the premise that most of the literature available on the desert tortoise is non-peer reviewed, and therefore lacks the credibility of scientific peer reviewed literature. Further, that available information on the interaction of livestock and the tortoise is minimal. Finally, that livestock grazing can be conducted in a manner that improves or maintains the ecological condition of a site, and that grazing can maintain or improve vegetation. Information presented in the Draft EIS is laden with vague verbiage such as could, less well documented, not well documented, and a variety of such statements. This is not very concrete language when considering the implication that removing livestock grazing will have, a 13.8 % reduction over the planning area according to information in the Draft EIS. Comments on Statements Contained in: Environmental Consequences - Preferred Alternative Socio-Economic Values From Livestock Grazing Management 1) Page 4-23. The Last paragraph and sentence states "The loss of each AIM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch increase (profit after all costs) and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset values. " 6.10 This statement may be very bold because the values were set by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff. This was done in 1 985. What is the confidence interval for these values? In fact, the confidence interval may be very wide. 6.TI DRA1S 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 RPgjh 7-18 gjh Letter 6 Continued 2) Page 4-23, Where is the study that identified that the loss of 12 livestock permittees on 9 allotments (seven active permittees and seven allotments) will have " ...no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchase and sales; or income and employment. "? This statement sounds once more like an assumption, and likely not based on fact. 3) Page 4-23, The review of the economic impacts within the planning area states that one livestock operator will have a herd reduction as a result of the tortoise habitat recovery plan, and therefore, it would make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. 6.12 Sale is not likely an option if the operation is economically unfeasible without public land. Who would buy the ranch that is a non viable operation? Is it acceptable to remove the livelihood of a business just because it is only one rancher? The individual is important. The loss of a single family ranch may not appear significant (unless you are that person), but the cumulative loss of small ranchers in the West is atrocious. This draft management plan is just one more example of an attempt to remove livestock from public lands without just cause. 6.13 Comments on Statements Contained in: Environmental Consequences - Preferred Alternative Socio-Economic Values From Land Management 1) Page 4-24. The last sentence reads "The cost associated with a power transmission line, are not likely to be nearly as expensive as the costs of planning and analysis and the additional mileage that might be involved, for alternative routes. " Where is the data to back up this statement? This is just another example of statements presented in the document with no source for their origin or reliability. Therefore, statements made without support appear not only in sections relating to livestock but in other sections as well. 6.14 Additional comments on the economic impacts. Some of the dollar values presented in the economic statements may be too high. When faced with reduction in AUM's will the remaining AUM's stay as high in cash market value? These values probably will not stay as high and could fall. Buyers may look at a very short pay back period on allotments if tortoises do not show fast recovery. If recovery is slow, then values would be discounted heavily in the early time periods. Also these programs add to uncertainty and risk for producers that could lower capitalized values of land. This loss in capitalized value would also mean lower property tax revenues to local governments and therefore decreased revenues to local governments. 6.15 DRA1S7-21-98 N-4 97-020-0 1 RPeJh 7- 1 8 gjh Letter 6 Continued Comments on Statements Contained in: Environmental Consequences - Alternative C 1) Page 4-66, under 1, first it is stated that the tortoise population is stable, but goes on to say populations may not remain stable, may increase, or may decline. This statement is made under the other alternatives as well. How is this statement made with no trend studies to support such a claim and no research to show how current impacts influence tortoise populations? Which is it? Will populations remain stable, increase, or decline? All three can not be true. 6.16 Comments on Statements Contained in: Cumulative Impacts 1) Page 4-74, as elsewhere in the Draft EIS, it states that population numbers are unknown. It is not possible for population numbers be unknown, trend analysis incomplete, and then make recommendations on population trends and numbers, as has been done in this document. 2) Page 4-76, states that at this time there are no data showing that continued livestock grazing is compatible with recovery of the desert tortoise. There is also little if any scientific data showing that continued livestock grazing is incompatible with recovery, of the desert tortoise. Why isn't the lack of scientific data also elaborated upon? 3) Page 4-77, states that the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that livestock grazing can have a number of different negative impacts to tortoise and its habitat. Yet in the paragraph following this previous statement it is established that evidence is circumstantial that grazing is a major problem for the tortoise. These two statements are contradictory. One either has scientific evidence or they do not. Circumstantial evidence is not scientific evidence. 6.17 4) Page 4-98, We summed up the total acreage under tortoise recovery and come up with 2,324,300 acres. While the planning area covered in this Draft EIS recovery plan may not have a large impact on the livestock industry, it is the cumulative impacts of all habitat recovery efforts that will be felt by the livestock industry. The cumulative impact should not be overlooked. 6.18 Our primary concern with this document is the extreme emphasis placed on livestock grazing as a negative impact on the recovery of the desert tortoise. Statements in the document relating to the negative impacts of livestock grazing, for the most part, are without substantial scientific backing. Livestock grazing is an important contributor to the social and economic stability of Lincoln County. Therefore, considerable thought should be given before any livestock reductions are implemented. Within the document there are suggestions that the reductions in grazing will have only minor economic impacts for the area. The problem is that there are many livestock reductions from assorted management 6.19 6.20 DRAIS 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 RPgjh 7-18 gjh Letter 6 Continued approaches, whether at the allotment level or within management areas such as ACEC. It is these cumulative impacts that eat away at the livestock industry, and associated rural economies. We adamantly oppose livestock reductions when there is no resource or environmental reason to support reductions. Therefore, we recommend that livestock grazing not be excluded from the planning area or from those ACEC's within the planning area. 6.21 Sincerely, Merlfin Flake, Chair/nan N-4 Nevada State Grazing Board f& DRAIS 7-21-98 N-4 97-020-01 RPgjh 7-18 gjh Letter 7 SAMUEL S. LIONEL GRANT SAWYER (I9IB-I996) JON R. COLLIN5 (1923-1937) JEFFREY P. ZUCKER PAUL R. HEJMANOWSKI ROBERT D. FAISS DAVID N. FREDERICK DENNIS L. KENNEDY RICHARD W. HORTON DAN C. SOWEN MARK A- SOLOMON RODNEY M. JEAN HARVEY WHITTEMORE TODD TOUTON DAVID WHITTEMORE CAM FERENBACH LYNDA S. MABRY MARK H. GOLDSTEIN ANTHONY N. CABOT KIRBY J, SMITH COLLEEN A. DOLAN JENNIFER A. SMITH JOHN R. BAILEY GARY W. DUHON LAUREL E. DAVIS DAN R. REASER CARL D, SAVELY LAYNE J. BUTT MARK LEMMONS HOWARD E. COLE PAUL E. LARSEN CHRISTOPHER R. HOOPER SUVINDER S. AHLUWALIA P. GREGORY GIORDANO LIONEL SAWYER S COLLINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1700 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA 300 SOUTH FOURTH STREET LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89101 17021 383-8S88 FAX [702] 383-3845 August 11, 1998 JEFFREY D. MENICUCO MADELENE C. AMENDOLA ANGIE SH1ROFF MARK A. MCINTIRE STEPHEN R. HACKETT ROBERT P. SPRETNAK ALLEN J- WILT ELAINE S- GUENAGA LYNN S FULSTONE SUSAN L. MYERS MICHAEL D. RAWLINS ETTA L. WALKER KEVIN D. DOTY DAN C. MCGUIRE CHRISTOPHER R. COLEY MORGAN R. BAUMGARTNER NATHALIE HUYNH LESLIE BRYAN HART DAVID J, MERRILL CRAIG E. ETEM TODD E. KENNEDY WON S- LEE DEIDRE J. CALL STEVEN A. GIBSON1 LAURA J. THALACKER ABBIE G, FRIEDMAN BECKY S, GOETTSCH ELIZABETH BRICKFIELD SHAWN M. ELICEGUI VALERIE S. SANDERS BROADY R. HODDER KENNETH R. MYERS JAMES M. SARNECKY HECTOR J. CARBAJAL II JAMES G. WOLFF EMILIA K. CARGILL OF COUNSEL ROBERT M. BUCKALEW BRIAN MCKAY ELLEN WHITTEMORE 12683-0003 'ADMITTED IN ILLINOIS ONLY WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (702) 383-8874 VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301-9408 Re: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat ("MFP Amendment") Dear Mr. Drais: We represent Harrich Investments, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("Harrich"), and Coyote Springs Investment, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("CSI"). CSI purchased the fee lands described on Exhibit A attached hereto ("Fee Lands") from Aerojet-General Corporation ("Aerojet") on May 27, 1998. Concurrently with the transfer of Fee Lands to CSI, Aerojet assigned its interest in that certain Land Lease Agreement dated July 13 and 14, 1988, between Aerojet, as lessee, and the United States of America, as lessor (Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") Serial File N-48281 ("Lease"), by which the lands described on Exhibit B attached hereto were leased to Aerojet ("Leased Lands"), which assignment was approved by the BLM by Decision dated November 15, 1996. The following comments memorialize oral comments that representatives of Harrich and CSI have previously made to BLM representatives regarding the MFP Amendment (as defined below). Harrich and CSI are affiliated entities. Harrich and CSI intend to consolidate their interest in the Fee Lands and the Leased Lands in CSI. CSI intends to develop both the Fee and Leased Lands. CDS/12683-0003 081198/com-mfp.lt/03 RENO OFFICE: MOO BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA, 50 WEST LIBERTY STREET ■ RENO, NEVADA S950I I702) 788-8666 • FAX (7021 783-8682 LIONEL SAWYER 8 COLLINS Letter ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bureau of Land Management August 11, 1998 Page 2 As you know, the Leased Lands are an island surrounded by the Fee Lands. The Fee Lands are, in turn, an island surround by federal land managed by the BLM. This configuration creates potential problems for private development and federal land management. The MFP Amendment is being prepared to create a desert tortoise habitat conservation plan covering federal lands in Lincoln County, Nevada, situated below 4,000 feet in elevation. The Fee Lands and Leased Lands are located in Lincoln County and Clark County, Nevada. The Leased Lands are located in both counties in approximately equal proportions. See Exhibit C attached hereto. The MFP Amendment discusses four alternate management plans for the Caliente Resource Area ("CRA"). However, the following comments regarding each alternative are generally limited to the Fee Lands and Leased Lands area. We cannot support any of the four alternatives as proposed, except as discussed below. The MFP Amendment proposes (i) retaining the Leased Lands in federal ownership, (ii) acquiring the Fee Lands (if available for acquisition), and (iii) surrounding the Fee Lands with either ACECs or DWMAs. Although the Leased Lands are not expressly included within an ACEC or DWMA it appears BLM intends to manage such lands in the same manner as if they were expressly classified within such designated areas. The land disposal classifications, the land acquisition proposals, and the proposed ACECs/DWMAs negatively impact the development of the Fee Lands and Leased Lands. Each of the alternatives has a potentially significant adverse impact on development of private lands within Lincoln County, which, in turn, adversely impacts the county's tax base and its ability to create or maintain jobs for its residents. In principal, we support the Proposed Alternative (as defined in the MFP Amendment). However, we ask the following changes be made to the proposed alternative. 1. Classify all of the Leased Lands for disposal by either sale or exchange. Such classification will allow for consolidation of the private and federal lands in the area. Consolidation should increase BLM's ability to effectively manage the federal lands while providing the opportunity for orderly development of the private lands. 2. Modify the area covered by the MFP Amendment and EIS to include that portion of the Fee Lands and Leased Lands located in Clark County, Nevada, which are covered by the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement ("RMP"). Including these lands within the MFP Amendment Process should provide a basis for amending the RMP, as appropriate, resulting in consistent goals and management plans for a single block of land that just happens to be located in two counties and, therefore, subject to management goals and plans of two different District BLM offices. 3. Modify the lands covered by the EIS to include all undisturbed private lands in Lincoln County located within the Planning Area for the BLM's MFP Amendment, and allow Lincoln County to participate in the process as a cooperating agency. Such cooperation should provide the basis CDS/1 2683-0003 081198/com-mfp.lt/03 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 lionel sawyer s collins Letter 7 Continued ATTORNEYS AT LAW Bureau of Land Management August 11, 1998 Page 3 for developing a habitat conservation plan covering private lands which is consistent with similar plans covering federal lands and permit the implementation of consistent management practices for both federal and private lands 7.4 4. Consider mitigation measures which will allow all of the Leased Lands to be transferred to private ownership unencumbered by the use restrictions set forth in the Lease or any newly created habitat restrictions being imposed on private land uses, except as may be imposed 7.5 under the Lincoln County Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan which is being developed at this time. CSI is committed to work with the BLM and Lincoln County in striving for land ownership consolidation, economic development and habitat conservation, including, without limitation, desert tortoise habitat. CSI intends to incorporate multi-species habitat conservation and improvement projects as integral parts of its development plans for the Fee Lands and the Leased Lands. