ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for 

the TRANSLOCATION of DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP 

from MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE to the 

NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION, CHINA LAKE, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mojave National Preserve 

2701 Barstow Road 

Barstow, CA 92311 
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................. 4 

 Introduction ........................................................... 4 

 Purpose and Need ....................................................... 8 

 Background ............................................................. 8 

 Related Laws, Policies, and Other Planning Documents ...................13 

 Environmental Assessment .............................................. 15 

 Issues and Impact Topics .............................................. 15 

 Issues and Impact Topics Identified for Further Analysis .............. 15 

 Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ..... 15 

SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................. 17 

 Introduction .......................................................... 17 

 Alternative A (No Action) ............................................. 17 

 Alternative B (Translocate Desert Bighorn Ewes from Mojave National 

Preserve to the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake) .............. 17 

 Alternative C (Translocate Desert Bighorn Ewes from Another Source 

Population to the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake) ............ 19 

 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation ........ 19 

 Consultation, Coordination, and Permit Requirements ................... 19 

 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................. 20 

SECTION III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................ 21 

Introduction .......................................................... 21 

Location and General Description of Mojave National Preserve .......... 21 

Natural Resources ..................................................... 21 

Cultural Resources..................................................... 23 

Socioeconomic Resources, Visitor Use, and Park Operations ............. 23 

Wilderness ............................................................ 24 

SECTION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................... 25 

Introduction .......................................................... 25 

Methodology ........................................................... 25 

Criteria and Thresholds for Impact Analyses ........................... 25 

Criteria and Thresholds for Impact Analyses of All Other Issues ....... 26 

Impairment Analysis ................................................... 26 

Impacts to Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, Sensitive Species .............. 27 

 Impacts to Natural Soundscapes ........................................ 29 

 Impacts to Visual Resources ........................................... 30 

 Impacts to Visitor Experience ......................................... 30 

 Impacts to Safety ..................................................... 31 

 Impacts to Cultural Resources ......................................... 31 

 Impacts to Wilderness ................................................. 32 

Cumulative Impacts .................................................... 35 

Impairment ............................................................ 35 

 Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................. 35 

SECTION V: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION ................................. 37 

SECTION VI: LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................ 37 

SECTION VII: REFERENCES .................................................. 38 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 Figure 1. Regional Map ................................................ 5 

 Figure 2. Mojave National Preserve Map ................................ 6 

 Figure 3. China Lake Eagle Crags Mountains Map ........................ 7 

Figure 4. Census Data from Helicopter Surveys of Desert Bighorn Sheep in 

the Old Dad/Kelso Peak Area (California Department of Fish and Game) .. 11 
3

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Translocation of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Eagle Crags, Naval Air 

Weapons Station at China Lake, California ............................. 9 

 Table 2. Big Game Guzzlers in the Old Dad Mountain and Kelso Peak, Mojave 

National Preserve ..................................................... 10 

 Table 3. Cumulative Impacts of All Alternatives ....................... 29 

APPENDICES 

 Appendix A. Wilderness Minimum Requirement Analysis ................... 33 

 Appendix B. Wilderness Minimum Tool ................................... 38 
4

SECTION I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in cooperation with the 

National Park Service (NPS), is considering bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis 

nelsoni) management activities within the Old Dad Mountain of Mojave 

National Preserve (Mojave) and on non-contiguous lands administered by the 

Department of the Navy on the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake. The 

area within Mojave National Preserve that could potentially be affected by 

the action is located is in designated Wilderness. 

Mojave National Preserve is situated in southeastern California between 

Interstate Highways 15 and 40 (Figures 1 and 2). Bighorn sheep are 

prominent on Old Dad Mountain but are also fairly numerous on Clark 

Mountain, Kelso Peak, and Piute Peak. CDFG and its volunteers (e.g., 

Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep) maintain and monitor six 

big game guzzlers at these locations. CDFG also conducts aerial 

surveys of the bighorn population in Mojave and monitors a sample of 

the herd with radio telemetry collars. 

Within Mojave National Preserve bighorn sheep also occur in the Providence 

Mountains, Woods Mountains, and Hackberry Mountains. These populations have 

not been surveyed on a regular basis but are believed to be substantially 

smaller in size than the Old Dad population. The impacts from the recent 

Hackberry Complex fires (June 2005) on the Hackberry population have not been 

fully assessed. 

CDFG has proposed to translocate up to 15 desert bighorn ewes from Old Dad 

Mountain to Eagle Crags at China Lake. Depending on capture success and 

availability of radio telemetry collars, the actual number of ewes will fall 

between five and 15. Due to the high costs of helicopter time and radio 

telemetry collars, translocating as many as 15 ewes may be prohibitively 

expensive. 

Sheep will be captured by net-gunning from helicopters, then transported to a 

base camp three kilometers southwest of Kelbaker Road (SW1/4 Sec. 10, T12N, 

R11E) and processed. The animals will be transported by truck to the Eagle 

Crags. All animals captured but not transported will be released in the area 

of their original point of capture. 
p

Figure 1: Regional Map of southeastern California showing both Mojave National Preserve and NAW
p

Figure 2: Mojave National Preserve Map (with wilderness boundaries)
7

Figure 3: China Lake Eagle Crags Mountains Map 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of CDFG’s proposal is to capture and relocate five to 15 radiocollared, female desert bighorn sheep to the Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) 

at China Lake, California. 

