BLM LIBRARY 880TvVucRNESS RECOMMENDATIONS EASTERN SAN DIEGO CO PLANNING UNIT SECTION 202 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS San Ysidro Mountain WSA Sawtooth Mountains A WSA Sawtooth Mountains C WSA Table Mountain WSA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1988 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF EAND MANAGEMENT IN REPLY REFER TO: United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Ysidro Mountain, Sawtooth Mountains A, Sawtooth Mountains C, and Table Mountain Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in our California Desert District. The EIS analyzes the impact of releasing 9,490 acres from wilderness study and returning these lands to multiple-use management in accordance with the Eastern San Diego County Management Framework Plan (MFP) . The impact of designating the four WSAs as wilderness is also considered. A draft EIS (Livestock Grazing and Wilderness Management for Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit) that included these WSAs was distributed in August 198U for a 45-day public review period. All recommendations contained herein are preliminary and subject to change during administrative review. The statement was prepared pursuant to Section 1U2(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and responds to the mandates of Section 202 of the Federal Policy and Manage- ment Act of 1976 to consider through the planning process areas that may be suitable for wilderness designation. For further information, please contact Gerry Hillier, District Manager, California Desert District, 1695 Spruce Street, Riverside, California 92507. Sincerely, ^//^J^ Ed Hastey State Director Attachment As stated. BLM LIBRARy DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTION 202 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ANALYZED IN THE 1980 DRAFT EIS ON PROPOSED LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT FOR THE EASTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING UNIT CA-060-022 SAN YSIDRO MOUNTAIN WSA 2,131 Acres CA-060-024A SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WSA 3,892 Acres CA-060-024C SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WSA 2,509 Acres CA-060-026 TABLE MOUNTAIN WSA 958 Acres Prepared By Bureau of Land Management California Desert District Office, California «rc/ /-A*^^£l*-j State Director, California BLM CA ES 87 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE WILDERNESS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EASTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SECTION 202 WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS Draft ( ) Final (X) Environmental Impact Statement 1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Abstract: The Bureau of Land Management, El Centro Resource Area, California Desert District, California, has analyzed the impacts and resource tradeoffs of proposals to release the San Ysidro Mountain, Sawtooth Mountains A, Sawtooth Mountains C, and Table Mountain Wilderness Study Areas from wilderness study and return the lands to multiple- use management in accordance with the Eastern San Diego County Management Framework Plan. This environmental impact statement also analyzes the impacts and tradeoffs of an All Wilderness Alternative for each WSA. Wilderness characteristics and special features are examined. 3. For Further Information Contact: District Manager Bureau of Land Management 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 (714) 351-6386 n SUMMARY The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to document the environmental impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives for four Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the California Desert District that are being considered for inclusion within the National Wilderness Preserva- tion System. These are the San Ysidro Mountain WSA (CA-060-022) , the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA (CA-060-024A) , the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA (CA-060-024C), and the Table Mountain WSA (CA-060-026) . All four WSAs are located in San Diego County. This EIS assesses the environmental conse- quences of managing these WSAs as Wilderness and No Wilderness. The Proposed Action for the San Ysidro Mountain WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal, none of the 2,131 acres would be designated wilderness, but would be managed for multiple use. One alternative was also considered — an All Wilderness Alternative which would designate all 2,131 acres as wilderness. The only issue analyzed for this WSA was the impact on wilderness values. The Proposed Action for the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 3,892 acres would be designated wilderness, but would be managed for multiple use. One alternative was also considered — an All Wilderness Alternative which would designate all 3,892 acres as wilderness. The only issue analyzed for this WSA was the impact on wilderness values. The Proposed Action for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 2,509 acres would be designated wilderness, but would be managed for multiple use. One alternative was also considered — an All Wilderness Alternative which would designate all 2,509 acres as wilderness. Issues analyzed for this WSA were impacts on wilderness values, impacts on cultural resources, and impacts on archaeo- logical investigations. The Proposed Action for the Table Mountain WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 958 acres would be designated wilderness, but would be managed for multiple use. One alternative was also con- sidered - All Wilderness Alternative which would designate all 958 acres as wilderness. The only issue analyzed for this WSA was the impact on wilderness values. Summaries of the impacts for the Proposed Action and Alternatives for the four WSAs are outlined on pages 2A-11, 2B-12, 2C-12, and 2D-11. l n TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii SUMMARY iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF MAPS v Introduction Introduction and General Location 1-1 Format of the EIS 1-1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 1-3 The Section 202 Wilderness Review Process and Its Integration with Planning 1-3 Scoping 1-4 Scoping Process 1-5 Identification of Issues 1-6 Selection of the Proposed Action and Development of Alternatives. . 1-6 Description and Analysis of the Four Individual WSAs * San Ysidro Mountain WSA (CA-060-022) 2A-1 * Sawtooth Mountains A WSA (CA-060-024A) 2B-1 * Sawtooth Mountains C WSA (CA-060-024C) 2C-1 * Table Mountain WSA (CA-060-026) 2D-1 Consultation and Coordination Overview of the Process 3-1 Coordination With Other Agencies 3-1 Distribution of the Draft EIS 3-1 Comment Letters and Responses 3-4 LIST OF PREPARERS LP-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY B-l GLOSSARY G-l INDEX 1-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 (USFWS Consulation) A-l Appendix 2 (CNPS Codes) A-3 iv LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1. Comparison of Impacts - San Ysidro Mountain WSA 2A-12 2. Sensitive Plant Species - San Ysidro Mountain WSA 2A-15 3. Comparison of Impacts - Sawtooth Mountains A WSA 2B-13 4. Sensitive Plant Species - Sawtooth Mountains A WSA 2B-16 5. Comparison of Impacts - Sawtooth Mountains C WSA 2C-14 6. Sensitive Plant Species - Sawtooth Mountains C WSA 2C-17 7. Comparison of Impacts - Table Mountain WSA 2D-12 8. Sensitive Plant Species - Table Mountain WSA 2D-15 LIST OF MAPS No. Title Page 1. Location of the WSAs 1-2 2. San Ysidro Mountain WSA 2A-5 3. Sawtooth Mountains A WSA 2B-5 4. Sawtooth Mountains C WSA 2C-5 5. Table Mountain WSA 20-5 Introduction INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL LOCATION This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addresses four Section 202 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) located in the El Centro Resource Area of the California Desert District of the Bureau of Land Management (Map 1). These Wilderness Study Areas are studied under the provisions of Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The BLM's Wilderness Inventory Handbook defines these areas as: Roadless areas of less than 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands where any one of the following apply: 1) they are contiguous with lands managed by another agency which have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values, or 2) the public has indicated strong support for study of a particular area of less than 5,000 acres and it is demonstrated that it is clearly and obviously of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for wilderness management, or 3) they are contiguous with an area of less than 5,000 acres of other Federal lands administered by an agency with authority to study and preserve wilderness lands, and the combined total is 5,000 acres or more. The WSAs studied in this EIS are all in San Diego County. They include: CA-060-022 SAN YSIDR0 MOUNTAIN WSA 2,131 Acres CA-060-024A SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WSA 3,892 Acres CA-060-024B SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WSA 2,509 Acres CA-060-026 TABLE MOUNTAIN WSA 958 Acres FORMAT OF THE EIS This Section 202 Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is com- prised of three primary sections (Introduction, Description and Analysis of Individual WSAs, and Consultation and Coordination). The Introduction provides an overview of the study process as it relates to all four Section 202 WSAs being studied. Following the Introduction, the EIS includes detailed discussions of the issues; the Proposed Action and alternative(s) ; affected environment; and environmental consequences for each individual WSA. The final primary section relates to all the WSAs and deals with the consultation and coordination efforts with other Federal, State, and local agencies as well as comments presented by the public. Introduction 1-1 MAP 1 LOCATION OF THE WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS SAN BERNARDINO ^ EASTERN SAN DIEGO COUNTY PLANNING UNIT PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTIONS The purpose of the Proposed Actions for the WSAs in this study is to set forth a pattern of management actions for each of the four WSAs. In 1978, BLM began a wilderness inventory to identify lands having wilder- ness characteristics. Lands found to have these characteristics, as defined by the Congress in the Wilderness Act, were designated as Wilder- ness Study Areas to undergo further review as required by Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. By 1980 the BLM had completed the inventory of 174 million acres in the 11 western States. During the process, lands found to be primarily natural, but dependent for wilderness character upon adjacent Federal or State lands, were designated as WSAs under the discretionary wilderness study authority of Section 202 of FLPMA. In December 1982, former Secretary Watt dropped from study those WSAs designated under Section 202. The Sierra Club filed suit on that decision and the court ruled that, although the Secretary could drop these WSAs, the justification and rationale used for dropping the areas was not legal. As a result of that ruling, Secretary Hodel decided that the WSAs involved in litigation would be put back into the study process. THE SECTION 202 WILDERNESS REVIEW PROCESS AND ITS INTEGRATION WITH PLANNING To accomplish the mandate of Section 603 of FLPMA, the BLM developed a wilderness review process containing three phases: inventory, study, and reporting. This process also applies to the Section 202 WSAs which are being studied in accordance with the general land use planning provisions of Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and policies that provide for wilderness consideration of areas of less than 5,000 acres if they are adjacent to lands with wilderness potential admin- istered by other Federal or State agencies. The inventory phase of this process, initiated in 1978, involved examining the public lands to determine and locate the existence of areas containing wilderness characteristics that met the criteria established in the Wilder- ness Act. Areas clearly lacking wilderness characteristics were sorted out from lands that might have those characteristics. This intensive inventory was then followed by a 90-day public review period, after which final WSAs were identified. This inventory process and a general description of all of California's WSAs are given in Wilderness: Final Intensive Inventory. Public Lands Administered by BLM California Outside the California Desert Conservation Area (1979). A copy of this publication is available at any BLM office. Introduction 1-3 The second step in the review process was to integrate wilderness evalua- tion into the BLM Planning System (43 CFR 1600), which, in this case, was a Management Framework Plan (MFP) developed for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit in 1981. The MFP established the BLM suitability recommendations for the four WSAs. The MFP was subsequently amended in 1982 to change the BLM suitability recommendation for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA from "suitable" to "nonsuitable." The BLM's wilderness study criteria and quality standards, contained in the BLM's Wilderness Study Policy: Policies. Criteria and Guidelines for Conducting Wilderness Studies on Public Lands (47 FR 5098-5122), were applied to each WSA. In addition to the above referenced criteria and standards, issues for discussion were identified through public comment and internal scoping; conflicts were analyzed, and alternatives were developed. See the indi- vidual sections for each of the Section 202 WSAs for a discussion of which Proposed Actions and alternatives were selected and why. These alterna- tives are the basis for analysis of environmental consequences and resource tradeoffs. This FEIS addresses four WSAs that were included in the 1980 final EIS on Proposed Livestock Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit, and the 1982 final EIS on Amendments to the Eastern San Diego County MFP. For any Section 202 WSAs that he does not recommend for wilderness designation (all four WSAs in this FEIS), the State Director has the authority under FLPMA to release those public lands from wilderness study and return them to multiple-use management in accordance with existing land use plans. A Record of Decision will be prepared for these WSAs for the State Director's approval. Multiple-use management may begin 30 days after the State Director files the FEIS with the Environmental Protection Agency. SCOPING The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1501.7) and the BLM planning regula- tions (43 CFR 1610.4-1) require an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action that is the subject of an EIS. Scoping determines in depth the scope of and the significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS and identifies and eliminates from detailed study insignificant issues or issues addressed in earlier environmental reviews. Scoping thus reduces the length of the EIS and emphasizes the real alternatives and important impacts. During this process, the scope and importance of issues related to the Proposed Action and alternatives were identified. Information obtained during the scoping process was one of the sources used to determine which impact topics would be addressed in detail in this EIS. Additional pur- poses of the scoping process are to inform affected Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties about the proposed project, and to identify existing environmental reports and information related to the impact assessment. Introduction 1-4 The scoping process involved discussions with the public and resource specialists and managers of BLM and other relevant agencies. Written comments were received and compiled as a result of Federal Register announcements, news releases, mailings, and articles about the proposal. Comments were also solicited during public meetings conducted during 1979 and 1980 (see "Scoping Process" below). In addition, the initial scoping effort has been followed by an effort to continue agency and public involvement throughout the development of this EIS. This section outlines the steps taken by BLM during the scoping and public involvement process for the EIS. SCOPING PROCESS Following publication of the Federal Register notice, an additional notice requesting comments and input was sent to over 400 individuals, groups, and agencies describing the Bureau's intention to develop a Management Framework Plan (MFP) for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. Shortly thereafter, in March 1979, a preselected group of 25 persons representing a wide variety of resource and use interests met in Pine Valley, California, to identify issues to be addressed in the planning process. After the meeting, a letter was sent to each participant summarizing the results of the meeting and outlining the upcoming steps in the process. Public hearings on the statewide wilderness inventory were held in March 1979, in El Cajon, Hemet, and Los Angeles. In August 1979, public meetings to discuss the draft report prepared as a result of the inventory were held in El Cajon, Hemet, and Los Angeles. The study areas' wilderness values were the object of much comment at both meetings and hearings. The Bureau also contacted many organizations and individuals directly. These contacts involved both telephone calls and informal meetings. Those contacted included local four-wheel drive clubs, motorcycle clubs, eques- trian groups, hikers, campers, hunters, rockhounds, grazing lessees, prospectors, and private consultants, as well as the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Audubon Society, the Desert Protective Council, and the California Departments of Transportation and Fish and Game. Following the development of planning alternatives (including preliminary wilderness alternatives), four public meetings were held to review these recommendations. The meetings were in El Cajon on November 1, 1979; in El Centro on November 2, 1979; in Pine Valley on November 3, 1979; and in Canebrake on January 27, 1980. Information obtained from these meetings was used in developing the final land use plan recommendations. These recommendations were the basis for the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared on the land use plan's grazing and wilderness recom- mendations in 1980. The Draft EIS on the grazing and wilderness portions of the plan was released for a 45-day public review on August 8, 1980. Copies of the EIS were distributed to Federal, State, and local government agencies, individuals, and private organizations; over 450 copies in all were distributed. Fourteen letters commenting on the four WSAs analyzed in Introduction 1-5 this EIS were received from the public during the review; they are reprinted in Chapter 5 of this document. A final EIS was released for a 30-day review on January 9, 1981. Following the close of this review, a final decision document was prepared, and was signed on April 8, 1981. The wilderness recommendations were concurred with by the California State Director of the BLM in August of that year. One amendment to the wilderness recommendation for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA was considered during the 1982 amendment review of the California Desert and Eastern San Diego County Plans. The amendment was addressed by a draft EIS released for a 90-day public review on September 10, 1982. Of the 650 letters received on the fifty-two amendments discussed by the draft, 22 commented on the Sawtooth Montains C amendment. Four letters on the final EIS mentioned this amendment. The comments are summarized in Chapter 5. Following a 60-day review of the final EIS, the amendment was approved by a Record of Decision, signed on May 17, 1983. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES During the scoping process environmental issues relating to whether a WSA is to be managed as wilderness or managed for multiple resource values were identified by the BLM, the public, and by other Federal, State and local agencies. After the issues were identified for each WSA, they were assessed to determine if they would be selected for detailed analysis in the EIS. Generally, the issues focused on the impact on wilderness values as a result of designation or nondesignation of the area as wilderness. A further discussion of specific issues analyzed in detail in this EIS and the issues dismissed from further analysis is contained in the individual sections of this document that follow for each WSA. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES Development of the Proposed Action is guided by requirements of the Bureau's Planning Regulations, 43 CFR Part 1600. The BLM's Wilderness Study Policy (published February 3, 1982, in the Federal Register) supple- ments the planning regulations by providing specific factors to be con- sidered during the planning sequence in developing suitability recom- mendations. In this document, the No Action Alternative, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and the No Wilderness Alternative are equiv- alent. Both advocate continuation of management as outlined in the existing Eastern San Diego County MFP. The All Wilderness Alternative represents the maximum possible acreage that could be recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. Introduction 1-6 Partial Wilderness Alternatives can make suitable or nonsuitable recom- mendations ranging between the All Wilderness and No Action Alternatives. A Partial Wilderness Alternative can recommend as suitable for wilderness designation something less than the entire acreage of one WSA. However, no Partial Wilderness Alternatives are analyzed in this document, because no logical Partial Wilderness Alternatives were identified. See the "Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Further Analysis" section in the individual sections of this document that follow for each WSA. Introduction 1-7 San Ysidro Mountain WSA .las x **:. ■ •j&ir *"-£: ~ • +.JL Pine trees begin to appear on the upper slopes of the San Ysidro Mountain WSA. View of Upper Buck Canyon and ridge to the east, showing the vegetation typical to the drainages and intervening slopes. SAN YSIDRO MOUNTAIN WSA (CA-060-022) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 2A-3 General Description of the Area 2A-3 Identification of Issues 2A-3 Selection of the Proposed Action and Development of Alternatives . 2A-7 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Further Analysis 2A-8 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2A-8 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2A-8 Recreation Management Actions 2A-8 Fire Management Actions 2A-8 Wildlife Management Actions 2A-9 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2A-9 Vegetation Management Actions 2A-9 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2A-9 Mineral Development Actions 2A-9 All Wilderness Alternative 2A-10 Recreation Management Actions 2A-10 Fire Management Actions 2A-10 Wildlife Management Actions 2A-11 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2A-11 Vegetation Management Actions 2A-11 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2A-11 Mineral Development Actions 2A-11 Summary of Significant Impacts 2A-11 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2A-1 3 Wilderness Values 2A-13 Naturalness 2A-13 Solitude 2A-13 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 2A-13 Special Features 2A-13 Recreation 2A-14 Visual Resources 2A-14 Land Ownership 2A-14 Cultural Resources 2A-14 Vegetation 2A-14 Wildlife 2A-15 Mineral and Energy Resources 2A-15 Livestock Grazing 2A-16 Soils and Watershed Resources 2A-16 Aquifer Use 2A-16 San Ysidro 2A-1 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2A-16 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2A-17 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2A-17 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 2A-19 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 2A-19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 2A-19 All Wilderness Alternative 2A-19 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2A-19 MAP San Ysidro Mountain WSA 2A-5 San Ysidro 2A-2 SAN YSIDRO MOUNTAIN WSA (CA-060-022) INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The 2,131-acre San Ysidro Mountain Wilderness Study Area (Map 2) consists of the crest and south-facing slope of San Ysidro Mountain overlooking Highway S-22 and the small community of Ranchita. Elevations in the WSA range from 3,920 to 6,020 feet. The steep, rocky slopes are covered with chaparral, which gives way to stands of pine near the summit. Ribbons of green mark the major drainages, whose relatively lush vegetation includes sycamore, willow, and other deciduous trees, with a thick understory of herbaceous plants. Although all streams are intermittent, pools of standing water may still be found in the larger ones even in late summer. From Highway S-22 the WSA boundary can be reached by two improved dirt roads that follow these drainages. The road in Buck Canyon provides access to the southwest edge of the WSA, while the Cherry Canyon road meets the southeast corner. The rationale for making this isolated parcel of public land a wilderness study area was that Anza Borrego Desert State Park was studying its adjacent land for possible inclusion into the State Wilderness System. Following completion of the study, these State lands were designated wilderness. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES For San Ysidro Mountain WSA, the following issue was identified during the scoping process and selected for analysis in the EIS. - Impacts on Wilderness Values The existing wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, primitive recreation, and special resource characteristics could benefit from wilderness designation. The same values may be adversely affected by uses and actions that would occur should the San Ysidro Mountain WSA not be designated wilderness. The significance of these beneficial or adverse impacts is an issue for analysis. Additional issues were assessed to determine their significance for analysis in the EIS. However, upon further consideration they were not selected for detailed analysis. A brief discussion of each issue and the reason for dismissing it from analysis in the EIS follows. - Impacts on General Recreation Opportunities Current recreation use is light and consists of deer and upland game hunting, target shooting, rockhounding, hiking, and informal nature study. Wilderness designation or nondesignation would have San Ysidro 2A-3 little impact on these opportunities, because all are permissible in either a wilderness or nonwilderness setting. The WSA contains no motorized vehicle routes of travel; therefore wilderness desig- nation would not change the area's accessibility for recreation. - Impacts on Cultural Resources The issue of potential impacts to cultural resources from wilderness designation was considered but dropped from further analysis. There are no known Native American values associated with the WSA. Arch- aeological site information is limited, despite inventory of 160 acres (Cook and Fulmer 1980). Two small prehistoric sites and one historic mining site are located within the WSA and none of these are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The extremely rugged terrain makes it unlikely that any eligible properties will be present. - Impacts on Sensitive Plant Species Two sensitive plant species are found in the San Ysidro Mountain WSA vicinity and quite possibly on the WSA itself. Both Fairchild's lily (Lilium fairchildii) and Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) are Federal candidates for listing as "threatened" and "endangered." This issue was dropped from detailed analysis because only small-scale projects and management actions are anticipated under the No Action/No Wilderness Alternative. Because all of these relatively minor actions will be subject to thorough environmental analysis prior to project initiation, mitigation measures adequate to reduce impacts to insignificant levels can be developed. - Impacts on Fire Suppression Activities Concerns were raised regarding the constraints wilderness designa- tion would have on fire suppression activities. This issue was considered but dropped from detailed analysis. Although the Bureau's wilderness management policy does impose certain restric- tions on presuppression measures and techniques, much latitude is allowed so as not to significantly constrain effective fire management. - Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species Wildlife and vegetation inventories and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not identify any threatened or endangered species in the WSA. Therefore, this issue was dropped from further consideration. See Appendix 1. - Impacts on Raptor Populations and Habitat An issue dealing with the raptors which are found throughout the area was considered but dropped from further analysis because no specific impacts on populations or their habitat were identified by San Ysidro 2A-4 Vv /////////// ^ry / / / / / y / / / / / . S\', ///////// / / . A' s/////////. . f?v////// / / , / /~7 s&s. ESERVATION MAP 2 SAN YSIDRO MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA Map 2 (Cont.) San Ysidro 2A-6 the EIS team or the public. Based on the projection of development in the WSA under the Proposed Action and alternative, little or no change in raptor populations or habitat is anticipated. - Impacts on Mineral Development An issue dealing with the development of the area's mineral resources was considered but dropped from further analysis in the San Ysidro Mountain WSA. According to the BLM Resource Area geologist, the area has a moderate to high potential for the occur- rence of copper, lead, zinc, tungsten, or gold, but there is no indication that large or extractable deposits are present in the WSA. Although six active mining claims are located in or near the WSA in the Buck Canyon area, the area is considered to have a low potential for development due to the rugged terrain, limited access, and the absence of large deposits. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The following Proposed Action and alternative for the San Ysidro Mountain WSA were selected for analysis in this EIS. Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,131 Acres Nonwi lderness The Proposed Action for San Ysidro Mountain WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 2,131 acres will be designated wilderness. The entire area will continue to be managed for multiple-use as described on pages 2A-8 through 2A-10 in this document and the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit MFP. The rationale for this proposal includes: (1) the small size and configu- ration of the WSA make it unmanageable as wilderness; (2) wilderness values and other resource values can be protected and maintained under the multiple-use management program outlined in the MFP; and (3) designation as wilderness would make exchange or disposal of the parcel impossible without Congressional action. The MFP identified this parcel for possible disposal as a single block of land to Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, other State agencies, or a private party. All Wilderness Alternative 2,131 Acres Recommended for Wi lderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwi lderness Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 2,131 acres would be designated wilderness. This alternative represents the maximum possible acreage that could be recommended for wilderness. San Ysidro 2A-7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The small size and irregular shape of public land that makes up the 2,131- acre San Ysidro Mountain WSA did not offer opportunities to develop a partial wilderness alternative. All possible partial alternatives were found to lack sufficient size or manageable configurations, after exclusion of unmanageable portions, to be realistically considered for wilderness. Therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for analysis in the EIS. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE Since the pattern of future actions within the WSA cannot be predicted with certainty, we have made projections of management actions to allow the analysis of impacts under the Proposed Action and alternative. These projections are the basis of the impacts identified in this EIS. They represent reasonably feasible patterns of activities which could occur under the Proposed Action and alternative analyzed assuming there is adequate funding. This document does not constitute a management plan. BLM is not necessarily committed to the management actions listed and is not restricted from implementing additional actions which are not listed. PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,131 Acres Nonwi lderness None of the 2,131 acres of public land in the San Ysidro Mountain WSA are recommended for wilderness designation. Under this proposal, the lands will be managed in accordance with the existing MFP. Recreation Management Actions Contingent upon sufficient demand, in the late 1990s a trail approximately 4 miles long (see Map 2) will be constructed within the WSA from Buck Canyon to the top of San Ysidro Mountain, continuing eastward along the mountain's crest to Cherry Canyon, where there is an existing primitive road. The trail will be available for all nonmotorized recreation uses including hiking, horseback riding, and mountain bicycling. Camping will be permitted along the trail, but at least initially, sites will not be designated or improved in any way. A trailhead will be developed on public land near the upper end of Buck Canyon Road, with appropriate signing, visitor register, and parking and turnaround space. Although the precise location of the trailhead cannot be determined until detailed site analysis and design work is undertaken, this facility will most likely be just outside the WSA boundary. Fire Management Actions Fire suppression will be practiced in the San Ysidro Mountain WSA until a resource area fire management plan is completed. It is anticipated that this plan will allow the use of mechanized equipment. No new firebreaks will be constructed. The hiking and riding trail to be constructed in the San Ysidro 2A-8 late 1990s will also serve as a firebreak. No presuppression activities, including prescribed burning, will be allowed until the fire management plan is completed in 1990. Following completion of the fire management plan, approximately 500 acres of the WSA will be burned every 5 to 10 years to establish fuel hazard reduction cells. These presuppression burns will be limited to 30 to 50 acres to reduce the possibility of erosion. Preference will be given to the least disturbing suppression methods. Based on past experience, mechanized construction of approximately one-half mile of fire suppression line is anticipated each decade. Wildlife Management Actions No specific wildlife management actions are planned or envisioned. Cultural Resource Management Actions No specific cultural resource management actions are planned or envisioned. Vegetation Management Actions Prescribed burns will be conducted under this alternative after a fire management plan is completed (see Fire Management Actions, above). Mechanical equipment may be used to establish control lines, although only hand lines will be established around riparian areas. A sensitive plant inventory will be conducted prior to any prescribed burn in order to identify sensitive plant habitats and provide baseline data against which the effects of burning can be evaluated. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions As per the MFP we will dispose of the entire San Ysidro Mountain WSA and adjacent lands in the Buck Canyon area if those lands can be exchanged as a single unit with either a private party or the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The parcel was also identified as being suitable for State in lieu selection. If the lands are disposed of after construction of the proposed hiking trial has been completed (and that is an assumption of this analysis), public access on the trail will be maintained as part of the disposal agreement. Mineral Development Actions This alternative will return all 2,131 acres of land to multiple-use management. Exploration and development of mineral resources may proceed under the mining laws and 43 CFR 3809 regulations. The mineral potential for metallic minerals (copper, lead, zinc, tungsten) is rated from moderate to high. Mineral interest is evident from the mining claims. No development is presently occurring. Further exploration will lead to two underground mining operations for lode mineralization in the mid-1990s. These will occur in the NW% of Section 11 and SW7» Section 2, T. 11 S., R. 4 E. Present access roads will be improved and upgraded and approximately 1 mile of new access road will be developed. The road will be designed to avoid riparian habitat in upper Buck Canyon. Tailings San Ysidro 2A-9 of waste rock will be stockpiled on the claims. Underground mining will have very little effect on the surface environment. Total disturbed surface will amount to 3.2 acres for each mine. Ore will be processed at a removed mi 11 site. There are no known leasable minerals in this area. Potential for oil and gas is nil and there is also no potential for geothermal energy develop- ment. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 2,131 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness All 2,131 acres of public land in the San Ysidro Mountain WSA would be recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. Recreation Management Actions The trail planned as part of the Proposed Action could not be constructed under this alternative, at least not initially, because it would violate BLM's Wilderness Management Policy, which states in Chapter III. A. 2. a. (1 ) that "New trails will be constructed only if they are needed to preserve wilderness values and resources." Chapter III. A. 2 states further that, "No facilities or improvements will be provided for the comfort and con- venience of the visitor." As currently planned, the primary objective of the San Ysidro Trail is to increase visitor enjoyment of the WSA by making the area easier to use. The trail is not primarily intended as a resource protection measure, since current and projected visitor use levels are light enough that a trail solely for this purpose is unnecessary. It is true that BLM's Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review does allow new trail construction even when the primary objective is public enjoyment (Chapter III. A. 9, page 19). However, with the anticipated time frame for trail construction approximately 10 years in the future, it is assumed that San Ysidro Mountain WSA would be a Congressionally designated wilderness by then, and consequently no longer subject to the Interim Management Policy. Fire Management Actions Under the All Wilderness Alternative, a fire management plan would be written for the WSA and become an addendum to the Wilderness Management Plan. Fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, ground pumpers, and ground crews would be used for fire control. Cross-country vehicle travel would be permitted only when the terrain and soil conditions would permit such travel without damage to vegetative cover. No heliport construction would be permitted and heavy equipment such as tracked vehicles and dozers would not be permitted except to prevent loss of human life or to protect private or high-value property. San Ysidro 2A-10 Following completion of the fire management plan approximately 500 acres of the WSA would be burned every 5 to 10 years to establish fuel hazard reduction cells. These presuppression burns would be limited to 30 to 50 acres to minimize the possibility of erosion. Wildlife Management Actions No specific wildlife management actions are planned or envisioned. Cultural Resource Management Actions No specific cultural resource management actions are planned or envisioned. Vegetation Management Actions Actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action, except that mechanical equipment would not be utilized to establish control lines for prescribed burns. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions Under the All Wilderness Alternative, the entire WSA would be retained under BLM management. Mineral Development Actions All 2,131 acres of this study would be closed to mineral entry and all mining laws for locatable, saleable, and leasable minerals. As of April 8, 1987, there were six active claims in or near the WSA in the Buck Canyon area. All claims located within the WSA are post-FLPMA claims. No development is anticipated. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The major impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table 1. San Ysidro 2A-11 TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SAN YSIDRO MOUNTAIN WSA IMPACT TOPICS PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE Impacts on Wilderness Values Minor to moderate negative impacts to naturalness and solitude will result from two potential mining opera- tions and a recreational trail. This trail will have a moderate positive impact on primitive recreational opportunities. Mechanized fire suppression and pre- suppression will have a moderate, but short-term negative impact to natural- ness, minor to moderate localized negative impacts to special features (sensi- tive plants), and a minor impact to solitude. Net effect would be the retention and long-term protection of the area's wilderness values. Elimi- nation of mining and use of mechanical equipment for fire presuppression activi- ties would result in minor positive impacts to naturalness. Impacts to other wilderness resources would be negligible. San Ysidro 2A-12 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section briefly describes the San Ysidro Mountain WSA and the resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and alternative. More detailed descriptions of the resources in the study area and the regional socioeconomic conditions may be found in the planning documents for the area. Copies of these documents may be reviewed in the California Desert District and the El Centro Resource Area Office. WILDERNESS VALUES Naturalness The San Ysidro Mountain WSA generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature. Alterations to the natural landscape are limited to approximately 1 mile of abandoned jeep trail in Cherry Canyon (now officially closed to motorized use), which leads to about six small abandoned mining prospects near the top of the ridge. Nearly the entire study area, including all the south-facing slopes and portions of the ridgetop, was burned by wildfire on July 14, 1975. Although this particular fire originated from trash burning, wildfires of natural origin are a common occurrence in the region. Vegetation regeneration has progressed to the point where evidence of the fire is not noticeable to the casual observer. The developed area of Buck Canyon borders directly on the WSA, and its exclusion from the study area created the sharp indentation in the WSA's west boundary. The canyon contains mining claims and associated small buildings, about nine residences, and an improved dirt road in the canyon bottom with spurs serving the various buildings. Solitude The small size of the area and the penetrating configuration of the developed lands outside limit opportunities for solitude. However, because current visitation is low, solitude can still be readily found, particu- larly out of Buck Canyon's immediate vicinity. The broken topography and vegetation also help screen visitors from each other. Primitive or Unconfined Recreation The area offers good opportunities for hiking, nature study, and hunting for mule deer and upland game. Backpacking opportunities within the area itself are limited by its small size, but State Park lands available and suitable for backpacking are immediately adjacent to the east. Special Features Within the WSA are two plant species which are Federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered (see description of vegetation). San Ysidro 2A-13 RECREATION Current recreation use is estimated at 50 to 100 visitor use days annually. Principal activities are mule deer and upland game hunting, and hiking. Target shooting, rockhounding, and informal nature study also occur. VISUAL RESOURCES The scenic quality of the San Ysidro Mountain WSA has been rated as good (Class B). It has been assigned to visual resource management (VRM) Class III, in which changes may be evident but subordinate to the existing land- scape. However, as with all WSAs, it is being managed as Class II during interim management. VRM Class II guidelines specify that changes caused by management activities should not be evident. LAND OWNERSHIP The WSA is comprised entirely of public lands and contains 2,131 acres. The Los Coyotes Indian Reservation and other public lands define the northern and western boundaries, respectively. Private lands form the south boundary, and the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park borders on the east. The Master Title Plat shows no encumbrances on the land. CULTURAL RESOURCES Knowledge of cultural resources within the San Ysidro Mountain WSA is extremely limited. There are no known Native American values specifically linked to the WSA. Recorded archaeological sites consist of two small milling sites (used to prepare seeds and grain for eating) and a historic mine. None of these are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The potential for discovering additional archaeological properties is low. San Ysidro Mountain consists of steep, rugged terrain choked with chaparral. Plants of nutritional value to Native Americans are limited. Available water is limited. Finally, granite is the primary rock type found within the WSA and is not suitable for stone tool preparation. Adjacent areas contain a greater potential for encountering archaeological sites. Areas such as San Felipe and San Jose Valleys would have attracted prehistoric populations away from the WSA. VEGETATION San Ysidro Mountain WSA includes the chamise chaparral vegetation community and mixed conifer-oak woodland on the upper elevations. The primary com- ponent of chamise chaparral is chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) . Major components of mixed conifer-oak woodland are Coulter pine (Pinus coulteri) . Jeffrey pine (Pinus .ieffreyi) . chamise, manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), and California live oak (Quercus agrifolia) . San Ysidro 2A-14 Two sensitive plant species are found in the San Ysidro WSA area (Table 2) Both are considered sensitive by the BLM, and are FWS candidate species. TABLE 2. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FWS BLM Plant Name Candidate Species Sensitive Species CNPS Code^ Brodiaea orcuttii X X 1-1-3-2 Lilium fairchildii X X 3-3-2-3 ^The CNPS codes are explained in Appendix 2. WILDLIFE Threatened or Endangered Species No threatened or endangered wildlife species are known from within the WSA. Fully Protected Species The only raptor known to occur in the area is the red-tailed hawk. Cooper's hawk, red-shouldered hawk, golden eagle, prairie falcon, and kestrel occur nearby. Sensitive Species The USFWS considers the loggerhead shrike sensitive in Region 1. Game Species The WSA provides habitat for mule deer as well as upland game species such as quail, mourning dove, and desert cottontail. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES This WSA is accessible by two roads approaching along canyons that extend from the south toward the WSA. These roads extend part way up Buck Canyon and Cherry Canyon. All of the seven active claims and prospects are within the Buck Canyon area. Several tunnels were found within the WSA. There are many faults within the WSA as well as numerous intrusive bodies. The dominant granite is leucocratic with monzonite and diorite in fault con- tact. Intrusives are mostly quartz with some aplite and one migmatitic dike observed. Some gold has been produced according to local residents but prospects for tungsten were also reported. Tourmaline has been col- lected from some of the area. The pneumatolytic minerals are associated with the aplite dikes. Small prospects are noted but there is no evidence San Ysidro 2A-15 of any appreciable production. The areas of metamorphism do not seem to be carrying significant mineralization. The area has good potential for mineral occurrence. The heavy vegetation and steep slopes make the poten- tial for development low. The many springs in the area are iron rich indicating a possibility for manganese and magnesium mineralization. There was no evidence of oil and gas prospects. No leasable minerals were present. There are no indications that geothermal resources are present. Mineral materials are not present within this WSA. LIVESTOCK GRAZING No livestock grazing is authorized within the San Ysidro Mountain WSA boundary. SOILS AND WATERSHED RESOURCES The soil survey of 1973 determined the San Ysidro Mountain WSA soils to be Tollhouse rock, coarse sandy loam within the Tollhouse-La Posta-Rockland soil association. San Ysidro Mountain WSA is characterized by steep, rugged terrain. This unit is within the Lake Henshaw watershed, draining into San Ysidro Creek, then to Buena Vista Creek, and from there to Lake Henshaw. AQUIFER USE This WSA has several springs and running water in major drainages during much of the year. The thick vegetation and many trees attest to the year around availability of water. Isolated heavy vegetation indicates many underground areas of impoundment. The volume of water is adequate for local usage and is one source for more extensive downstream usage. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section focuses directly on the issues identified through the scoping process. The environmental impacts of each alternative are described issue by issue. The environmental impacts of these alternatives on the area's other resources have also been analyzed and have been found to be insignificant. Because of the general nature of this analysis and the lack of numerical and statistical information regarding the area's resources, impacts in this section are often expressed in relative terms. For the purpose of this analysis the meanings of these terms are as follows: - Negligible or slight impact - the degree of anticipated environ- mental impact is considered less than minor. San Ysidro 2A-16 - Minor impact - comparatively unimportant; in terms of the area's wildlife resources, a minor impact is one affecting a specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for one generation or less; the integrity of the regional population is not likely to be affected. - Moderate impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a change in the abundance of a resource or its distribution. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of a portion of the regional or local population would change over more than one gener- ation, but would not affect the integrity of the regional population as a whole. - Major impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a decline in the abundance of a resource or a change in distribution of a resource. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of the regional or local population of a species would decline beyond which natural recruitment would not likely return that population to its former level within several generations. PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,131 Acres Nonwilderness The primary concern under the Proposed Action is the protection of wilder- ness values. No other issues were identified for detailed analysis with regards to the WSA. Impacts on Wilderness Values The Proposed Action for the San Ysidro Mountain WSA will not result in any of the 2,131 acres within the WSA being designated wilderness. None of the wilderness values will receive the special legislative protection provided by wilderness designation. - Naturalness Wildfire suppression activities and the prescribed burning of 500 acres every 5 to 10 years in 30- to 50-acre increments will have a moderate short-term negative impact to naturalness. This impact will not be caused by the fire itself, since fire is a part of the natural chaparral ecosystem, but by the use of mechanized equipment to construct firelines. This negative impact will be modified some- what by formulating and implementing a fire management plan, which will address techniques for preserving the area's natural appearance and foster interagency communication and cooperation between CDF and BLM. A moderate negative impact to naturalness will result from the two mining operations predicted to occur under the Proposed Action. Although these are underground operations, visible impacts will San Ysidro 2A-17 occur from access road construction and the disturbance of a com- bined total of about 6'A acres from development of the mine sites and tailings disposal . Recreation trail construction will have a minor negative impact to the perception of naturalness on less than 10 acres. If the WSA is transferred to Anza Borrego Desert State Park, the change in ownership will likely have a minor positive impact to naturalness. State Park management philosophy and legislative mandates place emphasis on preservation of the natural environment and preclude many multiple-use management activities. - Solitude The prescribed burns, mechanized wildfire suppression, and the two mining operations will have minor negative impacts to solitude. Visitors are not likely to actually encounter more people as a result of these activities, but the perception of solitude will be slightly less because of the tangible evidence of human presence in the area. Construction of the recreation trail will also have a minor negative impact by slightly increasing the level of recreation use and concentrating it along the trail. However, off-trail, cross-country hiking opportunities will still be available to the seeker of solitude. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Construction of the recreation trail will have a moderate positive impact on opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. The recreational use level is expected to remain at about 50 visitor use days (VU0)/year prior to trail construction. Following trail construction, an increase in hiking, backpacking, and equestrian activity will result in a gradual increase in overall use levels to 2,500 VUO by 2000 A.D. The transfer of jurisdiction to the State Park would have a minor positive impact, since there will be less competition with other multiple uses. However, transfer to the Park could also preclude construction of the recreation trail, since trails are not generally consistent with State Park policy. Impacts to primitive recreation from other management activities are foreseen as negligible. - Special Features Recreational trail construction and fire suppression activities will have a minor negative impact to Fairchild's lily and Orcutt's brodiaea which are candidates for Federal listing as threatened or endangered. Although these are riparian species and the management actions in question will avoid riparian areas as much as possible, some impact is unavoidable. Since water is a strong attraction to people, there will be some off-trail hiking as recreationists San Ysidro 2A-18 explore the riparian areas, resulting in some trampling of vegeta- tion. Heavy equipment used for fire suppression will occasionally cross riparian areas, also resulting in minor damage. All presup- pression firelines in riparian areas will be built by hand, and should have a negligible impact. Conclusion: Minor to moderate negative impacts to naturalness and solitude will result from two potential underground mining operations and from construction and use of a recreational trail. The recreational trail will have a moderate positive impact to primitive recreational oppor- tunities. Mechanized fire suppression and presuppression activities will have a moderate, but short-term negative impact to naturalness, minor to moderate localized negative impacts to special features (sensitive plants), and minor short-term impacts to solitude. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided The use of mechanized equipment in fire suppression will cause a short- term unavoidable adverse impact to naturalness and solitude, and a potential minor to moderate localized unavoidable adverse impact to the two plant species that are candidates for Federal listing as threatened or endangered. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-term Productivity If the WSA is not designated wilderness, the area has the potential for limited, small-scale mining exploration and development, an action which will reduce long-term productivity by removing small but irreplaceable quantities of mineral and soil resources. All other planned or predicted short-term uses are reversible, and will therefore have no effect on long-term productivity. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Mining activity, should it occur, will constitute an irreversible commit- ment. However, large-scale development is not anticipated now or in the foreseeable future. In the event mining does occur, an estimated 6'A acres will be disturbed. Therefore, no significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are anticipated. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 2,131 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwi lderness Impacts on Wilderness Values Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 2,131 acres of the San Ysidro Mountain WSA would be recommended suitable for wilderness designation and all values would be protected by legislative mandate. San Ysidro 2A-19 - Naturalness Although prescribed burning would take place at the same rate as under the Proposed Action, mechanized equipment would not be used. This management activity would thus have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by allowing fire to reassume its natural role in the ecosystem without obvious signs of human control. Because all firelines (not just presuppression lines in riparian areas) would be hand-built, they could be blended into the natural landscape more easily than under the Proposed Action, and without the peri- pheral impacts caused by moving equipment to the site. Mechanized wildfire suppression would still occur, but only in situations threatening life or property. Mechanized wildfire suppression would therefore have only a negligible impact to naturalness. As with the Proposed Action, the formulation and implementation of a fire management plan would have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by formalizing techniques for preserving natural appearances and fostering interagency cooperation. The lack of any mining activity under the All Wilderness Alterna- tive would also have a minor positive impact to naturalness. - Solitude Current opportunities for solitude would be maintained. Impacts would be negligible. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Current opportunities would be maintained. They would be neither enhanced nor constrained by this alternative. Recreational use would remain at the current level (50 visitor use days annually) indefinitely. - Special Features Impacts to the two Federal candidate lily species would be negligible. Conclusion: The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long- term protection of the area's wilderness values. Elimination of mining and use of mechanized equipment for fire presuppression activities would result in minor positive impacts to naturalness. Impacts to other wilderness resources would be negligible. San Ysidro 2A-20 Sawtooth Mountains A WSA ; 4 - '-'■'-' " **'**£' Looking west across alluvial valley to the higher portions of the ridge. Dark areas on north-facing slopes are chaparral. Choi la cactus in foreground is the only stand of these plants known in the WSA's valley, which is dominated by brushy plants typical of desert scrub. A view of the northeastern portion of the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. The dark colored brush on the hillside marks the location of a spring, which is the WSA's only known water source. SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WSA (CA-060-024A) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 2B-3 General Description of the Area 2B-3 Identification of Issues 2B-3 Selection of the Proposed Action and Development of Alternatives . 2B-8 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Further Analysis 2B-9 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2B-9 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2B-9 Recreation Management Actions 2B-10 Fire Management Actions 2B-10 Wildlife Management Actions 2B-10 Apiary Management Actions 2B-10 Grazing Management Actions 2B-10 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2B-11 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2B-11 Vegetation Management Actions 2B-11 Mineral Development Actions 2B-11 All Wilderness Alternative 2B-11 Recreation Management Actions 2B-11 Fire Management Actions 2B-12 Wildlife Management Actions 2B-12 Apiary Management Actions 2B-12 Grazing Management Actions 2B-12 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2B-12 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2B-12 Vegetation Management Actions 2B-12 Mineral Development Actions 2B-12 Summary of Significant Impacts 2B-12 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2B-14 Wilderness Values 2B-14 Naturalness 2B-14 Solitude 2B-14 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 2B-14 Special Features 2B-14 Recreation 2B-15 Visual Resources 2B-15 Land Ownership 2B-15 Cultural Resources 2B-15 Vegetation 2B-16 Wildlife 2B-16 Mineral and Energy Resources 2B-17 Livestock Grazing 2B-17 Soils and Watershed Resources 2B-18 Aquifer Use 2B-18 Sawtooth A 2B-1 Pa£e ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2B-18 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2B-19 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2B-19 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 2B-21 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 2B-21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 2B-21 All Wilderness Alternative 2B-21 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2B-21 MAP Sawtooth Mountains A WSA 2B-5 Sawtooth A 2B-2 SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WSA (CA-060-024A) INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Encompassing 3,892 acres, the Sawtooth Mountains A Wilderness Study Area (Map 3) is separated from the much larger Sawtooth Mountains B WSA (which has been recommended suitable) by a one-lane dirt road and a parcel of private property containing a ranch. About 75 percent of the WSA is a steep ridge running northeast to southwest; the remaining 25 percent is alluvial valley. Elevations range from 1,760 to 5,360 feet. Desert scrub covers the valley floor and the lower portion of the ridge, with chaparral first appearing about 2,800 feet on some of the north-facing slopes. The higher elevations are completely covered with dense chaparral. A spring near the north edge of the WSA is the only known permanent water source. The WSA is situated between County Highways S-l and S-2 at a location where the two highways are only 5 miles apart. Highway S-2 passes within a quarter mile of the area's northeast corner. Although a dirt road connecting with this highway forms part of the WSA's east boundary, it is a private road protected by locked gate, not available for use by the general public. There is no vehicular access from Highway S-l. Sawtooth Mountains A was made a wilderness study area because it was contiguous with an area of 1,600 acres of Cleveland National Forest lands which was thought to have potential wilderness values during the BLM inventory. The 1,600-acre Forest Service parcel could have potentially linked BLM's Sawtooth Mountains A and Sawtooth Mountains B WSAs, which are otherwise separated by a road and private lands. The Forest Service parcel also contains a segment of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, which passes within a quarter mile of the southwest corner of the WSA. The Forest Service studied the 1,600-acre parcel, recommending it nonsuitable in the Draft EIS for the Cleveland National Forest Plan. Before the Final EIS for the Forest Plan was completed, the 1,600-acre parcel was released from further wilderness study by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES For Sawtooth Mountains A WSA, the following issue was identified during the scoping process and selected for analysis in the EIS. - Impacts on Wilderness Values The existing wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, primitive recreation, and special resource characteristics could benefit from wilderness designation. The same values may be adversely affected by uses and actions that would occur should the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA not be designated wilderness. The significance of these bene- ficial or adverse impacts is an issue for analysis. Sawtooth A 2B-3 Additional issues were assessed to determine their significance for analysis in the EIS. However, upon further consideration they were not selected for detailed analysis. A brief discussion of each issue and the reason for dismissing it from analysis in the EIS follows. - Impacts on General Recreation Opportunities Current recreation use is light and consists of deer and upland game hunting, target shooting, rockhounding, hiking, and informal nature study. Wilderness designation or nondesignation would have little impact on these opportunities, because all are permissible in either a wilderness or nonwilderness setting. The WSA contains no motorized vehicle routes of travel; therefore wilderness desig- nation would not change the area's accessibility for recreation. - Impacts on Cultural Resources This issue was considered, but dropped from further study. There are no known Native American values associated with the WSA. There are two sites recorded within Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. One of these, SDi-750, may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, although its current condition or integrity is unknown. If SDi-750 is indeed eligible, then wilder- ness designation would serve to protect it from disturbances that could occur in an area not so designated. However, the potential for disturbance of the site is low, and in any case of proposed development, impacts will be addressed through the normal environ- mental assessment process and through normal compliance procedures of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The majority of the WSA possesses a low potential for encountering sites because of its steep, barren terrain. There may be additional properties present, but they will be afforded the same level of consideration as SDi-750. - Impacts on the Amount of Apiary Use on Public Lands Although no apiary sites are found on the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA at this time, the WSA does contain an area suitable for relocation of one of six apiaries that would to be displaced from the Sawtooth Mountains B WSA as a result of wilderness designation (Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement, Preliminary Wilderness Recommendations for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit, 1986). Because the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA could accommodate only one apiary site, the potential impact to apiary use on the public lands is considered to be insignificant, and the issue was dropped from further analysis. - Impacts on Livestock Grazing Sawtooth Mountains A WSA overlaps portions of the Vallecitos and Oriflamme Allotments. No new range improvements are planned in this area for either allotment. The issue of livestock grazing was Sawtooth A 2B-4 V '■ '' TV! ■y CLEVELAND^ -. NATIONAL p Jjo . El Pfado/ rsj. 5 > Meadow \ ■Rer*^ „^ Al B, Camp r, „^ ; P" ^odge 3 r | ' El P>ado r v. e fiaVip's^iJ Sierra. Cjub 2 ^ \Gu/rnc. ~ 1 I ^ Flathead Flats "^ LEGEND WSA Boundary Adjacent WSA Bdry ro^ch . : Other BLM Lands Private Lands A Apiaries N t U /2 1 Mile T15 S \ 11 w/>\V • /valley [ 21 ^ ifl£ C R' E A TJ 6 N ' FOI«SgJ ll§: cuyapaipjN. AM,A K^iNS , TXTHTAXT 0 \ \0 ;h Milch M ¥::%/./. INDIAN 4 24 ¥: 19 ||^ RES] R5 I;^6E MAP 3 SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WILDERNESS STUDY AREA Map 3 (Cont.) Sawtooth A 2B-6 considered but dropped because the BLM's wilderness management policy provides for the continued use of wilderness areas for livestock operations at historic levels. - Impacts on Sensitive Plant Species Two sensitive plant species, ayenia (Ayenia compacta) and Mt. Laguna alumroot (Heuchera brevistaminea) , are known to exist in the WSA area. Mt. Laguna alumroot is also a Federal candidate for listing as "threatened" or "endangered." General concerns regarding impacts of wilderness designation or nondesignation on these species were raised during scoping, but this was dropped because the uses of these lands would not significantly change as a result of designa- tion or nondesignation. Only small-scale projects and management actions are anticipated under the No Action/No Wilderness Alterna- tive. Because all of these relatively minor actions will be subject to thorough environmental analysis prior to project initiation, mitigation measures adequate to reduce impacts to insignificant levels can be developed. - Impacts on Fire Management Approximately 340 acres of the Laguna-Morena Demonstration Area, an interagency effort to demonstrate proper management of fire-depend- ent chaparral ecosystems close to urban areas, lie within Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Concerns were raised that the experimental fire management program may be restricted if the WSA was designated wilderness. This issue was considered but dropped from detailed analysis because the BLM's wilderness policy allows for presuppres- sion fire activities to meet wilderness management objectives and to protect public health. Fire suppression would still be allowed with only minor restrictions on methods and equipment. - Impacts on Reintroduction of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Although Peninsular bighorn sheep do not presently occur in the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA, the WSA has been a historic habitat for the species. The Eastern San Diego County MFP calls for introducing a herd of 20 bighorn sheep into the adjacent Sawtooth Mountains B WSA in 1990. Some of these sheep are expected to migrate into or through the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Because wilderness designa- tion could restrict certain reintroduction activities such as use of vehicles for release of animals or installation of wildlife water sources, the impact of wilderness designation on the reintro- duction program was an issue for analysis in the EIS covering the Sawtooth Mountains B WSA. However, no releases of reintroduced animals or installation of water sources will occur within the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. The impact of cattle grazing on the sheep reintroduction program is a management concern, but because grazing is a grandfathered activity in wilderness, only very minor differences are foreseen in range management practices between the All Wilderness and Proposed Action (no wilderness) alternatives. Any anticipated impacts to bighorn sheep from cattle grazing are therefore a grazing issue rather than a wilderness issue. Sawtooth A 2B-7 For these reasons, wilderness designation is expected to have no effect on the sheep reintroduction program in this WSA, and the issue is dropped from further consideration in this document. However, impacts to bighorn sheep from cattle grazing are discussed under the issue of Impacts on Wilderness Values. These impacts are expected to be virtually identical under the Proposed Action and All Wilderness Alternative. - Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species Wildlife and vegetation inventories and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not identify any threatened or endangered species in the WSA. Therefore, this issue was dropped from further consideration. See Appendix 1. - Impacts on Raptor Populations and Habitat An issue dealing with the raptors which are found throughout the area was considered but dropped from further analysis because no specific impacts on populations or their habitat were identified by the EIS team or the public. Based on the projection of development in the WSA under the Proposed Action and alternative, little or no change in raptor populations or habitat is anticipated. - Impacts on Mineral Development An issue dealing with the development of the area's mineral resources was considered but dropped from further analysis in the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. The area has a low to moderate potential for the occurrence of gold, tungsten, manganese, and feldspar, and potential for development is considered to be low. A few old prospects occur within the WSA, but no mining claims had been filed as of August 8, 1987. Oil and gas potential is very low and no oil and gas leases are in effect. Although hot springs are found 7 miles east of the WSA, the potential for geothermal development within the WSA is very low. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSEO ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The following Proposed Action and alternative for the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA were selected for analysis in this EIS. Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 3,892 Acres Nonwilderness The Proposed Action for Sawtooth Mountains A WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 3,892 acres will be designated wilderness. The entire area will continue to be managed for multiple-use as described on pages 2B-9 through 28-11 in this document and the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit MFP. Sawtooth A 28-8 The rationale for this proposal includes: (1) the wilderness values of the area are not considered outstanding, (2) current management has proven effective in maintaining the area's existing resources, (3) the WSA would be unmanageable as wilderness because of the likelihood of intrusions (vehicle use, sights and sounds, other inconsistent uses) from adjacent private lands, and (4) approximately 1,600 acres of contiguous lands in the Cleveland National Forest were recommended nonsuitable in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cleveland National Forest Management Plan, and were released from further wilderness consideration by the California Wilderness Act of 1984. A combined area of over 5,000 acres is therefore impossible. All Wilderness Alternative 3,892 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 3,892 acres would be designated wilderness. This alternative represents the maximum possible acreage that could be recommended for wilderness. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The small size and irregular shape of public land that makes up the 3,892- acre Sawtooth Mountains A WSA did not offer opportunities to develop a partial wilderness alternative. All possible partial alternatives were found to lack sufficient size or manageable configurations, after exclusion of unmanageable portions, to be realistically considered for wilderness. Therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for analysis in the EIS. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE Since the pattern of future actions within the WSA cannot be predicted with certainty, we have made projections of management actions to allow the analysis of impacts under the Proposed Action and alternative. These projections are the basis of the impacts identified in this EIS. They represent reasonably feasible patterns of activities which could occur under the Proposed Action and alternative analyzed assuming there is adequate funding. This document does not constitute a management plan. BLM is not necessarily committed to the management actions listed and is not restricted from implementing additional actions which are not listed. PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 3,892 Acres Nonwilderness None of the 3,892 acres of public land in the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA are recommended for wilderness designation. Under this proposal, the lands will be managed in accordance with the existing MFP. Sawtooth A 2B-9 Recreation Management Actions No special recreation management actions are planned or envisioned for this area in the foreseeable future. Fire Management Actions Fire suppression will be practiced in the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA until a fire management plan is completed. This plan will incorporate and update those portions of the Laguna-Morena Demonstration Area (LMDA) Management Plan and is anticipated to allow the use of mechanized equipment. Full fire suppression will prevent the spread of fire on to private land. Approximately 340 acres of the Storm Canyon Compartment will be burned every 5 to 10 years to establish fuel hazard reduction cells in the western portion of the WSA. These presuppression burns will be limited to 30 to 50 acres to minimize any possibility of erosion. Preference will be given to the least disturbing suppression methods. Existing firebreaks will no longer be maintained, but allowed to return to their natural state. Based on past experience, mechanized construction of approximately one half mile of fire suppression line is anticipated per decade. Wildlife Management Actions None are anticipated. The area is within historic Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, and also within the area targeted for sheep reintroduction. However, no active management actions (water developments, release sites) are planned. Apiary Management Actions Under the Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action), one apiary site may be relocated within Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Owing to the terrain the apiary site will be restricted to Section 24 of T. 14 S., R. 5 E., SBM. The permittee will be required to maintain a firebreak not less than 30 feet nor more than 40 feet wide around the apiary site during periods of occupancy. The 10-foot-wide area closest to the apiary will be cleared to mineral soil. Within the next 20-foot-wide area, all vegetation will be trimmed to a height not greater than 6 inches above the ground. New or improved access will be required. The site must be located a minimum of 100 feet from the exterior boundary of a road traveled by the public. Therefore, the new road must be at least 100 feet long, and will be limited to 500 feet. The width will be no greater than 10 feet. Grazing Management Actions Sawtooth Mountains A WSA includes parts of two grazing allotments, Vallecitos and Oriflamme Allotments. Current livestock management allows an apportioned 10 head of cattle to run yearlong within the WSA for the Vallecitos Allotment. Oriflamme Allotment runs approximately 21 cattle from January to the end of June. This is a total of 246 animal unit months(AUMs) . Under the Proposed Action the total available AUMs for the WSA could potentially increase to 502 AUMs with improvement of range conditions. Sawtooth A 2B-10 Existing range improvements on the allotments within the WSA include three- quarter mile of fence, and one mile of pipeline with a trough. Some maintenance of these improvements will be necessary, requiring occasional use of motor vehicles within the WSA. No other range improvements are planned for this area. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions No actions are planned. Cultural Resource Management Actions No specific cultural resource management actions are planned. Vegetation Management Actions Under the Proposed Action, mechanized ground equipment will be used to conduct prescribed burns to maintain the area's fire-dependent eco- systems— primarily the chaparral found throughout the WSA. These burns will be done as a part of the Storm Canyon Compartment burns described under Fire Management Actions. Prior to these burns, a field inventory will be conducted to identify the location of any rare plants or their habitat to monitor the effect of fire. Mineral Development Actions Under the Proposed Action all 3,892 acres will be returned to multiple-use management. Prospecting and development will be governed by the mining laws and 43 CFR 3809 regulations. Exploration and prospecting will lead to the development of one small underground mining operation in the mid- 1990s. This will occur in T. 5 E., R. 14 S., Section 13, W/». Less than one-half mile of new road will be constructed and 1 acre will be used for tailings from the underground mining. Ore processing will occur outside the WSA. Oil and gas potential is very low and no oil/gas leases are in effect. Hot springs at Agua Caliente are 7 miles east of this WSA. Geothermal development potential is very low. No other leasables are known in this area. Saleable minerals are scarce and of poor quality. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 3,892 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness All 3,892 acres of public land in the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA would be recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. Recreation Management Actions As is the case with the Proposed Action, no special recreation management actions are envisioned. Sawtooth A 2B-11 Fire Management Actions Approximately 340 acres of the Laguna-Morena Demonstration Area (LMDA) are within the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Presuppression burns would be allowed as part of the LMDA. Cross-country vehicle travel would be permitted but only when the terrain and soil conditions would permit such travel without damage to vegetative cover. This would be allowed only with the approval of the District Manager. Fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and ground crews would be used for fire control. Heavy equipment such as tracked vehicles and dozers would not be permitted except to prevent loss of human life or to protect private of high-value property. No more firebreaks would be constructed. Existing firebreaks would no longer be maintained, but allowed to return to their natural state. Wildlife Management Actions As is the case with the Proposed Action, no special wildlife management actions are planned or envisioned. Apiary Management Actions Under this alternative, no apiary sites would be relocated to the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Grazing Management Actions Grazing management actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions As is the case with the Proposed Action, no land tenure adjustment actions are planned. Cultural Resource Management Actions As is the case with the Proposed Action, no specific cultural resource management actions are planned. Vegetation Management Actions Actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action, except that the use of motorized equipment would be restricted during prescribed burns (see the discussion of Fire Management Actions for this Alternative) . Mineral Development Actions All 3,892 acres in this alternative would be closed to mineral entry. As of April 8, 1987, there were no mining claims in this WSA. No development would occur. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The major impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table 3. Sawtooth A 2B-12 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS A WSA IMPACT TOPICS PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE Impacts on Wilderness Values Minor negative impacts to wilderness values will occur from the installation of one apiary site. One mining operation will have a moderate negative effect on naturalness. Mechanized fire suppression and pre- suppression activities will have a moderate, but short- term negative impact to naturalness, and a lesser impact to solitude. Grazing will have a minor negative impact to the bighorn sheep reintroduction program. Net effect of this alterna- tive would be the retention and long-term protection of the area's wilderness values. Grazing would have a minor negative impact to the bighorn sheep reintroduction program. 2B-13 Sawtooth A AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section briefly describes the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA and the resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and alternative. More detailed descriptions of the resources in the study area and the regional socioeconomic conditions may be found in the planning documents for the area. Copies of these documents may be reviewed in the California Desert District and the El Centro Resource Area Office. WILDERNESS VALUES Naturalness The Sawtooth Mountains A WSA appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, exhibiting almost no evidence of human activity in its interior. A narrow dirt road providing access to private property in Storm Canyon forms a major segment of the east boundary, and separates this WSA from the recommended suitable Sawtooth Mountains B WSA. Fence- lines form the WSA boundary in several locations where the study area abuts private property. Solitude Although the area is small, opportunities for solitude are good because of very low visitation and rugged topography. Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Hampered somewhat by limited legal access, the area offers good opportuni- ties for hiking, hunting for mule deer and upland game, and general nature study. Backpacking opportunities within the WSA are restricted by the area's small size, although backpackers need only walk across a dirt road to include portions of the much larger Sawtooth Mountains B WSA in their trip. No formal hiking trails exist, so all hiking is cross-country. It is possible to hike onto National Forest land and intercept the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail only about one-quarter mile from the southwest corner of the WSA. Special Features There is a spring at the northern extreme of the WSA, about one-half mile south of Highway S-2. A candidate plant species for Federal listing as threatened or endangered inhabits the WSA (see vegetation description). The WSA is part of a larger area targeted for reintroduction of Peninsular bighorn sheep, although no active management efforts are planned inside the study area. Sawtooth A 2B-14 RECREATION Current recreation use is estimated at less than 50 visitor use days annually. Principal activities are mule deer and upland game hunting, hiking, and camping. Use levels are extremely low because vehicles must cross private property protected by a locked gate to gain access to the valley portion of the WSA. VISUAL RESOURCES The scenic quality of the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA has been rated as good (Class B). Except for three small parcels on the northern and eastern fringes of the area which are VRM Class III, the WSA has been assigned to VRM Class II. However, as with all WSAs, the entire area is being treated as Class II during interim management. VRM Class II guidelines specify that changes caused by management activities should not be evident, while in Class III changes may be evident but still subordinate to the natural landscape. LAND OWNERSHIP The Sawtooth A WSA is composed entirely of public land and contains 3,892 acres. The unit is bounded on the north and northeast by private lands. Anza-Borrego Desert State Park borders on the west and the Cleveland National Forest on the southwest. Sawtooth B WSA borders on the southeast. There is no legal access for motorized vehicles. The Master Title Plat shows a right-of-way (R-02728) for a pipeline within the southeast corner of Section 22 of T. 14 S., R. 5 E., SBM. The right- of-way holder of record is Kathrine Spencer (deceased). CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological data and Native American information for the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA is extremely limited. These data only consist of two recorded sites and the location of one is highly suspect. There are presumably additional sites in the area, particularly at the base of the mountain. Inventory is needed to actually reveal their presence. Such sites may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places as part of a larger site complex found in the region. Much of the WSA probably lacks archaeological resources because of rugged terrain and absence of water. The mountainous area may contain roasting pits since agave, an important dietary element for Native Americans, is present. The WSA lacks other important plants and consists mostly of granitic boulders. Granite is not suitable for stone tool manufacture, although rock shelters are sometimes reported in such areas. Sawtooth A 2B-15 VEGETATION Creosote bush scrub community is the primary plant community of the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA. Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) , cholla (Opuntia spp.), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) . and buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.) are the primary plant components of this community. Vegetation on the slopes consists of desert scrub plant community. Cholla, barrel cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes) . brittlebush and buckwheat are common components of this community. There are two sensitive plant species found within the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA area (Table 4). One is a Fish and Wildlife Service candidate species and considered sensitive by the BLM. TABLE 4. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FWS BLM Plant Name Candidate Species Sensitive Species CNPS Code1 Ayenia compacta — — 2-2-1-1 Heuchera brevistaminea X X 1-2-1-3 Hhe CNPS codes are explained in Appendix 2. WILDLIFE Threatened or Endangered Species The San Diego Coast horned lizard, a candidate for Federal listing by USFWS, occurs in the WSA. It is found on granitic outcrops. The spotted bat, also a candidate for Federal listing, is suspected to occur in the WSA. Historic habitat for the State-listed Threatened and Federal candidate Peninsular bighorn sheep occurs in the WSA. BLM and CDFG have defined the objective of reintroducing Peninsular bighorn into the WSA to reestablish them in their historic range. Although the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA is not a likely release site, sheep released in the neighboring Sawtooth Mountains B WSA would likely migrate into Sawtooth A. The area is probably used transiently by bighorn at the present time. Fully Protected Species (California Department of Fish and Game) Several raptor species occur within the WSA, including great horned owls, screech owls, red-tailed hawks, and others (see below). Habitat for the ringtail cat also exists here. Sawtooth A 2B-16 Sensitive and Special Concern Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the loggerhead shrike sensi- tive in Region I. The willow flycatcher is also a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sensitive species and is a species of special concern to the California Department of Fish and Game (COFG). The former occurs year- long in the WSA, while the latter is a summer resident. The prairie falcon, golden eagle, and Cooper's hawk, also species of special concern to CDFG, also occur within the WSA. Game Species The WSA provides habitat for the mule deer and a variety of upland game, including quail, mourning dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, and desert cottontail. Mule deer densities are estimated to be 1-3 per square mile. Deer may occupy a wintering area between Potrero and Storm Canyons to the south of the WSA (USDI, BLM, 1980). MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES The Sawtooth Mountains A WSA contains the Sawtooth Range in the western section and a short alluvium-filled valley (the western end of the Vallecito Valley) in the eastern portion. The Sawtooth Range rises out of the valley like an escarpment. The granite is varied from leucocratic through granodiorite to diorite. Folding and faulting are more extensive and intrusive bodies are large and numerous. Metamorphism is evident by the occurrence of biotite schist and schistose gneiss. The intrusive bodies are predominantly quartz and quartzose. Some aplite dikes were noted. The potential for mineralization is high in this section (western) of the WSA. The rugged terrain and lack of access makes prospecting and development very unlikely. Ash formations and limestone remnants were noted. Precious metals may exist within some extensive quartz intrusives. The aplite dikes and metamorphic zones would be a prospect for industrial and strategic minerals. One prospect is as noted in the eastern section of the WSA along the fault contact of two different granitic structures. The alluvium is too fine to qualify as a saleable mineral and no other saleable minerals were noted. No oil and gas exists in this WSA. Although a geothermal area is present 7 miles to the east of this WSA, the prospect for this resource is very low. LIVESTOCK GRAZING Sawtooth Mountains A WSA includes parts of two grazing allotments, Vallecitos and Oriflamme Allotments. Current livestock management apportions 10 head of cattle to run yearlong for Vallecitos Allotment within the WSA. Also within the WSA, Oriflamme Allotment runs approximately 21 cattle from January to the end of June. This is a total of 246 AUMs throughout both allotments. The total available AUMs within the WSA could potentially increase to 502 AUMs with improvement of range conditions. Sawtooth A 2B-17 Existing range improvements on the allotments within the WSA include three-fourths mile of fence, and 1 mile of pipeline with a trough. No other range improvements are planned for this area. SOILS AND WATERSHED RESOURCES A soil survey for this area was completed in 1973. Much of the mountain- ous area consists of exposed rock, classed as Acid Igneous Rockland, with the higher slopes labeled as Metamorphic Rockland. The unit is characterized by gently sloping valleys, bounded by steep, rocky mountains. Sawtooth Mountains A is within the Orif lamme-Borrego Springs watershed. The watershed generally drains towards the Salton Sea. Waters flow into Vallecito Creek, then to Carrizo Wash and San Felipe Creek. Erosion hazard ranges from slight in the valley floor to high on the mountain slopes. AQUIFER USE One spring is found within the WSA in the SW'A Sec. 12, T. 14 S., R. 5 E., SBM. Flow from the spring is relatively minor, normally not exceeding 1 gallon per minute. The alluvial valley portions of the WSA are parts of the Vallecito Valley alluvial aquifer. Several water wells are found on this aquifer a short distance outside the WSA boundary. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section focuses directly on the issues identified through the scoping process. The environmental impacts of each alternative are described issue by issue. The environmental impacts of these alternatives on the area's other resources have also been analyzed and have been found to be insignificant. Because of the general nature of this analysis and the lack of numerical and statistical information regarding the area's resources, impacts in this section are often expressed in relative terms. For the purpose of this analysis the meanings of these terms are as follows: - Negligible or slight impact - the degree of anticipated environ- mental impact is considered less than minor. - Minor impact - comparatively unimportant; in terms of the area's wildlife resources, a minor impact is one affecting a specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for one generation or less; the integrity of the regional population is not likely to be affected. Sawtooth A 2B-18 Moderate impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a change in the abundance of a resource or its distribution. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of a portion of the regional or local population would change over more than one generation, but would not affect the integrity of the regional population as a whole. Major impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a decline in the abundance of a resource or a change in distribution of a resource. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of the regional or local population of a species would decline beyond which natural recruitment would not likely return that population to its former level within several generations. PR0P0SE0 ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 3,892 Acres Nonwi Iderness The primary concern under the Proposed Action is the protection of wilderness values. No other issues were identified for detailed analysis with regards to the WSA. Impacts on Wilderness Values The Proposed Action for the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA will not result in any of the 3,892 acres within the WSA being designated wilderness. None of the wilderness values will receive the special legislative protection provided by wilderness designation. - Naturalness Wildfire suppression activities and the prescribed burning of 340 acres every 5 to 10 years will have a moderate short-term negative impact to naturalness. This impact will not be caused by the fire itself, since fire is a part of the natural ecosystem, but by the use of mechanized equipment to construct firelines. This negative impact will be modified somewhat by formulating and implementing a fire management plan, which will address techniques for preserving the area's natural appearance and foster interagency communication and cooperation between CDF and BLM. A moderate negative impact to naturalness will result from the mining operation predicted to occur under the Proposed Action. Although this will be an underground operation, visible impacts will occur from construction of approximately 1 mile of access road and the disturbance of about 1 acre from development of the mine site and tailings disposal. The relocation of one apiary site to this WSA from the recommended- suitable Sawtooth Mountains B will have a minor negative impact to naturalness, due largely to the construction of a short access road and clearing of the site and a firebreak around the site. Sawtooth A 2B-19 Despite these minor or moderate negative impacts to naturalness, the area is expected to retain its overall natural character. All changes will remain subordinate in appearance to the natural landscape. A minor positive impact to naturalness will result from the decision not to construct any new firebreaks for wildfire control, and to allow the existing ones to return to nature. - Solitude The prescribed burns, mechanized wildfire suppression, the apiary site, and the mining operation will have minor negative impacts to solitude. Visitors are not likely to actually encounter more people as a result of these activities, but the perception of solitude will be slightly less because of the tangible evidence of human presence in the area. Despite these minor negative impacts, opportunities for solitude will remain good. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation The presence of the apiary site will have a minor negative impact to primitive recreation opportunities. The area within approxi- mately one-quarter-mile radius of the site will be unsuitable for recreation use. Overall recreation use levels will remain stable at under 50 visitor use days per year. - Special Features Cattle grazing will have minor negative impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep when they are reintroduced to the area. Domestic cattle will compete with sheep somewhat for water and forage, and also potentially transmit diseases to them. Mechanized fire suppression will have a negligible to very minor negative impact on bighorn sheep. Although firelines are sometimes used as trails by recreationists, causing increased human presence in bighorn sheep habitat, recreational access and use in this area are expected to remain stable at a very low level under the Proposed Action. In addition, the effect of channelling visitor use along firelines will be minimal, since cross-country hiking is feasible in this area of open vegetation. Prescribed burning will have both positive and negative impacts to the sheep, with the net effect of canceling each other for an overall neutral impact. While the burn will benefit the sheep by increasing the amount of forage, cattle will also be drawn to the area, increasing the intermingling of the two species and hence the potential for disease transmission. Sawtooth A 2B-20 Conclusion: Minor negative impacts to the wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation will result from the Proposed Action. The area's special features, Peninsular bighorn sheep (to be reintroduced), and Mount Laguna alumroot, will also be slightly negatively impacted. The biggest change will be a moderate impact to naturalness from a predicted mining operation. Mechanized fire suppression and presuppression activities will have a moderate, but short-term, negative impact to naturalness. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided The use of mechanized equipment in fire suppression will cause a short- term unavoidable adverse impact to naturalness and solitude, and a minor unavoidable adverse impact to Peninsular bighorn sheep. Mining explora- tion work will result in moderate negative impacts to naturalness, while relocation of one apiary site to the WSA will have a minor negative impact to naturalness. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-term Productivity If the WSA is not designated wilderness, the area has the potential for limited, small-scale mining exploration and development, an action which will reduce long-term productivity by removing small but irreplaceable quantities of mineral and soil resources. All other planned or predicted short-term uses are reversible, and will therefore have no effect on long-term productivity. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Mining activity, should it occur, will constitute an irreversible commit- ment. However, large-scale development is not anticipated now or in the foreseeable future. In the event mining does occur, it will result in the construction of 1 mile of access road and the disturbance of 1 acre at the mine site. Therefore, no significant irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources are anticipated. ALL WILOERNESS ALTERNATIVE 3,892 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness Impacts on Wilderness Values Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 3,892 acres of the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA would be recommended suitable for wilderness designation and all values would be protected by legislative mandate. Sawtooth A 2B-21 - Naturalness Although prescribed burning would take place at the same rate as under the Proposed Action, mechanized equipment would not be used. Cross-country vehicle travel would be permitted, but only in areas where the terrain and soil conditions could sustain it without damage to vegetative cover. This management activity would thus have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by allowing fire to reassume its natural role in the ecosystem without obvious signs of human control. Because all firelines would be hand-built, they could be blended into the natural landscape more easily than under the Proposed Action, and without the peripheral impacts caused by moving equipment to the site. Mechanized wildfire suppression would still occur, but only in situations threatening life or property. Mechanized wildfire suppression would therefore have only a negligible impact to naturalness. The decision not to construct any new firebreaks and to allow the existing ones to return to nature would have a minor positive impact to naturalness. As with the Proposed Action, the formulation and implementation of a fire management plan would have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by formalizing techniques for preserving natural appearances and fostering interagency cooperation. - Solitude Current opportunities for solitude would be maintained. Impacts would be negligible. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Current opportunities would be maintained. They would be neither enhanced nor constrained by this alternative. Use levels would remain stable at less than 50 visitor use days annually. - Special Features Cattle grazing would have a minor negative impact on Peninsular bighorn sheep when they are reintroduced, through competition for forage and water, and disease transmission. The impact of grazing on the bighorn sheep reintroduction program would be identical to that of the Proposed Action. Conclusion: The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long-term protection of the area's wilderness values. The sole negative impact would be to Peninsular bighorn sheep from cattle grazing, and this impact would be minor. Sawtooth A 2B-22 Sawtooth Mountains C WSA •vr- ■NWP*^'"1 Looking southward into the central portion of the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA from Canebrake Wash. Looking across private property in the community of Canebrake. The ridge in the background is in the eastern part of the WSA. SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WSA (CA-060-024C) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 2C-3 General Description of the Area 2C-3 Identification of Issues 2C-3 Selection of the Proposed Action and Development of Alternatives . 2C-8 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Further Analysis 2C-9 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2C-9 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2C-9 Recreation Management Actions 2C-9 Fire Management Actions 2C-10 Wildlife Management Actions 2C-10 Apiary Management Actions 2C-10 Grazing Management Actions 2C-1 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2C-1 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2C-1 Vegetation Management Actions 2C-1 Mineral Development Actions 2C-1 All Wilderness Alternative 2C-12 Recreation Management Actions 2C-12 Fire Management Actions 2C-12 Wildlife Management Actions 2C-12 Apiary Management Actions 2C-12 Grazing Management Actions 2C-12 Land Tenure Adjustment Management Actions 2C-12 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2C-13 Vegetation Management Actions 2C-13 Mineral Development Actions 2C-13 Summary of Significant Impacts 2C-13 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2C-13 Wilderness Values 2C-13 Naturalness 2C-13 Solitude 2C-15 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 2C-15 Special Features 2C-15 Recreation 2C-15 Visual Resources 2C-15 Land Ownership 2C-15 Cultural Resources 2C-16 Vegetation 2C-16 Wildlife 2C-17 Mineral and Energy Resources 2C-18 Livestock Grazing 2C-18 Soils and Watershed Resources 2C-18 Aquifer Use 2C-19 Sawtooth C 2C-1 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2C-19 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2C-20 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2C-20 Impacts on Preservation of Archaeological Resources and Native American Values 2C-21 Impacts on Archaeological Investigations 2C-22 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 2C-23 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 2C-23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 2C-23 All Wilderness Alternative 2C-23 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2C-23 Impacts on Preservation of Archaeological Resources and Native American Values 2C-24 Impacts on Archaeological Investigations 2C-25 MAP Sawtooth Mountains C WSA 2C-5 Sawtooth C 2C-2 SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WSA (CA-060-024C) INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA Sawtooth Mountains C Wilderness Study Area (Map 4) is a narrow, 2,509-acre strip of public land sandwiched between Canebrake Road on the north and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park on the south. County Highway S-2 passes within one-half mile of its northeast corner. The Upper portion of Canebrake Road separates Sawtooth Mountains C WSA from the much larger Sawtooth Mountains B WSA. This upper portion of the road separating the two WSAs is on public lands and has been closed to motor vehicles. The lower portion of the road is on private property, and provides access from Highway S-2 to residences in Canebrake Canyon. Protected by a locked gate, this private portion of the road is not available for use by the general public. The WSA is a north-facing, rocky slope furrowed by dry washes that broaden into alluvial valleys. The area is approximately 80 percent mountainside and 20 percent alluvial valley. A well -developed alluvial fan in the north-central portion of the WSA covers over 300 acres. Elevations range from 1,080 feet in the northeast corner to 3,400 feet in the southwest corner. Vegetation is almost exclusively desert scrub, although chaparral begins to appear at the higher elevations at the south end. A spring on private property in Canebrake Canyon provides that drainage on the WSA boundary with year-round flowing water, but there are no known water sources in the interior of the WSA. The rationale for making Sawtooth Mountains C a wilderness study area was that the State Park was studying the wilderness suitability of its contigu- ous land. This portion of the State Park has since been designated wilderness. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES For Sawtooth Mountains C WSA, the following issues were identified during the scoping process and selected for analysis in the EIS. - Impacts on Wilderness Values The existing wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, primitive recreation, and special resource characteristics could benefit from wilderness designation. The same values may be adversely affected by uses and actions that would occur should the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA not be designated wilderness. The significance of these bene- ficial or adverse impacts is an issue for analysis. Sawtooth C 2C-3 - Impacts on the Preservation of Archaeological Resources and Native American Values There are numerous archaeological sites found within this WSA, some of which contain Native American sensitivity because of their content. These cultural resources could be impacted by uses and actions that could occur should the WSA not be designated as wilder- ness. The significance of possible impacts on cultural resources contained within the Sawtooth C WSA is an issue considered for analysis in this EIS. - Impacts on Archaeological Investigations Wilderness designation would restrict certain cultural resource management actions. Archaeological inventory has revealed a rich and varied record of prehistoric use within the WSA. Sites include small temporary camps, milling stations (for seed grinding), pottery scatters, some rock art, and a multitude of earthen ovens or roast- ing pits. The research potential of these sites is great but the opportunity to examine this potential would be adversely affected by wilderness designation. The significance of these effects on archaeological investigations is an issue for analysis in the EIS. Additional issues were assessed to determine their significance for analysis in the EIS. However, upon further consideration they were not selected for detailed analysis. A brief discussion of each issue and the reason for dismissing it from analysis in the EIS follows. - Impacts on General Recreation Opportunities Current recreation use is light and consists of deer and upland game hunting, target shooting, rockhounding, hiking, and informal nature study. Wilderness designation or nondesignation would have little impact on these opportunities, because all are permissible in either a wilderness or nonwilderness setting. The WSA contains no motorized vehicle routes of travel; therefore wilderness desig- nation would not change the area's accessibility for recreation. - Impacts on the Amount of Apiary Use on Public Lands Although no apiary sites are found on the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA at this time, the WSA does contain an area suitable for relocation of two of six apiaries that would be displaced from the Sawtooth Mountains B WSA as a result of wilderness designation (Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement, Preliminary Wilderness Recommendations for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit, 1986). Because the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA could accommodate only two apiary sites, the potential impact to apiary use on the public lands is considered to be insignificant, and the issue was dropped from further analysis. Sawtooth C 2C-4 %i > > > > > 9 ) > J } A > A f /a * A A A / A A A A A A A A A A A A A ASA A > / / A A A A A 2' a a a a a M a akaa a a . A ksiAAiA a A A >V> aXaJ] si a aCas ■*• A A A A A A A A AV A A A / A A /-if A)? A A AS jf /\ A A A A A A A A A A sh A WjA A A A A A A A A AA AS Ay A A A (A Ap A {JWa A AS\A A/AAAAAAfAAA "-/■/ AAAAAASS , , / // , aa}a'aaa/a ■*}A A A ,, . ^, , , AA A A AA A*LA . . ',,,,,, A A A / A , , A r+miS A A A / /$,/,,, Ay,AAA A AA A A A A A -^> / • /^sy / , , CAV^A A As ?*+AA A A AA^Ai A$Ay / A A A A {A A A A A A S,, , , /, A A AAA AAA / , AAAA^SAAs. A A A A A A AA A / AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA /yAAAAAAAA aaaaaaaaa aaa a a a /\ss^. aaaaaaaaa. a, a a a a a a a a AaaaaaAaa ■a\a a , A" A A A A A / A A ASA71AAAAA A A A A A A f A A /A A A S A A A A AA/SA^SA A A A A A Ay A ■ A A A A AVVX^ A A A A A V ' A A A A A A / '/AAA, -■ < tP(- V A A A A A / / /^ / / ,/\ 73. ,+, i _t p-\ VAAAAA/^/yy,* L _'___■ -ZT-- ~Lrjrj~jr ~zybjzj-r~^ ^/'""aa7>aaa\-—_ j*—-. — tlt~ WZ ifcl _ dZ fr'''''AAAAAAAA^^J*ZX^ZS~-SZXZSZ r§ L__?^ \Y'''''AAAAAAAA\rzszsiszszjr^trL: 31 TT__ Yaaaaa,aaaaaa\\ 5 fZZ -L. | ZFl—Z *ftaLA4 ' ■ ■ r ■ ■ iy i - —TiOi, — J---*.-.*.- BSEHEg f °^ 1/2 1 Mile 3 MAP 4 SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WILDERNESS STUDY AREA Map 4 (Cont.) Sawtooth C 2C-6 - Impacts on Livestock Grazing Sawtooth Mountains C WSA is within the Canebrake Allotment. Two horizontal wells are planned for development, potentially within the WSA. The issue of livestock grazing was considered but dropped because BLM's wilderness management policy allows livestock grazing in wilderness areas at historic levels. - Impacts on Sensitive Plant Species Four sensitive plant species are found in the WSA area. They are ayenia (Ayenia compacta) . elephant tree (Bursera microphylla) . Cove's cassia (Cassia covesii) , and long-lobed four-o'clock (Mirabilis tenuiloba) . None of these are federally listed or candidates for listing. Sensitive plants were addressed as a concern, but dropped because management will not substantially differ in regards to these plants with or without wilderness. Only small-scale projects and management actions are anticipated under the No Wilderness/No Action Alternative. Because all of these relatively minor actions will be subject to thorough environmental analysis prior to project initiation, mitigation measures adequate to reduce impacts to insignificant levels can be developed. - Impacts on Fire Management Concerns were raised regarding the constraints wilderness designa- tion would have on fire suppression activities. This issue was considered but dropped from detailed analysis. Although BLM's wilderness management policy does impose certain restrictions on presuppression measures and techniques, much latitude is allowed so as not to significantly constrain effective fire management. - Impacts on Reintroduction of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Although Peninsular bighorn sheep do not presently occur in the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA, the WSA has been a historic habitat for the species. The Eastern San Diego County MFP calls for introducing a herd of 20 bighorn sheep into the adjacent Sawtooth Mountains B WSA in 1990. Some of these sheep are expected to migrate into or through the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA. Because wilderness designa- tion could restrict certain reintroduction activities such as use of vehicles for release of animals or installation of wildlife water sources, the impact of wilderness designation on the reintro- duction program was an issue for analysis in the EIS covering the Sawtooth Mountains B WSA. However, no releases of reintroduced animals or installation of water sources will occur within the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA. The impact of cattle grazing on the sheep reintroduction program is a management concern, but because grazing is a grandfathered activity in wilderness, only very minor differences are foreseen in range management practices between the All Wilderness and Proposed Action (no wilderness) alternatives. Any anticipated impacts to bighorn sheep from cattle grazing are therefore a grazing issue rather than a wilderness issue. Sawtooth C 2C-7 For these reasons, wilderness designation is expected to have no effect on the sheep reintroduction program in this WSA, and the issue is dropped from further consideration in this document. However, impacts to bighorn sheep from cattle grazing are discussed under the issue of Impacts on Wilderness Values. These impacts are expected to be virtually identical under the Proposed Action and All Wilderness Alternative. - Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species Wildlife and vegetation inventories and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not identify any threatened or endangered species in the WSA. Therefore, this issue was dropped from further consideration. See Appendix 1. - Impacts on Raptor Populations and Habitat An issue dealing with the raptors which are found throughout the area was considered but dropped from further analysis because no specific impacts on populations or their habitat were identified by the EIS team or the public. Based on the projection of development in the WSA under the Proposed Action and alternative, little or no change in raptor populations or habitat is anticipated. - Impacts on Mineral Development An issue dealing with the development of the area's mineral resources was considered but dropped from further analysis in the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA. The area has a low to moderate potential for the occurrence and development of gold, tungsten, manganese, and feldspar. No mining claims had been filed as of August 8, 1987. Oil and gas potential is very low and no oil and gas leases are in effect. Although hot springs are found 4 miles north of the WSA, the potential for geothermal development within the WSA is very low. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The following Proposed Action and alternative for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA were selected for analysis in this EIS. Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,509 Acres Nonwilderness The Proposed Action for Sawtooth Mountains C WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 2,509 acres will be designated wilderness. The entire area will continue to be managed for multiple-use as described on pages 2C-9 through 2C-11 in this document and the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit MFP. Sawtooth C 2C-8 The rationale for this proposal includes: (1) the wilderness values of the area are not considered outstanding, (2) current management has proven effective in maintaining the area's existing resources, and (3) management of the area as wilderness would be difficult because of the likelihood of intrusions from adjacent private lands. All Wilderness Alternative 2,509 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 2,509 acres would be designated wilderness. This alternative represents the maximum possible acreage that could be recommended for wilderness. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The small size, irregular shape, and dissected nature of the four blocks of public land that makes up the 2,509-acre Sawtooth Mountains C WSA did not offer opportunities to develop a partial wilderness alternative. All possible partial alternatives were found to lack sufficient size or manage- able configurations, after exclusion of unmanageable portions, to be realistically considered for wilderness. Therefore, no additional alterna- tives were developed for analysis in the EIS. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE Since the pattern of future actions within the WSA cannot be predicted with certainty, we have made projections of management actions to allow the analysis of impacts under the Proposed Action and alternative. These projections are the basis of the impacts identified in this EIS. They represent reasonably feasible patterns of activities which could occur under the Proposed Action and alternative analyzed assuming there is adequate funding. This document does not constitute a management plan. BLM is not necessarily committed to the management actions listed and is not restricted from implementing additional actions which are not listed. PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,509 Acres Nonwilderness None of the 2,509 acres of public land in the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA are recommended for wilderness designation. Under this proposal, the lands will be managed in accordance with the existing MFP. Recreation Management Actions No special recreation management actions are planned or envisioned for this area in the foreseeable future. Sawtooth C 2C-9 An extension of the Pepperwood Trail within the WSA was originally con- ceived in the 1979 McCain Valley Recreation Activity Management Plan, and again put forth in the 1986 EIS for Preliminary Wilderness Recommendations for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. This trail was to have extended through the WSA and into Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to the North Fork of Indian Gorge. However, plans for that portion of the trail within the Sawtooth C WSA and the park have been cancelled, due to State Park opposition to the proposal. The State Park rationale is that the desert is well suited to cross-country hiking and that trails are unneces- sary. BLM will proceed with the portion of the Pepperwood Trail linking McCain Valley to Canebrake Wash, but that trail will not enter the Sawtooth C WSA. Fire Management Actions Fire suppression will be practiced in the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA until a resource area fire management plan is completed. It is anticipated that this plan will allow the use of mechanized equipment. Existing routes will be used as firebreaks, but will not be maintained. No new firebreaks will be constructed. No presuppression activities, including prescribed burning, will be allowed until the fire management plan is completed. Following completion of the plan, approximately 500 acres will be burned every 5 to 10 years to establish fuel hazard reduction cells. Presuppres- sion burns will be limited to 30 to 50 acres to minimize any possibility of erosion and will utilize mechanized fire-fighting equipment. Preference will be given to the least disturbing suppression methods. Based on past experience, mechanized construction of approximately one-half mile of fire suppression line is anticipated per decade. Wildlife Management Actions The area is included in the bighorn sheep reintroduction area. Active reintroduction efforts (water source development, release sites) are not likely to occur; although sheep are expected to disperse into the WSA from release sites elsewhere. Apiary Management Actions Under the Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action), two apiary sites may be relocated to sites within the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA following desig- nation of the Sawtooth B WSA as wilderness. Owing to the terrain the apiary sites will be restricted to Sections 7 and 8 of T. 15 S., R. 7 E., SBM. The permittee will be required to maintain a firebreak not less than 30 feet nor more than 40 feet wide around the apiary sites during periods of occupancy. The 10-foot-wide area closest to the apiary will be cleared to mineral soil. Within the next 20-foot -wide area, all vegetation will be trimmed to a height not greater than 6 inches above the ground. New or improved access will be required. The site must be located a minimum of 100 feet from the exterior boundary of a road traveled by the public. Therefore, the new road must be at least 100 feet long, and will be limited to 500 feet. The width will be no greater than 10 feet. Sawtooth C 2C-10 Grazing Management Actions Sawtooth Mountains C WSA comprises a portion of the Canebrake Allotment. The allotment currently runs 6 cattle yearlong for 72 AUMs within the WSA. Canebrake Allotment could potentially increase to 121 AUMs. No range improvements currently exist within the WSA boundaries. However, one horizontal well has been proposed for the allotment. This well will be located in the NW7* Section 17, T. 15 S., R. 7 E., SBM. A truck-mounted drilling rig will be utilized. Approximately 1 mile of new road construc- tion will be required for access. Approximately one-half mile of pipeline will be laid along the access road from the well to a trough in the SW'/» Section 8, T. 15 S., R. 7 E., SBM. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions No actions are planned. Cultural Resource Management Actions Archaeological sites will be included along with a potential National Register of Historic Places Discontiguous District when it is prepared for the larger area of Canebrake Canyon and Inner Pasture in the mid-1990's. A minimum of five archaeological sites will be monitored as an indication of use patterns for the larger area on a semiannual basis. All 2,509 acres of the WSA will be available for archaeological research excavations. Approximately two research excavations affecting a total of approximately 5,000 square feet are expected over the next 10 to 15 years. Vegetation Management Actions Once a fire management plan is completed, prescribed burns may be conducted in conjunction with the grazing and wildlife management programs (see Fire Management Actions). Mechanized equipment will be used to establish control lines. Prior to these burns, a sensitive plant inventory will be conducted to identify the location of sensitive plants and their habitat in order to monitor the effects of fire. Mineral Development Actions This alternative will return all 2,509 acres of land to multiple-use management. Prospecting and exploration will be allowed. One small mine will be developed in the mid-1990's in the south half of Section 7. Access is available but one-quarter mile of new road will be necessary to reach the mineralized zone. Total surface disturbance will be less than 2 acres. The development potential is low elsewhere within the area. Oil and gas potential is low. Although there are hot springs and tufa 4 miles to the north of the area, the potential for geothermal resource development is low. Mineral materials are relatively scarce and of poor quality. There are no leasable minerals known in this area. Sawtooth C 2C-11 ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 2,509 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwi lderness All 2,509 acres of public land in the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA would be recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. Recreation Management Actions No special recreation management actions are planned for this area in the foreseeable future. Fire Management Actions Under this proposal, a fire management plan would be written for the WSA. It would become an addendum to the Wilderness Management Plan. Cross- country vehicle travel would be permitted but only when the terrain and soil conditions would permit such travel without damage to vegetative cover and only with the approval of the District Manager. Fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft and ground crews would be used for fire control. Heavy equipment such as tracked vehicles and dozers would not be permitted except to prevent loss of human life or to protect private of high-value property. No firebreaks would be constructed. Approximately 500 acres of the WSA would be burned every 5 to 10 years to establish fuel hazard reduction cells. These presuppression burns would be limited to 30 to 50 acres to minimize any possibility of erosion. Preference would be given to the least disturbing suppression methods. Wildlife Management Actions Wildlife management actions would be identical to those of the Proposed Action. Apiary Management Actions Under the All Wilderness Alternative, no apiary sites would be established within the WSA. Grazing Management Actions Grazing management actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action, except that a truck-mounted drilling rig would be utilized and a permanent road would not be constructed to the well site. A four- wheel -drive truck would occasionally be driven cross-country to the well site, pipeline, and trough for maintenance purposes. Land Tenure Adjustment Actions As is the case with the Proposed Action, no land tenure adjustment actions are planned. Sawtooth C 2C-12 Cultural Resource Management Actions Archaeological sites would be included with a potential National Register of Historic Places Discontiguous District when it is prepared for the larger area of Canebrake Canyon and Inner Pasture in the mid-1990's. Site monitoring would take place on a semiannual basis at a minimum of five sites. Archaeological data recovery or excavation would be performed as needed to preserve significant sites from erosion or to mitigate impacts caused by visitor site vandalism. No purely research projects or excavations would be permitted. Vegetation Management Actions Actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action, except that the use of motorized equipment would be limited to situations where terrain and soil conditions would permit such use without damage to vegetation (see Fire Management Actions). Mineral Development Actions This alternative would withdraw 2,509 acres of land from all mineral entry. As of April 8, 1987, there were no mining claims in this area. Although there is no mineral interest in the area, the mineral potential is low to moderate. No development would occur. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The major impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table 5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section briefly describes the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA and the resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and alternative. More detailed descriptions of the resources in the study area and the regional socioeconomic conditions may be found in the planning documents for the area. Copies of these documents may be reviewed in the California Desert District and the El Centro Resource Area Office. WILDERNESS VALUES Naturalness The Sawtooth Mountains C WSA appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature; there is almost no evidence of human activity in the WSA's interior. On the south the WSA borders the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Wilderness. The north WSA boundary coincides with Canebrake Canyon, which contains an improved dirt road and private property with numerous recreation residences. Sawtooth C 2C-13 TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS C WSA IMPACT TOPICS PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE Impacts on Wilderness Values Impacts on Preser- vation of Archaeo- logical Resources/ Native American Values Impacts on Archaeo- logical Investiga- tions Minor negative impacts to wilderness values will result from mining and apiary site relocation. The area's special features, Peninsular bighorn sheep (to be reintroduced) and archae- ological resources, will experience minor negative impacts from the above activities, and also from fire suppres- sion and presuppression. Greatest impacts will occur from range manage- ment actions, which will have a moder- ate negative effect on both naturalness and Peninsular bighorn sheep reintro- duce" on. Moderate negative impacts to archae- ological sites are possible from mechanized fire suppression. Minor negative impacts are anticipated from a wide range of activities including prescribed burns, apiary activity, grazing development, and mineral development. Minor positive impacts will occur from development of a fire management plan, National Register nomination and monitoring. Research excavations will add to our knowledge and constitute a minor positive impact to the preservation of cultural resources. There will be minor positive impacts to archaeological investigations since activities permitted under this action allow for a wide range of uses. Any action will, of course, require pre- paration of suitable environmental documentation, including archaeological investigations. Moderate negative impacts will occur from mechanized fire suppression activities. Moderate posi- tive impacts will result from avail- ability of the area for pure archae- ological research. The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long-term protection of area's wild- erness values. Range man- agement actions would have a very minor negative effect on naturalness, solitude, and preservation of archaeological resources, and a moderate negative im- pact on bighorn sheep rein- troduce on. This alternative would have an overall minor positive impact upon the preserva- tion of cultural resources since many action are pre- cluded. Minor negative impacts are possible from limited fire suppression and range management activ- ities. Minor negative impacts are anticipated from limited fire suppression activities and elimination of apiary sites and research excava- tions. Minor positive im- pacts are envisioned from the fire management plan prescribed burn, grazing projects, National Register nomination, and the moni- toring program. A moderate negative impact is antici- pated from the prohibition of pure archaeological research. Sawtooth C 2C-14 Solitude Although the area is small, opportunities for solitude are good because of extremely low visitation. The best opportunities for solitude are found in the southwest portion of the unit. This is the widest portion of the WSA, farthest from the developed private property in Canebrake Canyon, and containing the most topographic relief. Primitive or Unconfined Recreation On its own, this area is too small to provide much opportunity for primi- tive recreation. However, when considered with the adjacent State Park land to the south and BLM's Sawtooth Mountains B WSA across Canebrake Road to the north, the area offers good opportunities for hiking, backpacking, and general nature study. Opportunities are fair for upland game and mule deer hunting. Special Features The WSA is within an area targeted for reintroduction of Peninsular bighorn sheep, although no active management efforts are anticipated inside the WSA. RECREATION Current recreation use is estimated at less than 50 visitor use days annually. Principal activities are camping, mule deer and upland game hunting, and hiking. Use levels are extremely low because vehicles must cross private property protected by locked gates to gain access to the lower portion of the WSA. VISUAL RESOURCES The scenic quality of the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA has been rated as good (Class B). Most of the area has been assigned to VRM Class III, except for about 350 acres in the northeast corner which is Class II. However, as with all WSAs, the entire area is being treated as Class II during interim management. VRM Class II guidelines specify that changes caused by management activities should not be evident, while in Class III changes may be evident, although they must remain subordinate to the natural landscape. LAND OWNERSHIP The Sawtooth Mountains C WSA is composed entirely of public land and contains 2,509 acres. Private lands and the Canebrake Wash Road constitute the northwest boundary of the unit. The remaining boundaries are defined by Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. There is no legal access for motorized vehicles. Sawtooth C 2C-15 The Master Title Plat (MTP) shows a right-of-way (R-1285) for a pipeline within Lot 46, in Section 3 of T. 15 S., R. 7 E., SBM. The right-of-way holder of record is the Canebrake County Water District. CULTURAL RESOURCES There are over two dozen archaeological sites recorded within the WSA. Formal studies (Morin and Hedges 1974; Cook and Fulmer 1980) have reported small temporary camps, seed grinding stations, some pictographs, and a multitude of earthen ovens known as roasting pits. Cook and Fulmer (1980) conducted a statistically valid Class II inventory for BLM in the larger arena of eastern San Diego County. They provide a statistical estimate of 52 sites per square mile, although this number is inflated because of the ubiquitous roasting pit. Nevertheless, the importance that this area played to aboriginal Americans is clear. Additional archaeological properties are undoubtedly present. The two inventory efforts have not been exhaustive. The environment today suggests that it would have been conducive for Native American use in the past. The combination of mountain-fed creeks (in prehistoric times) and diverse desert plant communities offered opportunities for sustenance. Plant foods of importance include agave, desert apricot, mesquite, jojoba, yucca and a variety of cacti. The area, in short, holds a high sensitivity for encountering archaeological resources. Archaeological properties within the WSA are clearly eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as part of a larger discontig- uous district. The archaeological record represents a coherent response by Native populations to their natural environment. The research potential of sites within the WSA in a regional context is great. Native American values largely remain unknown. The Kumeyaay Indians occu- pied the area during ethnographic times. The presence of rock art within the WSA is noteworthy and is linked to shamanic activity. Their presence increases the sensitivity of the area. Cremations and other ceremonial features are quite possibly found here, although none have actually been documented within the WSA. VEGETATION Desert wash is the primary plant community in Sawtooth Mountains C WSA. The major components of this community include cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola). cholla (Opuntia spp.), and brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) . There are four sensitive plant species found within the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA area (Table 6). None of these are candidates for Federal listing or considered sensitive by the BLM. Sawtooth C 2C-16 TABLE 6. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FWS BLM Plant Name Candidate Species Sensitive Species CNPS Code^ Avenia compacta — — 2-2-1-1 Bursera microphylla — — 2-2-1-1 Cassia covesii — — 2-2-1-1 Mirabilus tenuiloba — — 2-1-1-1 Hhe CNPS codes are explained in Appendix 2. WILDLIFE Threatened or Endangered Species The San Diego Coast horned lizard, a candidate for Federal listing by USFWS, occurs in the WSA. It is found on granitic outcrops. The spotted bat, also a candidate for Federal listing, is suspected to occur in the WSA. Historic habitat for the State-listed Threatened and Federal candidate Peninsular bighorn sheep occurs in the WSA. Although this species does not presently occur in the area, BLM and CDFG have defined the objective of reintroducing Peninsular bighorn into the WSA. Fully Protected Species (California Department of Fish and Game) Several raptor species occur within the WSA, including great horned owls, screech owls, red-tailed hawks, and others (see below). Habitat for the ringtail cat also exists here. Sensitive and Special Concern Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the loggerhead shrike sensi- tive in Region I. The willow flycatcher is also a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sensitive species and is a species of special concern to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The former occurs year- long in the WSA, while the latter is a summer resident. The prairie falcon, golden eagle, and Cooper's hawk, also species of special concern to CDFG, occur within the WSA. Sawtooth C 2C-17 Game Species The WSA provides habitat for the mule deer and a variety of upland game, including quail, mourning dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, and desert cottontail. Mule deer densities are estimated to be 1-3 per square mile. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES This WSA has a combination of the leucocratic granite of the Sawtooth Mountains and the granodiorite, monzonite of the Tierra Blanca Mountains. Outlines of both ranges exist in this WSA bordering the broad alluvium- covered valley created by combining drainages. The lack of sufficient weathering in the watershed area indicates a poor prospect for placer mining. The outlying segments of the mountain ranges within this WSA contain many faults and intrusive bodies. Only one old prospect was noted in the northeast section. This prospect was very small and indicated no mineralization along a contact zone. The southwestern section has many extensive intrusive bodies of quartz and aplite. These intrusives are prospectively high potential areas for the occurrence of precious metals and aplite-associated pneumatolytic minerals of gaseous origin such as tourmaline, topaz, fluorite, wolframite, greisens, manganese scheelite, beryllium, and lithium. Prospecting and development are difficult endeavors due to the rugged and bouldery terrain. LIVESTOCK GRAZING Sawtooth Mountains C WSA is part of the Canebrake Allotment. The range condition of the allotment within the WSA is considered poor. This portion of the allotment is assessed for 72 AUMs (6 cattle grazed yearlong). With improvement of range conditions, forage allocation could potentially increase to 140 AUMs. No range improvements currently exist in this WSA. One horizontal well will be installed by 1992. SOILS AND WATERSHED RESOURCES In 1973 a soil survey for this area was completed. The soils in this area are primarily of the Carrizo and Rositas series. This WSA is characterized by a wide desert wash, bordered by steep rocky mountains. The unit is within the Orif lamme-Borrego Springs watershed. The Canebrake drains into Canebrake Wash before it joint Vallecitos Creek. Water then runs into Carrizo Wash and into San Felipe Creek. Erosion hazards are generally low in the wash, but may be high in the mountainous areas. Sawtooth C 2C-18 AQUIFER USE The Canebrake alluvial aquifer is found along the northern margin of the WSA. No information is available for water depth within this aquifer, although several small springs and seeps are found along the base of the mountains at the edge of the alluvial valleys. The springs and seeps within this WSA are the result of fault zones. Flow is minor and does not exceed 1 gallon/minute at any one spring or seep. A major spring is located just outside the WSA boundary in NE'A Section 4, T. 15 S., R. 7 E., SBM. A waterline owned by the Canebrake County Water District passes through a small portion of the WSA as it carries water from this spring to the community of Canebrake. Flow data on the spring are unavailable, but it is adequate to meet the needs of a community of approximately 100 persons. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section focuses directly on the issues identified through the scoping process. The environmental impacts of each alternative are described issue by issue. The environmental impacts of these alternatives on the area's other resources have also been analyzed and have been found to be insignificant. Because of the general nature of this analysis and the lack of numerical and statistical information regarding the area's resources, impacts in this section are often expressed in relative terms. For the purpose of this analysis the meanings of these terms are as follows: - Negligible or slight impact - the degree of anticipated environ- mental impact is considered less than minor. - Minor impact - comparatively unimportant; in terms of the area's wildlife resources, a minor impact is one affecting a specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for one generation or less; the integrity of the regional population is not likely to be affected. - Moderate impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a change in the abundance of a resource or its distribution. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of a portion of the regional or local population would change over more than one generation, but would not affect the integrity of the regional population as a whole. - Major impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a decline in the abundance of a resource or a change in distribution of a resource. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of the regional or local population of a species would decline beyond which natural recruitment would not likely return that population to its former level within several generations. Sawtooth C 2C-19 PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 2,509 Acres Nonwilderness Impacts on Wilderness Values The Proposed Action for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA will not result in any of the 2,509 acres within the WSA being designated wilderness. None of the wilderness values will receive the special legislative protection provided by wilderness designation. - Naturalness Wildfire suppression activities and the prescribed burning of 500 acres every 5 to 10 years will have a moderate short-term negative impact to naturalness. This impact will not be caused by the fire itself, since fire is a part of the natural ecosystem, but by the use of mechanized equipment to construct firelines. This negative impact will be modified somewhat by formulating and implementing a fire management plan, which will address techniques for preserving the area's natural appearance and foster interagency communication and cooperation between CDF and BLM. A minor negative impact to naturalness will result from the mining operation predicted to occur under the Proposed Action. Although this will be an underground operation, visible impacts will occur from construction of approximately one-quarter mile of access road and the disturbance of less than 2 acres for development of the mine site and tailings disposal. The relocation of two apiary sites to this WSA from the recommended- suitable Sawtooth Mountains B will have a minor negative impact to naturalness, due largely to the construction of short access roads and clearing of the sites and associated firebreaks. The development of a horizontal well to provide water for domestic cattle will have a moderate negative impact to naturalness, since approximately three-quarters of a mile of road will be built to allow the truck-mounted drilling rig to reach the site. This road will become a permanent improvement, to be used after initial development to service and maintain the pipeline and trough which will be installed along it. - Solitude Occasional mechanized fire suppression, prescribed burns, installa- tion of two apiary sites, horizontal well development, and the mining operation will have minor negative impacts to solitude. Visitors are not likely to actually encounter more people as a result of these activities, but the perception of solitude will be slightly less because of the tangible evidence of human presence in the area. Overall, opportunities for solitude will remain good. Sawtooth C 2C-20 - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation The relocation of two apiary sites to this WSA will have a minor negative impact to primitive recreation opportunities. An area within approximately one-quarter-mile radius of each site will be unsuitable for recreation. Use levels are expected to remain stable at less than 50 visitor use days per year. - Special Features Cattle grazing will have a moderate negative impact to Peninsular bighorn sheep when they are reintroduced, through competition for forage and water, and potential disease transmission. Mechanized fire suppression will have a negligible to very minor negative impact on bighorn sheep. Although firelines are sometimes used as trails by recreationists, causing increased human presence in bighorn sheep habitat, recreational access and use in this area are expected to remain stable at a very low level under the Proposed Action. In addition, the effect of channelling visitor use along firelines will be minimal, since cross-country hiking is feasible in this area of open vegetation. The mining operation is located in an area likely to be frequented by the sheep, and will also have a minor negative impact associated with increased human/sheep contact. Conclusion: Minor negative impacts to wilderness values will result from mining and apiary site relocation. The area's special features, Peninsular bighorn sheep (to be reintroduced), and archaeological resources, will experience minor negative impacts from the above activities, and also from fire suppression and presuppression. Greatest impacts will occur from range management actions, which will have a moderate negative effect on both naturalness and Peninsular bighorn sheep reintroduction. Impacts on the Preservation of Archaeological Resources and Native American Values Mechanized fire suppression activities will have a moderate adverse impact on archaeological sites since they will be disturbed by cross-country vehicle travel and line construction. Mineral exploration will have a minor negative impact since roads and pits will be established. The impacts will be limited to a minor level because all mining plans of operation are subject to an environmental assessment and appropriate mitigation or site avoidance measures. Minor negative impacts are anticipated from development of a grazing well, establishment of an apiary site, and placement of fire lines for prescribed burns since short roads will, in essence, be established for each activity. As in the case of mining operations, these actions will be implemented only after completion of appropriate environmental assessment and mitiga- tion procedures. Sawtooth C 2C-21 Minor positive impacts are anticipated from preparation of a fire manage- ment plan and installation of monitoring stations. The fire plan will alert those agencies responsible for fire suppression that sensitive values are present within Sawtooth Mountains C WSA. Monitoring alters management of the condition and trend of cultural resources. Designation of a National Register of Historic Places Archaeological District and completion of research excavations will result in a minor to moderate positive impact since knowledge of resource values will increase. Conclusion: Moderate negative impacts to archaeological sites are possible from mechanized fire suppression. Minor negative impacts are anticipated from a wide range of activities including prescribed burns, apiary activity, grazing development, and mineral development. Minor positive impacts will occur from development of a fire management plan, National Register nomination and monitoring. Research excava- tions will add to our knowledge and constitute a minor positive impact to the preservation of cultural resources. Impacts on Archaeological Investigations Mechanized fire suppression will constitute a moderate negative impact since archaeological sites could be destroyed by such activities. All other activities will have a minor positive impact since any project will necessitate preparation of an environmental assessment. Prescribed burn lines, roads for mineral exploration, grazing projects and apiary develop- ment will require archaeological input and stimulate archaeological research. Minor positive impacts are also expected from preparation of a fire manage- ment plan and National Register nomination since they raise the visibility of the area. Monitoring of archaeological sites is useful to track the area's archaeological condition and can be used to identify data recovery needs. Finally, under the Proposed Action, pure archaeological research will be allowed. The two excavations anticipated will result in a moderate posi- tive impact to archaeological knowledge of the area. Conclusion: There will be minor positive impacts to archaeological investigations since activities permitted under this action allow for a wide range of uses. Any action will, of course, require preparation of suitable environmental documentation, including archaeological investigations. Moderate negative impacts will occur from mechanized fire suppression activities. Moderate positive impacts will result from the avail- ability of the area for pure archaeological research. Sawtooth C 2C-22 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided The use of mechanized equipment in fire suppression will cause a moderate unavoidable adverse impact to archaeological resources and archaeological investigations, and a very minor unavoidable adverse impact to bighorn sheep. This activity would also cause an unavoidable, though short-term, impact to naturalness and solitude. Establishment of two apiary sites, installation of a horizontal well, pipeline, and cattle trough (and associated access road), and one exploratory mining operation will cause minor adverse impacts to wilderness values and archaeological resources. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-term Productivity If the WSA is not designated wilderness, the area has the potential for limited, small-scale mining exploration and development, an action which will reduce long-term productivity by removing small but irreplaceable quantities of mineral and soil resources. All other planned or predicted short-term uses are reversible, and will therefore have no effect on long-term productivity. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Mining activity, should it occur, will constitute an irreversible commit- ment of mineral resources. However, large-scale development is not anticipated now or in the foreseeable future. In the event mining does occur, an estimated 2 acres or less will be disturbed for the mine site, plus one-quarter mile of access road will be constructed. Therefore, it will not constitute a significant commitment of resources. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 2,509 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness Impacts on Wilderness Values Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 2,509 acres of the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA would be recommended suitable for wilderness designation and all values would be protected by legislative mandate. - Naturalness Although prescribed burning would take place at the same rate as under the Proposed Action, heavy equipment would not be used. Cross-country vehicle travel would be permitted where necessary to accomplish the burns, but only in areas where the terrain and soil conditions could sustain it without damage to vegetative cover. This management activity would thus have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by allowing fire to reassume its natural role in the ecosystem without obvious signs of human control. Because all Sawtooth C 2C-23 firelines would be hand-built, they could be blended into the natural landscape more easily than under the Proposed Action, and without the peripheral impacts caused by moving equipment to the site. Mechanized wildfire suppression would still occur, but only in situations threatening life or property. Mechanized wildfire suppression would therefore have only a negligible impact to naturalness. As with the Proposed Action, the formulation and implementation of a fire management plan would have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by formalizing techniques for preserving natural appearances and fostering interagency cooperation. The installation of the horizontal well, pipeline, and trough would have a minor negative impact to naturalness. This is the same well and pipeline planned for the Proposed Action, except under this All Wilderness Alternative no access road would be built. - Solitude The horizontal well, pipeline, and trough would have a minor negative impact to solitude. Visitors are not likely to encounter more people as a result of this management action, but the percep- tion of solitude will be slightly less because of the tangible evidence of human presence in the area. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Current opportunities would be maintained. They would be neither enhanced nor constrained by this alternative. Visitor use would remain stable at less than 50 visitor use days per year. - Special Features Cattle grazing would have a moderate negative impact on Peninsular bighorn sheep when they are reintroduced, through competition for forage and water, and disease transmission. Conclusion: The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long- term protection of the area's wilderness values. Range management actions would have a very minor negative effect on naturalness, solitude, and preservation of archaeological resources, and a moderate negative impact on bighorn sheep reintroduction. Impacts on the Preservation of Archaeological Resources and Native American Values Minor negative impacts are expected from limited fire suppression and grazing development since there would be no roads, but only slight surface disturbances. Precluding apiary sites would eliminate the need for a new Sawtooth C 2C-24 road and, thus, eliminate the minor impacts anticipated under the Proposed Action. The fire management plan and archaeological monitoring program would also be slightly positive since they would bring management attention to the area. Prohibiting mining eliminates any impacts from this source. Finally, preparation of a National Register nomination constitutes a moderate positive impact since this act makes the Bureau more aware of the area's significance, and ensures that archaeological resources will receive a high level of consideration in resource management. Conclusion: This alternative would have an overall minor positive impact upon the preservation of cultural resources since many actions are precluded. Minor negative impacts are possible from limited fire suppression and range management activities. Impacts on Archaeological Investigations Minor positive impacts are anticipated from prescribed burn activities and grazing developments since small inventories would be necessary. The National Register nomination, monitoring stations, and fire management plan would also constitute minor positive impacts since these actions ensure that the Bureau will be aware of the significance of archaeological resources in the area. Only minor negative impacts are expected from limited fire suppression activities since free wheeling fire-fighting activities would be limited. Precluding apiary sites would eliminate a small quantity of inventory which translates into a minor negative impact. A moderate negative impact is expected due to the policy which precludes research excavations in designated wilderness areas. It is anticipated that this policy will preclude two research excavations affecting an area of approximately 5,000 square feet over the next 10 to 15 years. Conclusion: Minor negative impacts are anticipated from limited fire suppression activities and elimination of apiary sites and research excavations. Minor positive impacts are envisioned from the fire management plan, prescribed burn, grazing projects, National Register nomination, and the monitoring program. A moderate negative impact is anticipated from the prohibition of pure archaeological research. Sawtooth C 2C-25 Table Mountain WSA ?.rVr.7n Vlhce.lS0.Ufthteha.St«nU.POrt10n °' "' ""' Sh°Win9 the b°U,der Strew" BSEA*!2*! a' Looking into the Table Mountain WSA from the west. Most of the flat area in the foreground is outside the WSA. TABLE MOUNTAIN WSA (CA-060-026) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 20-3 General Description of the Area 2D-3 Identification of Issues 2D-3 Selection of the Proposed Action and Development of Alternatives . 2D-7 Alternatives Considered But Dropped From Further Analysis 2D-8 THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 2D-8 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2D-9 Recreation Management Actions 2D-9 Fire Management Actions 2D-9 Wildlife Management Actions 2D-9 Grazing Management Actions 2D-9 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2D-9 Vegetation Management Actions 2D-10 Mineral Development Actions 2D-10 All Wilderness Alternative 2D-10 Recreation Management Actions 2D-10 Fire Management Actions 2D-10 Wildlife Management Actions 2D-10 Grazing Management Actions 2D-1 Cultural Resource Management Actions 2D-1 Vegetation Management Actions 2D-1 Mineral Development Actions 2D-1 Summary of Significant Impacts 2D-1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2D-13 Wilderness Values 2D-13 Naturalness 2D-13 Solitude 2D-13 Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 2D-13 Special Features 2D-13 Recreation 2D-14 Visual Resources 2D-14 Land Ownership 2D-14 Cultural Resources 2D-14 Vegetation 2D-14 Wildlife 2D-16 Mineral and Energy Resources 20-16 Livestock Grazing 2D-17 Soils and Watershed Resources 2D-17 Aquifer Use 2D-17 Table Mountain 20-1 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2D-17 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 2D-18 Impacts on Wilderness Values 20-18 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided 20-20 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 20-20 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 2D-20 All Wilderness Alternative 2D-20 Impacts on Wilderness Values 2D-20 MAP Table Mountain WSA 2D-5 Table Mountain 2D-2 TABLE MOUNTAIN WSA (CA-060-026) INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The 958-acre Table Mountain Wilderness Study Area (Map 5) consists of the southern tip of a generally north-south trending ridge of the Jacumba Mountains. The southern end of the WSA contains both east- and west-facing slopes of the ridge and the rolling land to either side. Moving north, the WSA boundary follows the section line, bisecting the ridge so that only the east-facing slope is included in the northern third of the area. Table Mountain, the feature after which the WSA is named, is actually one and a half miles south of the WSA. Located in the transition zone between semi-succulent desert scrub and chaparral, elevations in the WSA range from 2,880 to 4,224 feet. The extremely rocky terrain exhibits the large, rounded granite boulders characteristic of the region. About 3 miles of primitive dirt road provide motorized access to the WSA boundary from Old Highway 80 to the south. The road is marginally negotiable by two-wheel drive vehicle most of the time. The rationale for establishing Table Mountain as a wilderness study area was that Anza-Borrego Desert State Park was evaluating the wilderness potential of its contiguous land, which borders the WSA on two sides. The State Park land is now designated wilderness. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES For Table Mountain WSA, the following issue was identified during the scoping process and selected for analysis in the EIS. - Impacts on Wilderness Values The existing wilderness values of naturalness, solitude, primitive recreation, and special resource characteristics could benefit from wilderness designation. The same values may be adversely affected by uses and actions that would occur should the Table Mountain WSA not be designated wilderness. The significance of these beneficial or adverse impacts is an issue for analysis. Additional issues were assessed to determine their significance for analysis in the EIS. However, upon further consideration they were not selected for detailed analysis. A brief discussion of each issue and the reason for dismissing it from analysis in the EIS follows. Table Mountain 2D-3 - Impacts on Cultural Resources This issue was considered but dropped from further analysis. There are no known archaeological sites or Native American values within the WSA. There have been no actual inventories for either resource but the environmental circumstances (steep, rugged terrain) are markedly different from the adjacent Table Mountain ACEC. The ACEC, which is for the most part situated in flat to gently rolling terrain, contains significant cultural resource sites and has special meaning for Native Americans. However, the potential for discovering either resources within the WSA is quite low. - Impacts on Wind Energy Development There has been past interest in wind energy development in the Table Mountain area. An Environmental Assessment for the Table Mountain Wind Energy Study Area was prepared by BLM in 1984. It was determined that no development would occur north of Interstate Highway 8 (including the WSA) because of impacts to cultural and visual resources. Although lands south and west of the WSA do have wind energy development potential, the WSA itself has much less potential. Most of the WSA is situated on an east-facing slope, and the prevailing winds in the area are westerlies. Only a small area on the crest of the ridge has potential for development, but access to the site across steep rugged terrain would be very difficult. - Impacts on Communications Site Development The WSA has potential for development of radio communications relay facilities. A number of microwave stations and repeater stations are located on the ridge a short distance south of the WSA. However, the ridge within the WSA is significantly steeper and more rugged than the ridge to the south. Because access to favorable communications site locations is extremely difficult, development potential is considered low. - Impacts on Livestock Grazing Table Mountain WSA is located within the McCain Valley Allotment. The area has not been grazed by livestock for about 10 years due to cattle trespass problems onto adjacent State Parks land. This issue was considered, but not analyzed in detail because livestock grazing, under the BLM wilderness management policy, may continue at historic use levels. - Impacts on Sensitive Plant Species Table Mountain area is a unique area providing habitat for several sensitive and endemic plant species. Four Federal candidate species, Jacumba milkvetch (Astragalus douglasii var. perstrictus) . low bush monkeyf lower (Diplacus aridus) . Mountain Springs bush Table Mountain 2D-4 MAP 5 TABLE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA Map 5 (Cont.) Table Mountain ZD-b lupine (Lupinus excubitus var. medius) . and pholisma (Pholisma arenarium) , are among the sensitive species located in the area. Sensitive plant species will not be considered for further analysis because current and projected management for the area is not expected to result in the increased disturbance of habitat of these plant species. - Impacts on Fire Management Concerns were raised regarding the constraints wilderness designa- tion would have on fire suppression activities. This issue was considered but dropped from detailed analysis. Although BLM's wilderness management policy does impose certain restrictions on presuppression measures and techniques, much latitude is allowed so as not to significantly constrain effective fire management. - Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species Wildlife and vegetation inventories and informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not identify any threatened or endangered species in the WSA. Therefore, this issue was dropped from further consideration. Also see Appendix 1. - Impacts on Raptor Populations and Habitat An issue dealing with the raptors which are found throughout the area was considered but dropped from further analysis because no specific impacts on populations or their habitat were identified by the EIS team or the public. Based on the projection of development in the WSA under the Proposed Action and alternative, little or no change in raptor populations or habitat is anticipated. - Impacts on Mineral Development An issue dealing with the development of the area's mineral resources was considered but dropped from further analysis in the Table Mountain WSA. The area has a low to moderate potential for the occurrence of limestone, and development potential is low. No mining claims had been filed within the WSA as of August 8, 1987. Potential for the occurrence of oil and gas or geothermal resources is also considered to be low. SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The following Proposed Action and alternative for the Table Mountain WSA were selected for analysis in this EIS. Table Mountain 2D-7 Proposed Action (No Wilderness/No Action) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 958 Acres Nonwi lderness The Proposed Action for Table Mountain WSA is No Wilderness/No Action. Under this proposal none of the 958 acres will be designated wilderness. The entire area will continue to be managed for multiple-use as described on pages 2D-8 through 2D-10 in this document and the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit MFP. The rationale for this proposal includes: (1) the wilderness values of the area are not considered outstanding, and (2) current management has proven effective in maintaining the area's existing resources. All Wilderness Alternative 958 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwi lderness Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 958 acres would be designated wilderness. This alternative represents the maximum possible acreage that could be recommended for wilderness. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS The small size, irregular shape, and dissected nature of the four blocks of public land that make up the 958-acre Table Mountain WSA did not offer opportunities to develop a partial wilderness alternative. All possible partial alternatives were found to lack sufficient size or manageable configurations, after exclusion of unmanageable portions, to be realis- tically considered for wilderness. Therefore, no additional alternatives were developed for analysis in the EIS. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE Since the pattern of future actions within the WSA cannot be predicted with certainty, we have made projections of management actions to allow the analysis of impacts under the Proposed Action and alternative. These projections are the basis of the impacts identified in this EIS. They represent reasonably feasible patterns of activities which could occur under the Proposed Action and alternative analyzed assuming there is adequate funding. This document does not constitute a management plan. BLM is not necessarily committed to the management actions listed and is not restricted from implementing additional actions which are not listed. Table Mountain 2D-8 PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wi lderness Designation 958 Acres Nonwi lderness None of the 958 acres of public land in the Table Mountain WSA are recommended for wilderness designation. Under this proposal, the lands will be managed in accordance with the existing MFP. Recreation Management Actions No special recreation management actions are planned for this area in the foreseeable future. Fire Management Actions Fire suppression will be practiced in the Table Mountain WSA until a fire management plan is completed. It is anticipated that this plan will allow the use of mechanized equipment. Based on past experience, mechanized construction of fire suppression lines will occur very rarely, at a rate not exceeding one-quarter mile of line every 20 years. No prescribed burns will be allowed within the WSA. No firebreaks will be constructed. Wildlife Management Actions No specific actions are planned or envisioned. Grazing Management Actions Table Mountain WSA is part of the Table Mountain Pasture within the McCain Valley Allotment. Table Mountain Pasture is currently not being grazed, due to problems with livestock trespass onto adjacent State Parks land. The allotment management plan proposed the installation of drift fences and a spring development to curtail the trespass problem. Once the fences and spring development have been installed (in the mid-1990's) cattle will again be allowed to graze this pasture. Table Mountain Pasture has been assessed at 247 AUMs, approximately 20 AUMS of which are found within the WSA. Season of use has been determined to be from November through February. Ephemeral grazing is allowed as annual forage becomes available. The proposed spring development will occur outside the WSA. Developments within the WSA will consist of approximately one and one-quarter miles of drift fence to be constructed along the east and northeast boundary. The fence will utilize Helvie style construction, which facilitates safe passage of bighorn sheep through the fence. Cultural Resource Management Actions The WSA is located outside of the Table Mountain cultural resources Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). No management actions are planned within the WSA. Table Mountain 2D-9 Vegetation Management Actions No specific actions are planned. Mineral Development Actions This alternative will return the 958 acres to multiple use management. Prospecting, exploration, and development of mineral resources will proceed under the mining laws and regulations in 43 CFR 3809. Just west of this WSA is an old quarry for limestone. Although this structure does not appear to extend into the WSA there is a possibility that the western part of the WSA has been hydrothermally altered and mineralized beneath the surface. The potential for exploration is high and will result in one small underground mine near the western WSA boundary. This will be in the NW of Section 22, T. 17 S., R. 8 E., SBM. The surface disturbance will cover 1.5 acres. Approximately 100 yards of new access road will be con- structed within the WSA. Milling will be done on a millsite closer to Interstate 8. There is very little potential for oil and gas and geo- thermal development; therefore, no development of these resources is anti- cipated. Saleable minerals are scarce and poor in quality. There are no known leasable minerals in the area. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 958 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness All 958 acres of public land in the Table Mountain WSA would be recommended as suitable for wilderness designation. Recreation Management Actions No special recreation management actions are planned for this area in the foreseeable future. Fire Management Actions Under this proposal, a fire management plan would be written for the WSA. It would become an addendum to the Wilderness Management Plan. Fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft and ground crews would be used for fire control. Cross-country vehicle travel would be permitted but only when the terrain and soil conditions would permit such travel without damage to vegetation cover and only with the approval of the District Manager. Heavy equipment such as tracked vehicles and dozers would not be permitted except to prevent loss of human life or to protect private or high-value property. No firebreaks would be constructed. Wildlife Management Actions No specific management actions are planned or envisioned. Table Mountain 2D-10 Grazing Management Actions Grazing management actions would be identical to those described for the Proposed Action. Cultural Resource Management Actions No specific cultural resource management actions are planned or envisioned. Vegetation Management Actions No specific actions are planned or envisioned. Mineral Development Actions This alternative would withdraw 958 acres from mineral entry. As of April 8, 1987, there were no mining claims in this study area. The mineral potential is moderate in this area but development potential is low. No development would occur. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The major impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Table 7. Table Mountain 2D-11 TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE FOR THE TABLE MOUNTAIN WSA IMPACT TOPICS PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE Impacts on Wilderness Values Negative impacts to wilder- ness values will occur as a result of mining, fence con- struction, fire suppression, and cattle grazing, but all of these impacts will be minor. Fire suppression activities will have only a short-term impact. The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long-term protection of the area's wilderness values. How- ever, cattle grazing and range management activities would occur as under the Proposed Action, with identical impacts. Table Mountain 20-12 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This section briefly describes the Table Mountain WSA and the resources that could be affected by the Proposed Action and alternative. More detailed descriptions of the resources in the study area and the regional socioeconomic conditions may be found in the planning documents for the area. Copies of these documents may be reviewed in the California Desert District and the El Centro Resource Area Office. WILDERNESS VALUES Naturalness The Table Mountain WSA appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature. The only evident alterations to the natural environment are a few small, unobtrusive abandoned mining prospects. The area borders the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Wilderness on the north and east. Most of the west boundary follows the boundary of BLM public lands and State of California lands. The south and remainder of the west boundary adjoins public land containing a small mine, a quarry, and numerous prospects served by a system of primitive roads, which are frequently used by ORV recreationists. Solitude Opportunities for solitude are limited by the area's small size and the proximity of roads. However, because of the WSA's low visitation, solitude can still be found, particularly in the northern third of the unit. This northern portion is farthest from the roads and hence, other users, and it is visually screened by a ridgeline. Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Like solitude, opportunities for primitive recreation are limited by the area's small size. When viewed in conjunction with the State Park wilder- ness, the area does provide good opportunities for cross-country hiking, backpacking, and general nature study. Opportunities for upland game and mule deer hunting are fair to poor because hunting is prohibited in the State Park, which partially surrounds the WSA and makes for a very confined hunting area. Special Features Within the WSA are four species of plants which are candidates for Federal listing as Threatened or Endangered (see Vegetation description). Table Mountain 2D-13 RECREATION Current recreation use is estimated at 50 to 100 visitor use days annually. Principal activities are rockhounding for quartz and garnet, mule deer and upland game hunting, and hiking. Target shooting and informal nature study also occur. VISUAL RESOURCES The scenic quality of the Table Mountain WSA has been rated as good (Class B). The area has been assigned to VRM Class II, which prescribes that changes caused by management activities should not be evident. LAND OWNERSHIP The entire WSA is composed of public land and contains 958 acres. Anza-Borrego Desert State Park (ABDSP) forms the eastern and northern boundaries. State owned (not ABDSP) and other public lands comprise the western boundary. Other public lands border the WSA on the south. The Master Title Plat shows no encumbrances on the land. CULTURAL RESOURCES There is no cultural resource information from the Table Mountain WSA. There are no specific data for either Native American values or archaeo- logical sites. The rugged terrain and precipitous slopes largely preclude the possibility of finding resource values. Significant resource values are located in the adjacent Table Mountain ACEC. This area contains not only abundant archaeological data, but also holds special interest to the contemporary Kumeyaay Indians. There are marked environmental differences between the WSA and the ACEC which reduce the likelihood of finding outstanding cultural resource values in the WSA. VEGETATION Semi-desert chaparral is the primary vegetation community of Table Mountain WSA. The major components of the community include buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), California juniper ( Juniperus californica) , mountain mahogany (Cerocarpus betuloides) , desert apricot (Prunus eriogyna) , sumac (Rhus trilobata) . goldenhead (Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus) , and Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.). Mixed chaparral community is also an important vegetation community. It comprises less than 25 percent of the total vegetation communities within the WSA. The major components of mixed chaparral community include, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) , red shank (Adenostoma sparsifolium) . scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) , sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) . and ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.). Table Mountain 2D-14 Thirteen sensitive plant species may be located within the boundaries of the Table Mountain WSA (Table 8). Four are considered Federal candidate species and sensitive by the BLM. TABLE 8. SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES FWS BLM Candidate Species Sensitive Species CNPS Code1 Plant Name Astragalus douglasii var. perstrictus Delphinium parishii ssp. subglobosum Diplacus aridus Geraea viscida Ipomopsis tenuifolia Lathyrus splendens Linanthus bellus Lupinus excubitus var. medius Mahonia higginsae Mentzelia hirsutissima var. stenophylla Mirabilis tenuiloba Penstemon clevelandii spp. connatus Pholisma arenarium 1-2-2-2 4-1-1-2 4-1-1-2 2-2-1-1 2-2-1-1 4-1-1-2 2-2-1-1 1-2-1-3 2-2-1-1 2-2-1-1 2-1-1-1 2-1-1-1 Hhe CNPS codes are explained in Appendix 2. ^Considered, but not included because it is too common 2D-15 Table Mountain WILDLIFE Threatened or Endangered Species The San Diego Coast horned lizard, a candidate for Federal listing by USFWS, may occur within the WSA. It is found on granitic outcrops. The Federal candidate and State-listed threatened magic gecko may occur within semi-desert chaparral habitat in the WSA. To date, it has not been recorded at elevations over 1,950 feet. It occurs on granitic and igneous substrates. The State-listed threatened and Federal candidate Peninsular bighorn sheep may occur in the periphery of the WSA on a transient basis. It has been observed southwest of the WSA. Fully Protected Species (California Department of Fish and Game) Several raptor species occur in the WSA, including golden eagle, red- tailed hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, marsh hawk, prairie falcon, and others (see below). Habitat for the ringtail cat also occurs in the WSA. Sensitive and Special Concern Species The CDFG considers the short-eared owl a species of special concern. The USFWS lists the loggerhead shrike as sensitive in Region 1. The former may occur within the study area but season and abundance are not known. The latter is present yearlong within the WSA. Game Species The WSA provides habitat for the mule deer and a variety of upland game, including quail, mourning dove, and black-tailed jackrabbit. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES The Table Mountain WSA is mainly leucocratic granite that has many quartz and aplite dikes and pegmatites throughout the entire area. Although limestone is not seen in the WSA, the limestone quarry just to the west appears to dip under the area of the WSA. Nearly all of the WSA is covered by denudation erosion exposing exfoliating granitic boulders. Vegetation is sparse and erosional products of the leucocratic granite and intrusives cover the surface. Some metamorphic products were found. Biotite gneiss and mica schist were most plentiful. Mica was mined to the south of the WSA. A remnant trachybasalt flow or syenogenic basalt does not appear to have caused any mineralization or metamorphism by contact. The potential for mineralization is in the aplite intrusives that often contain pneumatolytic minerals such as tourmaline, topaz, fluorite, greisens, wolframite, manganese, scheelite, beryllium, and lithium. Table Mountain 2D-16 The quartz dikes are numerous and there is some evidence a few may carry the noble metals, gold, silver, and/or platinum. There were several old prospects noted. Prospecting the area would be difficult and expensive due to the rugged bouldery terrain. Mining would be underground which is expensive and requires a good grade of ore to be viable. Geothermal prospects are poor for this area. The only saleable mineral material is decomposed granite but the quantity is small and not economic. No evidence was found for leasable minerals. LIVESTOCK GRAZING Table Mountain WSA is part of the Table Mountain Pasture of the McCain Valley Allotment. Approximately 20 percent of the WSA is considered in good condition, another 30 percent is rated as poor, and the remainder is considered ungrazeable. Although the Table Mountain Pasture is not currently being grazed, it is assessed at 247 AUMs, 20 AUMs apportioned to the WSA. The grazing season is from November through February. Additional AUMs from ephemeral forage production may be approved in high production years. No range improvements exist within the WSA boundaries. Approximately one and one-quarter miles of fence along the eastern and northeastern boundaries are planned before cattle will be allowed to graze the Table Mountain Pasture again. SOILS AND WATERSHED RESOURCES The soil survey of 1973 determined the area soils to be Acid Igneous Rockland within the Rockland Soil Association. Table Mountain WSA is characterized by steep, rocky terrain throughout. The unit is within the McCain Valley watershed, generally draining into Carrizo Wash. Erosion hazard is considered moderate in this area. AQUIFER USE The WSA contains no known springs or seeps. Likewise, no alluvial aquifers are present in the WSA area. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section focuses directly on the issues identified through the scoping process. The environmental impacts of each alternative are described issue by issue. The environmental impacts of these alternatives on the area's other resources have also been analyzed and have been found to be insignificant. Table Mountain 2D-17 Because of the general nature of this analysis and the lack of numerical and statistical information regarding the area's resources, impacts in this section are often expressed in relative terms. For the purpose of this analysis the meanings of these terms are as follows: - Negligible or slight impact - the degree of anticipated environ- mental impact is considered less than minor. - Minor impact - comparatively unimportant; in terms of the area's wildlife resources, a minor impact is one affecting a specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for one generation or less; the integrity of the regional population is not likely to be affected. - Moderate impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a change in the abundance of a resource or its distribution. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of a portion of the regional or local population would change over more than one generation, but would not affect the integrity of the regional population as a whole. - Major impact - an effect sufficient enough to cause a decline in the abundance of a resource or a change in distribution of a resource. In terms of the area's wildlife, the abundance or distribution of the regional or local population of a species would decline beyond which natural recruitment would not likely return that population to its former level within several generations. PROPOSED ACTION (NO WILDERNESS/NO ACTION) 0 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 958 Acres Nonwi Iderness The primary concern under the Proposed Action is the protection of wilderness values. No other issues were identified for detailed analysis with regards to the WSA. Impacts on Wilderness Values The Proposed Action for the Table Mountain WSA will not result in any of the 958 acres within the WSA being designated wilderness. None of the wilderness values will receive the special legislative protection provided by wilderness designation. - Naturalness Wildfire suppression activities will have a minor short-term negative impact to naturalness. This impact will not be caused by the fire itself, since fire is a part of the natural ecosystem, but by the use of mechanized equipment to construct firelines. This negative impact will be modified somewhat by formulating and imple- menting a fire management plan, which will address techniques for preserving the area's natural appearance and foster interagency communication and cooperation between CDF and BLM. Table Mountain 2D-18 A minor negative impact to naturalness will result from the mining operation predicted to occur under the Proposed Action. Although it will be an underground operation, visible impacts will occur from an approximate 100-yard extension into the WSA of an existing access road and the disturbance of about one and one-half acres from development of the mine site and tailings disposal. Construction of the drift fence along the WSA's north and east boundary will also constitute a minor negative impact to natural- ness. - Solitude Fire suppression, installation of the drift fence, and the mining operation will have minor negative impacts to solitude. Visitors will not be likely to encounter more people as a result of these activities, but the perception of solitude will be slightly less because of the tangible evidence of human presence in the area. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Current opportunities will be maintained. They will be neither enhanced nor constrained by this alternative. Use will remain at the current level of 50 to 100 visitor use days annually. - Special Features Although Peninsular bighorn sheep have not been recorded from the WSA, it is likely that they do range into this area. The reestab- lishment of grazing will have a minor to moderate negative impact on the bighorn sheep, through competition for water and forage, and possible disease transmission. Mechanized fire suppression will also have a minor negative impact on the sheep, through the likelihood that the firelines will become used as trails by recreationists, thereby increasing the amount of human/sheep contacts. Bighorn sheep are very intolerant of human intrusion into their habitat. The four plant species that are candidates for Federal listing as threatened or endangered will also receive minor negative impacts from mechanized fire suppression via direct disturbance. Conclusion: Negative impacts to wilderness values and special features will occur as a result of mining, fence construction, fire suppression, and cattle grazing, but all of these impacts will be minor. Fire suppression will have only a short-term impact on naturalness and solitude, but possibly a longer lasting minor impact to bighorn sheep and four Federal candidate plant species. Table Mountain 2D-19 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided The use of mechanized equipment in fire suppression will cause a short- term unavoidable adverse impact to naturalness and solitude, and a minor unavoidable adverse impact to bighorn sheep and four plant species that are candidates for Federal listing as threatened or endangered. Mining and the installation of a cattle drift fence will also have minor adverse impacts to naturalness. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Long-term Productivity If the WSA is not designated wilderness, the area has the potential for limited, small-scale mining exploration and development, an action which will reduce long-term productivity by removing small but irreplaceable quantities of mineral and soil resources. All other planned or predicted short-term uses are reversible, and will therefore have no effect on long-term productivity. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Mining activity, should it occur, will constitute an irreversible commit- ment. However, large-scale development is not anticipated now or in the foreseeable future. If mining does occur, its disturbance of one and one-half acres for a mine site and construction of 100 yards of new access road will not constitute a significant commitment of resources. ALL WILDERNESS ALTERNATIVE 958 Acres Recommended for Wilderness Designation 0 Acres Nonwilderness Impacts on Wilderness Values Under the All Wilderness Alternative, all 958 acres of the Table Mountain WSA would be recommended suitable for wilderness designation and all values would be protected by legislative mandate. - Naturalness As with the Proposed Action, the formulation and implementation of a fire management plan would have a minor positive impact to naturalness, by formalizing techniques for preserving natural appearances and fostering interagency cooperation. The lack of any mining activity under the All Wilderness Alternative would preclude any impacts from mining. Construction of the drift fence along the area's north and east boundaries would constitute a minor negative impact to naturalness. Table Mountain 2D-20 have a very minor in the area. Aside for solitude would - Solitude Installation of a cattle drift fence would negative impact to the perception of solitude from this minor impact, current opportunities remain unchanged. - Primitive or Unconfined Recreation Current opportunities would be maintained. They would be neither enhanced nor constrained by this alternative. Use levels would remain at the current level of 50 to 100 visitor use days. - Special Features As with the Proposed Action, the reestablishment of cattle grazing would have a minor to moderate negative impact on Peninsular bighorn sheep, through competition for water and forage, and possible disease transmission. Conclusion: The net effect of this alternative would be the retention and long- term protection of the area's wilderness values. However, cattle grazing and range management activities would still constitute a minor negative impact to naturalness and Peninsular bighorn sheep, as they will under the Proposed Action. Table Mountain 20-21 Consultation and Coordination CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS Consultation and coordination with the public and governmental agencies was a planned and integral part of the management alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. Formal and informal consultation began in 1978 with the initial inventory of public lands to determine their wilderness potential. The coordination process is discussed under Scoping on pages 1-5 through 1-6. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES With respect to the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the Bureau and Cali- fornia Department of Parks and Recreation met in June, 1986, to discuss coordinated management planning efforts for lands in and adjacent to the State Park. As a result of this meeting, the Department of Parks and Recreation will develop a boundary adjustment proposal to facilitate better management of Bureau and State lands. In addition, both agencies will work toward developing a statewide Memorandum of Understanding for coordinating law enforcement efforts in both agencies' intermingled lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS) was consulted to determine the presence of threatened and endangered species within the individual WSAs. During informal discussions in March, 1986, it became apparent that on WSAs where endangered species are present, FWS believes that wilderness designation or nondesignation would not, in itself, result in adverse impacts. However, prior to implementing any management actions that may affect threatened or endangered species, Section 7 consultation would be required. See Appendix 1. DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT EIS In addition to interested individuals and businesses, the following agencies and interest groups were requested to comment on the Draft EIS. Those who commented are indicated by an asterisk (*). ELECTED OFFICIALS Federal Senator Alan Cranston Senator S.I. Hayakawa Representative Jerry Lewis Representative George Brown Coordination 3-1 State Senator H.L. Richardson Senator Ruben Ayala Senator Robert Presley Senator William Leonard Assemblyman David Kelley Assemblyman William Lancaster Local San Diego County Board of Supervisors AGENCIES Federal Department of Agriculture Animal Health Services Environmental Quality Affairs Soil Conservation Service* U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region* Department of Defense U.S. Air Force Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines* Bureau of Reclamation Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service* National Park Service Natural Resource Library U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey* Water and power Resources Service* Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C. Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California* State Agencies, Commissions or Boards Office of the Governor California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) California State Historic Preservation Officer California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Air Resources Board Department of Forestry Department of Fish and Game Native American Heritage Commission Department of Parks and Recreation Coordination 3-2 State Agencies. Commissions or Boards (Cont.) Division of Mines and Geology Division of Oil and Gas Local Agencies San Diego County Office of Fire Services Integrated Planning Office San Diego County Parks and Recreation San Diego County Air Pollution Control San Diego County Environmental Division San Diego Agricultural Commission Officer San Diego County Farm Advisor Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO)* ORGANIZATIONS Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club* California Native Plant Society Audubon Society Desert Bighorn Council The Wilderness Society California Wildlife Federation California Hawking Club San Diego Cattlemen's Association American Motorcycle Association Boy Scouts of America San Diego County Archaeological Society Pacific Crest Trail Blazers California Natural Areas Coordinating Council Desert Protective Council Citizens ORV Committee Southwestern Prospectors and Miners The Nature Conservancy California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs* California Desert District Grazing Advisory Board California/Federal Mineralogical Societies* San Diego County Council of Mineral Societies* San Diego Mineral and Gem Society OTHERS WHO RESPONDED California Wilderness Coalition Paul G. Chase and Associates Kelly Hart Karen Wilcox, Imperial College Atlantic Richfield Company E. Kitchner Walker Imperial County Parks and Recreation Department California Natural Resources Federation Richard Spotts, Defenders of Wildlife Coordination 3-3 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES All letters received in response to the Wilderness portion of the 1980 draft EIS were printed in the October 1986 Final EIS for the Section 603 Wilderness Recommendations in the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. The letters reprinted and responded to in this (Section 202) FEIS were included in the Section 603 FEIS. The purpose of repeating them here is to update BLM's response to those comments that address the four WSAs analyzed in this document. BLM's responses to each comment letter imme- diately follow that letter. The portions of the letters requiring response are numbered and marked with a vertical line in the margin. The numbers of comments and corresponding responses consist of the letter number followed by the number of the comment within the letter. Thus 5-6 refers to the sixth comment in Letter 5. Comments responded to in this document are marked with an asterisk. For responses to the other comments, see the document referred to above. A summary of comments received on 1982 MFP Amendment 43 (suitability change for Sawtooth Mountains C (WSA) is also included. Because most letters received on Amendment 43 made only brief general mention of the amendment and reasons for support or opposition, the comments are presented in summary form, with the exception of the specific comment of the California State Resources Agency. That comment is printed in full with a BLM response. INDEX OF COMMENT LETTERS THAT PERTAIN TO THIS FEIS. Elected Officials None received. Federal Agencies Letter No. 4 - Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Letter No. 5 - Bureau of Indian Affairs Letter No. 6 - Soil Conservation Service Letter No. 8 - Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region State Agencies None received. Local Agencies None received. Coordination 3-4 Organizations Letter No. 12 Letter No. 13 Letter No. 14 Letter No. 15 Letter No. 16 Letter No. 18 California Wilderness Coalition Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter Sierra Club, Southern California Regional Conservation Committee Sierra Club, National Headquarters San Diego County Council of Gem and Mineral California Natural Resources Federation Societies Individuals and Businesses Letter No. 20 - Paul G. Chace and Associates Letter No. 21 - Kelly Hart Letter No. 22 - Karen Wilcox Letter No. 23 - Atlantic Richfield Company Coordination 3-5 IN «EP(_Y REFER TO: PSW 200 DES 80/46 United States Department of the Interior HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE PACIFIC SOl-THWEST REGION SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36062 SEP 17 Memorandum To: District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside, California Attention: El Centro Resource Area Manager From: Chief, Environmental Services Division, PSWRO Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement on proposed livestock grazing and wilderness management for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. We have reviewed the document and offer the following comments for your consideration. Discussion of cultural, recreational and natural resources and impacts appears to be adequate. Mitigation measures to protect significant cultural resources (Numbers 11-14, p. 3 -40) should be approved by ' the State Historic Preservation Officer (Dr. Knox Mellon, California Department of Parks and Recreation 916-445-8006) . Written evidence of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, should be included in the final environmental state- ment. Purchase of the Spencer Ranch, presented in Wilderness Alternative 3, includes the removal of all buildings and restoration of the site . 2 to conditions approximating the surrounding landscape. A determination of the possible historical significance of the Spencer Ranch structures should be included in the final environmental statement. An approxi- mate schedule for purchase of the Spencer Ranch property should also be identified, including potential funding sources. We believe that the final document should also include an imple- mentation schedule for the wilderness alternatives, including develop- ment of proposed hiking trails. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, 3-6 cc: Regional Environmental Officer, PSWR, Office of the Secretary, USDI DECR,HCRS,WASO,W750 Response to Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Response 4.1 Mitigation measures to protect significant cultural resources will be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer. However, the DEIS does not provide complete mitigation of impacts on susceptible cultural sites. There are numerous project proposals in the DEIS that will require site-specific environmental assessments before implementation. Specific mitigation will be included in these EAs. At that time, a copy of the project cultural resources treatment plan (in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended) will be sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer for approval. It is not within the scope of this EIS to include cultural resource mitigation for every project proposal . Response 4.2 Acquisition of Spencer Ranch is not planned. Although it was considered as part of Wilderness Alternative 3 in the FEIS on the Proposed Livestock Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit, this alternative was not selected for implementation. 3-7 r5.1 IN RCW.Y REFEH TO: Land Operations UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Southern California Agency 5750 Division Street, Suite 201 Riverside, California 92506 September 19, 1980 Mr. Dave Mari El Centro Resource, Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 South Waterman Avenue El Centro, California 92243 Dear Mr. Mari: As Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern California Agency, we hereby acknowledge receipt on September 10, 1980, of the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eastern San Diego Co. Planning Unit", relating to property involved in the above entitled Report. As mentioned in the letter from the Riverside District Office, dated June 30, 1980, transmitting the "Draft" report, the report is based on information from sources other than the Bureau of Land Management. The impact of archeological resources has been presented to the tribal leaders. We anticipate that any of these resources will be carefully taken into account prior to any improvements. As to the grazing alternatives, it appears on the map that the Tierra Blanca Allotment is adjacent to the Manzanita Indian Reservation and the Tierra Blanca and In-Kop-Pah Allotments are adjacent to the Cuyapaipe Reservation. In our opinion, the mitigation measures proposed to reduce grazing and perform certain range improvements in the draft are adequate. We see no impact on the adjacent reservations. As to the Wilderness proposed action, it appears on the map that the San Ysidro Wilderness Study Area is adjacent to the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation. It is our opinion that the mitigation measures proposed in the draft report fails to treat with, or adequately answer certain circumstances referred to in other portions of the report such as access and fencing. The report mentions fencing to be done on certain allot- ments but there is no indication as to exactly where the fences will be placed. Wherever Indian lands adjoin your Allottments, fencing may be needed. However, since the proposed action alternative recommends that all of the acreage within the San Ysidro Mountain be designated non- suitable for Wilderness (the report does not indicate what will happen to this area), we see no direct impact to the Reservation. 3-8 Response to Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Response 4.1 Mitigation measures to protect significant cultural resources will be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer. However, the DEIS does not provide complete mitigation of impacts on susceptible cultural sites. There are numerous project proposals in the DEIS that will require site-specific environmental assessments before implementation. Specific mitigation will be included in these EAs. At that time, a copy of the project cultural resources treatment plan (in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended) will be sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer for approval. It is not within the scope of this EIS to include cultural resource mitigation for every project proposal . Response 4.2 Acquisition of Spencer Ranch is not planned. Although it was considered as part of Wilderness Alternative 3 in the FEIS on the Proposed Livestock Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit, this alternative was not selected for implementation. 3-7 5. 1 IN RCPUV REFfcH TO: Land Operations UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Southern California Agency 5750 Division Street, Suite 201 Riverside, California 92506 September 19, 1980 Mr. Dave Mari El Centro Resource, Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 South Waterman Avenue El Centro, California 92243 Dear Mr. Mari: As Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern California Agency, we hereby acknowledge receipt on September 10, 1980, of the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Eastern San Diego Co. Planning Unit", relating to property involved in the above entitled Report. As mentioned in the letter from the Riverside District Office, dated June 30, 1980, transmitting the "Draft" report, the report is based on information from sources other than the Bureau of Land Management. The impact of archeological resources has been presented to the tribal leaders. We anticipate that any of these resources will be carefully taken into account prior to any improvements . As to the grazing alternatives, it appears on the map that the Tierra Blanca Allotment is adjacent to the Manzanita Indian Reservation and the Tierra Blanca and In-Kop-Pah Allotments are adjacent to the Cuyapaipe Reservation. In our opinion, the mitigation measures proposed to reduce grazing and perform certain range improvements in the draft are adequate. We see no impact on the adjacent reservations. As to the Wilderness proposed action, it appears on the map that the San Ysidro Wilderness Study Area is adjacent to the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation. It is our opinion that the mitigation measures proposed in the draft report fails to treat with, or adequately answer certain circumstances referred to in other portions of the report such as access and fencing. The report mentions fencing to be done on certain allot- ments but there is no indication as to exactly where the fences will be placed. Wherever Indian lands adjoin your Allottments, fencing may be needed. However, since the proposed action alternative recommends that all of the acreage within the San Ysidro Mountain be designated non- suitable for Wilderness (the report does not indicate what will happen to this area) , we see no direct impact to the Reservation. 3-1 I hope the above will be helpful to you in your continuing study of the proposed project. Sincerely, cc: Land Operations /SAO Bureau of Land Management, Riverside 3-9 Response to Bureau of Indian Affairs Response 5.1 The San Ysidro Mountain Wilderness Study Area is indeed adjacent to the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation. However, it is not within any grazing allotment, and no fencing is planned in this area. 3-10 united states Soil 2828 Chiles Road m Department of Conservation Davis CA 95616 Agriculture Service (916) '758-2200 September 16, 1980 Mr. Gerald E. Hillier Riverside District Manager Bureau of Land Management 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Dear Mr. Hillier: The Soil Conservation Service has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Proposed Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Area. We offer the following comments. The EIS failed to address the prime land, if any, which may be affected. Although the practices applied will be minimal, no mention is made of methods * I to be employed to control erosion during construction. The impact, if any, 6,1 on wetlands is not mentioned. There appears to be some confusion as to whether "riparian habitat" refers to wetlands; the former term is mentioned in the J_report, but the latter term is not. In addition, we feel your report would be strengthened by resolving the following points. The definition of "range condition" appears to differ from that used by authors of various commonly used publications. This definition seems to be synonymous in yoyr report with the term "ecological condition", which is not defined. Your use of "ecological condition" infers degree of departure of the vegetation composition and yield from the climax. If this inference is so, these terms cannot be synonymous. We feel this confusion should be clarified. The definition of "apparent trend" does not appear to correspond with familiar concepts. In addition, we would suggest defining two more terms: "forage condition", and "soil surface factor." We appreciate this opportunity to review and comment on this management study. Sincerely, f\ FRANCIS C. H. LUM / U State Conservationist cc: Norman Berg, Chief, SCS, Washington, D.C. 3-11 The Soil Conservation Service 1 a*. Response to Soil Conservation Service Response 6.1 The resource inventory process did not identify any wetlands on public land nor does the San Diego County Soil Survey (SCS). Riparian habitat refers to a specific environment including vegetation on or adjacent to a water supply. Typical vegetation includes woody species such as cotton- wood, sycamore, willow, and catclaw, with a low composition of sedges, wildrye and native clovers. This differs from wetlands which are largely made up of sedges, wildrye, and native clovers. Specific methods employed to control erosion will be addressed in the site-specific environmental assessments to be prepared prior to initiation of any development projects. 3-12 8 United States Department of Agriculture forest service 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111 1920 September 23, 1980 El Centro Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 S. Waterman El Centro, California. 92234 Dear Sir: We have reviewed the subject DEIS for the EastetS* San Diego County Planning Unit and have the following comments. Overall the DEIS is a comprehensive and thorough treatment of the resources and area. Two areas of concern suggest themselves. The first is an implicit conflict between grazing and wilderness. Properly done, grazing is compatible and recent interpretations 8,1 growing out of the C. Idaho Wilderness and California Wilderness Bills render these trade-offs indefensible, even though full grazing potential is not realized. The 1965 data used to establish forage production (P. 1-1) are probably too conservative, as this o p period was the peak of drought years in the area. Is it possible, given the current wet cycle, that estimates were over-corrected for total acres in the allotments? I- 8.3 The implied conflict between grazing and bighorn sheep lacks the kind of specific discussion on which reductions should be based. I would favor re-evaluation of the alternatives without reciprocal reductions in the grazing/wilderness allocations . If significant conflict between grazing/bighorn can be demonstrated in the text, __ then reductions in grazing would be more defensible to critics. Some field managers in both the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, as well as some of the ranchers involved, feel strongly that people and Off-Road Vehicles use have had a greater deleterious effect on the bighorn sheep than any other impact. While it is difficult to deal with this problem within the scope of the DEIS, I feel it is essential to do so in order to arrive at a balanced assessment of the alternatives. The visual resource management system the Bureau of Land Management is using is similiar to the one used by the Forest Service. The Forest Service has adopted the recommended visual quality objectives for the Laguna Mountain Recreation Area. It would be desirable to have the same VQO extend out over the Bureau of Land Management view sheds that are seen from the Cleveland Recreation Area. 3-13 These observations not withstanding, we would advocate an approach founded in the coordinated resource management planning mode. While single agency decisions often impinge upon the same operators and publics, at best the decisions tend to restrict the array of options available to any one land manager, public or private. The Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit presents a great opportunity to include Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, counties, Indian tribes, ranchers, state agencies (Fish and Game), Soil Conservation Service, and many others. To be effective, decisions in this area will require wide support and interdisciplinary/ interagency parti- cipation. Your consideration of these comments will be appreciated. Sincerely, f "ZAflE G. SMITH, jj&. (Regional Forester 3-14 Response to USDA, Forest Service Response 8.1 It is not the intent of the Bureau to imply a conflict between grazing and wilderness. The Bureau's Wilderness Management Policy incorporates the language of House Report 96-1126, which emphasizes that Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act provides for the continuation of grazing in areas where this use occurred prior to wilderness designation. Response 8.2 The 1978 range inventory was used to establish forage production and an initial carrying capacity. From that point on, adjustments to preference have been and will continue to be based on the results of continuing range trend monitoring studies. This system should overcome any initial errors in carrying capacity determination that resulted from climatic variation. 3-15 12 California Wilderness Coalition POST OFFICE BOX 429 • DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 • (.916) 758-0380 September 11 , 1980 El Centro Resource Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 South Waterman Ave. El Centro, CA 92243 Dear RA Manager t We wish to offer the following brief comments on the Draft EIS for Proposed Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Area, WILDERNESS i We support the proposal to recommend 40,086 acres as suitable for wilderness designation but urge that Wilderness Alternative I— maximum wilderness recommendation- -be adopted in the final EIS. Due to the high biological and wildlife values of the five Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs; involved, wilderness designation is necessary as a management restraint to prevent unwarrented resource degradation such as that caused by off -road vehicle use. Claimed inability to properly manage an area as wilderness , such as the claim that San Ysidro Mountain WSA and San Felipe Hills WSA are "distant from BLM offices and would be difficult to manage as wilderness" is 12.1 clearly based on inadequate importance being attached to wilderness resource preservation in terms of budget and manpower allocations • High priority should be given to preservation of these remaining wildlands and management difficulities should be eliminated by the closure of intruding roads and acquisition of private inholdings where necessary. T 1 GRAZING! The proposed action to limit livestock grazing to a level closer to the carrying capacity of the range is a step in the right direction. However, the habitat requirements of the rare Peninsular bighorn sheep have not been adequately provided for in the 12 2 Proposed alternative. The remnant bighorn population owes its decline in part to competition with domestic livestock, which will continue under the proposed action. At the minimum, grazing by domestic stock should be totally eliminated in 1) all areas currently utilized as Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, including portions of the In-Ko-Pah, Mt. Tule and Tierra Blanca grazing allotments, 2) aJJL areas with potential for reintroduction of this species to its former range, including portions of the Oriflame, Canebrake and Vallecito grazing allotments and 3) all riparian areas. Trespass cattle should be removed frequently. The protection of natural resources and wildlife, particularly the enhancement of rare or endangered species , should be given priority over consumptive and commercial resource uses such as livestock grazing on the public lands . Thank you for considering our comments, 3-16 Siiicerely ^Dennis Coules Pr-n iprr Coordinator Response to California Wilderness Coalition Response 12.1 Text has been revised; reference to distance has been dropped 3-17 SIERRA CLUB 13 SAN DIEGO CHAPTER HOUSE OF HOSPITALITY 1549 EL PRADO, BALBOA PARK founded s^ssas^ in 1892 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 El Centro Resource Area Manager Desert Subcommittee, San Diego Chapter, Sierra Club Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit Date: September 13, 1980 Thank you for providing our organization this opportunity to comment on this draft Environmental Impact Statement. Considering the temporal and budgetary limitations forced upon you, the document is an admirable one; nevertheless, we would like to make a number of statements that may clarify, or be contrary to, the conclusions set forth in the published draft. report. GENERAL COMMENTS: In regards to the overall content and organization of the report, we found a truly impressive array of grazing and wilderness data. However, we feel that the organization of available data was roughly composed; facts seemed to appear only when necessary to justify an alternative or a land- use decision. Your index helped clarify this jumble of data, but it would have been immensely preferable to have had an "existing conditions" for the unit, covering soil, vegetation, cultural resources, grazing history, roads and other improvements, and other introductory data before the alter - 13.1 natives were discussed. The sections on alternatives, conflict resolution, etc. would then flow far more smoothly, becouse all the facts would be _[ already discussed. LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT SECTIONS: The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club- is a firm believer in the preservation of appropriate lands in a condition entirely free from cultural impacts c Nevertheless, it recognizes the historical right for cattle to graze in this area, provided that they do not degrade the vegetation, soil and water resources over the long term. As a corollary to that belief, we strongly feel that the land should be retained in the condition which exis- ted prior to its historical degradation. The BLM wisely recognizes that many of the resources in the area have in fact been degraded by cattle graz- ing, and as a result, it appears to be taking steps to remedy the grazing deficiencies through policies suggested in this document. Therefore, our organization believes that portions of both Alternatives I and IV are valid. In theory, we feel that only be allowing a longterra rest for the land (Alternative I), will many of these lands be restored to their originally lush nature. (For a description of the early historic con- dition of some of these lands, see the attached sheets. 