May 31, 2001

Memorandum

To: California Desert Managers Group

California Desert Managers Group Interagency Working Group Team Leaders

From: Executive Coordinator, California Desert Managers Group

DOD Coordinator, California Desert Managers Group

Subject: February 21-22, 2001 California Desert Managers Group Meeting
Summary

Attached is the draft summary for the California Desert Managers Group
meeting conducted February 21-22, 2001. Please review these items and
contact either John Hamill (760-255-8888) or Clarence Everly
(760-255-8896) if you have any changes.

# Attachments

Meeting Summary

Illegal Dump Site Clean-up Recommendations

Restoration Site Recommendations

## Draft Meeting Summary

**CALIFORNIA DESERT MANAGERS GROUP MEETING**

**February 21-22, 2001**

**Ramada Inn**

**Barstow, California**

1.  **Desert Tortoise Line Distance Sampling Field Trip and Field Plan
    Approval**

On 21 February Phil Medica, USFWS, sponsored a field trip to Rainbow
Basin in Barstow to familiarize Managers with the process of line
distance sampling. All Managers walked a transect and recorded tortoise
observed. Following the field exercise, the Managers returned to the
Ramada Inn in Barstow where Phil Medica provided a review of the
proposed desert tortoise monitoring plans for the FY 01 field season.
The Managers approved the plans as presented.

2.  **Desert Managers Group Update**

-   **DMG Briefings for the New Administration.** Briefings have been
    postponed until the key agency and DOI appointments are made and in
    place (probably May/June 2001). DOD indicated that they would
    participate in briefing the new administration but would not
    participate in Congressional briefings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **DSS funding update.** The DSS Legacy Proposal submitted for FY 01
    was not funded. The Legacy Program recommended the DMG work through
    the SERDP process to fund this initiative. The Managers supported
    seeking an academic/government agency sponsor for a joint proposal
    submittal through the SERDP process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Alternative Futures Project Update.** An Alternative Futures
    presentation was provided to the West Mojave Coordinated Management
    Plan (WMCMP) Super Group. The Super Group recommendation to BLM,
    following the presentation, was that BLM not use the WMCMP process
    as a pilot for the Alternative Futures model. The most vocal
    opposition came from city and county planners. Their major objection
    was that they already have similar models and see no reason to
    change. They also surfaced issues concerning accuracy of data,
    changes to data and input of these changes, and long-term
    maintenance of the process.

-   **Overflight Work Group Update.** The managers agreed to the Group's
    recommendation to draft an information brochure concerning
    overflights in the California Desert. Tim Salt indicated the
    settlement of the law suite related to BLM's failure to complete
    Section 7 ESA consultation on the BLM Cal Desert Plan included a
    stipulation for BLM to discuss the impacts of aircraft overflight on
    Peninsular Bighorn Sheep habitat with the DMG Overflight Work Group.
    Accordingly, this issue will be discussed at the next meeting of the
    Overflight Group (May 3, 2001). DOD indicated that they were still
    attempting to find a vice chair for the Work Group. Bob Shirley
    (Edwards) is serving as the interim vice chair.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **DMG Dump/Restoration Coordinator Position Status.** The position
    is currently being classified and will be forwarded to BLM who will
    advertise the position sometime in April 2001.

-   **Bruce Evans Tour of the California Desert.** Bruce Evans, Clerk of
    the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee for Interior, and
    John Hamill spent a week touring the Cal deserts, including the new
    San Jacinto-Santa Rosa Mountain National Monument, Salton Sea,
    Imperial Sand Dunes, and Joshua Tree NP.

-   **Work Group Chairs/Vice Chairs.** The Science Team Chair position
    is vacant. A request was made of all Managers to consider who
    potentially could assume this function. George Walker, USFWS, the
    current Vice Chair is acting as interim Chair. Katherine Wash of the
    Ridgecrest BLM office and Shannon Collis of the Barstow BLM office
    volunteered for the Desert Lands Restoration Work Group Chair and
    Vice Chair positions respectively. The Managers approved both
    persons. DoD is still committed to providing a Vice Chair for the
    Overflight Work Group. The Navy is currently reviewing options to
    resource this position.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **MDHRGIS/CHRIS.** The Managers received an overview of the current
    status of system development. The projection is to field a working
    version by 30 May. The issue was raised concerning long-term
    financial soundness for maintenance and upkeep of the system.
    Initially the state had no funds to maintain the system. This placed
    the operation and fielding of the system in jeopardy. Since that
    time project representatives met with the SHPO and obtained his
    commitment to fund \$40K of the estimated \$97K annual maintenance
    cost. Significant issues still exist relative to bringing the
    Information Centers (ICs) on board with this process. The state must
    review the value of contracted/self supporting ICs and determine
    whether they should be state operated entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **\$4.0 Million Army Grant to the University of Redlands.** The
    University of Redlands, through congressional legislation sponsored
    by Congressman Lewis, will receive a \$4.0 M grant, to be
    administered by the Army, for desert tortoise line distance
    sampling. At a recent meeting to discuss the grant, the Univ. of
    Redlands requested input as to what type of activities they should
    place in their grant proposal. Their desire is to focus on GIS
    related activities. The Managers were asked for ideas they may have
    for additional work/direction for input into the grant proposal.
    Univ. of Redlands staff will conduct a site visit to MDEP and Fort
    Irwin for further discussions.