Desert bighorn sheep were reintroduced into the Eagle Crags Mountains on 

the NAWS South Range in 1983 and 1985. Although the majority of these 

reintroduced animals remained in the Eagle Crags, a number of sheep were 

lost to emigration, predation, and accidents. During the 1990’s census 

flights continued to document a stable herd of 20 to 25 individuals. 

Animals appeared healthy and the herd appeared to comprise a normal array 

of older and younger, male and female animals. Aerial census data 

collected in 2003 revealed the presence of 17 rams and two ewes. Limited 

surveys of some nearby mountain ranges did not locate a separate 

population composed primarily of female sheep. 

The CDFG has identified a need to augment the existing population to correct 

the skewed sex ratio and increase the reproductive potential of this herd. 

CDFG has also identified a need to routinely monitor the newly released 

animals to determine daily and seasonal movements. If the newly released 

radio-collared sheep also establish themselves in another nearby area the 

radio collars will allow personnel to monitor their location, distribution, 

and interaction with the male dominated group remaining in the Eagle Crags. 

BACKGROUND 

History of Bighorn Sheep in California

Mountain bighorn sheep are native to the State and have traditionally 

inhabited the Sierra Nevada mountains and California deserts. Populations 

throughout North America declined concurrently with the European colonization 

of the American Southwest starting in the 1500’s. As many as 80 groups of 

desert bighorn once thrived in the state but 30 are now extinct. They have 

been protected in California since 1878 when the State of California passed 

temporary legislation to protect all bighorn sheep from hunting. In 1883, 

this protection was made permanent. Despite this action, numbers continued 

to decline. The State of California began to transplant bighorn in 1971. 

Two populations of the species, Ovis Canadensis – those in the Sierra Nevada 

and in the Peninsular range of California – have endangered status under the 

Endangered Species Act. In addition, Ovis c. californiana (Sierra Nevada) 

has been classified as endangered under the California Endangered Species 

Act. This desert subspecies, O. c. nelsoni, is not federally or state listed 

and has been legally hunted since 1986. The State of California designated 

desert bighorn a “sensitive” species in 1980. This designation increased 

management attention to the species and its habitat. The State of California 

lists Nelson desert bighorn as “fully protected” because of habitat 

fragmentation. 

CDFG has attempted to restore 13 populations of mountain sheep to their 

historic ranges since 1970. Two have failed completely. As of 1989, four 

herds of mountain sheep were reestablished within the Mojave Desert. At the 

time, the lands now within Mojave National Preserve were managed as the East 

Mojave National Scenic Area by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). CDFG has 

not defined criteria for successful bighorn sheep restoration. 

CDFG has defined as its management goal for the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd to 

maintain a large, viable, and stable herd within the unit. The objectives to 

achieve this goal are: 

a. Increase population productivity and habitat carrying capacity by 
9

enhancing habitat components. 

b. Promote the expansion of mountain sheep distribution in other 

management units by utilizing the population in [the Old Dad] 

Management Unit in a sound and effective relocation program. 

c. Provide for sport hunting of mountain sheep rams while meeting other 

objectives. 

d. Promote public support for mountain sheep management. 

e. Determine management plan effectiveness and make herd management 

decisions through monitoring of populations and use of artificial 

waters. (US Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Fish 

and Game, Old Dad Peak Mountain Sheep Habitat Management Plan, 1989) 

The Old Dad and Kelso Peaks bighorn sheep range is estimated to be 66.36 

square miles. Few historical records of bighorn population estimates are 

available or reliable. For the Old Dad Management Unit, estimates from 1940 

through 1987 ranged from five to 250. These estimates were developed through 

aerial survey, time-lapse photography, pellet transects, and anecdotal 

information. From 1981 through 1988, aerial surveys with age structures 

indicated a population increase from 53 (31 ewes) to 152 (58 ewes) in total. 

Since 1983 more than 200 individuals have been captured from this population 

for translocation to other Mojave Desert mountain ranges; no removals have 

occurred since 1992. This environmental assessment does not contain a 

complete set of sheep numbers, translocation dates, or the final destinations 

of all of the animals removed from the Old Dad population in past 

translocation projects. 

CDFG claims a need to remove sheep from the Old Dad Mountains and Kelso Peak 

since 1983 to prevent the Old Dad population from exceeding carrying capacity 

and to repopulate historic ranges where bighorn had been previously 

extirpated. Between 1984 and 1987, 131 bighorn were captured from the Old 

Dad population and translocated to the Whipple Mountains, Sheep Hole 

Mountains, Argus Range and Eagle Crags. Desert bighorn sheep in the Old Dad 

and Kelso mountains have been monitored with radio telemetry collars since 

1988. As shown in Table 1, translocations of bighorn sheep to Eagle Crags 

deriving from the Marble Mountains and Old Dad Mountain were completed in 

1983 and 1987. Sheep were translocated from the Old Dad, Kelso, and Marl 

Mountains twice more – 35 ewes in 1989 and 31 in 1992. All of these data 

were collected and provided by CDFG. 