1 Similarly, we do not insist that all grazing lands be improved, because given the relatively poor environmental conditions in the area, many of these lands were probably not very lush, even under the best climatic circumstances. In a practical sense, however, we recognize that certain management procedures are necessary, in addition to resting the land, to restore these lands to their former "natural" condition. Periodic burning was an integral 3-18 Eastern S.D. Co. Draft EIS - p. 2 part of the longterm ecosystem of many parts of the study area, and we recommend such procidures where historical and other data indicate the need for burning to revitalize the landscape. Our committee does not have the technical expertise to be able to scientifically evaluate whether the specific suggestions in the proposed plan will result in the predicted results. We leave that to your judgement. However, we agree with you that only by combining grazing reductions with burning will the land be best restored. Alternative IV, in comparison with the Proposed Action, slightly de-emphasizes grazing numbers, is some- what more sesitive to wildlife populations, and does not advocate plow- ing and reseeding; therefore, it is to be preferred over the proposed action. We do not think the proposed action entirely unworkable. How- ever, Alternative IV offers many ecological advantages without causing any additional economic hardships to the local ranchers. We therefore recommend Alternative IV as our preferred alternative. PROPOSED WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT SECTIONS: In general, our organization agrees with your tentative conclusions regarding recommendation for wilderness in the study area. We fully sup- port your recommendations for wilderness in both the Carrizo Gorge and Sawtooth Mountains area, and applaud your recognition of the compatibil- ity of grazing and wilderness. We do, however, suggest a few modification from your Proposed Action (Alternative III) . First, based upon management considerations, we recognize the prac- tical as well as ecological difficulties in presently nominating the San Felipe Hills as a WSA. However, the longterm protection of these lands is our highest concern. As a result, we recognize the ability of this semi-desert area, over the long term to heal its present firebreak scars. Moreover, we feel that we cannot accept the arguments of distance from 13 2 the BLM °ffice and poor past management control for a rationale to just- ify not nominating this area. We accede therefore to your present sugges- tion, but request that, if possible, you continue to manage the area in as close to wilderness conditions as possible until 2001. Given the limited resource potential in this area, it should not be difficult. Per- haps by that time, scars in the area, manpower shortages and other factors may have changed enough to allow its effective management as wilderness. We have a similar feeling toward the northwestern sections in the Sawtooth Mountains area. As suggested in Alternative I, we support the eventual acquisition of Spencer Ranch, and suggest that the road to the ranch eventually be closed. However, we realize that economic factors prevent that action from being taken at the present time. In regard to those sections, we disagree with those statements in the first two para- graphs of page 1-37, because we feel that the area is currently worthy 13.3 0f wilderness designation. We therefore urge that area CA-060-24A remain under wilderness management until those interests at Spencer Ranch appear more willing to divest their property. We also suggest this course of action because if nearby roadless US Forest Service land (about three or four sections) is included, an area of over 5000 acres is created. To strengthen the integrity of this area, we urge that you co-operate with state authorities to acquire (or allow wilderness use ofl section 36 in 3-19 Eastern S.D. Co. Draft EIS - p. 3 T14S, R5E. We suggest that you contacg appropriate officials of the Cleve- land National Forest to urge that they retain those sections of land suit- able for wilderness. We also disagree with you in regard to your recommendations for Potrero Canyon. We reluctantly agree that it is necessary to keep the two roads open into Potrero Canyon. However, we feel it is far better for these roads to be part of the wilderness area, but chained or blocked off to all but + ri a those who maintain the watering facilities. Ample legislative precedents exist for this concept, at Joshua Tree National Monument and in other areas. Conservationists do not disagree with occasionally, necessary vehicle use for maintenance purposes. We find the area of non-wilderness in the center of area CA-060-24B far more unacceptable. We strongly urge you to recon- sider the proposed action in this regard. In the same area, we find it unacceptable to lop off the proposed wil- derness designation in T14S, R6E, sees. 19, 20 and 21. Because of a few random visits from off-road vehicles, which may have entered the area illeg- ally, you should not buckle in to pressure and abandon these sections. There are hundreds of off-road vehicle play areas in the general vicinity, most of which are better suited for use than this particular site. Rather than retreat back to the southern boundary of these sections with your proposed fence, I urge you to fence instead along the road itself, and provide road closure signs along that fence. Allowing a play area in these sections will only allow further propagation of ORV trails, which will inevitably soon extend beyond the proposed fence. Please limit all ■I3J5 ORV activities to areas well separated from proposed wilderness areas; the two activities are wholly incompatible. Communications with your office also point out that sand and gravel resources may also exist in these sections. While organization does not profess geological or raining expertise, sand and gravel deposits in most areas are sufficiently common that should one area be placed off-limits, additional areas can be utilized. We feel that, considering the low value of these deposits and its potential for extraction elsewhere in the area, that a study be made of alternative sites prior to commencing of any extrac- tion in this area. If absolutely no alternate nites can be found, we urge that extraction take place only under strict guidelines, and only in a prescribed, limited area. Thank you again for giving us the opportunity for us to comment. We welcome any of your comments that may clari-fy these issues. I i /'^' ^rank Nor r is Chairman, Desert Subcommittee 3-20 Response to Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter Response 13.3 BLM has no plans to acquire the Spencer Ranch. The ranch is still being used for livestock raising, and we have no indication that the Spencer family wishes to sell the ranch. The Bureau does not believe that the wilderness resources of the Sawtooth Mountains A WSA are of a sufficiently outstanding character to warrant the purchase of the ranch, removal of the ranch structures, and removal of the access road that would be required to combine the Sawtooth A and Sawtooth B WSAs in one wilderness. The National Forest land adjacent to Sawtooth Mountains A WSA was released from further wilderness study by the California Wilderness Act of 1984, and returned to multiple-use management. 3-21 14 SIERRA CLUB Southern California Regional Conservation Committee ^+3730 Higbee Lancaster CA 9353^ Sept 19, 1980 SI Centro Resource Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 South Waterman Ave 21 Centro CA 9224-3 Sir: I would like to comment on the draft SIS on proposed livestock grazing and wilderness management for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. These comments are supplemental to those submitted by Frank Norris from our San Diego Chapter and Russ Shay, our California-Nevada Field Represen- tative. My own area of interest is your wilderness proposals, and I will restrict my comments to that portion of the draft. I am concerned about the recommendations for non-wilderness in the Proposed Action, particularly for W3A CA-060-24-A and the Potrero Canyon area. Your rationale for excluding the northwestern portion of the Sawtooth Mountains is based on the difficulty of managing it as wilderness if you do not acquire the Spencer Ranch. First of all, no rationale is given for the decision not to acquire Spencer Ranch. If no funding is available for immediate acquisition, consideration should be given to seeking a land 14.1 exchange for some of the other scattered 3LM holdings in San Diego County which are being separately proposed for disposal. The relatively small acreages involved should simplify this administrative process. This unit's wilderness potential is especially enhanced when considered in context with the U.S. Forest Service lands around Garnet Peak, which provide a wilderness quality connection with the remainder of the area in the Sawtooth Mountains that is recommended for wilderness. Manageability problems are the second reason given for non-wiidemess here. I believe this should not be given the weight it apparently is, for reasons I will discuss further below. The Potrero Canyon area has problems in two areas in the Proposed Action: "the exclusion of Sections 19, 20, and 21 and the establishment of a r.on-wildemess corridor up Potrero Canyon itself. The rationale for excluding the first area is that better management can be obtained by using 14.2 a proposed fence line along section lines. I totally disagree with this ! assumption. Zf you are seriously concerned about ORV trespass, you will do I far better to put your boundary up along the road where such violations will 3-22 be immediately apparent; not hiding it back in the brush where there is free access up to the line, and no easy evidence of violations. It has been my observation in the past that, unless there are obvious natural boundaries, road boundaries are far and away the most manageable. The Potrero Canyon problem arises from two sources: the decision to "cherrystem" the two roads up the canyon to keep them open for public use, and then the determination that the area between them would have management problems and limited suitability for wilderness. My understanding is that the primary call for these routes is to permit access for relatively infrequent (annual or semi-annual) maintenance of stock facilities that requires a vehicle. Under these circumstances, the obvious solution is simply to close 14.2 the routes where they enter the WSA in Section21 with a locked gate, and permit entry by the grazier holding the allotment as necessary for maintenance. This is compatible with wilderness designation (as acknowledged on page 1-^1 of the draft) and should simply be written into the management plan for the unit. While this would result in some loss of access, it would only be about three miles of relatively easy terrain. In view of the fairly small size of the WSA (only about five miles across) this is not critical to use of the area for wilderness -oriented recreation. The general concern which your office seems to have with potential ORV enforcement problems seems excessive . You should consider some of the following factors, and take another look at this issue. There is no shortage of alternative places for ORV's to go in eastern San Diego County. Host of these areas are at least as attractive from an ORV recreational perspective . 14.4 Most of these areas are easier to reach than the wilderness areas being proposed here. Finally, one of the most encouraging observations we have made of recent wilderness designations (primarily the Golden Trout in the southern Sierra Nevada - a traditional ORV use area) has been the high level of adherence to ORV closures. There have been only scattered violations of closure sign, and the incidence of such events has shown a steady decline since implementation. This seems to be a sign that you may be too pessimistic .. in your assessment of how law-abiding the general public is (even ORV users). Please do not take these comments as a negative response to your planning efforts. In general, I believe your recommendations in the Proposed Action are excellent; and I wish to make clear our strong support for your wilderness boundaries for the Carrizo Gorge area and the rest of the Sawtooth Mountains and Canebreak Wash areas. We are supporting the decision to include the McCain Valley area (this Planning Unit) in the CTCA, and feel this planning effort is an excellent adjunct to the current Desert Plan. plan. Please keep us informed as to the final disposition of this management Sincerely, '/JAMES L. DODSON / Chair, Desert Committee Cy to: Gerry Hillier / V 3-23 Response to Sierra Club, Southern California Regional Conservation Committee Response 14.1 See Response 13.3. 3-24 SIERRA CLUB 15 530 Bush Street, San Francisco, California 94108 (415) 981-8634 9/22/80 Dick Man' El Centro Resource Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 833 S. Waterman Ave. El Centro, CA 92243 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LIVESTOCK GRAZING & WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT FOR THE EASTERN SAN DIEGO CO. PLANNING UNIT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Mari , I am submitting the following comments as CA-NV Representative of the Sierra Club. They are intended to supplement the comments submitted by Frank Norris for the Sierra Club San Diego Chapter and by James Dodson for the Sierra Club Desert Committee. I have closely followed the development of the Bureau's land use planning and wilderness programs since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and have gone over the Eastern San Diego DEIS in detail because>as one of the Bureau's first attempts to deal with grazing management and wilderness suitability questions together, this EIS marks an important milestone in both programs. In summary, my major concerns with the DEIS are: —it does not adequately present the procedural and legal context of the proposed actions; — it fails to adequately describe and discuss the wilderness attributes and qualities of the individual Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) dealt with; and — the information presented on the effects of wilderness recommendations or designations on the grazing management proposals (and vice- versa) is inadequate and in some cases inaccurate. I hope the following detailed comments will be helpful to you and your staff. I would be more than happy to discuss any of these points over the telephone if that would be helpful. WILDERNESS STUDY CONSIDERATIONS— The DEIS unfortunately does not do enough to place its treatment of wilderness questions in the context of the Bureau's planning system or of the requirements of the law. The treatment of wilderness begins with the presentation of alternative suitability recommendations (1-30), without any prefatory remarks about the legal mandate for wilderness study in FLPMA 3-25 "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Mini Sierra Club or exactly how this EIS fits into the wilderness review process the Bureau has promulgated from its Washington, C.C. office. Those who have followed the wilderness program in the Eastern San Diego Co. unit are probably aware of what steps have already taken place (inventory, identification of WSAs, etc.), but even they still need to be told what further steps will follow finalization of this EIS, and on what schedule. Of particular concern is whether this EIS fully meets the requirements *1 51 of wilderness study set out in Bureau policy and law; specifically the require- ment for mineral study. If further mineral study is needed, when will it be done, and by whom? Some misleading statements are made about the context of the decisions to be made with this EIS. The DEIS seems'to imply that a Bureau decision that an area is not suitable for wilderness can lead to BLM actions that will negatively affect that area's wilderness qualities (3-49, paragraph 3). It should be emphasized that only Congress can rescind interim management protection of an identified WSA, regardless of the Bureau's decision on its suitability. This is a very important and clearly legislated feature of FLPMA's wilderness review provisions. The DEIS also assumes some policy positions on wilderness management on which the Sierra Club believes the DEIS is in error. These are: --The DEIS repeatedly maintains that fire management activi ties--and in parti- cular, controlled burning—are restricted in WSAs or wilderness areas (1-42, 3-48,55,54,56, and 64). Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act clearly gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior the authority to take "such measures as . . . necessary in the control of fire." In the Endangered American Wilderness Act legislative reports, Congress reiterated its intention that this provision should be broadly interpreted by the agencies, and in the current Congress the House Interior Committee report on H.R. 7702, a California wilderness bill, the committee states that it "believes that prescribed burning could prove to be an especially significant fire presuppression method," r152 states that "controlled burning initiates a process of nature in a planned manner and may have the advantage of producing fewer long term adverse impacts" than other fire control measures, and states that "the Wilderness Act permits the Forest Service to utilize any and all measures necessary to control wildfire, or the threat of fire, in wilderness areas." (p. 37, House Report 96-1223). The Sierra Club wholeheartedly maintains that fire is a natural and essential component of the chaparral ecosystems which make up a large percentage of the DEIS area, and that with the help of input from visual resource management specialists and others, prescribed burning by BLM would be fully compatible with wilderness designation in this area. We request the BLM to alter its treatment of prescribed burning in the DEIS to reflect the expressed Congressional intent in this matter. --The DEIS states that "wilderness designation may inhibit scientific investigation of cultural sites" (1 11-54). This is misleading, as it is my understanding that contemporary archeological and agency practice is not to excavate cultural '5-3sites unless they are severely threatened. Since such threats are usually due to human activities prohibited in wilderness, it is unlikely that wilderness _ desianation would actually adversely affect scientific investigation. 3-26 Sierra Club Adverse effects on non-disruptive investigation of cultural resources should not be significant. —The DEIS ' s assertion that distance of a WSA from the Resource Area office is a significant factor in the area's manageability as wilderness is inappropriate and runs counter to section 2(b) of the Wilderness Act which states that "no appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salary for administra- tis^1011 °^ ^e National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being solely required for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System." It was clearly the intent of Congress that wilderness areas not be subject to a higher standard for management than non-wilderness lands. The idea that increased on the ground presence would be needed to manage these areas as wilderness is also largely inconsistent with the practical m experience of the Forest Service (cf. James Dodson's comments on ORV closure 15.5 of the Golden Trout Wilderness in the southern Sierra). At the least, a judgement of unmanageability is highly questionable in the absence of a wilderness activity management plan, and is probably more a question to resolved there than in this EIS. —The DEIS maintains that no new allotments can be established in wilderness areas after their designation (1-41). While this is consistent *156w1th t'ie ^an9ua9e °f tne Wilderness Act, I want to be very careful that there is no confusion of this prohibition with a prohibition against establishing new AMPs in wilderness or otherwise changing management of existing grazing in wilderness areas, including changes in stocking rates. The DEIS's major weakness in assessing the impacts of various wilderness alternatives is its failure to identify the specific wilderness resources of each WSA. There is no adequate description of the specific wilderness attributes of the WSAs or of their potential contribution to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Without such specific information, assessment of the impact of the loss of these wilderness resources (under nonsuitability recommendations) is largely pro forma and meaningless. It is not adequate to treat such impacts 15.7 simply as the loss of an abstract quality, "wilderness", that is no different no matter where or how it is found (cf. 3-64). This issue is dealt with at length in the decision of the Federal district court in California v. Bergland regarding the Forest Service RARE II program. Site specific information is essential to evaluation of each alternative regarding its contribution to a representative NWPS, its ability to meet local, regional, and national demands for wilderness and wilderness recreation, and its preservation of scientific, geological, ecological, cultural and other "supplemental" wilderness values. This lack of specific information compounds several other problems with the treatment of wilderness in the DEIS. These are: 3-27 Sierra Club —The EIS fails to display how the WSAs fit (or did not fit) the suitability criteria used in the planning process. The criteria were (at least partially) set out (1-31), but their specific evaluation was not. —The EIS should also show how the intermediate wilderness alternatives were constructed (those between the "no wilderness" and "all wilderness" options). Were different suitability criteria used for each different alternative? The Sierra Club would support legislative provisions to permit use of motorized equipment where necessary to develop water sources for the benefit of bighorn sheep in wilderness areas in this planning unit. GRAZING MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS— While the size of this planning unit is relatively small, this DEIS decides many of the same sorts of important and politically controversial issues of grazing management the Bureau has had to deal with in far larger units. It is clear from the information presented in the DEIS that current stocking levels and management are incompatible with the area MFP and with national policies established both by the Bureau and by Congress for oru public rangelands. The Sierra Club supports expansion of bighorn sheep range within this planning unit and for this reason supports adoption of alternative 4 (limited use). This alternative provides the best balance of the varied multiple-use resources of the area. The proposed action (alternative 3), while a great improvement over the status quo, provides too little margin to assure successful maintenance of a viable bighorn population in this area, where adverse circum- stances such as drought and wildfire are an expected part of the environment. For the benefit of a wide variety of wildlife, we also support maximum protection of riparian areas by exclusion of livestock or provision for prescribed grazing only, under strict utilization standards. This would not preclude diversion of some waters outside of riparian zones for cattle use. There are several problems with the economic analysis of the grazing alternatives. The foremost is the lack of cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis is essential in deciding how intensive a management scheme is appropriate to this area. The Bureau has (from its Washington, D.C. office) repeatedly assured the public that it will incorporate such analysis in its range EISs, and I hope such analysis will be incorporated in the FEIS. The DEIS does not even contain a list of the projected costs of the varying alternatives. Without this information the public cannot realistically assess the practicality and implementabili ty of the alternatives. This is of particular concern because I received the impression that a great deal of money will be required to support a relatively small increment of additional livestock use in alternative 2 over alternative 3 and in alternative 3 over alternative 4. 3-28 Sierra Club I am also interested in seeing any information on positive economic impacts of lower stocking rates (i.e., higher calf weights, etc.). Another major problem with the impact analysis is the confusion of fire management alternatives with other grazing manag-ement actions. For example, the statement that "the overall results of the no grazing alternative would be a declining trend" (3-3) is highly misleading, as it masks the fact that this negative impact is due not to cessation of grazing but to an unrelated, unnecessary, and arbitrary decision to forgo prescribed burning in this alternative (cf. 3-10). Another problem is the lack of standards used for determining range condition and trend. This is particularly troublesome because the DEIS seems to be talking of "forage condition" of these lands rather than the "ecological condition" standards which are used in many other BLM range EISs and which are being promoted by the SCS. This particular area points out some of the problems with this latter system, as many of its lands are chaparral types which cycle successions rather rapidly, making management for climax communities somewhat senseless. Site specific analysis is also needed for proposed land treatments. Of particular importance in figuring our a proper role for livestock grazing in this environment is the length of time a forage-rich environment can be maintained between treatments. More information is also needed on the allocation of ephemeral forage in the EIS area. Ephemeral forage allocations could, if abused, undo all the value of the planning that has gone into this EIS. I would like the EIS to include specific procedures and methodology for determining ephemeral production and allocating its use. Certainly analysis is needed of such practices as letting livestock movement dates fluctuate between 10-14 days before or after scheduled dates ( 1-27). The impact of ephemeral forage allocation on forbs, plant communities, wildlife, and on perennial forage species needs to be addressed in the EIS. The Sierra Club believes it would be in the best interest of the public lands and their management for the Bureau to make the establishment of permanent range transects an integral part of its proposed management plan. The Bureau should, furthermore, make a serious commitment to maintain these transects regardless of any future perception by managers that they are no longer necessary. The management of an area can be no better than the information base the manager has. The DEIS does not present information on actual use in the EIS area, though obviously this is key to assessing the environmental and economic impacts of the various proposals. We request presentation of the best available information on actual use, and on the history of grazing use in the EIS area, as well as comparison with the 4,430 AUM licensed use figure. 3-29 Sierra Club The DEIS contains a fairly good explanation of the deferred rotation system proposed, and of the Bureau's rationale for this choice (1-24). It would help the EIS if some alternatives were discussed and analyzed as well. The EIS could also have done more to explore alternatives to the implementation of a deferred rotation system (e.g., one with more herding and less fencing). One final question on the grazing al ternatives--how is a lessee chosen for new allotments? WILDERNESS/GRAZING INTERACTIONS Treatment of the effect of the wilderness alternatives on the grazing alternatives, and vice versa, seems to have been avoided rather than tackled in the DEIS. Table 111-12 seems to have been intended to address this issue, but it is very confusing and difficult to understand. Nowhere does the DEIS state whether any or all of the grazing alternatives are *15gfully compatible and implementable under the wilderness alternatives. The situation "i is further muddled by the Bureau's mis-statements regarding controlled burning J_ in wilderness areas. OTHER CONCERNS * "T~ The DEIS admits to lack of information needed for management of rare plants 15.9(1-55): the proposed actions should outline actions by the Bureau to gather J_needed information. — What is the source of the 3.45 tons/acre erosion standard used to define unacceptable erosion? — Conflict resolution is the core of the planning process. Table 1-14 is 1C. perhaps the most informational part of the DEIS, but it suffers from a io.iO-]acj< 0f explanation of the rationale for the decisions made (i.e., why was one MFP recommendation chosen over another?). Thank you for your attention and for your efforts to plan the best possible management for our public lands. Sincerely yours, Russell Shay CA-NV Representativ • 3-30 Response to Sierra Club Response 15.1 Additional information regarding procedural steps in the wilderness process has been included in Chapter 1. Response 15.2 Statements regarding fire management activities in WSAs were in error and have been corrected. Response 15.3 Preservation is the preferred means of dealing with cultural resources. The Sawtooth Mountains C WSA contains sufficient archaeological resources to benefit the cultural resource program and increase our knowledge of early cultures. Wilderness designation will adversely affect archaeo- logical investigations by largely prohibiting research excavations. Response 15.4 Text has been revised; reference to distance has been dropped. Response 15.5 The FEIS has been revised to eliminate information concerning manage- ability. Manageability will be discussed in the Wilderness Study Report and evaluated (if a WSA is designated as wilderness) in the Wilderness Management Plan. Response 15.6 We acknowledge that AMPs can be established in wilderness areas. Response 15.7 Additional information specific to each WSA has been added to the FEIS. The FEIS has been reformatted to present all information on a WSA by WSA basis. Response 15.8 See response to 15.2. Response 15.9 Rare plant inventories will be obtained as part of the environmental analysis conducted prior to the implementation of specific management actions proposed in this document. Projects will be designed to minimize impacts to rare plants. 3-31 16 san Diego County Council of Cem and Mineral Societies September 21, 1980 21 Centre Resource Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 33 3 South Waterman Avenue El Centre, California 92243 Attention: Dave Marie Dear Sirs : Comments on "Proposed Livestock Grazing Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego Planning Unit." Page 3-3 Vegetation Condition and Trend: Under grazing alternative 1. It will result in an overall negative impact in terms of fcrags production, for as /ou make clear and we know without range management the predominate chaparral species will out- compete perennial grass species and in these areas the composition levels of these grasses are already low. Furthermore, open stands of brush with perennial grasses between will develop into an area completely covered with the woody greasewood type chaparral in five to ten years which is not good for foage of cattle or any of the indigenous animals (deer and sheep). We have seen many areas in San Diego County where this has taken place in the last fifty years, areas almost completely covered with perennial grass species with very little chaparral that are now covered, and others that are nearly covered, and this growth of chaparral is more subject to erosion and prone to intense uncontrollable fires. We are for controlled grazing and management of the range with a good increase in watering places of animals, indigenous and domestic, to spread range use and lessen impaction. If it is thought the presence of cattle would keep the desert mountain sheep from utilizing water provided for cattle, then additional watering places should be provided where possible in places not so frequented by cattle, usch as rocky places in which a little cement would create a pseudo natural tank to collect precipitation, natural run-off, or water of springs. We think a wilderness area should not necessarily be precluded from having domestic cattle present nor do we think it should be precluded from having water developed for the indigenous animals - 16.1 desert mountain sheep, deer, and all other indigenous animals as well as cattle. At times dry conditions can lower the desert mountain sheep population and additional means of obtaining water other than natural can only help them to survive. We think mechanical means must be permitted to care for watering places, and the range where needed (wilderness or not). -\Q2^1 *3 aearl7 impossible to carry an injured animal of 200-2,000 lbs. on the pommel of a saddle, and a few sacks of cement are a little unmanageable on that same pommel. 3-32 * 2 of 2. Page 3-9 Soils: Grazing alternative 2: If proposed development and management will give the improved vegetative cover (i.e. forage) as stated, then let it be so. In reference to statement - "'There these structures (i.e. troughs and drinkers) are located on slopes of 30 degrees or more, erodability wiil fall in a severe class", we have never seen such structures placed on that steep of a slope, and such should be prohibited except in rocky areas not subject to erosion such as prime places for pseudo natural tanks, tfater can be piped from development to a lesser slope. T 'fie , the members of the San Diego County Council of Gem and Mineral Societies request the rockhoundlng collecting areas open to the rcckhounds, and those studying the earth sciences, on roads and trails used by ranchers - the gates open to the rockhound, if necessary by permit, where there is collecting - prefer net to always have to have a permit. these collecting areas are: 16.3 Southeast McCain Valley (In-ko-pah allotment) Southern Corrizo Gorge (Mt. Tule allotment) Table Wt. (Tierra Blancs allotment) •fe would not like any idea of increasing herds of desert mountain shee? for hunting purposes (i.e. Arizona). San Die.^o County Council of Gem and Mineral Societies Clarence A. Hitter Mailing Address: Clarence A. Ritter 125 Corte Maria Avenue Chula Vista, Ca 92010 3-33 Response to San Diego County Council of Gem and Mineral Societies Response 16.1 Wilderness and livestock grazing are not mutually exclusive. Establishing wilderness does not preclude livestock grazing nor does it preclude devel- opment of water sources for wildlife if wilderness values are thereby enhanced. Response 16.2 Mechanical means to care for watering places and other range improvements would be permitted in the wilderness areas. Response 16.3 None of the three rockhounding collection areas would be affected by wilderness designation as all are outside the boundaries of WSAs proposed as suitable for wilderness designation. 3-34 18 CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES FEDERATION State Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation PRESIDENT Jeffrey Jung NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VICE PRESIDENT Thomas Smith SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VICE PRESIDENT Dr. Michael McCoy DVM SECRETARY TREASURER Rudolph J.H. Schafer 2701 Cottage Way Suite 28 Sacramento. CA 95825 Ph: (916)483-1125 U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Management El Centro Area Office 333 S. Waterman Ave. El Centro, Calif. 