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MFP Amendment and its impact on our activities. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to discuss these comments. Sincerely, Carl D. Savely CDS:kat Attachments cc: Gene A. Kolkman (via facsimile & certified mail; w/attachments) Gary Derek (w/attachments) Ed Wright (w/attachments) CDS/1 2683-0003 081198/com-mfp.lt/03 Letter 7 Continued Exhibit A Legal Description of Fee Lands Township 13 South. Range 63 East. (Clark County. Nevada): Section 1, Lot One (1); the East Half (E Vz) of Lot Two (2); the East Half (E Vz) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4); Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4); East Half (E Vz) of the West Half (W Vz) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); East Half (E Vz) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); Section 9, all; Section 16, all; Sections 3, 10, 15, that portion lying Westerly of the Eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vz miles from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Section 22, that portion lying Westerly of the Eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vz miles from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93; and that portion lying Northerly to a boundary Vz mile from the Centerline of State Highway 168: Sections 23 and 24, that portion lying Northerly to a boundary Vz mile from the Centerline of State Highway 168. That portion of Section 4 lying Westerly of the Easterly boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vz miles Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. That portion of Section 21 lying Easterly of U.S. Highway 93 and Northerly of the Centerline of State Highway 168. That portion of Sections 25 and 26, lying Northerly of the Centerline of State Highway 168. That portion of Section 20 lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93, and Northerly of the Centerline of State Highway No. 168. That portion of Sections 5, 8, and 17 lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Township 13 South, Range 64 East. (Clark County, Nevada): Section 6, the West Half (W Vz); CDS/12683-0003 081 098/com-mfp.exa/01 Letter 7 Continued Exhibit A Section 7, the West Half (W 1/2) and the West Half (W 1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); Section 18, all Section 19, all Section 30, that portion lying Northerly of the Centerline of State Highway No. 168. Township 11 South. Range 63 East. (Lincoln County. Nevada'): Section 13 Section 20 Section 21 Section 22 Section 23 Section 24 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27 Section 28 Section 29 Section 32 Section 33 Section 34 Section 35 Section 36 South Half (S 1/2); all al al ai a! a! a! al a! ai ai ai al al West Half (W 1/2). That portion of Sections 19, 30 and 31 lying Easterly of the Westerly boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being Vz mile Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Township 12 South. Range 63 East. (Lincoln County. Nevada): Section 1, Lots Three (3), Four (4), South Half (S 1/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) and the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 2, Lots One (1) thru Four (4), South Half (S 1/2) of the North Half (N 1/2) and the South Half (S Vz)\ Section 3, Lots One (1) thru Four (4), South Half (S 1/2) of the North Half (N 1/2) and the South Half (SV2); CDS/12683-0003 081098/com-mfp.exa/01 Letter 7 Continued Exhibit A Section 6, that portion lying between the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93 and the Western boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being Vz mile Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93, excluding that portion of the North Half (N Vz) of the North Half (N Vz) lying between the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93 and the Western boundary of the transmission corridor; and that portion lying Easterly of the Western boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being Vz mile Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93; Sections 7, 18, 19, 29, 30, 32 all lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93; Sections 5, 9, 16, 21, 28, 33, that portion lying Westerly of the Eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vz miles from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Section 8, < ill; Section 10, all; Section 11, all; Section 12, West Half (W Vz) of the West Half (W 1/2); Section 13, West Half (W Vz), Section 14, all; Section 17, all; Section 20, all; Section 23, North Half (N Vz) and the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4); Section 24, West Half (W Vz); Section 25, all; Section 26, East Half (E 1/2); Section 36, all; Township 12 South. Range 64 East. (Lincoln County. Nevada): Section 31 , the West Half (W Vz) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4). CDS/1 2683-0003 081098/com-mfp.exa/01 Letter 7 Continued Exhibit B Legal Description of Leased Lands A leasehold estate in and to the following: Mount Diablo Meridian Nevada: Township 1 1 South. Range 63 East. (Lincoln County, Nevada): Sections 19, 30 and 31, that portion lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93 and the Western boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1/4 mile Easterly from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Township 12 South. Range 63. (Lincoln County Nevada): Section 4, all Sections 5, 9, 16, 21, 28, 33, that portion lying Easterly of the Eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 % miles Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. The North Half (N 1/2) of the North Half (N 1/2) of Section 6 lying Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. 93 and Westerly of the Westerly boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1/4 mile Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93. Section 15, all; Section 22, all; Section 23, Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4); Section 26, West Half (W 1/2); Section 27, all; Section 34, all; Section 35, all. Township 13 South. Range 63 East. (Clark County. Nevada). Section 1 , West Half (W 1/2) of the West Half (W 1/2) of the East Half (E 1/2), and the West Half (W 1/2); Section 2, all; Sections 3, 4, 10 and 15, that portion lying Easterly of the eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 Vz miles from the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93; Section 11, all; Section 12, all; Section 13, all; Section 14, all; Letter 7 Continued Exhibit B Section 22, that portion lying Northerly of a boundary V* mile from the Centerline of State Highway 168 and Easterly of the eastern boundary of the transmission corridor, that boundary being 1 1/2 miles Easterly of the Centerline of U.S. Highway 93; Sections 23 and 24, that portion lying Northerly of a boundary Vz mile from the Centerline of State Highway 168. CDS/12683-0003 081098/com-mfp.exb ;150OOO FEET (ARIZ.) B 63 E T n s 7 175 000 FEE! (ARI2.1 ■^"•N _ Ki, R 64 E | 725 ./ ^3 Letter 8 Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV. 89301 - 9408 Re: Caliente MFP Amendment and EIS for Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat Gene Drais, Many of my ancestors helped settle the Southern part of Nevada. I am currently living in Beatty, Nye County, Nevada. I was born in Henderson, Clark County, Nv. I lived there with my family, until I was 12 years of age. We moved to Alamo, Lincoln County, Nv. where I graduated from Pahranagat Valley High School. I attended the University of Nevada - Reno. I grew up in this part of the state. We hunted, trapped, fished, hiked, explored, looked at artifacts, and enjoyed the scenery in this area. I state this so you will know that I have a keen interest in the State of Nevada and the areas under study by the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat. I would also like to state that I am adamantly opposed to any government interference in the natural processes of the land of which we Human Beings are a part. I do not like the changes the BLM has implemented in the FLPMA. I do not believe the BLM is or should become a law enforcement agency. I believe the States with their land rights can administer the lands more effectively than the BLM or any other Federal Agency. I think the Wild Horse and Burro Act is a prime example of how interference can upset a process that already works. The ranchers were able to control the number of horses and derive an income in the process. Now we expend tax dollars to try to control herds that are completely out of control. I suppose this is enough rambling and I should get back to the document at hand. I think a desert Tortoise (Turtle) is an interesting creature and worth study. I do not believe that any person or corporation should be required to change their lifestyle to accommodate any species. We should take human interests first and then if it is possible accommodate other species. I would like to Point out some of the problems I see with the proposal. The cover letter shows an incorrect date for a public comment meeting in Caliente. The Summary section under Social and Economic Impacts states that "No noticeable adverse economic effects are projected for the Lincoln County Economy." Yet the section prior to this one states that some mineral restrictions would apply. The Question and answer section also states that land in Kane Springs and ACEC's will be closed to mineral entry. Page 3 - 29 Salable Minerals also outlines the potential of sand and gravel in the area. These statements are at odds since the potential for sand and gravel pits is great. This coupled with the fact that the demand for these products has increased in Las Vegas and already made it economical for one pit to operate in the Coyote Springs area. I think turtle protection has already had a negative impact the 1 8.1 8.2 8.3 Letter 8 Continued business and stands to totally curtail it in this area in the future. I am a Mining Engineer and very leery about the effects of any federal policies on any type of mining. I also have interest in Opal claims in the Meadow Valley Mountain Range. I believe page 4 - 3 grossly underestimate the Mineral development scenarios for Lincoln County. I believe Lincoln County stands to lose a great deal of future income from the impact of this plan. I am worried about future impacts of these and other regulations on the feasibility of mining as well as other outdoor activities. The next part of the document that worries me is the Desert Tortoise Studies. The question and answer section states "Desert Tortoise Populations are only capable of very slow growth. Therefore delisting criteria state that if a desert tortoise population remains stationary or increases over a 25 year period (one desert tortoise generation) then delisting may be warranted." The same statement is made at the top of page 1-3 criterion 1. The current survey techniques and time frame are both inadequate to determine this. The next to the last question in the question and answer section verifies this. Pages 3 - 12 and 3 - 13 study methods and conclusions are also applicable. The last sentence on 3 - 12 states "Only a limited number of permanent study plots have multiple years of observation." Page 3-13 third paragraph last sentence states "Some researchers warn ... do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers or densities in most places, population levels are dangerously low." These two sentences tell me that an inadequate study has been done and researchers have formed opinions without adequate facts (see underlined parts) The dangerously low seems to be a scare tactic opinion also. The next paragraph contains a sentence that states "The largest decrease occurred in the Desert Tortoise Natural Area and adjacent areas in California." Are we to assume from this that protecting and studying a turtle kills it or are other factors involved? Page 3-11 continues this opinion trend with the last to paragraphs. Second to last paragraph, "concern has increased," second sentence, "Lukenbach stated." last sentence "Berry asserts ..." Last paragraph, "Berry also speculated," last sentence, "there is little reliable data prior to the 1970's to indicate how densities of current populations may differ from historical densities." Once again these sentences indicate scare tactic opinions meant to present biased views. The last quote indicates that the 25 year life cycle has barely been met on any study data and only inconclusive data is available at best. Page 4-74 last paragraph, also supports this lack of evidence. Please give us facts and not opinions to support the views of some extremists. If we ever hope to delist the desert tortoise a reliable baseline is necessary and that does not currently exist. The funds do not currently exist to establish one and the hope of obtaining fund in the future is dim at best. The BLM is currently limited in its ability to patrol, improve and administer lands and programs under its control. This program is just another unfunded policy waiting to soak up tax dollars in unnecessary ways. The only mention of funding is page 4 - 1 Assumptions. We are to assume magical fund will appear! Page 4-5 last paragraph has a very useful proposal, coordination with federal and state departments to decrease predation. Take this one step further and involve the public. We would rather shoot, trap, and poison predators than give up our outdoor activities. Before ranching and trapping were made unprofitable by regulation predator numbers were lower. Now the ranchers have been pushed off their lands and trapping is no longer profitable. This has led to an increase in predator numbers The NDOW has taken the first step in this by creating a season on one of these winged black predators. If we know that raven control can reduce hatchling and juvenile tortoise mortalities by as much as 85% then lets put this fact to work. Kill some ravens, don't 8.4 8.5 8.6 0„7 Letter 8 Continued close our lands. Another federal policy stands in the way of this the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Another law interfering with what really works. Another aspect of this proposal that I object to is the way populated areas continue to expand at almost any cost to the environment. Yet unpopulated areas are being asked to take the brunt of all the extremists way of viewing the environment. Las Vegas takes an acre of land and pays $647 as a mitigation fee (page 3 - 33 second paragraph). Land swaps are done for unpopulated land to allow Las Vegas to Expand. All the while large corporations get rich while rural area residents suffer economic losses. An equitable plan should be allowed to reign throughout the state. If I can destroy habitat in The Las Vegas Valley for $647 an acre then I should be able to destroy land any where else in the state for the same or a lesser cost depending on surrounding impacts. Where is a reclamation plan for the Las Vegas Valley? How much is the reclamation bond on a shopping center or casino? We have inequitable laws and regulations. Don't try to tell a rancher or a miner that there is no significant economic impact on destroying his livelihood. I request that "Alternative C" no action be the plan of choice. That adequate funding be obtained for meaningful tortoise studies that can be used to base an action on. That equitable plans be established in the state. That USFWS section seven regulations be a guideline in the interim. That the BLM and other federal agencies use their resources and funding to provide economic development and progress for the Human Species and look at all other species as a secondary consideration not primary. I believe the Desert Tortoise was here before we entered this country and that it will be here long after we have gone. It is a desert survivor. ©.7 8.8 W. Layne Weber P. O. Box 625 Beatty, NV. 89003 1-702-553-2705 ^<5X>- ^rX ,?