TABLE 1: TRANSLOCATION OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP TO EAGLE CRAGS, NAVAL AIR 

WEAPONS STATION AT CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA 

YEAR SOURCE POPULATION TRANSLOCATIONS TO EAGLE CRAGS 

1983 Old Dad Mountain 17 sheep: five adult females, five 

adult males, four lamb females, three 

lamb males 

1983 Marble Mountains 8 sheep: seven adult females, two 

adult males, one yearling female 

1987 Old Dad Mountain 16 sheep: nine adult females, five 

adult males, one lamb female, one lamb 

male 

Bighorn Sheep Management within Mojave National Preserve

Mojave National Preserve is home to native populations of Nelson’s bighorn 

sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsonii). For a variety of reasons there have been 

conflicting estimates regarding the size of these populations. For instance, 

population estimates as of 1994 when Mojave was established were estimated by 

S. Torres et al (1994) as ranging from 400 to 675 or more animals. In 

contrast, the 1994 helicopter census of the Old Dad Peak area estimated a 
10

population of 134 and only 10 sheep were observed in the Clark Mountain area. 

These two areas have the best known and largest bighorn sheep populations on 

the Preserve, which suggests that the actual number could have been much less 

than estimated by Torres et al. (1994). Indeed, no estimate was made due to 

the low numbers observed in the Clark Mountain area (unpublished data, 

California Department of Fish and Game Helicopter Flight Survey, 1994). 

Mojave National Preserve is one of the few places in California where bighorn 

sheep hunting is permitted. The State authorized mountain sheep hunting in 

the Old Dad Peak and Kelso Mountains areas in 1986 when they were under the 

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. California Department of Fish 

and Game issues sport hunting permits for up to 15% of the mature males 

within the Old Dad Peak Management Unit per year. Permits are issued through 

a lottery system; in addition, one permit is auctioned to the highest bidder. 

Based on CDFG recommendations in 1969, big game guzzlers were installed in 

the East Mojave National Scenic Area (Bureau of Land Management) in the 1970s 

and 1980s. 

TABLE 2: BIG GAME GUZZLERS IN THE OLD DAD MOUNTAIN AND KELSO PEAK, MOJAVE 

NATIONAL PRESERVE 

Big Game Guzzler Number Location Year Installed 

Old Dad Peak SB-10 Old Dad Peak 1975 

Kelso Peak SB-13 Kelso Peak 1977 

Old Dad Peak North SB-15 Old Dad Peak 1981 

Chuck Kerr SB-23 Old Dad Peak 1985 

Big game guzzlers were also installed on Clark Mountain and Piute Peak 

sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. These two guzzlers are within Mojave 

National Preserve but outside of the CDFG Old Dad Peak Management Unit. 

In 1989, CDFG recorded sheep occupation of Marl Springs, Jackass Spring, Old 

Dad Seep, and Old Dad Spring. Marl Springs was the only known perennial 

water source. Jackass Spring was observed to have surface water in most 

years. Old Dad Spring and Old Dad Seep were dug out to increase water 

availability to the sheep but were observed to fill in rapidly with silt. 

Neither source is perennial. NPS personnel have also observed bighorn use of 

Cornfield Spring and springs in the Hackberry Mountains. 

In CDFG’s 1987 Mountain Sheep Management Plan: Old Dad Peak Management Unit, 

several criteria for translocation were identified: 

o The Old Dad population must be carefully monitored, every spring and 

fall, to ensure a surplus of females sufficient for removal; 

o A minimum of 50 adult females must be maintained in the Old Dad 

population; and 

o Efforts to establish and maintain a sound database on which to make 

future management recommendations must be implemented. 

The graph below indicates bighorn sheep census levels over the past 20+ 

years. 
11

FIGURE 4: CENSUS DATA FROM HELICOPTER SURVEYS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE 

OLD DAD/KELSO PEAK AREA (CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME) 

Bighorn Sheep Census in Old Dad Peak Area

0

50

100

150

200

250

Oct-80 Mar-86 Sep-91 Mar-97 Sep-02 Feb-08

ewes total bailey double count

Two different population estimators, by the double count method and the 

Bailey method utilizing sightings of marked animals, are shown where 

available. 

The ewe count and the total count are numbers of sheep observed from the 

helicopter. The Bailey count estimate is based on actual observations 

adjusted for a ration of collared sheep observed to total number of known 

sheep. In the double count method, two observers are situated at either side 

of the helicopter recording their own observations. The population is 

estimated by adjusting the total number of known sheep with the number of 

observations by both recorder as well as the number of observations recorded 

by each individual recorder. CDFG uses these actual and estimated counts to 

determine management actions such as the Proposed Action in this document. 

Mojave National Preserve’s General Management Plan has identified three 

management needs with regard to desert bighorn: 

• To determine the need for wildlife water facilities and predator 

control. 

• To determine the impacts of rock-climbing on sheep lambing in the Clark 

Mountains. 

• To determine potential effects of jet noise from the proposed 

development of a major regional airport to be constructed a few miles 

from Mojave’s northern boundary. 

(p. 44, General Management Plan, April 2002) 

Previous and Ongoing Research

Long-term demographic research has been ongoing in the eastern Mojave Desert 

for over 25 years. Research on the Old Dad Peak dates back to 1981. 