92243 September 22, 19S0 Gentlemen: I have written the following comments on the Draft E.I.S. for Drooosed grazing and wilderness management in the East San Diego County area, for the following reasons: (1) As a veterinarian, I have worked with staff in State and Federal agencies, and on my own, to encourage protection and better management of the resource bease upon which the Bighorn sheep depend. (2) As the Southern California Vice-President of the California Natural Resources Federation, I will encourage the Board and membership to support this position. Due to the pressures of work, these comments are a little late. However, this does not change their validity, and we insist that the glaring deficiencies in this Draft E.I.S. be rectified in the final product. Sincerely, Michael A. McCoy, DW MAM/ke cc ; Mr. Gerald Hillier Mr. James B. Ruch National Wildlife Federation 3-35 <* 'Me use 100** recycled paper * Comments: "vai rthy does 3LM consider it necessary to continue to permit grazing of cattle in San Diego County, since such cattle 18 1 operations are no longer economically feasible? All cattle lease areas in the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit (S.S.D.C.P.U. ) are very small operations, when comDared to others in California on oublic lands. 1 * (b) On page 3-24 it is stated that the In-Ko-Pah and Mt.Tule allotments will be increased in the amount of cattle use under the proposed action. All other allotments will be decreased in the amount of cattle use under the proposed action. Since 3ighorn sheep are found in the McCain Valley area only within the In-Ko-Pah and Mt. Tule allotments, it is irresponsible to consider increasing the number of cattle in or near the periphery of their habitat. The proposed mitigating measures will not control the problem of lease 1Q2 cattle moving through the wildlife fences. Straying cattle will contribute to the already present feral cattle problem in Carrizo Gorge and in areas near Grapevine Spring and unoer Bow Willow Spring. Also, it is not realistic to expect to be able to eliminate feral cattle from these areas. The topography prohibits removal or elimination of cattle on a continual basis. The exclusion of 3,000 acres of Bighorn habitat from cattle grazing does not benefit Bighorn sheep, since these cattle do not respect artificial or physical barriers, and are capable of easily negotiating the steepest and most rugged terrain. (c) The- entire new allotment suggested under the proposed action (allotment B) will overlap Bighorn sheep habitat in the Mt. Tule area, not just the 300 acres as described on page C-4. The comments provided for the In-Ko-Pah and Mt. Tule allotments also apply to allotment B. In addition, 18.3 when Bighorn come into contact with cattle during the winter- spring period, it will result in decreasing Bighorn utiliza- tion of the area during summer and fall. This has already occurred in Aravaipa Canyon in Arizona, where Bighorn and lease cattle compete for habitat on land administered by B1M (the Safford Resource Area.) (d) The present BLM management of Bighorn habitat will actually 18.4 result in the listing of the sheep as a rare animal, as defined in your own future Bureau policy, (3LM Manual 6&A.0). (e) On page 2-33 it is stated tnat "the population size and distribution oi mule deer within the planning area is unknown." 18^5 Management practices cannot be promulgated, therefore, since baseline data is unavailable, and estimates of deer density are without basis. We request a management plan for mule deer in the ESDCPU based on realistic information. Thank-you for your attention. 3-36 Response to California National Resource Federation Response 18.1 By law, the BLM is directed to manage public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Grazing is included as a legitimate use under this directive. Thus, the BLM must provide for the stabilization of the livestock industry while protecting the natural resources from destruction or unnecessary injury. There are several operators in the EIS area whose livelihood depends on ranching. The size of the operation is insignificant in terms of issuing a grazing lease. For example, if we eliminate an operator based on size, another lessee would be able to lease that area and all areas that would become available, resulting in large operations. Therefore, eliminating small operators would not eliminate grazing, only the user. Response 18.4 Peninsular bighorn sheep are already listed as threatened by the State of California. The objective of current BLM management is to improve conditions for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. Response 18.5 During both in-house and public scoping sessions, mule deer were not identified as an issue. In addition, due to a limited availability of funds, it was determined during the preplan analysis that no big game studies would be carried out and that data gathering efforts would concentrate on species of primary concern, such as the State-listed (Threatened) Peninsular bighorn sheep. Estimates of mule deer densities were therefore obtained through discussions with California Department of Fish and Game personnel and other investigators familiar with the area. 3-37 Paul G. Chacc & ^^ssociates 20 4823 .%m4Mi Skive $fn7or-- *rQu.;dec^- Co 1 o r ado ^9 77 *?"> *» L /m°"iot "'***» i0:zrr^y a .J Arcns classified as Known Geothermal Resources Ar- cjs (KGRA). (Sec L.IL Godwin, LB. Haigicr, R.L. Rioux, D.E. While L | P. Muffler, and R.G. Wayland, "Classification of Public Lands Valuable for Geothermal Steam and Associated Geo- thermal Resources," Geological Survey Cir- cular 647 (1971) | . Data taken from U.S. Geological Survey Conservation Division maps (scale 1:500,000). In general, bound- aries shown are those in existence in mid- 1976 and arc subject to change. Areas classified as being valuable prospectively for geothermal steam and as- sociated geothermal resources. Reference uul source of data same as for KGRA s, ,l„.vc. Likewise, in general, boundaries i . ..n ilmsc in existence in mid-19ZG Response to Atlantic Richfield Company Response 23.1 Geothermal development was considered and dismissed as an issue in the WSAs. See Identification of Issues for each WSA for rationale. Response 23.2 The Eastern San Diego Management Framework Plan (MFP), to the extent possible, provides for geothermal exploration and the possibility of leasing. The FEIS addresses only the impacts of wilderness on other resources and vice verse; it does not address all of the decisions in the MFP. 3-47 Public Comments on the 1982 Plan Amendments EIS The BLM suitability recommendation for the Sawtooth Mountains C WSA, CA-060-024C, was changed from "suitable" to "nonsuitable" by a 1982 amendment (Amendment 43) to the Eastern San Diego County Management Framework Plan. Of those persons who commented on the Draft EIS, seven letters favored Amendment 43, while fifteen were opposed. In addition, a few general comments applying to Amendment 43 and three other amendments concerning the Sawtooth Mountains B WSA were received. One commenter requested deferral of all four amendments for one year. Another supported all four amendments providing the areas remain in Multiple-Use Class L and would not later be changed to Classes M or I. Most commenters opposing the amendments cited adverse impacts on cultural resources and bighorn sheep. The California State Resources Agency submitted the following comments on Amendment 43 (from page 22 of their November 12, 1982, response letter): AMENDMENT 43: Change Sawtooth WSA CA-060-024C from Class C to Class L. 1982-1 The State opposes Amendment 43. Acceptance of this amendment would create management problems to the adjacent State wilderness area by isolating the boundaries of the area and making them awkward to patrol. This area has considerable wilderness qualities that may lend support to a wilderness designation as suitable. Management as Class L would have some adverse impacts on the wilderness qualities and could compromise surrounding wilderness areas. Response to 1982-1 The change from Class C to Class L will not change the boundaries of the adjacent State Park and will have no impact on ease of patrol of the park's designated wilderness. The State's comment regarding the wilderness qualities of CA-060-024C is noted. The management program as outlined under the description of the Proposed Action in this document would have only very minor impacts to the wilderness qualities of the area. The quality of existing or potential surrounding wilderness lands would not be compromised by the low levels of grazing, mining, and beekeeping envisioned for the area under Class L management. Four letters received in response to the Final 1982 Amendments EIS contained comments on Amendment 43. All four commentors opposed the amendment. 3-48 LIST OF PREPARERS Steven M. Nelson, Lead Outdoor Recreation Planner Team Leader Lynn C. Anderson, Outdoor Recreation Planner Recreation, Wilderness, Visual Resources Cynthia Grover, Range Conservationist Vegetation, Livestock Grazing, Soils and Watershed Resources Lynda G. Kastoll, Realty Specialist Land Ownership Lillian A. Olech, Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Richard Park, Geologist Mineral and Energy Resources, Aquifer Use Patrick H. Welch, Archaeologist Cultural Resources STAFF SUPPORT Dale Bays, Economist Roderick Bradley, Cartographic Tech C. Holden Brink, Wildlife Biologist Dan Brown, Soil Conservationist James Carroll, Cartographic Tech. Richard Ernenwein, Botanist & Fire Management Coordinator David H. Eslinger, Wilderness & Special Areas Coordinator Roberta Grannis, Typist Sean Hagerty, Geologist William Haigh, Technical Coordinator Annette Jameson, Writer-Editor Russ La Joie, Range Conservationist Stephen Larson, Range Conservationist Terry Russi, Wildlife Biologist Robert Schneider, Outdoor Rec. Planner Arnold Schoeck, Outdoor Rec. Planner Mark Sutton, Anthropologist Marianna Taylor, Ethnographer STATE OFFICE REVIEW AND COORDINATION Holden Brink Environmental Coordinator Richard F. Johnson Deputy State Director, Lands and Renewable Resources Preparers LP-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archaeological Systems Management, Inc. 1980. Cultural Resources Inventory of the McCain Valley Study Area. San Diego County. California (Draft). U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Bentley, Joy R. 1967. Conversion of Chaparral to Grassland. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific S.W. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. Handbook No. 328, 35 pg. Brady, N.C. 1974. The Natures and Properties of Soils. 8th ed. New York: MacMillain. Brown, David E. 1978. Grazing, Grassland, Cover and Game Birds. 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Phoenix, Arizona, March 18-22, 1978. Bureau of Land Management. 1968. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Asphalt, Bituminous Rock or Oil Shale, Southern California, 1:500,000 scale. . 1968. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Phosphate, Southern California, 1:500,000 scale. . 1981. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Coal, Southern Cali- fornia, 1:500,000 scale 1982. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Geothermal Resources, Southern California, 1:500,000 scale. . November 12, 1985. Geographic Mining Claim Index . 1985. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Oil and Gas, Southern California, 1:500,000 scale. . 1985. Map Edition, Lands Valuable for Sodium and Potassium, Southern California, 1:500,000 scale. Bureau of Mines. 1984. Mineral Resources of the Sawtooth Mountains Wilder- ness Study Area (BLM No. CA-060-024B) , San Diego County, California. Open File Mineral Land Assessment No. 3-84. . 1985. Mineral Resources of the Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness Study Area (BLM No. CA-060-025), San Diego County, California. Open File Mineral Land Assessment No. 23-85. Cable, Dwight R. 1975. Range Management in the Chaparral Type and Its Ecological Basis. U.S. Dept. Agri., For. Serv., Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Research Paper RM-155, Fort Collins, Colo. Camel, Erick. Personal Communication, January 1980. BLM, Safford, Arizona. References B-l Case, C.P. 1966. "Grazing and Watershed Value of Native Arizona Plants." Native Plants and Animals as Resources in Dried Lands of the South- western United States. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Rocky Mt. Southwest. Div. (Comm. Desert Ariz. Zones Res., Flagstaff, Arizona, May 1965) Contrib. 8, 9, 31-40. Cheatham, Norden H. and J. Robert Haller. 1975. An Annotated List of California Habitat Types. University of California Natural Land and Water Reserve System. Unpublished. Cook, John and Scott Fulmer, editors. 1980. The Archaeology and History of the McCain Valley Study Area: A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory. Government Printing Office, Washington. County of San Diego. 1976. General Plan. Cunningham, S.C. 1979. The Ecology of Peninsular Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) , Carrizo Canyon, California. Bureau of Land Management Report. 93 pp. Fages, Pedro. 1937. A Historical, Political and Natural Description of California (1775) translated by Herbert Priestly, University of California Press, Berkeley. Furlow, Bob, Kofa Game Range, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Yuma, Arizona, personal communication, January, 1980. Gifford, E.W. 1931. The Kamia of Imperial Valley, Bureau of American Ethnology No. 97, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hansen, C.G. and O.V. Deming. 1973. Reproduction. "The desert bighorn, its life history, ecology and management." Desert Bighorn Council. Chapter 9, preliminary manuscript. Hedges, Ken. 1980. Rock Art. In the Archaeology and History of the McCain Valley Study Area: A Class II Cultural Resource Inventory. Government Printing Office, Washington. Hendee, John C. U.S. Forest Service, personal communication, 1972. Hendee, John C, Robert C. Lucas and George H. Stankee, (eds). 1970. Wilderness Management. U.S. Forest Service, Misc. Publication No. 1365. Hicks, Lorin L. 1978. The Status and Distribution of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in the In-Ko-Pah Mountains. California Bureau of Land Management Report. 63 pp. Hormay, August L. Principles of Rest - Rotation Grazing and Multiple-Use Land Management. U.S. Dept. of Agric, Forest Service, Sept. 1970. Humphrey, R.R. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, Vol. 32, No. 10, October 1940. References B-2 Johnson, R. Rou, and Dale A. Jones. 1977. Importance of Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat, A Symposium. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-43, 216 pp. Kaehler, Charles. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, personal communication. Kroeberr, A.L. 1925. Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology No. 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Light, J.T., Jr. 1969. Letter in files of U.S. Forest Service, San Diego, California, 2610 Cooperative Relations. 2 pp. Light, J.T., Jr. and R. Weaver. 1973. Report on bighorn sheep habitat study in the area for which an application was made to expand the Mt. Baldy winter sports facility. Cajon Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, 39 pp. (mimeo). Lord, Phil, personal communication, 1979. Marin, Marge and Ken Hedges. 1974. The Crawford Ranch Archaeological Survey. Unpublished manuscript on file at El Centro Resource Area. McCain, J.L., personal communication, June 1, 1977. McCain, R., personal Communication, 1978. McKeen and Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. California State Water Resources Control Board, Publication 3-A reprint June 1, 1974. McKinnie, Harold, CDFG, personal communication, December 1979. Munz, Phillip A., and David D. Keck. 1970. A California Flora. University of California Press. Native American Heritage Commission, Memorandum of Indian Heritage Con- sultants and Observers Monitors, letter of correspondence, July 17, 1979. Roney, J. 1977. Livestock and Lithics: The Effects of Trampling. Winnemucca, Nevada: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Ruch, James, personal communication, 1979. Schoenfield, Clarence A., and John C. Hendee. 1978. Wildlife Management in Wilderness. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, California, p. 172. Science Applications, Inc. 1979. Draft Report on Baseline Meteorology and Air Quality in the California Desert District. Shdpek, Florence C. 1968. The Autobiography of Defina Cuero. Dawsons Book Shop, Los Angeles. References B-3 Skovline, J.M., P.J. Edgerton, and R.W. Harris. 1968. The Influence of Cattle Management on Deer and Elk. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Resource, Winnemucca, Nevada: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. State of California. 1975. California Ground Water. California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 118. 1976. California City and Unincorporated Place Names, Depart- ment of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, . 1979. California Statistical Abstract. Department of Finance. . 1979. Population Estimates for California Counties. Population Research Unit, Sacramento, CA. State of California, Department of Fish and Game. 1978. At the Crossroads: A Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. State of California, Resources Agency. Stelfox, John. 1976. Range Ecology of Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep. Canadian Wildlife Service. Report Series Number 39. Stoddard, Lawrence A., and Arthur D. Smith. 1955. Range Management, second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Turner, J.C. 1973. Water. Energy, and Electrolyte Balance in the Desert Bighorn Sheep. Ovis canadensis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Riverside. 114 pp. U.S. Congress. 1979. Designating certain National Forest System Lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System, by resource and for other purposes. House of Representatives Report Number 96-617. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1967. Agriculture Handbook No. 328. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service. 1978. California Livestock Statistics. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and the U.S. Forest Service. 1973. Soil Survey San Diego County. . 1978. County of San Diego Agricultural Crop Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Cali- fornia Desert Conservation Area Wilderness Inventory Final Descriptive Narrative. . 1979. Eastern San Diego County Planning Area Analysis. Unpub- lished report. BLM, Riverside, CA, District Office. . 1979. Final Intensive Inventory. Public Lands Administered by BLM Outside the California Desert Conservation Area. References B-4 1979. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. . 1979. McCain Valley Resource Conservation Area Recreation Activity Management Plan. BLM, Riverside, California Desert District Office. 1980. Draft Environmental Statement Proposed Grazing and Wilderness Management for the Eastern San Diego County Area (McCain Valley), California. BLM, Sacramento, California State Office. . 1980. Rangeland Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Places. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 80-369. . 1981. Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit Management Frame- work Plan. BLM, Riverside, California Desert District Office. . 1981. Wilderness Management Policy. . 1984. Final Environmental Assessment for the Table Mountain Wind Energy Study. .. 1986. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Preliminary Wilder- ness Recommendations for the Eastern San Diego County Planning Unit. BLM, Riverside, California Desert District Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 1977. Water Data Report CA-77-1 . Vogt, Gary. Personal communication, August 11, 1987. USDA Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego, California. Weaver, R.A., J.L. Mensch and W.V. Fait. 1968. A Survey of the California Desert Bighorn in San Diego County. California Department of Fish and Game. PR Project W-51-R-13B. 23 pp. Weber, F. Harold, Jr. 1963. Geology and mineral resources of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology County Rept. 3, 309 pp. Wilson, L.O. 1969. "The forgotten desert bighorn habitat requirement." Trans. Desert Bighorn Council. 13:108-113. . BLM Boise, Idaho, personal communication, January 1980. Wirth Associates, Inc. 1978. Overview of the Prehistory and History on Inland. San Diego County. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. References B-5 GLOSSARY AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC): Public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. CAMPSITES: Areas of permanent habitation (villages), or temporary camps. They tend to be located near water and near utilized resources. CERAMIC SCATTER: Broken ceramic sherds, either isolated or in quantity. CHERRYSTEM: Fingerlike intrusions into a WSA which are not themselves part of the WSA (for example, an access road). COLOR: The property of reflecting light of a particular wavelength that enables the eye to differentiate otherwise unidentifiable objects. CONTIGUOUS: Lands or legal subdivisions having a common boundary; lands having only a common corner are not contiguous. CONTRAST: The effect of striking difference in the form, line, color, or texture of an area being viewed. CROSS-COUNTRY: Refers to travel that is not on existing access routes (ways and trails) and does not involve any surface disturbance other than that caused solely by the passage of vehicles. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: The aggregate impact of existing and proposed activi- ties. Individual intrusions when considered by themselves may not impair wilderness suitability; however, when combined with other existing and proposed substantially unnoticeable impacts, the total effect may be sufficient to impair an area's suitability for preservation as a wilderness. DISPERSED RECREATION USE: Recreation use that occurs outside developed recreation sites. ENHANCEMENT: A short-term management alternative accomplished to increase visual variety where little or no variety exists at present. ETHNOGRAPHY: The anthropological description of living cultures. FLPMA: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743.43 USC 1701). FORM: The mass of an object(s) that appears unified. IMPACT: The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint of an activity. IMPAIR: To diminish in value or excellence. Glossary G-l INTERMITTENT STREAM: A stream that does not flow year round, but is periodically dry. INTRUSION: A feature (land, vegetation, or structure) which is generally considered out of context with the characteristic landscape. LINE: A point which has been extended; anything arranged in a row or sequence. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN (MFP): Land-use plan for public lands that provides a set of goals, objectives, and constraints for a specific planning unit to guide the development of detailed plans for the management of each resource. MITIGATION: Measures taken to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts. They constitute a real and committed action by the Bureau of Land Management. MULTIPLE USE: ". . . the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and condi- tions; the use of some lands for less than all of the resources; a combi- nation of balanced and diverse resource uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural, scenic, scientific, and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output." (From Section 103, FLPMA.) OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV): Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other terrain. PREFERENCE: Means (with respect to grazing) the total number of animal unit months of livestock grazing on public lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee. PRIMITIVE AND UNCONFINED RECREATION: Nonmotorized and undeveloped types of outdoor recreation activities. PUBLIC LANDS: For the purpose of the wilderness review program, any lands and interest in lands owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except: 1. Lands where the United States owns the minerals but the surface is privately owned. Glossary G-2 2. Lands being held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. 3. Lands tentatively approved for State selection in Alaska. 4. Lands on the Outer Continental Shelf. 5. Oregon and California grant (O&C) lands that are managed for commercial timber production. RIPARIAN: Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a stream or other body of water. Used to refer to the plants of all types that grow along streams, around springs, etc. ROADLESS AREA: (1) a BLM-administered area bounded by a road using the edge of the physical change that creates the road or the adjacent edge of the right-of-way, other ownership, or water, as a boundary. (2) A formally designated State of California administered area that is equivalent to Federal wilderness study areas. ROASTING PITS: Rock-lined pits, where plants (mainly agave) were processed. ROCKSHELTERS: Small rock overhangs or caves usually found in mountainous areas. They may contain perishables. ROCK ART/ROCK ALIGNMENTS: Rock art including pictographs and petroglyphs, stove circles and rock walls. SCENIC QUALITY: The quality of the scenery as determined through the use of the scenic evaluation process. SOLITUDE: 1. The state of being alone or remote from habitations; isola- tion. 2. A lonely, unfrequented, or secluded place. SUBSTANTIALLY UNNOTICEABLE: Refers to something that either is so insig- nificant as to be only a very minor feature of the overall area or is not distinctly recognizable by the average visitor as being man-made or man- caused because of age, weathering, or biological change. An example of the first would be a few minor dams or abandoned mine buildings that are widely scattered over a large area, so that they are an inconspicuous part of the scene. Serious intrusions of this kind, or many of them, may preclude inclusion of the land in a wilderness study area. An example of the second would be an old juniper control project that has grown up to a natural appearance, the old fallen trees largely decomposed. TEXTURE: The visual result of the tactile surface characteristics of an object. UNNECESSARY OR UNDUE DEGRADATION: Impacts greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with current standards and regulations and based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonably available technology. Glossary G-3 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRH): The planning, design, and implementa- tion of visual resource management classes for all BLM resource management activities. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASSES: The degree of alternation that is acceptable with the characteristic landscape. The classes are based upon the physical and sociological characteristics of any given homogeneous area. WATERSHED: The area drained by a principal river or stream system. WILDERNESS: A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substan- tially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preserva- tion and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecologi- cal, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historical value. The definition contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). WILDERNESS AREA: (1) An area formally designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. (2) An area formally designated as part of the State of California's Wilderness Preservation System. WILDERNESS INVENTORY: An evaluation of the public lands in the form of a written description and map showing those lands that meet the wilderness criteria as established under Section 603(a) of FLPMA and Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, which will be referred to as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). See Wilderness Inventory Handbook, dated September 27, 1978. WILDERNESS NONSUITABILITY: A management recommendation, based on the application of wilderness suitability criteria, that the best use of the resources comprising a Wilderness Study Area would be met without desig- nation of the WSA as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, permitting uses which might not necessarily be compatible with wilderness values. WILDERNESS REPORTING: The process of preparing the report on each wilder- ness study area and submitting that report to the President and Congress through the Department of the Interior. Glossary G-4 WILDERNESS REVIEW PROGRAM: The term used to cover the entire process of wilderness inventory, study, and reporting for the wilderness resource, culminating in recommendations submitted through the Secretary of the Interior and the President to Congress as to the suitability or nonsuit- ability of each wilderness study area for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. WILDERNESS STUDY: The process of analyzing and planning wilderness preservation opportunities along with other resource opportunities within the Bureau's Planning System. WILDERNESS SUITABILITY: A management recommendation, based on the application of wilderness suitability criteria, that the best use of the resources comprising a Wilderness Study Area would be designation of the WSA as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Glossary G-5 INDEX Alternatives 2A-1, 2A-7, 2A-8, 2A-11, 2A-16, 2B-1 , 2B-7-9, 2B-14, 2B-18, 2C-1 , 2C-7-9, 2C-14, 2C-19, 2D-1 , 2D-7, 2D-8, 2D-11, 2D-17 Apiary 2B-1, 2B-4, 2B-10, 2B-12, 2B-13, 2B-19-21, 2C-1 , 2C-4, 2C-10, 2C-12, 2C-13, 2C-20-25 Aquifer 2A-1, 2A-16, 2B-1, 2B-18, 2C-1 , 2C-19, 2D-1 , 2D-17 Archaeological 2A-14, 2B-15, 2C-2, 2C-4, 2C-11, 2C-13, 2C-14, 2C-16, 2C-21-25, 2D-4, 20-14 Cultural resources 2A-1, 2A-4, 2A-14, 2B-1 , 2B-4, 2B-15, 2C-1 , 2C-4, 2C-13, 2C-16, 2C-22, 2C-25, 2D-1, 2D-4, 20-9, 2D-14 Endangered species 2A-4, 2A-15, 2B-8, 2B-16, 2C-8, 2C-17, 2D-7, 20-16 Energy 2A-1, 2A-10, 2A-15, 2B-1 , 2B-17, 2C-1 , 2C-18, 2D-1 , 2D-4, 20-16 Fire 2A-1, 2A-4, 2A-1-13, 2A-17-20, 2B-1 , 2B-7, 2B-10-13, 2B-19-22, 2C-1 , 2C-7, 2C-10-14, 2C-20-25, 20-1, 2D-7, 2D-9, 2D-10, 2D-12, 20-18-20 Game species 2A-15, 2B-17, 2C-18, 2D-16 Grazing 2A-1, 2A-16, 2B-1, 2B-4, 2B-7, 2B-8, 2B-10, 2B-12, 2B-13, 2B-17, 2B-20, 2B-22, 2C-1, 2C-7, 2C-8, 2C-11-13, 2C-18, 2C-21 , 2C-22, 2C-24, 2C-25, 2D-1, 2D-4, 2D-9, 2D-10, 2D-12, 2D-17, 2D-19, 2D-21 Issues 2A-1, 2A-3, 2A-16, 2A-17, 2B-1 , 2B-3, 2B-4, 2B-18, 2B-19, 2C-1 , 2C-3, 2C-4, 2C-19, 2D-1, 2D-3, 2D-17, 2D-18 Land tenure 2A-1, 2A-9, 2A-11, 2B-1 , 2B-11, 2B-12, 2C-1 , 2C-11, 2C-12 Long-term productivity 2A-2, 2A-19, 2B-2, 2B-21 , 2C-2, 2C-23, 20-2, 20-20 Minerals 2A-9-11, 2A-15, 2A-16, 2B-11, 2B-17, 2C-11, 2C-18, 2D-10, 2D-16, 20-17 No action 2A-1, 2A-2, 2A-4, 2A-7, 2A-8, 2A-12, 2A-17, 2B-1 , 2B-2, 2B-7-10, 2B-13, 2B-19, 2C-1, 2C-2, 2C-7-10, 2C-13, 2C-20, 20-1, 2D-2, 2D-8, 20-12, 2D-18 Peninsular bighorn sheep 2B-7, 2B-10, 2B-14, 2B-16, 2B-20-22, 2C-7, 2C-13, 2C-15, 2C-17, 2C-21 , 2C-24, 2D-16, 2D-19, 20-21 Preparers LP-1 Primitive recreation 2A-3, 2A-18, 2B-3, 2B-20, 2C-3, 2C-21 , 2D-3, 2D-13 Proposed action 2A-1, 2A-2, 2A-7, 2A-8, 2A-10-13, 2A-1 7 , 2A-20, 2B-1 , 2B-2, 2B-7-14, 2B-19-22, 2C-1, 2C-2, 2C-7-10, 2C-12-14, 2C-20, 2C-22-25, 2D-1 , 2D-2, 2D-7, 2D-8, 2D-10, 2D-12, 2D-13, 2D-18-21 Index 1-1 Raptor 2A-4, 2A-7, 2A-15, 2B-8, 2B-16, 2C-8, 2C-17, 2D-7, 2D-16 Rare plants 2B-11 Recreational use 2A-18, 2A-20 Roads 2A-3, 2A-9, 2A-15, 2C-20-22, 2C-24, 2D-13 Sensitive 2A-4, 2A-9, 2A-15, 2A-19, 2B-7, 2B-16, 2B-17, 2C-7, 2C-11, 2C-16, 2C-17, 2C-22, 2D-4, 2D-7, 2D-15, 2D-16 Short-term 2A-2, 2A-12, 2A-17, 2A-19, 2B-2, 2B-19, 2B-21 , 2C-2, 2C-20, 2C-23, 20-2, 20-12, 20-18-20 Soils 2A-1, 2A-16, 2B-1, 2B-18, 2C-1 , 2C-18, 2D-1 , 2D-17 Special 2A-1, 2A-3, 2A-12, 2A-13, 2A-17-20, 2B-1 , 2B-3, 2B-10-12, 2B-14, 2B-17, 2B-19-22, 2C-1, 2C-3, 2C-9, 2C-12, 2C-13, 2C-15, 2C-17, 2C-20, 2C-21 , 2C-24, 2D-1, 20-3, 2D-4, 2D-9, 2D-10, 2D-13, 2D-14, 20-16, 2D-18, 2D-19, 2D-21 Summary 2A-1, 2A-11, 2B-1, 2B-14, 2C-1 , 2C-14, 2D-1 , 2D-11 Vegetation 2A-1, 2A-3, 2A-4, 2A-9, 2A-1 1 , 2A-13, 2A-14, 2A-16, 2B-1 , 2B-8, 2B-10-12, 2B-14, 2B-16, 2B-20, 2C-1 , 2C-3, 2C-8, 2C-10, 2C-11, 2C-14, 2C-16, 2C-21, 20-1, 2D-7, 2D-9, 2D-10, 2D-13, 20-14, 2D-16 Visual resources 2A-1, 2A-14, 2B-1, 2B-15, 2C-1 , 2C-15, 2D-1 , 2D-4, 2D-14 Water 2A-3, 2A-14, 2A-16, 2A-18, 2A-22, 2B-2, 2B-7, 2B-10, 2B-15, 2B-18, 2B-20, 2B-22, 2C-3, 2C-7, 2C-10, 2C-16, 2C-18-21, 2C-24, 20-19, 2D-21 Wilderness values 2A-1-3, 2A-7, 2A-10, 2A-12, 2A-13, 2A-17, 2A-19, 2A-20, 2B-1-3, 2B-8, 2B-9, 2B-13, 2B-14, 2B-19, 2B-21 , 2B-22, 2C-1-3, 2C-8, 2C-9, 2C-13, 2C-14, 2C-20, 2C-21, 2C-23, 2C-24, 20-1-3, 2D-8, 2D-12, 2D-13, 2D-19-21 Wildlife 2A-1, 2A-4, 2A-9, 2A-11, 2A-15, 2A-17, 2B-1 , 2B-7, 2B-8, 2B-10, 2B-12, 2B-16-19, 2C-1, 2C-7, 2C-8, 2C-10-12, 2C-17, 2C-19, 2D-1 , 2D-7, 20-9, 2D-10, 2D-16, 2D-18 Index 1-2 AppENdJCES United States Department of the Interior ,Cf?weo FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE *U* *f ' K"* "*" SACRAMENTO ENDANGERED SPECIES OFFICE 17 || nV 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823 «W \L II u* Sacramento, California 95825-1846 ^c.t/-" s>^/"' May 9, 1986 MEMORANDUM Action by _ Surname by. Return to _ TO: Mr. Ed Hastey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, California 95825 FROM: Project Leader, Endangered Species Office, Sacramento, California 95825 SUBJECT: Consultation requirements for BLM Wilderness Designation 8500 (CA-930.1) (Case No. 1-1-86-1-321) In response to your May 6, 1986, request for informal consultation regarding designation or non-designation of wilderness status for Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's), we concur with your statement that this process does not require formal Section 7 consultation. Any future actions on WSA's that might affect a listed species can be evaluated at proposal stage and formal consultations initiated if needed. If you have questions regarding this reply please contact me at FTS/460-4866. cc: Chief, Endangered Species, Portland, OR 97232 (AFA-SE) /H wun.v una to: United States Department of the Interior esoo CA-930 1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE 2800 CctUft W«y S*crmmenio, Calif oni* 95823 MAY ^ 1986 Mr. Gail Kobetich, Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Endangered Species Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Dear Mr. Kobetich: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management in California is preparing eleven final Wilderness EIS's during fiscal year 1986 that will analyze the environmental impacts of wilderness designation or non-designation on a total of 58 Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's). We hereby initiate informal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act concerning this matter. Some of these WSA's provide important habitat for federally listed or proposed endangered species (for example, Peregrine Falcons and Bald Eagles). It has been determined by the BLM that the designation or non- designation of these areas as wilderness by Congress (at the recommendation of the BLM) will have only incidental benefit to any threatened or endangered species involved, not significant positive or negative effects. We seek your concurrence that these wilderness designations or non- designations do not themselves require formal Section 7 consultation, but that such consultation must be initiated prior to on-the-ground implementation of activities which may affect threatened or endangered species under wilderness or non-wilderness designations. Your prompt reply will be greatly appreciated. Ed Hastey State Director /f-2- The CNPS code consists of four numbers, each referring to a relative ranking for a specific list on which the species may be found, species rarity, species endangerment, and species distribution. The first number refers to the list on which the species may be found: 1 - plants presumed extinct in California; 2 - plants rare or endangered in California; 3 - plants about which we need more information; 4 - plants of limited distribution (a watch list). The second number refers to the relative rarity of the species: 1 - rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time; 2 - occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population; 3 - occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. The third number refers to the relative endangerment of the species: 1 - not endangered; 2 - endangered in a portion of its range; 3 - endangered throughout its range. And the fourth number refers to species distribution: 1 - more or less widespread outside California; 2 - rare outside California; 3 - endemic to California. A-3 Q U u z o w U E tu O BLM LIBRARY SC-324A, BLDG. 50 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER P. 0. BOX 25047 DENVER, CO 80225-0047 o » O m 2 H o TJ Tl O -ri O O > > CD Tl c O V) TJ W 03 w mC w r- tj o m stJS :§°£ > TJ > m en o >mo < > m £*■ z m _i o m TJ > TJ 11 H H m o o m m _ o> m O > i- O c -\ X o >