/%> Letter 9 *<"% I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX USE?*1 V> "LjF 75 Hawthorne Street *PRC* San Francisco, CA 94105 AUG M 1998 Gene A Kolkman, District Manager Bureau of Land Management Ely District HC 33 Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 Dear Mr. Kolkman: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat (DEIS). Our review is pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. In the DEIS, BLM identifies three action alternatives for implementing site specific actions necessary to meet the goals identified in the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. A no action alternative is also analyzed, as required by NEPA. The proposed action, if implemented, would designate three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) totaling 212,500 acres; implement management prescriptions for desert tortoise habitat inside and outside of the ACECs; ensure BLM participation in a USFWS-developed environmental education program; and implement a US FWS -approved interagency monitoring program. Alternative A would also designate three ACECs, but with fewer prescriptions on grazing, mining, and recreation activities. Alternative B would designate two Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) totaling 307,000 acres. BLM has identified the proposed action as the preferred alternative. EPA commends BLM for evaluating strategies to protect desert tortoise habitat on the lands it manages. We also commend BLM for its excellent analysis of cumulative impacts. However, we have concerns about the range of alternatives selected for analysis in the DEIS. Although BLM's preferred alternative seems to provide a higher level of protection than the other two action alternatives analyzed in the DEIS, we are concerned about BLM's decision not to analyze an alternative which would place 100% of critical habitat designated by the Fish and Wildlife Service into protected status. We are also concerned that two of the action alternatives do not appear to meet project purpose and need. EPA recommends that BLM consider an alternative which would place 100% of the designated critical habitat into one or more ACECs or DWMAs, with strict prescriptions on cattle grazing, mining, and OHV use. In our opinion, inclusion of such an alternative in the Final EIS prepared for the action would serve to clarify important issues such as grazing, mineral entry, and recreation management, consistent with NEPA's primary goal of improving agency decisionmaking. 9.1 9.2 9.3 Letter 9 Continued We have assigned a rating of EC-2 (Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information) to this document (please see the enclosed document describing EPA's rating system). This rating reflects our evaluation of the project impacts associated with the preferred alternative and the overall quality of the NEPA document. However, please note that we have significant environmental concerns with Alternatives A and B, and strongly recommend against selecting either of these alternatives in the Record of Decision for this action. We appreciate the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have any questions, please call Leonidas Payne of my staff at (415) 744-1571. Sincerely, \J(Z<^ Letter 18 Continued Khat about the fact that livestock numbers are down so much in the tortoise habitat? With cattle numbers down shouldn't tortoise numbers be up if livestock are really affecting the tortoise? Isn't that, circumstantial evidence? Do we only accept circumstantial evidence that supports our desired conclusion? It appears that either the same event is affecting livestock and tortoise numbers or that there is a positive link between livestock and tortoise. 18.14 Your document seems to be as complete as you can make it given the lack of scientific information.. I do however fail to see how you arrive at your (proposed action) Alternative I have asked before and have never received or seen in print the cost to the BLM to do this Framework Plan Amendment. What will be the total cost of this recovery plan? Is this a line item in the Ely District budget? Is it taking resource and personnel away from doing other public land monitoring and management that should be done? Shouldn't this be public knowledge? 18.15 Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. As you can see I am very concerned about making decisions that have such far reaching impact without more scientific data to justify the action. I believe cr edi t abi 1 i ty would be better served by basing decision on fact. Sincerely , Rey Flake Letter 19 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RENO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 1340 FINANCIAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 234 RENO, NEVADA 89502-5055 File No. 1-5-98-TA-306 BLM 10-7 Memorandum To: District Manager, Ely District, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada From: Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife, Reno, Nevada Subject: Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MFP Amendment/EIS). The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this draft document, given its importance to implementing tortoise recovery on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (Bureau). Service comments were provided on earlier versions of this document, some of which have been incorporated into the most recent draft (April 1998). Informal consultation was provided on the Preliminary Draft MFP Amendment/EIS on August 8, 1995 (File No. 1-5-95-1-051). Technical comments on the Draft Cumulative Impact Analysis of the Desert Tortoise Land Use Plan Amendment to the Caliente Management Framework Plan were provided on June 5, 1996 (File No. 1-5-96-TA-167). On October 9, 1997, the Service provided technical comments on the internal Draft MFP Amendment/EIS (File No. 1-5-97-TA-306). In addition, the Service consulted informally on the Proposed Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat in the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit (File No. 1-5-95-1-351) on October 19, 1995. This last informal consultation included the MFP Amendment/EIS, as well as other Bureau land use plan amendments/revisions that would affect actions within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit. Please consider previous Service comments identified in the above documents as part of this review of the MFP Amendment/EIS. These previous comments shall be incorporated by reference and not restated in this document. Our review and comments are focused on the agency's preferred alternative; should the Bureau modify this alternative or select another alternative as the preferred alternative, we suggest you request Service comments on the District Manager Letter 19 Continued File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 modifications or new alternative selected. Also, our evaluation takes into consideration the expected level of habitat disturbance projected in this report; should habitat disturbance be substantially different, our conclusions would likely change. General Comments: The Service commends the Ely District for proposing actions to minimize known and potential impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat. The document is very comprehensive and provides thorough coverage of threats to tortoise and recovery strategies, as well as past actions which have contributed to the current status of the species. • The Service understands that the Bureau proposes to continue to license livestock grazing within the Terry allotment and to a lesser extent, other allotments, within critical habitat, which accounts for approximately 17 percent of the desert tortoise critical habitat that occurs in the Ely District. The Service recommends that the Bureau include that portion of the Beaver Dam Slope Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) within the Beaver Dam Slope Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), particularly the Terry allotment which is administered by the Bureau's Arizona Strip Office. This action would defer grazing prescriptions to those established in the Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan (RJV1P). If the Bureau chooses to exclude this area from ACEC designation, the Service believes that grazing prescriptions for critical habitat should only occur from October 15 to March 1 5, as you propose in Table 4-11. This grazing period is consistent with grazing prescriptions proposed or implemented in Utah and Arizona. Because the shape of the proposed ACECs in the northern portion of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit results in a large edge effect (ratio of edge to interior area), the reserve design of these proposed recovery areas are compromised. In addition, if the private lands (formerly known as Aerojet) are developed, this win contribute substantially to the edge effect within the recovery unit, as well as fragmentation, in addition to direct and indirect effects to the Mormon Mesa, Kane Springs, and Coyote Springs ACECs. The biological opinion (File No. 1-5-96-F-296R, as reinitiated) covering livestock grazing in critical habitat will expire when the MFP amendment is finalized in early 1999. In your June 19, 1998, memorandum and attached biological evaluation dated June 1998, the Bureau proposed livestock grazing outside ACECs, and outside ACECs but 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 District Manager Letter 19 Continued File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 within critical habitat. Although not designated as ACEC, the Service and Bureau are required to ensure that proposed actions will not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, as determined through formal consultation. As proposed by the Bureau, the Service highly recommends retention and acquisition of private and leased lands within ACEC boundaries, particularly those formerly known as Aerojet. Prior to listing the tortoise, Congress authorized the transfer of Bureau lands to the Aerojet Corporation for the purpose of developing a project with minimal indirect effects outside the immediate project area. If the area is used for residential and commercial development, the Service anticipates that effects to tortoise will increase substantially. Because Federal agencies are mandated to ensure that proposed actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we suggest deletion of this statement in the second paragraph under Locatable Minerals on page 2-24, and throughout the document. Through informal and formal consultation, the Service and Federal agency should reach concurrence that proposed actions are below the jeopardy or adverse modification threshold. A jeopardy or adverse modification biological opinion indicates that the Service and Federal agency failed to develop alternatives or modifications to the proposed action with acceptable levels of effect to a listed species or its critical habitat. Therefore, we suggest emphasis on this proactive approach to the consultation process. We suggest that the Bureau include a discussion on compensation strategy for the loss of tortoise habitat. In 1991, the desert tortoise Management Oversight Group (MOG) developed a range-wide plan to assess fees to compensate for the loss of tortoise habitat (Hastey, et al. 1991). The Bureau, Service, and State wildlife agencies agreed to assess such fees for actions that result in loss of desert tortoise habitat in accordance with the formula developed by the MOG. Within ACECs and desert tortoise critical habitat, habitat loss is calculated by multiplying a base amount (currently $578 per acre) by a factor of 3 to 6; therefore, the loss of desert tortoise critical habitat or habitat within ACECs, would require a monetary compensation of $1,734 to $3,468 per acre. Outside critical habitat or ACECs, the factor would be one, or $578 per acre. The base rate is adjusted for inflation at the beginning of each calendar year. 