Population estimates for Old Dad have ranged from 81 (September 1995) to 212 
12

(September 1998). The low estimate in 1995 reflects the loss of sheep from 

botulism. During the period for 1988 to 1996, John Wehausen (University of 

California, White Mountain Research Station) independently estimated a high 

of 131 ewes in 1992 and a low of 42 ewes in 1996. The overall trend during 

this period was downward, reflecting removal of 35 ewes in 1989 and 31 in 

1992 for translocations and the loss of 16 ewes to botulism in 1995. Even 

having accounted for these losses, there was a population increase in just 

three out of eight years. Recruitment into the reproducing population was 

insufficient to compensate for adult ewe mortality in five of eight years 

between 1988 and 1996. Beginning in 1984, annual population estimates have 

been generated using telemetered animals and mark-recapture population 

estimators. The precision of these estimates is generally good (< 25% of the 

point estimate), giving researchers a high level of confidence. 

CDFG has conducted helicopter surveys since 1984. From 1986 to 1991, CDFG 

personnel conducted detailed aerial telemetry investigations in the vicinity 

of Old Dad Peak. Actual observations are shown in Figure 4. In some cases, 

population estimates by year are also available. Although those 

investigations centered largely on the ecological phenomenon of sexual 

segregation (Bleich et al. 1997), the use of different habitats by male and 

female sheep was also documented, and the seasonal distribution of the sexes 

was determined. According to CDFG, Old Dad Peak is used predominantly by 

female sheep from December through July; however, during the months of August 

through November, use by males of Old Dad Peak increases substantially as a 

result of mating activities. Males are distributed primarily in the East 

Hills, Marl Mountains, and Kelso Mountains when they are not with females 

during the rut. Although some female sheep appear to be resident in the 

Kelso and Marl mountains, no females would be removed from those ranges for 

translocation to the Eagle Crags; capture activities will be restricted to 

Old Dad Peak, the Kerr Spur, the Petroglyph Spur, and the East Hills adjacent 

to Old Dad Peak. 

Since the early 1980s, CDFG has monitored the population on an annual basis, 

estimating it consistently in the range of approximately 100 to 200 

individuals in size (see Figure 4). As such, it is the largest population in 

California and has been a primary source of translocation stock. As noted 

above, in 1995 a massive loss (n=46) of sheep, including 16 adult ewes, 

occurred as a result of botulism poisoning. The population has been 

recovering since then. The 2004 Old Dad/Kelso Peak Bighorn Sheep Helicopter 

Survey October 6-7, 2004 observed 152 sheep, of which 60 were adult ewes, 

with a ratio of 67 rams to 100 ewes overall. The simultaneous double count 

method produced an estimated 176 total population. 

CDFG has provided data in a variety of formats. The available information on 

desert bighorn sheep in the Old Dad Mountains and Kelso Peak includes: 

o Aerial survey data sheets, 1988-2005 

o Helicopter survey data summaries, 1981-2002 

o Bleich, Vernon C., et al. 1997. Sexual Segregation in Mountain Sheep: 

Resource or Predation. Wildlife Monograph 134, Journal of Wildlife 

Management, vol. 61(1):1-50. 

o Bleich, V.C. 1990. Desert-dwelling Mountain Sheep: Conservation 

Implications of a Naturally Fragmented Distribution. In Conservation 

Biology, vol. 4(4):383-390. 

o Bleich, V.C., et al. 1996. Metapopulation Theory and Mountain Sheep: 

Implications for Conservation. In D.R. McCullough, ed. Metapopulations 

and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Covelo, CA. pages 353-373. 

o Epps, Clinton W., et al. 2004. Effects of Climate Change on 

Population Persistence of Desert-Dwelling Mountain Sheep in California. 

In Conservation Biology, vol. 18(1):102-113. 

o Oehler, M.W. Sr., et al. 2003. Home ranges of female mountain sheep, 

Ovis Canadensis nelsoni: effects of precipitation in a desert 
13

ecosystem. In Mammalia, vol 67(3):385-401. 

o Schwartz, Orlando A. 1986. Genetics and the Conservation of Mountain 

Sheep, Ovis Canadensis nelsoni. In Biological Conservation, vol 

37:179-190. 

o Singer, Francis J., et al. 2000. Restoration of Bighorn Sheep 

Metapopulations in and near Western National Parks. In Restoration 

Ecology, vol. 8(4S):14-24. 

o Singer, Francis J., et al. 2001. Role of Patch Size, Disease, and 

Movement in Rapid Extinction of Bighorn Sheep. In Conservation 

Biology, vol. 15(5):1347-1354). 

RELATED LAWS, POLICIES, AND OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

Service-wide and Park-Specific Legislation and Planning Documents 

The NPS Organic Act directs the NPS to manage units “to conserve the scenery 

and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide 

for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired 

for the enjoyment of future generations” (16 U.S.C. § 1). Congress reiterated 

this mandate in the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 by stating 

that the NPS must conduct its actions in a manner that will ensure no 

“derogation of the values and purposes for which these various areas have 

been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and 

specifically provided by Congress.” 