3.  **FY 01 Project Review and Approval**

-   **BLM California Desert Lawsuit Settlement Update and Implications
    for the DMG.** Tim Salt reported on the settlement of the law suite
    related to BLM's failure to complete Section 7 ESA consultation on
    the BLM Cal Desert Plan. The initial cost for complying with all the
    stipulations is estimated at \$5M. Since additional funds have not
    been forthcoming, BLM intends to utilize its DMG funding to satisfy
    its commitments under the lawsuit.

-   **Illegal Dump Project Recommendations.** The Hazmat team presented
    its recommendations to the DMG. 14 sites were recommended for
    cleanup. All the recommendations (attached) were accepted except for
    the clean up of the Kelso Depot on the Mojave National Preserve. Tim
    Salt indicated that BLM could not justify the expenditure at Kelso
    Depot in light of the limited benefits of the project to BLM. He
    said he would reconsider this position if NPS would agree to conduct
    desert tortoise line distance sampling on BLM land adjacent to the
    Mojave National Preserve. Mary Martin and Tim Salt agree to discuss
    this possibility after the meeting.

-   **Habitat Restoration Project Recommendations.** Five projects were
    submitted to the Desert Lands Restoration Work Group for review and
    consideration (attached). The Work Group reviewed and recommended
    funding for four of the five proposals: Afton Canyon (BLM) \$43K;
    Amargosa Canyon (BLM) \$50K; Saline Valley (NPS) \$30K; and Shaver's
    Hill Climb (BLM) \$2K. The Shaver's Hillclimb project is to be an
    interagency restoration project, to be covered by extensive media,
    with volunteers from each of the DMG agencies contributing work time
    to the effort. Salvage material is to be used to the maximum extent
    possible and equipment is to be donated/loaned by the Barstow BLM
    office and Joshua Tree National Park. The Dos Palmas project
    proposal was not selected to receive funding. The DMG accepted the
    Work Group's recommendation with the caveat that the BLM Desert
    District Manager reserves final approval on distribution of
    available funds. Tim Salt indicated that BLM he was concerned about
    funding the Saline Valley site in light of the limited benefits of
    the project to BLM. He agreed to further consider the Work Group's
    recommendation before making a final decision.

-   **Burro Update and Recommendations.** Dave Sjaastad indicated that
    plans were underway to remove about 1200 burros form the Cal deserts
    in FY 01. Dave indicated that BLM would accept for adoption all NPS
    captured burros that are covered by the Wild Horse and Burro Act.
    Tim Salt indicated that the DMG funding for burro removal never
    showed up in the CDD budget for FY 01. John Hamill agreed to follow
    up on this issue.

-   **Millennium Conference Update.** An overview of the current status
    of the conference was provided the managers. Emphasis was placed on
    all agencies meeting their financial commitments to the conference.
    The new address and contact information for the California State
    University, San Bernardino conference office was given each manager
    with the request to follow up on the status of their funding
    commitment. The list of session chairs and subject speakers is
    firming up. Concern still exists over the lack of advertising at
    national archaeological events. A draft agenda for the conference
    was provided to the managers.

-   **Desert Water Study Update.** Presenters provided an overview of
    the upcoming water-training course. Discussion focused on topic
    areas of the training session, abilities of those who complete the
    training to conduct water studies, equipment needed by each entity
    conducting water studies, methodology for recording data resulting
    from the assessment of wetland areas, and an over of the methodology
    of assessing wetlands and riparian areas in the desert.

4.  **Common Data Management Standards.** Members of the Data Management
    Team presented recommended data standards for adoption by the
    Managers. These standards do not obviate each individual agencies
    data standards but apply to those corporate data sets to be shared
    among DMG partners as well to those projects conducted by or for the
    DMG. The recommended standards were approved and adopted by the
    Managers. The DMG Coordinators were tasked to develop an
    implementation memo to distribute these standards. A discussion was
    held concerning development of a data clearinghouse. The Managers
    approved the concept but asked Data Management Team members to
    develop a detailed discussion concerning this concept to include
    cost and utility. Each member agency agreed to review current
    corporate data sets and provide the Mojave Desert Ecosystem Program
    5 corporate data sets they would share as part of a data
    clearinghouse pilot effort. The DMG Coordinators will draft a memo
    to all managers reminding them of this commitment.