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 Letter 19 Continued District Manager File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 When designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise in Nevada, the Service believed that including National Wildlife Refuge lands in the designation was unnecessary because these lands receive a high level of protection and conservation under land management policies for Service refuges. In reference to this decision, the Service is concerned with the grazing prescription proposed for the Lower Lake West allotment (LLW) which occurs at the northern boundary of the proposed Kane Springs ACEC, west of the Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge (PNWR). During the dry season, the irrigated pastures and abundant water inside the PNWR are a natural draw for cattle using the adjacent LLW allotment. The result is intensive grazing pressure on the western refuge boundary and consequential degradation of desert tortoise habitat on Bureau and refuge lands along the PNWR/LLW boundary. In an effort to reduce grazing impacts on PNWR lands and allow some recovery of tortoise habitat, we suggest that the portion of the LLW allotment which supports desert tortoise (approximately 13,300 acres), be considered for seasonal use. Since adjacent allotments (Pahranagat Lake West and Pahranagat Lake East) consist of similar habitat characteristics and receive only seasonal use, the Service believes that it is appropriate to classify LLW allotment as seasonal use only. We also suggest a greater utilization of existing water hauls within the LLW allotment that occur distantly from the PNWR/LLW boundary, thus directing cattle onto the allotment and away from the boundary, and potentially reducing forage competition between cattle and tortoises. 19.8 As stated in the draft memorandum submitted by facsimile from the Service to the Bureau on July 8, 1998, potential impacts to tortoise and its habitat that may result from off-highway vehicle (OHV) activities cannot be adequately evaluated as described in the MFP amendment/EIS. Following conversations among agency staff, the Service anticipates that Bureau staff in the Caliente Office will provide additional information on the Bureau's proposed action for off-highway vehicle (OHV) management. Additionally, we suggest that the Bureau include a discussion on OHV monitoring. The Bureau's Las Vegas Field Office, in consultation with the Service, will develop a monitoring plan to assess impacts to tortoise and its habitat within proposed ACECs, if present, that result from casual and organized OHV activity. Based on the results of the plan, OHV use may become more or less restrictive within ACECs. 19.9 Letter 19 Continued District Manager File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 The Service endorses your proposal to retain all public lands leased to private holders currently known as Harrick Investment (formerly Aerojet) lands, and acquire those lands transferred to private holders if they become available. Transferred lands were originally intended to be used for development of a rocket engine facility, potential impacts from other uses, such as residential development, may increase substantially, both within the transferred lands and zone-of- influence. The projected level of ground water pumping for the rocket facility was substantially less than the anticipated demand for ground water to supply residental development. Such increased leveles of ground water pumping may jeopardize populations of Federally-listed fishes in the area. Human-related impacts associated with residential development, such as feral dogs and cats, off-highway vehicles, illegal dumping, and vandalism, are known to encroach into surrounding undisturbed areas. Such impacts can be extremely detrimental to tortoise populations. -sat® Specific Comments: Chapter 1: Introduction Page 1. Paragraph 2. Last Sentence: We suggest that this statement, which was excerpted from correspondence between the Service and National Park Service regarding a research permit, be replaced with a more appropriate and applicable statement. As a replacement, we suggest the following: Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species (USFWS, 1994a). 19. tl Page 1-5. Paragraph 5. Second Sentence: We recommend replacing this sentence with: "The Las Vegas District proposes restrictions on OHV activity within ACECs, including timing; limiting numbers of events per year and per ACEC according to active and inactive seasons for the tortoise; and requiring special recreation permits for organized events with 26 or more individuals." We suggest that the Bureau include a brief discussion on consistency between the Caliente MFP amendment and recommendations in the Recovery Plan. m-® Page 1-8. Paragraph 3: Please clarify the reason the Bureau's proposal is inconsistent with the 1994 Lincoln County resolution in this paragraph instead of referring to another section of the document. 19.13 Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 2-11. Special Status Animal Species/Wildlife Habitat Management: Please identify and describe the types of permits that the Bureau proposes to issue for research. This information is needed for the section 7 consultation process. m-K District Manager Letter 19 Continued File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 H Page 2-28. Fire Management: We suggest that the Bureau include a statement that section 7 consultation will be requested for fire management, as appropriate. Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 3-8, Threatened or Endangered Species: It should be noted that the endangered Moapa dace (Moapae coricea) at Muddy Springs, although not present in the planning area, is dependent upon ground water which flows beneath the planning area. Any ground water pumping from the carbonate rock in Coyote Spring Valley is likely to affect discharge at Muddy Springs (Burley, 1997). Page 3-14. Table 3-3: The first two lines in the table appear to be in error; i.e., it seems inappropriate to identify 0-10 and 1-10 as two separate density classes. Page 3-31. Social Setting. Attitude, and Values: The statement made in the seventh sentence seems to contradict item (3) in the sentence that follows that statement; i.e., environmental issues receive little emphasis by residents but the quality of the physical environment is a factor for positive community attributes. Page 3-33. Second Paragraph: Page 4-85. Paragraph 5: Paee 4-85. Paragraph 9: and elsewhere in the document: The mitigation fee assessed and collected for disturbance of non-Federal lands in Clark County under the habitat conservation plan and associated incidental take permit, is $550 per acre, not $647. Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 4-2. Incomplete and/or Unavailable Information. First Paragraph: As discussed during the meeting in Mesquite on August 10, 1998, we recommend that the Bureau include: "While the direct effects to desert tortoise from organized OHV use have been identified, the indirect effects (e.g., noise, vibration, and dust) of OHV activity are not well understood. Similarly, although the effects of driving off-road (i.e., cross-country) are well documented, the direct and indirect effects to desert tortoise that may result from casual and organized low-speed OHV activities on existing roads are not well known." Page 4-77. First Paragraph Following Item 3: Mary Allen (1998) conducted a digestibility study on cattle dung relative to desert tortoise. The preliminary trial results indicate that the net digestibility of dung was zero, thus suggesting that the theory that tortoises have benefitted from a symbiotic relationship with cattle and their feces is clearly speculative. Page 4-82. Arizona Strip Land Use Amendment and Las Vegas District RMP: Please update these two sections. Biological opinions were issued to the Bureau for the Arizona Strip RMP amendment on January 28, 1998, and the Las Vegas District RMP on June 18, 1998. We suggest including a brief discussion on the preferred alternative for these land use plans. 19.15 19.16 19. 17 19.18 19.19 19.20 19.21 19.22 Letter 19 Continued District Manager File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 Page 4-83. first complete sentence: Please clarify this statement. There has not been an interim closure of OHV activity within the Piute-Eldorado proposed Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA). For example, in November 1997, the Los Angeles to Barstow dual-sport ride traversed the proposed DWMA as authorized under a biological opinion. Additionally, there has 19.23 never been, nor has there been proposed, any restrictions on small organized groups (i.e., 25 participants or less) other than remain on existing roads and trails. Please refer to the first paragraph on page 4-85 for further information on road designations and closures. Page 4-83. last paragraph: Currently, the fee assessed under section 7 consultation for disturbance of non-critical desert tortoise habitat is $578 per acre and will be indexed for 19.24 inflation at the beginning of each calendar year. Page 4-89. Harrick Investments (formerly Aerojef): It has come to the attention that Coyote Springs Investment (CDI) has acquired and holds a lease on former Aerojet Corporation lands in Coyote Springs Valley, Nevada. The Final EIS should reflect current information regarding proposed development of private and leased lands by CSI within the planning area. 19.25 Page 4-116. paragraph 4: Please describe suggestions developed at the Boulder City Fire Management Conference that would address the direct and indirect effects discussed in the Fire 19.26 section, including requirements under section 7. 19.27 Page 4-117. first paragraph: In the Bureau's Las Vegas District, the threshold for issuance of a special use permit for organized OHV events is 26, not 15. We recommend that the Ely District impose a similar policy within ACECS for reasons identified in the second paragraph of that page. The Service does not concur that an unlimited number of organized events within ACECs 19.28 with up to 50 vehicles constitutes a recovery action. Letter 19 Continued District Manager File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Michael Burroughs, in our Las Vegas Office, at (702) 646-3499 or me at (702) 861-6300. Robert D. Williams cc: Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Caliente, Nevada (Attn: Kyle Teel) Deputy State Director, Resources, Land Use and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada Assistant Regional Director, Interior Basin Ecoregion, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon Letter 19 Continued District Manager File No. 1-5-98-TA-BLM 10-7 Literature Cited Allen, M. E. 1998. Cattle, Dung and tortoises: symbiosis? Paper presented at the 1998 Desert Tortoise Council Symposium. Burby, T.J. 1997. Hydrology and potential for ground- water development, carbonate-rock ' aquifers, Southern Nevada and Southeastern California. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4168. Hastey, E., L. K. Rosenkrance, B. R. Templeton, J. M. Parker, W. H. Radtkey, D. L. Harlow, B. D. Taubert, F. Worthley, W. A. Molini, R. D. Radantris. 1991 . Compensation for the desert tortoise. A report prepared for the Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group. November 1991. 16 pp. Letter 20 Lincoln County Public Lands Commission F. O. Box 690 Pioche,NV 89043 TORTOISE COMMENTS Mr. Drais, Thank you for the opportunity to comment the draft plan amendment and EIS for desert tortoise habitat. ISSUE: Live stock grazing Livestock grazing will be removed under the preferred alternative based on the assumption that livestock grazing has negative impacts on desert tortoise population rccovciy. Statements in the amendment suggest livestock grazing has a major negative impact on the recovery of the desert tortoise. Since no scientific documentation has been produced to date supporting this logic, and remarks in the document support other factors as the primary negative influence on the tortoise. In fact the document has conflicting concepts which it presents: Wc are not convinced that the conclusion reached by Bostick (1990) should be dismissed. Anecdotal data indicates that in grazing allotments desert tortoises followed the cattle from one pasture to another. If the conclusions reached by Bostick are wrong then tortoises in areas where cattle grazing has been excluded should be in better condition than tortoises in areas that are grazed. Cattle have been excluded from the Nevada Test Site for forty years. A ten year study of tortoises in Rock Valley within the Nevada Test Site showed the tortoises to be under continual stress (Nagy and Medica (1986) in Bostick (1990). Chapter 3 of the draft EIS discusses the apparent decline of tortoises in the western Mojave especially in and around the Desert Tortoise Natural Area. I assume that grazing was excluded in those areas. Yet during the same period, the relative abundance of tortoises in the eastern Mojave was stable or increased (pg 3-13). During that time grazing was still allowed in the eastern Mojave. Many tortoise biologists have an innate bias against livestock grazing (Sid Sloan for example his is not a scientific bias, but a personal bias that shouldn't have found itself into any permanent documents). Table 3-3 shows the tortoise population in Sand Hollow to be stable. Sand Hollow was actively grazed during the time of the survey. In this case grazing did not seem to negatively impact tortoise numbers. We would think your own documentation would require more specific non-biased monitoring in this final EIS, 1) Page 1 disease." 4, tortoise number declines are "...more recently attributed to localized predation and 20.1 20.2 20.3 If tortoise declines are more attributed to predation, why is so much emphasis placed on livestock removal? Therefore, we suggest focusing management of the tortoise recovery on predation and disease, not livestock removal which due to lack of science appears to be more a personal and political bias against livestock grazing. 2) Page 3 - 1 3, " Some researchers warn that while populations in the Northeastern Mojave Recoveiy Unit do not appear to be undergoing major changes in numbers of densities, populations are dangerously low. " 20.4 Letter This idea is cited in a personal letter from Brussard. Where are the supporting studies on population dynamics and trends? Elsewhere in the Draft EIS it is stated that limited scientific research exists on population numbers and trends. Many recommendations in this Draft EIS are based on personal opinion ad bias, and the opinions and bias should be assessed accordingly, they are ONLY opinion, not fact based upon scientific research and documentation. 3) Page 3- 15 "85% of mortality among hatchlings and juveniles " is due to ravens, and raven population increases are associated with human activities. If human activities like dumps, power poles are causing 85% of the juvenile losses, then more emphasis should be placed on reducing the human influence or on controlling ravels than removal of livestock. 4) Page 3-16, "No incidence of desert tortoise trampling by livestock have been documented in the planning area." If there is no documentation of cattle trampling tortoise, shouldn't there be less emphasis on cattle as a negative impact? 