The Organic Act prohibits actions that permanently impair park resources 

unless a law directly and specifically allows for the acts. An action 

constitutes an impairment when its impacts “harm the integrity of park 

resources or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be 

present for the enjoyment of those resources and values.” (Management 

Policies 1.4.3) 

NPS Management Policies 2001 requires the analysis of potential effects of 

each alternative to determine if actions would impair park resources. To 

determine impairment, the NPS must evaluate “the particular resources and 

values that would be affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the 

impact; the direct and indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative 

effects of the impact in question and other impacts.” (Management Policies 

1.4.4). The NPS must always seek ways to avoid or minimize, to the greatest 

degree practicable, adverse impacts on park resources and values. However, 

the laws do give the NPS management discretion to allow impacts to park 

resources and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes 

of a park, as long as the impact does not constitute impairment to the 

affected resources and values (Management Policies 1.4.3). 

NPS units vary based on their enabling legislation, their natural and 

cultural resources, their missions, and the recreational opportunities 

appropriate within each unit and/or for specific areas within each unit. This 

environmental assessment analyzes the context, duration, and intensity of 

impacts related to the alternatives associated with conducting bighorn sheep 

management activities, as well as the potential for resource impairment, as 

required by Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis and Decision Making. 

Mojave National Preserve was created in 1994 with passage of the California 

Desert Protection Act. In this enabling legislation, the Secretary of the 

Interior, 

 

“shall permit hunting, fishing, and trapping on lands and waters 

within the preserve designated by this Act in accordance with 
14

applicable Federal and State laws except that the Secretary may 

designated areas when, no hunting, fishing, or trapping will be 

permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance 

with provisions of applicable law. Except in emergencies, regulations 

closing areas to hunting, fishing, or trapping pursuant to this 

subsection shall be put into effect only after consultation with the 

appropriate State agency having responsibility for fish and wildlife. 

Nothing in the Act shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or 

responsibilities of the States with respect to fish and wildlife on 

Federal lands and waters covered by this title nor shall anything in 

the Act be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require 

a Federal permit to hunt, fish, or trap on Federal lands and waters 

covered by this title.” (PL 103-433 §506(b)) 

The 2002 General Management Plan (GMP) provides the overall management 

direction for Mojave National Preserve. Management goals for desert bighorn 

are listed in an earlier section of the present document. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964, NEPA (1969), and NPS Management Policies 

require the assessment of the effects of an activity on wilderness values 

within all designated, proposed, and suitable or potential wilderness 

areas. Director’s Order 41: Wilderness Preservation and Management (1999) 

provides guidance for the NPS wilderness management program and guides NPS 

efforts in meeting the letter and spirit of the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Mojave’s enabling legislation designated approximately 695,200 acres of 

wilderness as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Legal descriptions and maps of the Mojave Wilderness are being finalized at 

present; they will eventually be filed with both houses of the US Congress. 

Other Project-Related Planning Documents

Current management of bighorn sheep at Old Dad Peak is consistent with the 

existing BLM management plan (Vernoy et al. 1986) for this bighorn sheep 

management unit. In addition, management is consistent with the Sykes Act 

habitat management plan developed jointly by the BLM and CDFG, and that was 

implemented prior to transfer of BLM lands to the NPS by the California 

Desert Protection Act. As directed by the California Legislature in section 

4700 of the Fish and Game Code, the overall goal of bighorn sheep management 

in California is to provide for the restoration of populations that 

historically existed whenever that approach is possible (CDFG 1983). If 

Alternative B is selected, capture and translocation of animals to Eagle 

Crags will be carried out according to a detailed capture plan prepared by 

CDFG. 
15

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This EA analyzes two Action alternatives and a No Action alternative and 

considers their impacts on the human and natural environment. It outlines 

project alternatives, describes existing conditions in the project area, and 

analyzes the effects of each project alternative on the environment. This EA 

has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 and regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.9). 

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS 

Issues are related to potential environmental effects of project 

alternatives and were identified by the project interdisciplinary team. Once 

issues were identified, they were used to help formulate the alternatives 

and mitigation measures. Impact topics based on substantive issues, 

environmental statutes, regulations, and executive orders (EOs) were 

selected for detailed analysis. A summary of the impact topics and the 

rationale applied in their inclusion or dismissal is given below. 

ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The following relevant impact topics are analyzed in the EA. Whether 

each issue is related to taking action or to no action is specified. 

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat, Species of Concern Wildlife could be 

temporarily disrupted or displaced from flight activities. Noise caused by 

aircraft, particularly helicopters, could disturb the normal activities of 

wildlife in the project areas. 

Bighorn sheep could be harassed and disturbed during flight operations, in 

netting, trapping, and capturing activities, and in loading them for 

transport. Equipping bighorn study animals with radio collars could 

temporarily disrupt the sheep and some mortality could occur during these 

efforts, as well as during transport and release. 

Natural Soundscapes Natural soundscapes are not always silent but include the 

sounds of blowing wind, scurrying lizards, and many other sounds found in a 

natural environment devoid of artificial noise. Mechanical noises, such as 

those produced by aircraft, can drown out these natural sounds on a temporary 

or recurring basis. 

Visitor Experience The proposed flights could temporarily disturb visitors in 

Wilderness who have expectations of natural quiet and solitude. The Proposed 

Action could also reduce opportunities wildlife viewing once bighorns are 

removed for the selected source population. 