5.  **Native American Participation in the DMG.** The Managers agreed to
    make a concerted effort to get Native American tribes in the
    California Desert involved in the DMG. The consensus was that the
    best way to approach the tribes on this issue was to use existing
    established relationships between the tribes and the Managers. John
    Hamill agreed to develop a DMG Briefing Package that would be used
    by the Managers in meeting with the tribes. The purpose of this
    initial meeting would be to (a) introduce the tribes to the DMG, (b)
    assess their general interest in the DMG, (c) invite/encourage their
    representative to attend the next DMG meeting (June 20-21, in Palm
    Springs). This meeting will focus on the conclusions/next steps
    related to the May 9-12, 2001, Cultural Resources Millenium
    Conference\--a topic that should be of interest to the tribes.

6.  **California Desert Fund.** The military members of the DMG voiced
    non-consensus in the DMG's efforts to establish a non-profit
    organization. As a result of a lack of consensus on this issue
    further DMG discussion was tabled and the issue was dropped by the
    DMG.

7.  **DMG 5-Year Plan Review and Update.** The Managers reviewed the
    existing DMG 5 Year Plan. Each work group provided input to
    changes/updates for the current plan. Through discussion during the
    review, additional changes were made to the existing plan. The DMG
    Coordinators were tasked to develop and publish a revised DMG 5 Year
    Plan based on changes agreed to by the Managers. Changes were made
    and a new 5 Year Plan was published.

8.  **Next DMG Meetings.** The next DMG meeting will be held June 20-21,
    2001, in Palm Springs California. The Palm Springs BLM office will
    host the meeting. The subsequent DMG meeting is scheduled for 19-20
    September. The location is TBA.

## Illegal Dump Site Clean-up Recommendations

  ---------------- ----------- -------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ --------- ---------- ----------------
  Dump Name        Agency      Hazard   Total Cost     DMG Cost      Match          Timeliness   Urgency   Interest   Hazmat
                               Rank                                                                                   Recommendation

  Nipton           NFO         65       \$150,000.00   \$75,000.00   \$75,000.00    2            1         1          Yes

  Berdoo Canyon    JOTR/PSSC   55       \$11,000.00    \$7,000.00    \$4,000.00     3            2         1          Yes

  Route 66 Sites   NFO         55       \$212,000.00   \$29,000.00   \$183,000.00   1            1         1          Partial
  (3)                                                                                                                 

  Indio Hills      PSSC        55       \$20,000.00    \$20,000.00   \$0.00         3            3         3          No

  Yucca Mesa       BFO         47       \$5,000.00     \$5,000.00    \$0.00         3            3         2          Yes

  Vidal            NFO         45       \$100.000.00   \$50,000.00                  3            1         2          No

  Charleston View  BFO         36       \$5,000.00     \$5,000.00    \$0.00         1            2         1          Yes

  Andre            ECFO        35       no info                                     3            3         2          No

  Sandy Valley     BFO         33       \$20,000.00    \$20,000.00   \$0.00         1            2         1          No

  Adobe/Baseline   JOTR        27       \$2,000.00     \$1,000.00    \$1,000.00     3            2         1          Yes

  Kelso            MOJA        24       \$13,000.00    \$8,000.00    \$5,000.00     1            2         1          Yes

  Tire Dump        JOTR        19       \$2,400.00     \$2,400.00    \$0.00         2            2         3          No
  ---------------- ----------- -------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ --------- ---------- ----------------

Key:

Timeliness: 1 = Ready to go 2 = Project almost ready to go 3 = Lots of
work to be done yet

Urgency: 1 = Notice and Order 2 = Management priority 3 = Low priority

Interest: 1 = High public/government interest 2 = Medium public interest
3 = Low public interest

## Restoration Site Recommendations

Project Details

+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| ###     | ##     | **A    | **In   | **DMG \$ | **D    | **DLRT  |
|  **Site | ### ** | cres** | Kind   | Req      | ates** | Rec.**  |
|  Name** | Type** |        | \$**   | uested** |        |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| #### ** | R      | 50     | \$25K  | \$50K    | Feb 01 | **      |
| Afton C |        | (+25)  |        |          | -- Apr | \$43K** |
| anyon** |        |        |        |          | 01     |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| **A     | R      | 50     | \$25K  | \$50K    | Feb 01 | **      |
| margosa |        | (+25)  |        |          | -- Apr | \$50K** |
| C       |        |        |        |          | 01     |         |
| anyon** |        |        |        |          |        |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| **Dos   | R      | 20,000 | \$30K  | \$90K    | Mar 01 | **Not   |
| P       |        |        |        |          | --     | f       |
| almas** |        |        |        |          | Sept   | unded** |
|         |        |        |        |          | 01     |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| *       | R      | 800    | \$21K  | \$36K    | Sept   | **\$30K |
| *Saline |        |        |        |          | 01 --  | (ear    |
| V       |        |        |        |          | May 02 | lier)** |
| alley** |        |        |        |          |        |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+
| **Sh    | U      | 5      |        | \$4.5K   | Sept   | **\$2K  |
| aver\'s |        |        |        |          | 01     | (g      |
| Hill    |        |        |        |          |        | roup)** |
| climb** |        |        |        |          |        |         |
+---------+--------+--------+--------+----------+--------+---------+