5) Page 4-2 States directly there is non conclusive information on the effects of livestock grazing on desert tortoise recovery. If information on livestock grazing impacts is non-conclusive, how did you draw conclusions regarding impacts of livestock? The discussion you document continues on 4-2 to state that professional judgment of biologists in USFWS, BLM, USGS and Smithsonian support the negative impacts of livestock on tortoise. Who are these biologist and how can they have conclusive views on something on which they have done absolutely NO research? Personal bias shouldn't be determining life and career changing decisions on the part of ANY federal agency. Conjecture and subjectivity instead of research and factual information were utilized to arrive at this flawed conclusion. If there are biologists who support the negative impacts of livestock grazing,~present their scientific research and documentation. If there is nothing more than personal opinion, you as an agency have relegated yourself to a special interest group against the livestock industry. 6) Page 4-2, it is stated there is incomplete or unusable information on trend of tortoise populations, and trend information that does exist was collected near urban areas. Urban areas are much different from rural areas where there is livestock grazing. If decreased tortoise population are in response to human activities, other than grazing, why is this document emphasizing livestock grazing so much? Again, we recommend, focusing on management of the tortoise by eliminating human activities that are documented to be detrimental to the tortoise. 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 Letter 20 Continued 7) Page 4-7 , it is "stated that fewer tortoises would experience malnutrition/osteoporosis if livestock were removed. However, on page 3-13 it is stated that data is lacking to support the contention of correlation of malnutrition to osteoporosis. The above two statements contradict each other, BOTH can not be true. Several times in your document statements are made about the competition for vegetation between tortoises and livestock and that this competition contributes to the decline (though no trend data exists) in tortoise numbers, yet no real data exists to support these claims. Information cited in the Draft EIS supporting the claim of the negative impacts of livestock grazing is most often not peer reviewed scientific journals. The following are given as examples of non- peer reviewed scientific journal citations in the order in which they first appear on page 3-16 through 3-18: 1) Oldemeyer 1992, proposal 2) Oldemeyrer 1994, report 3) Hohman and Ohmart 1978 proceedings 4) Hohman and Ohmart 1980, report 5) Nicholson and Humphreys 1981 proceedings 6) Coombs 1979, proceedings 7) Berry 1984 report 8) Shepherd 1981, proceedings 9) Berry and Nicholson 1984 report 11) combs, 1977 report 12) Nish 1964, Fish and Game publication 13) Karl 1981, unpublished report 14) Oftdal a d Allen 1996 report Where are the scientific peer reviewed studies illustrating the negative impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise habitat and recovery? Conclusions on livestock removal must be based upon scientific knowledge, not on the less rigorous opinions of biologists. Only a small percentage of citations offered in your draft EIS support negative impacts of livestock grazing are scientific peer- reviewed articles. Some are even unpublished! Bostic 1990 is cited (peer reviewed article) as suggesting livestock and tortoise do not compete for forage. This paper along with a study by Resource Concepts, Inc. (RCI) unpublished report is dismissed in the Draft EIS as not being supported by tortoise biologists. Again who are your biologists? If their opinions are going to be used against the rural economy, the other side of the coin should be studied and is not at all in this document. Where are any scientific based studies supporting their beliefs? How many has a strong personal bias against livestock grazing? The language in the Draft EIS regarding livestock grazing impacts is subjective and filled with personal opinion, there has no reason for inclusion in the document. The RCI report, prepared on behalf of size counties in four states, review over 850 documents relating to the desert tortoise. The report substantiates much of the concerns we have with the Draft EIS currently under review, including, the premise that most of the literature available on the Letter 20 Continued desert tortoise is non-peer reviewed, and lacks the credibility of scientific per reviewed literature. Further, that available information on the interaction of livestock and the tortoise is minimal. Finally you fail to even attempt to document that livestock grazing can be conducted in a manner that improves or maintains the ecological condition of site, and that grazing can maintain or improve vegetation and that has been scientifically proven and peer-reviewed. Information in the Draft EIS is laden with vague verbiage such as: could, might, less well documented, not well documented, and a variety of such statements. This is not concrete language that can support removal of the livestock from multiple use. causing a loss to the local economy of 13.8% of the total cattle on the land-to your document this is a minimal impact, but in some instances it is 100 percent of the operation. That is indeed a harsh impact where are your economic impact figures. The document is miserably failing in economic data showing current impacts and cumulative impacts due to actions taken upon listing of the tortoise. The losses to the community and county have not adequately been addressed or mitigated. The document is completely failing in addressing impacts to local economies, cumulative losses to the county. It is of concern that this no nonchalance is prevalent in the BLM towards devastation of the rural economy. Comments on Statements Contained in Environmental consequences - preferred Alternative Socio-Economic Values From Livestock Grazing Management 1) Page 4-23. The last paragraph and sentence states "The loss of each AUM, however, may be considered equivalent to $4.50 in net ranch increase (profit after all costs) and approximately $50.00 in ranch capital asset values." This statement may be very bold because the values were set by Forest Service and BLM staffers in 1985. What is the confidence interval for these values? The figure ignores cumulative impacts, it also ignores roll over values in the community for dollars spent in the community. The fact is that conservatively, for eveiy dollar spent in a community it rolls over at least 4 times and in smaller communities sometimes as much as 10 times. Every dollar is important in rural communities and the cavalier attitude of BLM towards their impacts on the community are not the attitudes of 'good neighbors'. 2) Page 4-2. Where is the study that identified that the loss of 12 livestock permittees on 9 allotments (seven active permittees and seven allotment) will have "...no noticeable reverberation throughout the economy and no noticeable multiplier effect upon purchases and sales, or income and employment.."? This statement sounds once more like personal opinion lacing any basis in fact, produce your economic impact studies. 3) Page 4-23, the review of the economic impacts within the planning area states that one livestock operator will have a herd reduction as a result of the tortoise habitat recovery plan, and therefore, it would make the operation economically untenable, and result in the abandonment or sale of the business. 20.11 20.12 20.13 mi& 20.15 Letter 20 Continued Sale is not likely an option if you have rendered the operation economically unfeasible by destroying grazing AUM< values. Who exactly will buy a ranch that cannot support a viable operation? Is it acceptable to remove the livelihood of a business just because it is only one rancher? The individual is IMPORTANT> The loss of a single family ranch may not mean much to the BLM or be significant (unless you are that person what if the writer was that person?), but the cumulative loss of small ranchers in the West is atrocious. This draft management plan is just one more example of an attempt to remove livestock from public lands without just cause. More comments on economic impacts. Some of the dollar values presented in the economic statements may be too high. When faced with reduction AUM's will the remaining AUM's stay as high in cash market value? These values probably will not stay as high and probably will fall. Buyers may look at a very short pay back period on the allotments if tortoises do not show recovery . If recoveiy is slow, values will be discounted heavily in the early time periods. Also these programs add to uncertainly and risk for producers that could lower capitalized values of land. This loss in capitalized value would also mean lower property tax revenues to local governments and therefore decreased revenues to local government. Consistent failure of BLM and other agencies to admit the economic impacts, or to truthfully study the impacts upon local government and it's future is what lead to the Sagebrush Rebellion. The BLM is not adequately addressing it's economic impact upon the local government in this document or in any past documents. BLM and other federal agencies need to mitigate the cumulative losses of tax dollars, and future tax dollars due to the degradation of the ranching industry in Lincoln County. Please produce the mitigation plan of all impacts to local government since the listing of the Desert Tortoise. Specific the takings of private property, future use and failure to address those impacts in the beginning. 20.17 Comments on Statements in Environmental Consequences - Alternative C l) Page 4-66, under I, first the document states that the tortoise population is stable but goes on to say populations may not remain stable, may increase or may decline. You make this statement is made under the other alternatives as well. How is this statement made without trend studies supporting the claim and no research to document current impacts that influence tortoise populations? Which is it? Will populations remain stable, increase or decline? If they decline then you have destroyed the cattle industry for nothing and perhaps without studying the possibility that the livestock are a positive in tortoise numbers improving and not decreasing. All three of your statements cannot be simultaneously true. It is exactly this vague failure to document needs of the tortoise and real numbers that give this issue such a political taste. 20.19 2) Page 4-76, states that at this time there are no date showing that continued livestock grazing is compatible with recovery of the desert tortoise. There is also little if any scientific data showing that continued livestock grazing is incompatible with recovery of the desert tortoise. Why isn't the lack of any scientific date also elaborated upon? 3) Page 4-77, states that the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that livestock grazing can have a number of different negative impacts to tortoise and its habitat. Yet in the paragraph following this previous statement it is established that evidence is circumstantial that grazing is a major problem for the tortoise. These two statements are contradictory. One either 20.20 Letter 20 Continued has scientific evidence or they do not. biases are not scientific evidence. Circumstantial evidence —personal opinions and personal 2©„2© 4) Page 4-98, We summed up the total acres under tortoise recovery and came up with 2,324,300 acres. While the planning area covered in this Draft EIS recovery plan may not have a large impact on the livestock industry, it is the cumulative impacts of all habitat recovery efforts that will be felt by the livestock industry. The cumulative impact would not be overlooked. Our primary concern with this document is the extreme emphasis placed on livestock grazing as a negative impact on the recovery of the tortoise Statements in the EIS relative to negative impacts of livestock grazing, for the most part are without any basis in scientific fact. Livestock grazing is an important contributor to the social and economic stability of Lincoln County. Therefore, considerable thought should be given before any livestock reductions are implemented. Within the document there are suggestions that the reductions in grazing will have only minor economic impacts for the area. The problem is that there are many livestock reductions from assorted management approaches, whether at the allotment level or witliin management areas such as ACEC. it is these cumulative impacts that eat away at the livestock industry, and associated rural economies. We must adamantly oppose livestock reductions when there is no resource or environmental reason supporting your reductions. Therefore, we recommend that livestock not be excluded from the planning area or from those ACEC's within the planning area. Furthermore, it has been observed by range experts that the exotic annual component of the Mojave desert is here to stay. Exotic annuals increase the potential for wildfire. Wildfire is detrimental to tortoise habitat. In the Mojave, re vegetation is difficult if not impossible in some cases. Grazing has always been a wonderful tool to manage fire fuels. This option should have been included in the analysis. 20.21 20.22 20.23 20.24 20.25 Issue: Mining Your amendment substantially impacts mining and the future of mining in the area, it fails to acknowledge that mineral exploration and operations disturb minimal amounts of land and should not be curtailed. Kane Springs is hardly prime habitat yet the entire valley is closed to oil and gas exploration. This doesn't seem reasonable when a plan of operations can adequately address tortoise issues. 20.26 Issue: ORV use Off road Vehicle uses are curtailed as are roads and the impacts are minimal on the desert tortoise. The proposal neatly cuts off all north south access for races. It isn't necessary shows a true lack of concern on the BLM's part about economic impacts on the county. Because of a continuing economic decline helped along by BLM decisions, any economic advantage provided by off road races, and other public land event's help to offset the impacts to the local economy by the loss of long term economic benefits due to the loss of ranching. 