Wilderness The majority of desert bighorn in Mojave National Preserve can be 

found in designated wilderness. A minimum requirement analysis will be 

completed as part of this planning effort. 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Soils and Vegetation Soils and vegetation have been impacted by transplanted 

bighorn sheep herds for 30 or more years; those impacts are long established 

and will not be further assessed in this document. Although helicopters may 

land temporarily on soils and vegetation for some projects, only negligible 

effects would occur. Therefore, soils and vegetation were dismissed as an 

impact topic. 
16

Special Status Species This project would have no effect on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species of wildlife or vegetation (Appendix B). None 

of the Federal or State listed species in Mojave National Preserve have been 

documented or are likely to occur in the Old Dad Mountains/Kelso Peak area. 

CDFG did not identify any special status species at Marble Mountains or Eagle 

Crags. This impact topic will not be further evaluated. 

Water Resources, Wetlands and Floodplains Water may be needed for projects 

requiring trapping operations; if this is the case, this would be temporary 

and would have negligible effects. No landings would occur in or near water, 

and floodplains would not be obstructed. Therefore these topics will not be 

further evaluated. 

Air Quality Aircraft have negligible, localized, short-term adverse effects 

on air quality. However, no measurable impacts are expected, therefore this 

topic will not be further evaluated. 

Cultural Resources Implementation of the proposed bighorn management 

activities would have no effect on cultural resources. Therefore, this topic 

will not be further evaluated. 

The following topics are not further addressed in this document because 

there are no potential effects to these resources, which are not in the 

project area. 

Socioeconomic resources 

Designated ecologically significant or critical areas 

Wild or scenic rivers 

Designated coastal zones 

Indian Trust Resources 

Ethnographic Resources 

Prime and unique agricultural lands 

Sites on the US Department of the Interior’s 

 National Registry of Natural Landmarks 

Sole or principal drinking water aquifers 

In addition, there are no potential conflicts between the project and 

land use plans, policies, or controls (including state, local, or Native 

American) for the project area. Regarding energy requirements and 

conservation potential, aerial operations would require the increased 

use of energy. Nonetheless, the energy from petroleum products required 

to implement action alternatives would be insubstantial when viewed in 

light of overall production costs and potential effects of the national 

and worldwide petroleum reserves. 

There are no potential effects to local or regional employment, occupation, 

income changes, or tax base as a result of this project. The project’s area 

of potential effect is not populated and, per EO 12898 on Environmental 

Justice, there are no potential effects on minorities, Native Americans, 

women, or the civil liberties (associated with age, race, creed, color, 

national origin, or sex) of any American citizen. No disproportionate high 

or adverse effects to minority populations or low-income populations are 

expected to occur as a result of implementing any alternative. 
17

SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the alternatives considered, including the No 

Action alternative. The alternatives described include mitigation 

measures and monitoring activities proposed to minimize or avoid 

environmental impacts. This section also includes a description of 

alternatives considered early in the process but later eliminated from 

further study; reasons for their dismissal are provided. The section 

concludes with a comparison of the alternatives considered. 

ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION 

Under this alternative, no bighorn sheep would be removed from Mojave 

National Preserve and the herd at Eagle Crags would not be increased by 

translocation. The Old Dad Mountain population would continue to be 

monitored by CDFG through radio telemetry and aerial surveys. According to 

recent census estimates, the Eagle Crags population has a sex ratio of 17 

males to two females. The long-term viability of this herd is unknown. 

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION 

Translocate Desert Bighorn Ewes from Mojave National Preserve to the Naval 

Air Weapons Station (NAWS) at China Lake 

Under the Proposed Action by CDFG, CDFG and NAWS personnel would capture 

between five and 15 ewes from the Old Dad population by helicopter netgunning techniques. It is likely that 10 bighorn sheep will be captured in a 

single day of flight time totaling seven hours; if the objective is not 

achieved within seven hours, a second day of capture activities (that will 

total no more than seven hours) will be initiated until the target is met. 

Activity involves approximately six to 14 hours of total flight time at low 

elevations, frequently 10 feet above ground level or lower. The maximum 

number of flights in the Wilderness areas would be approximately 30 to 45. 

The translocation team will search for female bighorn will be restricted to 

the Old Dad Mountain/Kelso Peak area. 

CDFG proposes to capture ewes with a hand-held net gun fired from a 

helicopter (Krausman et al. 1985). The majority of animals will be captured 

in areas designated as wilderness and each capture will entail three 

landings: (1) to drop off the capture crew that initially will handle the 

animal, (2) to drop off a handling crew that will prepare the animal for 

transport and retrieve the capture crew, and (3) to retrieve the handling 

crew, and transport it to the next captured animal. At the site of each 

animal capture, landing will be on the same piece of ground (i.e., the 

helicopter landing site will be constant at each capture site). The number 

of total landings to occur at areas outside of the primary processing area, 

which will not be located in designated wilderness, would be from 30 to 45 

for capture of between 10 and 15 animals. 

Each animal captured would be transported to a base camp three kilometers 

southwest of Kelbaker Road (SW1/4 Sec. 10, T12N, R11E) and processed. 