20.27 Issue: Community expansion Letter 20 Continued Pahranagat valley has never been and never will be desert tortoise habitat, it gets too cold in the winter and they cannot survive there. How scientific is it exactly to draw a line on a map and determine that tortoise are living fight up to the 3 8th parallel. That is not only not scientific it is not reasonable to assume that the tortoise live along man made lines on maps. We oppose the inclusion of Pahranagat Valley as habitat because it is not, it places an unfair burden on the community, adds another layer of government, appears to be an attempt by your agency to take control of the water in the Pahranagat Valley area.. The 'fingers' of habitat, just 'happen' to take in commercial water rights, private water rights and makes it extremely hard to ignore. The inclusion of the community in the habitat area while not critical will not allow for growth without costly hoops to jump through,. Residents will be placed under onerous mitigation fees and pay to mitigate a species that doesn't and can't live in or around their community. We propose you take the entire Pahranagat Valley out of the habitat area or provide non-biased, scientific evidence that this area has been and remains prime habitat area. Please add the peer-reviewed scientific documentation that validates the inclusion of Pahranagat Valley into the planning area or remove the valley so it can grow without the burden's of this proposal. Issue: habitat 20.28 The soils surveys for this area aren't even published, it would appear hasty to make habitat boundaries when you haven't the soils maps and studies to determine where the tortoise CAN live. There are areas in you habitat maps that aren't tortoise habitat and according to your document cannot be. It would seem a reasonable request to see overlays of the information such as soils mapping. And a complaint, it was promised to the Lincoln County Public Lands Commission that portions of the amendment would be mailed to them on disk, it was not. The maps and tables would have been useful in our comments, but we had to do without them. The Public Lands Commission strenuously objects to being noted as a group opposed to recovery of the tortoise. We are not against recovery, we are against false listings using not science. We are not at all against any species, we don't feel however that the animals should be utilized by special interests groups to further their own agenda, The failure of this document to provide sound scientific proof of any of the claims made in it is of grave concern to us. It shows a political agenda that reflects no concern for the tortoise, but a destruction of all industries Lincoln County depends upon. The document expresses to us a total lack of concern for the future of the multiple use industries dependent upon the public lands and shows the writing agencies to have no concern whatsoever about the communities it is neighbors with. Does the government have a good neighbor policy, it is contained in one or more of the recent executive orders. Furthermore, the executive order on environmental justice was written to defend counties like this one which are economically disadvantaged and should be defended from unfair impacts upon our economy and future. We insist on a full NEPA review focusing heavily on the economic impacts past and present. We also insist upon a mitigation plan depicting how BLM plans on mitigating the economic losses to the rural economies they are impacting here. We feel that the tortoise has not been studied by anyone without an anti-cow mentality and therefore there is no honest data regarding what will or 20.29 20.30 20.31 20.32 20.33 20.34 Letter 20 Continued won't affect it. You don't even know any baseline numbers yet make these expansive and seeping cuts in the supporting industry of Lincoln county. Finally, it is a sad state of affairs when any agency is so detached from the community it is neighbors with that total loss of economic viability of an operator is considered minimal impact. This failure to recognize the human needs of the community and the complete lack of compassion concents us about what species is next.. .such as the willow flycatcher. The agencies have a woeful lack of information yet are forging on in their agenda to destroy multiple use on the public lands. It is appalling to see this document's total lack of baseline information. How can BLM produce a quality document without ANY data? How will we know when the tortoise is recovered? It should be mandatory to gather more baseline data before any further actions are taken by any agency. The final document should reflect carefUl, honest scientific study reviewed by their peers about such drastic actions against the cattle industry. If the nature of the document is scientific, it would seem that scientific data will be earnestly sought, if it is politicaL.it will remain the same as it stands today. If the private sector were to produce such a fact deficient document, we would be publicly chastised by your 'experts'. However, we are not allowed to publicly chastise you only point out that in the interest of community survival and a thriving economy and ecology that it would behoove any agency or group with an honest desire to help the tortoise to gather REAL facts, REAL data and show REAL concern for the communities you are proposing to impact, Sincerely,- 20.35 20.36 20.37 a: Shelley Wad&forth, Secretary Letter 20 Continued Plagiarizing your Table S-l (which you never sent on disk as requested in hearing) PROGRAM ■PROPOSED ACTION Special Management Areas No Special Management Areas would be designated. Wildlife (desert tortoise and other special status species) Gather Peer-reviewed Scientific data, identifying real baseline numbers, studying interaction with cattle and other multiple users as well as other species. Determine after 10 year study and gathering of facts and data what is necessary. Give honest consideration to no actions if data proves an upward trend without any management alternatives. Delist as soon as upward trend has been documented. Forestry and Vegetative Products Mgmt. Special Status Plant Species Designate Experimental Management zones as needed. Study, manage or allow sale of desert vegetation within planning area. Proceed issuance of authorization for surface disturbance with either free use or sale of vegetative products. Manage vegetative products in desert tortoise habitat for education, scientific purposes, sale and sustained yield. 20.38 Livestock Conduct Livestock grazing Grazing as usual. Study interaction Management between tortoise and cattle. Gather real data regarding relationship between the two species. All allotments would be open to grazing with no seasonal utilization limits until peer reviewedscientific data is gathered. Letter 20 Continued PROGRAM Wild Horse and Burro ManagenjenJ PROPOSED ACTION Tlie Mormon Mountains IIMAwiJl no longer be managed for WH&B (0 AML), but will maintain its herd area status. For HMAs within desert tortoise habitat but outside of ACECs horse and burros would be managed with seasonal utilization limits. Lands Management Rights-of-way Majiagemeut Provide public land for community expansion in the planning area as needed. Pull all ACECs and habitat designation areas away from every private property-eliminate the appearance of taking of private water. Remove all restraints on community expansion and provide lands for economic development uses Retain the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange (Aerojet) legislatively designated corridor. Locate and designate right-of-way corridors where major rights-of-way exist. Areas outside of corridors within ACECs would be considered rights-of-way avoidance areas. 20.38 Requests for new material site rights-of-way within ACECs, pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act, will be considered within a one-mile wide corridor along designated federal and county roads (Map 2-9). Material site rights-of-way outside of ACECs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Letter 20 Continued PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Recreation OHV designations are Management mostly "open" with variations of "limited" in select areas. Minerals All lands within the Management planning unit remain open to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing (except Mormon Caves), to operations of the General Mining Law, and to mineral material disposal. Fire Full suppression activities Management with minimum surface disturbance would be used throughout the planning unit. Some suppression 20.38 BBWMHB|j|W||WBBH|BBB|BB|BBW^^ "■■■■■ I.''. y/l.i^r:,f::,:/.:- .:■.<,■: Summary of Impacts PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Letter 20 Continued Total Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat Protected in Special Management Areas Management Prescriptions for Tortoise Habitat Outside of Special Management Areas Tortoise Population Trends Within Special Management Areas Ecological Status of Tortoise Habitat Number of AUMs reduced 247,500 acres subject to Section 7 consultation after scientific documentation that tortoise exist there. No additional proposed management Population trends are UNKNOWN, NO ACTION will be taken until studies have been clonchided showing actual trend and population data. All data shall be reviewed by peer scientists data shall be gathered without a pre-detennined trend in mind. Study Habitat, gather scientific data about the true needs of Desert Tortoise, determine what tortoise really needs, then manage accordingly. Current appearences are the trend is upward. 0 Those AUM's that were arbitrarily cut off when the listing occurred will be restored until scientific documentation that they are a detriment to tortoise. All decisions regarding AUM's should be made without BLM bias against the multiple use of public lands. 20.38 PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Letter 20 Continued Number of allotments closed Number of allotments partially closed Current livestock use acres closed to grazing Current livestock non-use acres closed to grazing Appropriate Management Level (AML) for wild horses Number of Horses Removed Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention within SMAs Designated Critical Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Retention outside of SMAs Desert Tortoise Habitat; Lands Disposal Outside of SMAs ROWs: Cost to Customer Landfills 0 0 None None AML should be 0 in every area that the cattle are removed. AML should be along lines set in 1971, if there were no horses then, there should be none now. All horses should be removed if the cattle are removed. Disposals to be considered on a case-by-case basis for agricultural development and community expansion. Least expense; due to ROW located in designated corridors where previous inventories, clearances, and disturbances have occurr""* BLM shall aid all communities in acquisisiton, of land fill areas, unauthorized land fills shall be closed. 20.38 PROGRAM PROPOSED ACTION Letter 20 Continued Recreation Access and OHV Use OHV Events Minerals Fire Management 51,360 acres limited to existing roads and trails. 754,600 acres open to OHV events 754,600 acres open to mineral entry . 0 acres closed to withdrawals. 0 acres open with restrictions. No areas shall be closed to any type of mineral exploration. No additional cost of operations, no closure of lands to exploration. No loss of economic impact to mining industry or local commentates. Fires will be suppressed to protect habitat. Protection of private property will be mandatory. The least expensive fire fighting techniques will be used. Studies will determine what is actual tortoise habitat. Fire suppression will not take place on any property where no documentation of tortoise is available. 20.38 Letter 21 10633 Shoalhaven Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89134 (702) 838-7502 August 28, 1998 Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 Dear Mr. Drais: Although I made verbal comments on June 1 7, 1 998 at the Texas Gambling Hall and Hotel on behalf of the Lower Great Basin Chapter of People For The USA, I did not have anything in writing to give to the BLM at the time. Therefore, I am making the following comments at this time. My comments will be restricted to matters involving Mining (locatable minerals, fluid minerals, mineral materials and non-energy leasable minerals). Mining is the second largest industry in the State of Nevada. The current cycle of mining in the State is largely related to gold. As 87% of the State consists of federally administered land, most of the mining activity occurs on existing or former Federal Lands. Gold is largely of the bulk tonnage - heap leachable type and/or "no-see-um" type deposits. These types of deposits and related technology were unknown before 1960. The point of these facts is that the proposed ACEC at Kane Springs would be closed to mineral entry, to fluid and non-energy mineral leasing , to the operation of the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, and to mineral material disposal. Lack of knowledge does not mean that there is no mineral potential for these lands. If that were true most of the "Carlin Trend" and other gold-trend deposits of Nevada could have been locked up by an ACEC or other withdrawal because of lack of knowledge, and would never have been discovered. Also, 40-60% of the "Basin and Range" topography in Nevada is covered with alluvial fill. Any mineralized rock would be covered and unable to be detected by traditional exploration methods. However, buried deposits have been found such as "Sleeper" and others by using innovation and newly developed techniques. Deposits of evaporates like borate found in Boron, California (largest borate resource in 211 Letter 21 Continued the world) could be buried in these valleys waiting for technology to advance enough for Ipi i discovery. I Presently, every man, woman and child of the U.S. utilizes more that 46,000 pounds of mineral material annually to support the American way of life. Blanket removal of mineral entry and extraction from an ACEC does not take into account of its effects on the economy (including small businesses) as it is unknown and does not allow for mitigation, where for other uses it is allowed. We are quite aware that the purpose of the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat is structured to propose action in an attempt to balance protection of the desert tortoise habitat while minimizing adverse affects upon other traditional uses of the public lands. However, mining is controlled by a myriad of federal, state, county and regional laws, regulations and restrictions. To our knowledge, mining has never caused any disastrous effects on the tortoise and many areas have been managed through mitigation fees. From a Mineral Management aspect the Lower Great Basin Chapter of People For The USA can support Alternative A, utilizing the Standard Operating Procedures and Conditions of Operations For Lands and Minerals, as found in Appendix E of the April 1998 Draft Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. Sincerely, {/John O. Landreth Lower Great Basin Chapter People For The USA LETTER 22 August 28, 1998 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Ely Field Office Gene L. Drais, Project Manager HC 33, Box 33500 Ely, NV 89301-9408 RE: Comments: "Draft Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat" Enclosed please find comments on the Reference document which were developed only by representative members of the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Area Council (RAC), as listed on page 4. These comments do not represent the concerns of the entire RAC. The comments were developed by those so represented after review of the document, visual observations from field trips into the area on two different occasions in conjunction with BLM personnel and from discussions among RAC members, the BLM and public at RAC meetings held in Las Vegas, Caliente and Mesquite, Nevada during the past 5 months. Basically, it does not appear that the document satisfies all the requirements for the proposed action. Several issues of concern resulted from our review. The following comments, related to these concerns, are forwarded for your consideration in developing the final document for approval. We trust that these comments will be thoroughly evaluated as to substance and intent with action taken where justified. 1. There seems to be a preponderance of recent, and apparently creditable, scientific data with evidence to support various conclusions and recommendations regarding habitat conditions and potential impacts on Desert Tortoise habatit and populations from human activity and grazing. However, the document was observed to have numerous conflicting statements regarding the recommendations and proposed actions with respect to these findings. As an example, a statement at the bottom of page 4-76 states, "Scientifically based information on the interactions between the desert tortoise and livestock grazing is currently limited and inconclusive." Also, on page 4-77 it states, "Experimental information to assess the effect of livestock grazing on tortoises is lacking ". However, it appears that the results of these studies were discounted as expressed in both paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 4-77 where it is stated that professional opinions of various agencies overrode the studies. It also stated that, based on a 1996 study, studies on the subject of grazing and species declines, were considered difficult, expensive, contentious and indefensible, and therefore, based on "strong circumstantial" evidence from the agencies, grazing was considered to be a major problem. The public needs to know the 22.1 22.2 LETTER 22 CONTINUED technical explanations as to why the studies conducted outside the agencies were discounted rather than just the political reasons, as presented. Plus, the circumstantial agency evidence needs to be documented in the EIS. Statements also exist in paragraph 4, page 4-76 indicating that independent studies in 1 994 showed that" cattle grazing under certain circumstances can be compatible with 22.2 desert tortoise survival." However, it is also stated that "domestic cattle grazing is incompatible with desert tortoise recovery." It goes on to say that data is not available on this conflicting issue and that several data gaps exist as to the effects of grazing on tortoise habitat or populations. The question is then what is right? Would it not be prudent to defer any plan development until sufficient studies and data is available? Conflicting and other statements of concern also exist on pages 3-31 through 3-34 in regard to Lincoln County employment and income, perception of the ranching industry by the federal government and the economic impacts of grazing permits and appraisals. The severe lack of information and/or existence of incomplete studies resulting in inconclusive evidence as to impacts from human activity and grazing is also expressed in 22.4 the lower half of page 4-2. Again, what is the right answer? 2. As to population numbers and trends, it is stated on the last paragraph on page 4-74 that "Precise numbers of tortoise are unknown to the BLM, NDOW and the USFWS, and population trend information in inconclusive." It also states that "data collected over the last 1 5 years on the dynamics of desert tortoise populations are insufficient to determine whether a population is stationary, fluctuating stochastically, or undergoing a population trend. ( USFWS, p.C8. 1994a)" The document goes on to say in the first paragraph on page 4-76 that ir-regardless of the lack of exact population numbers, that the "mandate of the BLM is to help recover the 22.5 species" since the tortoise has been declared by USFWS as a threatened specie. This commitment is understandable, but should not be performed without sufficient data to support conclusions and recommend plans. Also, how can a plan be implemented to "recover" the specie when data does not even exist to determine if it is on the decline? Again, the overall "lack of science" to support the recommended plan is a major weakness in the document. 3. A" reserve level management" approach is apparently being proposed by the document, the same method used in California, according to referenced studies by Dr. K. H. Berry, where studies showed, an alarming, nearly 95 percent reduction in tortoise populations. Suggest that additional evaluation be made of this study as to its creditability and changes in the plan be made accordingly, if justified. LETTER 22 CONTINUED It is also apparent that a certain amount of bias exists in the overall plan to protect the tortoise in that construction, highway and building projects are allowed to destroy numerous tortoise apparently without requiring replacement or relocation, whereas the ranching and grazing industry, essential to maintain the nations lifestyle and to provide a livelihood, is excessively being controlled. Where does "science" apply here? 22.7 6. According to the document, it is apparent that predation by ravens is a major impact to the desert tortoise populations and trends. The discussion in the document on page 4-99 indicates that raven populations have shown increases in the EIS subject area primarily because of its protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and from the increased number of landfills, nesting sites on transmission lines and increased roadkill on highways. It is reported by the USFWS, that a 15 fold increase has occurred in the Mojave Desert and will continue to do so because of their Federally protected status and other favorable conditions. Other non protected species, who also prey on the desert tortoise, such as the coyote, kit fox, raptors and badgers do not show a parallel increase in populations. According to the document on page 4-99, a raven control program was reportedly initiated in California in 1994 when over 250 juvenile tortoise shells were found beneath single raven nests. However, the program was dropped due to the public concern for killing the ravens, thus effectiveness of the program could not be evaluated. It is glaringly apparent that something needs to be done to control the raven invasion and attack on the desert tortoise even though it is recognized that predation is natures way. The obvious problem is that man has interfered with natures plan by protecting a specie that does not need additional protection due to its inherent wariness, and by doing so has upset the balance of nature. The suggestion is made to petition the USFWS to delist the raven from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act based not only on the evidence from numerous studies on the subject, but from evidence from various other studies which show strong impacts on game bird species from raven activity. This action is especially important if the finding on the bottom of page 4-5 is true, "The implementation of raven control programs alone could reduce the mortality rates among hatchlings and juveniles by as much as 85 percent in some parts of their range. (Berry, 1988.)" As to the subject of road races, to comply with the multiple-use concept and to still provide means to protect the Desert Tortoise, we recognize the need for a race speed corridor from the Mesquite Area into non-ACEC portions of Lincoln County. Possible actions to accomplish this include, adjusting the ACEC boundaries to exclude Toquop Wash and coordinate with Clark County to allow one or two speed events on Half Way Wash road during non-critical tortoise periods. Without supporting any specific solutions, we request that a solution be provided for one high-speed race event corridor during non-critical tortoise periods. 22.8 22.9 LETTER 22 CONTINUED Non-speed events in the proposed ACECs need to be addressed for three(3) specific units as follows: 1 . Events in Town Wash should be limited to the same winter months allowed in Arizona. 2. All other designated roads in the Mormon Mesa/Beaver Mountains ACECs should be open with the same seasonal participational use limitations as Clark County. 3. Those designated roads in the Kane Springs ACEC should be evaluated on an individual basis with consideration for both recreational and other needs, including wilderness values. We propose that ACEC boundaries follow natural, observable boundaries rather than geometric boundaries, as shown in some areas. Decisions on ACEC boundaries should be based on "good science"; such as, desert tortoise populations/habitat impacts, other biological issues, the need for the 25 year extension and the need to re-evaluate these conditions on a regular basis or as significant new information is developed filling-in any of the data gaps discussed on page 4-2 of the document. 22.10 22.11 The closure of lands (69,500 acres) within the Kane Springs ACEC from mineral entry and economic development as part of the Proposed Action on page S-6 and as discussed on pages 4-12 an 4-13 is of concern due to the currently unknown mineral potential of this area. It is geologically known that a major structural feature, known as the Overthrust Belt, extends through the region along a general north-south trend which is known to contain economic values of fluid and other minerals at locations in NE Nevada, SW Utah and SW Wyoming. Even though some exploration has been done in adjacent ACEC areas without positive results, it may be just a matter of time until a productive source is found as hinted by the recorded presence of oil seeps and the existence of lead/zinc/silver mineralization in the Mormon Mesa area. These indicators could lead to additional prospecting requests in the future, perhaps extending into the Kane Springs area along the overthrust. Therefore, it is recommended that the Kane Springs ACEC not be withdrawn from mineral entry and exploration because of the future potential for economic development of minerals essential to our lifestyle and the nation. By allowing the area to remain open to the provisions of the Mining Law of 1872, mineral entry into the area can be effectively controlled by the BLM, as is now being done on other mineral entries, through the established Plan of Operation approval system which has proven results and includes reclamation. Access to lease holdings should still be restricted to existing roads and trails unless otherwise authorized. 22.12 Finally, and of major concern, was the obvious absense of the USFWL at the Public Meetings in Las Vegas and Caliente to support the BLM and answer any public LETTER 22 CONTINUED comments on what is essentially a USFWL document. Also, the RAC was very concerned that the USFWL representatives did not attend our meeting in Mesquite on August 1 1 , even though invited by the BLM in their interagency meeting held in Mesquite the previous afternoon after our field trip. These comments represent the opinions and concerns of the following RAC members only. Duane L. Whiting - Mining, Chairperson (Supports all comments.) Marta Agee - Ranching (Supports all comments.) Jerry Helton - Transportation/ROW (Supports all comments) Susan Selby - Environment (Supports all comments, excepting No. 7.) Alan N. Levinson - Permitted Recreation (Supports all comments.) Robert W. Maichle - Recreation (Supports all comments.) Rey Flake - Livestock (Supports all comments.) John Jones - State Agency Representative (Supports all comments.) Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this Draft EIS document. We trust that the comments submitted will be fully evaluated and any recommendations incorporated as warranted. Should you have any questions regarding the comments, please contact me at 702- 635-5001 during business hours. Sincerely, Jne L. Whiting RAC Chairperson Cc: RAC Members BLM Mojave RAC Coordinator 23.2 Letter 23 DRAFT Tortoise LUP Amendment Public Meeting Notes Las Vegas Public Meeting (June 17,1998) John Landreth (People for the USA) Mineral development within ACECs can be compatible with proper management. He favors Alternative A. He is opposed to the proposed mineral closure of the Kane Springs ACEC. Major mineral finds (Carlin, Mountain. Pass, et. al.) wouldn't have been discovered if closures had been in place. The impact of closures to mineral entry of even seemingly unmineralized areas don't account for new technology which would aid in exploration. Casey Folks (OHV-Best in the Desert) OHV users contribute to the economy of Lincoln County. OHV users need corridors to get from Mesquite into Lincoln County, otherwise there would be 100 's of square miles of public land blocked from OHV use. The corridors being considered are not pristine habitat, they are already high speed, county maintained roads; Kane Springs Wash, Meadow Valley Wash, Carp Elgin and Halfway Wash Road. He proposed that 2 corridors (Halfway Wash and Carp-Elgin roads) be fenced to exclude tortoise and remain 23.3 open to speed events. The other corridors proposed in the plan should remain open but not for speed or competitive events. Access from 1-15 is important for the OHV community. The Caliente Plan and the Clark County Plan should match up in order to avoid confusion. Bob Maichle (VP of MORAN but speaking for the tortoise) The existence of Toquop Wash with its steep terrain between the Mormon Mesa tortoise population and the Beaver Dam population effectively isolates these two populations. There exist two separate populations. The Toquop Wash should be non-ACEC because 23.4 there is no tortoise habitat there and no opportunity for travel between the two proposed ACECs. Toquop Wash should be removed from its proposed ACEC status and identified as a speed corridor. Kane Springs should not be withdrawn from mineral entry. If the BLM can protect the other two ACECs without mineral withdrawal, 23.5 why would the Kane Springs need to be withdrawn? "BLM should not support the USFWS anti-OHV agenda." Wants to develop ACECs with good science. ACEC boundaries should reflect the good tortoise habitat. The straight lines on the map for ACEC boundaries are a sign of political decisions, not reality or good science. In his communication with Senator Reid's office the problem is not with the Endangered Species Act itself but with the USFWS abuses in application of the Act. We need multiple identified corridors [23.6 ^S Letter 23 Continued for, OHV use. During the times of year that the tortoise is I underground the BLM should be less1 restrictive. He supports the I23-6 position identified by Casey Folks. He supports Alternative A. Sallie Clinard The primary threats to tortoise are ravens and URTD. She 123.7 questions whether lightly used roads could threaten tortoise. |23.8 Suggests use of satellite imagery to identify roads. She does not believe we need road closures. If the BLM has to designate roads as open or closed, the BLM needs to do a better job of identifying roads than was done in the El Dorado Valley where existing roads in use were simply overlooked in the inventory. Don Dayton The OHV corridors should be consistent between BLM Districts and, more importantly, should be consistent with the ongoing OHV Planning Group effort which is a group consisting of the USFWS, BLM and OHV representatives. He believed that the USFWS, BLM and OHV users had reached an agreement but this was disregarded during finalization of the Clark County MFP and the USFWS Biological Opinion. What is currently in the Clark County MFP and the Biological Opinion is bad for the OHV users since it is overly restrictive. The recommendations of the group need to be used in the Caliente and Clark County planning efforts. Closing of roads locks out the disabled from the backcountry. The nebulous reasoning of "fragmentation of habitat" is not a good enough reason to close roads. If roads are to be closed it must be for legitimate, scientific reasons. Many of the existing roads go to guzzlers which need regular maintenance. Any designation of roads should be done through an open, public process. He supports Casey Folks and Bob Maichle's ideas. 23.9 23.10 Letter 23 Continued Caliente Public Meeting (June 18, 1998) Rey Flake (RAC and Lincoln County) Mr. Flake wanted it written into the record that it was inappropriate and wrong that the USFWS did not attend this public meeting which was about implementing their Recovery Plan. Marta Agee (RAC) Agreed with Mr. Flake and wanted it noted that the entire group felt the same way. Quentin Perkins (Lincoln County Public Lands Commission) Wanted to know why the area north of Mesquite was not identified L3 fl as critical habitat? | Bradley Hunt (Lincoln County Public Lands Commission) Yielded his public comment time. Shelley Wadsworth (Lincoln County Public Lands Commission) 23.12 23.13 23.14 23.15 The economic analysis is inadequate. We need to address economic impacts to the livestock industry that occurred prior to this amendment. The ranchers AUMs have been cut for a variety of reasons over the years and this has had an additive impact. She sees this effort as a giant land grab. The impacts of radiation in southern Lincoln County should have been included. There is inadequate science available to even write the LUP Amendment. The agencies need better information to do a proper plan and she would require the USFWS to cooperate better with the folks in Lincoln County. She is on the Recovery Team for the SW Willow Flycatcher. In this effort they have designated small recovery areas . As recovery occurs these small recovery areas will be "released". A similar type of more reasonable approach should be considered for the tortoise rather than requiring recovery on a Recovery Unit basis. There should be developed a mitigation plan"l to the county government for changing the public lands from J*«*.io multiple to single use. Connie Simkins (Grazing Boards N-4 and N-5) Man is a higher priority than tortoise. The Caliente ranchers already went through the Caliente LUP and they were promised money for improvements if they cooperated and went through the land use planning process. Now, instead of putting in range improvements the BLM is just doing monitoring. The cowboys don't feel like they can make a difference. Nineteen allotments are I93 17 affected by the amendment with 25 individuals and 37,000 AUMs. | Letter 23 Continued 23.18 23.19 23.20 Would like an explanation in the land use plan of how livestock grazing will be returned to the allotments after de-listing of the tortoise. Will the ACECs disappear after de-listing? Clark County is only 65% Federal lands while Lincoln County is 98% Federally managed. The whole recovery effort is to allow Clark County to develop economically. Clark County is motivated by money, not science. We should be careful not to do the same. BLM needs more monitoring of habitat. The two utility or ROW corridors identified in the plan are already in existence. Having only two corridors unnecessarily limits growth. Need more utility corridors proposed in the plan including a natural gas corridor through Rainbow Canyon to Hiko, Alamo, and Caliente. Changes in AUMs effect everyone, not just ranchers. Will provide J23.22 written comments . 23.21 Jule Wadsworth (Lincoln County Public Lands Commission) Requests that an overlay of soils maps be a part of our analysis, because tortoises require certain types of soils for burrowing. There should be a baseline census of the existing tortoise population. Wants to know how many tortoises are there now, and how many there needs to be for recovery. The grazing analysis is based on a flawed premise; that we can bring back the perennial vegetation by eliminating grazing. We are stuck with exotic annuals. Bostick, and old cowboys say tortoises follow cows around. The tortoises would likely follow them outside of the ACECs. The USFWS has a reputation for not using good science in their recovery plans. Del Haas (RAC) She is concerned for the future of Lincoln County and the impacts of the plan on potential for economic development. There should be more emphasis in the plan on "minimum adverse effects on traditional uses". It is wrong that all other uses must take a backseat to the tortoise. Have water rights been addressed? Water rights are a private property right, and people should be compensated for their losses. Concerned with loss of tax revenue. County relies on people for traditional purchases. People might begin to move this way if we don't close everything. Concerned about 25 year period as too long to keep the ACECs locked up. Areas should be opened up sooner to grazing as data shows the tortoise has recovered. Why are so many acres needed for ACEC designation? There are already too many tortoises at the Desert Tortoise Center. 23.23 23.24 23.25 23.26 J23.27 123.28 23.29 [23.30 Marta Agee (RAC) There is not adequate science to do this plan. When do we have 123.31 enough tortoises? Do ACECs exist beyond de-listing? On page 1 4-93, why does the loss of 121,000 acres not affect the tortoise? |23-32 If reducing livestock numbers benefits tortoise, why haven't there already been increases in tortoise numbers? Page 4-67 contradicts 4-99. BLM will need to maintain range improvements 123.33 Letter 23 Continued 23.34 in ACECs instead of letting ranchers do it. This should be added I23.33 to the economic analysis. It would be cheaper for the ranchers to maintain these improvements . Would like to reinforce the concept of multiple use in light of the economy of Lincoln County. Lives of people in Lincoln County are in greater jeopardy than tortoise. Does recovery by discovery meet de-listing objectives. Does speaking in these meetings protect legal standing? What other things will we find to limit multiple use in these areas after the tortoise is delisted? [23.: 35 Rey Flake (RAC and Lincoln County) Wanted it in the record that USFWS was not in attendance, and they are responsible for the recovery plan. Took that as personal affront to the people of Lincoln County. He noted that the meeting did not start with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and hoped that it wouldn't happen again. This amendment is an assault on multiple use and suffers from a lack of science. He appreciates the Ely District BLM considerations regarding multiple use in the plan. What is the cost of recovery? Cost of monitoring? Cost of the amendment? Is the amendment a line item in the budget or does it use money intended for other uses . Lincoln County HCP is needed to aid economic development of county. The desert tortoise population is at the highest level ever in Lincoln County. The Amendment establishes large tracts for a single use for tortoise. He suggested that to be fair there should be set asides of single use livestock grazing areas. Would like it specifically addressed what it would cost the taxpayers to administer this tortoise program. Why is BLM becoming a regulatory agency, instead of a land management agency? Laren Flake (Lincoln County Public Lands Commission) Has economic concerns for Lincoln County. People are more important than tortoise. The economic concerns have not been adequately addressed. He referenced page 1-1 which states the Recovery Plans are not binding on the land management agency, and there is flexibility in their application. Questions whether it is really necessary to set aside that much land as ACECs for the tortoise; 22% of land set aside within the planning unit. Page V states that multiple use will be allowed where compatible with tortoise, but this was not done in the plan. Recovery should be better defined; if we are really going to measure success we need to specify what the monitoring program is. Table 3-4 says populations are stable or increasing, so why should we fix it? When does the 25 year period begin? How will BLM enforce road restrictions? What is the economic cost of writing this plan? Maurice Frank (Yomba Shoshone Tribe and RAC) BLM has a trust responsibility with Indian tribes. He disagrees that there are no cultural concerns with Indians. The desert tortoise is important to the Southern Paiute people, and the BLM 23.36 23.37 23.38 23.39 1 23.40 23.41 23.42 23.43 23.44 23.45 23.46 ■BKnHHBB^^HBHHEHHBaHBR^BpBP 'mBKmBBwB^mMBaBBBBBBBwBm 23.46 Letter 23 Continued UJ-»+ avl & ^ C\q* bejel should work more closely with the Moapa^ Paiute TribeA The fsUkl Federal government is mandated to consult with Indian tribes. There are indeed cultural concerns. Bob Maichle (OHV constituants on RAC) Speaking for OHV community but in defense of tortoise. URTD and ravens have had a dramatic effect on tortoise. Van Dyke didn't see ravens when he first entered the Mojave Desert. Man is responsible for the increase of the tortoise's primary predator, the raven. The real key to the demise of the tortoise is discussed on page 4-99 of the Amendment in the discussion of predation. Urban expansion has impacted tortoise, especially the growth of Las Vegas . He supports fencing of 2 roads for speed events. Proposes a Tortoise DMZ in the Toquop Wash. This effort needs to be based on good science; "When bias replaces science in endangered species recovery, we lose." Duane Whiting (Nevada Mining Association constuitantes on RAC) He disagrees with the need for a Kane Springs ACEC mineral withdrawal. The ACEC should be managed like the others. The Overthrust Belt goes through there, and you never know what you'll find with new technology. A Plan of Operation under the mining law would allow mining and provide protection for the tortoise. -Predators are -t ho real piublcm. Studios around Beatty- &how0&Xo iT^ /m>V of fie £oaDS /> 7?f e Less ViA^ ^°/ i/efiicleS '^^ /\*e lulli^^ Signature; £h£&& — ^ JL^FO b-17- 9 I Date: Letter 26 Public Comments on the Draft Caliente Management Framwork Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Managment of Desert Tortoise Habiatat Name: Address: \,|i . , A L, . fOi i /V Le'< V ?,■<<:. /yii Vj"' ' '■■''' Phone: 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 v \ I ■-. v.. . I H. -' I ) - , / ' a, .„.*, ^, ^ a n v\ v- ■/ •■ . i j / 1 I i a > •■-' ' t - la" I ' I •■■iK. ■ »ww w a.,., ,» ^rAtl',>u ° t; ,,Y -■•■""■•7- ;Jt ^ !ri ^nature: Dale: ZJAJmjIuL : L •' -31 -'"■ -<■ <-4 (*/>'■'/ -/x Letter 27 Public Comments on the Draft Caliente Management Framwork Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Managment of Desert Tortoise Habiatat Name: / /■ . ^ V (ksJJ2j£l Address: Z^ll A^-rc'-/ fiu/A //. /tV^/^-^-V/ A/// i^LLJ •/ Phone: Comment: 27.1 1 27.2 1 27.3 27.4 f V b//i O ■■<*<*'/ / Jsi/a 7"//r £c47"$fJc Tc- 7~A7~$,^ ^'f Signature: . /^^-^^ -^^^ Date: <-/7-W Letter 28 Public Comments on the Draft Caliente Management Framwork Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Managment of Desert Tortoise Habiatat Name: v Susan Qfc&kl: t£MM Address: d 5J£ I tklll^ ^ ku v uv S l^sa Phone: 28.1 comment: r c "I ,' . fj jL/>Lct-z} rf€£C Ox a£*1 nfo+K. 1,0 GU*i,\fisifZZff a^e^uMi^ ^"^HuU<. tfCECs '-^(-^c^f aZ\.uM,} As jiuk.7' &£r Ji#tof C&44 '&Al>* 28.2 2 J &*«£*£, yc*U*&i ^^ a^JU-ia-t ■%*« ficuHfUtufL a o Signature: .-^.^■-£-^'6^1 Date: MA ^ £ 29.1 Letter 29 Public Comments on the Draft Caliente Management Framwork Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Managment of Desert Tortoise llabiatat Name: h»v>y'ct flftj t/'<^\^- — - — ( ^^^Zjcj, jk&ZMi<\ Address: \\t ^ JW bl°8 /Ui>n^ N^- sr^i a> ii'i'joinie: X>>v"V» ~- Comment: ViM W* Uw- d > O 3 H 01 o 0) o iQ en fD (D a a CD !3 O r+ 0) CTl Hi H- O H. CD U) 3 r+ en = S Lan QH 76.5 .N3 C355 1999 Proposed Caliente management framework pl< BLDQ 50, ;^SSF DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P.O. BOX 25047 DENVER, COLORADO 80225 m z m > 00 CD CO o o 00 o CO CO CD o X CO OH o o m oo c ■< c 70 0) EAU FIEL o m u o> o ■n ;q ■n r H Tl > ^ o z m mi D si > z O ■n > o m H X S ^ m '-!] z n H 5 71