Animals will be transported via helicopter back to a stationary processing 

area located outside of wilderness where they will be examined by CDFG 

personnel. Processing personnel will include a licensed veterinarian. Blood 

and fecal samples will be collected from each individual, each will be 

weighed and standard measurements recorded, and each will be fitted with a 

telemetry collar. Animals will then be placed in shipping crates mounted on 

flat bed trucks to await transport to the Eagle Crags. If insufficient 

animals are captured on Day 1, those animals will be held overnight, to be 

supplemented with additional animals to be caught early on Day 2. In no 

event will animals be held longer than approximately 18 hours prior to being 
18

transported to the Eagle Crags. The animals will then be transported by 

truck to the Eagle Crags. All animals captured but not transported will be 

released in the area near where they were captured. 

The Eagle Crags population would increase to 29 animals in total – 17 males 

to 12 females – if 10 ewes are translocated. 

The project manager will be Dr. Vern Bleich, Senior Environmental Scientist, 

California Department of Fish and Game, Bishop Field Office. 

MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND OPERATIONS SAFETY

Mitigation measures are specific actions designed to minimize, reduce, or 

eliminate impacts of alternatives and to protect Mojave National Preserve 

resources and visitors. Monitoring activities are actions to be implemented 

during or following the project. The following mitigation related to aerial 

operations and bighorn sheep monitoring would be implemented under the 

action alternative, and are assumed in the analysis of effects. 

Wildlife Desert bighorn sheep would be blindfolded upon capture to calm them 

during the transportation and tagging operations. A veterinarian would be onsite monitoring the captured desert bighorn sheep to ensure their health and 

well-being. 

Visitor Experience and Wilderness A minimum requirement analysis has been 

completed as part of this EA (Appendix A). The following mitigation was 

developed to reduce impacts to the Wilderness areas. 

Aerial operations over Wilderness areas will usually be confined to weekends 

due to pilot and aircraft availability. Notification of aerial operations 

over Wilderness will be provided to the public through the park website, 

press releases, and at the park visitor centers. The base of operations will 

all be located outside Wilderness. All ground support vehicles would be 

restricted to existing access roads, outside of the designated Wilderness. 

All drop-net trapping locations would be located outside designated 

Wilderness in desert washes or previously disturbed areas. 

Safety A separate job safety analysis will be prepared for this operation 

that would include the following considerations: 

o All aerial operations would be conducted in accordance with applicable 

state and federal laws and policies. Only qualified and trained 

individuals would be permitted on the aerial operations. The capture 

operation will be contracted by CDFG to their prime contractor, Hawkins 

and Powers. Trained contractors will affix the radio collars in the field 

at the point of capture. The survey work will be conducted by CDFG 

utilizing their helicopter and pilots. 

o CDFG will conduct its own safety meeting to include personnel actively 

involved in the pursuit and capture of animals; additionally, personnel 

that will be handling animals will be experienced in those activities, and 

will receive additional instructions regarding placement of animals in 

shipping boxes. 

Helicopter, Pilot and Communications All operations of helicopters must be 

in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91, and state and NPS 

regulations and policies. Pilots shall comply with the Contractors Federal 

Aviation Certificates and applicable regulations of the states of Arizona and 

Nevada and shall follow what are recognized as safe flying practices. 

All aspects of fuel storage and handling will be in compliance with OAS 351 
19

DM: Aviation fuel handling. When refueling, the helicopter shall remain a 

distance of at least 300 feet or more from animals, vehicles (other than the 

fuel truck), and personnel not involved in refueling. Refueling will occur at 

the Baker airport or at the base camp. 

Helicopter operations will be consistent with CDFG air operations policies as 

outlined in the CDFG Operations Manual. Check-in periods will be no longer 

than 30 minutes, and the aircraft likely will be in sight the majority of the 

time. 

Safety around Helicopters Along with the above stipulations, the following 

rules apply to ground activity around helicopters. All personnel taking part 

in the aerial or ground portion of the operation will be provided a safety 

briefing and the appropriate training, prior to the operations, including: 

a. Keep clear of helicopter rotors. Stay away from the rear of the 

helicopter. 

b. Approach from the front or side, but never out of the pilot's line of 

vision. 

c. Do not approach the helicopter until the pilot indicates you may do so. 

d. Do not approach the helicopter from any side where the ground is 

higher. 

e. Hold firmly onto loose articles. 

f. Never reach up or run after articles that may have blown away. 

g. Protect eyes from blowing dust by wearing protective goggles or 

glasses. 

h. During take off, landings and hovering operations, ground crew will 

stay at least 200 feet away from the helicopter. 

i. If blinded by dust or debris, stop, crouch low or sit down and wait for 

help. 

j. Allow helicopter personnel to load the tools. 

ALTERNATIVE C: Translocate Desert Bighorn Ewes from another Source Population 

to the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake 

Under Alternative C, five to 15 bighorn ewes would be translocated to the 

Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake from a source population other than 

the Old Dad herd in Mojave National Preserve. Bighorn sheep from the herd in 

the Marble Mountains Wildlife Area (CDFG lands) were previously captured and 

translocated to Eagle Crags. Directly south of interstate highway 40, the 

Marble Mountains herd is thought to be smaller than that of Old Dad Peak. 

The Marble Mountains herd is currently estimated to have approximately 125 

animals of which there would be 60% males and 40% females. The techniques 

used to capture, process, transport, and release animals would be the same as 

those proposed in Alternative B. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from further evaluation include: (1) 

translocate sheep from the Clark Mountain herd to Eagle Crags; (2) increase 

fertility of Eagle Crags herd; (3) translocate Eagle Crags herd to Old Dad, 

and (4) translocate even numbers of males and females. In Mojave National 

Preserve the Clark Mountain herd has approximately 38 animals. It is safe to 

assume that 60% are males and 40% are females. The first option was 

eliminated because of the small size of the Clark Mountain herd and potential 

for significant impacts to that herd. The other three options were rejected 

either because of prohibitively expensive costs or a lack of scientific 

justification. 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 

The EA will be distributed to the public for a 30-day review period, 

including notification of activities proposed to occur in Wilderness. In 
20

addition, consultation with Native American tribes will be completed during 

that same period. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferred alternative is that which will promote NEPA, 

as expressed in Section 101 of NEPA. This alternative will satisfy the 

following requirements: 

o Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding generations; 

o Assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and 

esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 

o Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable or 

unintended consequences; 

o Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that 

supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 

o Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit 

high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and, 

o Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of exhaustible resources. 
21

SECTION III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This section provides a description of the existing environment in the 

project area and the resources that could be affected by implementing the 

proposed alternatives. Complete and detailed descriptions of the environment 

and existing use at Mojave National Preserve can be found in the Mojave 

National Preserve General Management Plan (NPS 2002) and on the Park website 

at www.nps.gov/moja. 

LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE 

Mojave National Preserve is a 1.6 million-acre unit of the National Park 

Service that represents a combination of Great Basin, Sonoran, and Mojave 

desert ecosystems. Nowhere else in the United States can such a wide variety 

of desert plant life be found in such combinations and in such close 

proximity to one another. Mojave is located in southern California, bounded 

by Interstate Highways 15 and 40 approximately halfway between Las Vegas and 

Joshua Tree National Park. Its eastern boundary primarily follows the 

Nevada-California border. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The project area is characteristic of the Mojave Desert, with low 

precipitation (averaging 8 to 23 centimeters per year [3 to 9 inches per 

year]), low humidity, and wide extremes in daily temperatures. Winters are 

relatively short and mild, and summers are long and hot. The prevailing wind 

direction is from the south during the summer, and from the north during the 

winter. 

Geology, Topography, and Soils 

Mojave has a very complex and diverse geology. It is characterized by 

isolated mountain ranges and ridges separated by alluvium-filled, irregular 

large valleys. The northeast trending Providence—Mid Hills-New York Mountain 

ranges divide the Preserve in half. Principle valleys include Ivanpah 

Valley, Kelso/Cedar Wash, Lanfair Valley, Devils Playground, Piute Valley and 

the northern area of Fenner Valley. 

Old Dad Mountain exposes pre-Cenozoic formations in the southern Cordilleran 

geosyncline and major structures from the Mesozoic and Neogene deformation. 

Three phases of deformation are evident, as well as late Triassic and/or 

Early Jurassic unrest. Old Dad and Kelso Peaks vary in elevation from 1200 

ft. at the base of the Cowhole Mountains to nearly 4800 ft. at Kelso Peak. 

Old Dad Peak and the Cowholes are formed from large limestone substrate. 

South and east of Old Dad is volcanic material. Kelso Peaks is granitic with 

substantial amounts of blow sand to the southwest. 

Mojave has soils with sandy textures with gravel and cobble cimas, soils with 

medium textures, soils with calcium carbonate (e.g., caliche) accumulations, 

fine textured soils found in playa prone areas, soils with a developed 

horizon reflecting age or formation during a different moisture regime, 

shallow soils, and upland soils. There are also escarpments, ephemeral 

streams, a large area of dunes, and a lava flow area. 

Vegetation and Wildlife, Sensitive Species 

Mojave National Preserve contains approximately 35 wildlife habitats 

supporting about 300 species of wildlife. A large portion of the Preserve is 

designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), a 

federally threatened species. Other wildlife include 36 species of reptiles, 

206 species of birds, and 47 species of mammals. Better known species are 

listed below. 

Arizona Bell’s vireo 
22

Bendire’s thrasher 

Burro 

California thrasher 

Desert striped whipsnake 

Desert tortoise 

Dusky-footed woodrat 

Gambel’s quail 

Gila monster 

Golden eagle 

Gray vireo 

Lucy’s warbler 

Mohave tui chub 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

Mountain lion 

Mourning dove 

Mule deer 

Porcupine 

Prairie falcon 

Regal ring-necked snake 

Wildlife habitats include barren, desert scrub, desert wash, Joshua tree, and 

lacustrine. Vegetation communities include cismontane and desert interior 

dunes, Sonoran and Mojavean desert scrub, creosote bush scrub, Joshua Tree 

tall scrub and open woodland, Joshua tree woodland, riparian forest and 

woodland, desert wash riparian woodland, and smoke tree woodland and scrub. 

Vegetation in the Old Dad and Kelso Peaks includes perennial species such as 

Coleogyne ramosissima, Penstemon antirrhinoides, Eurotia lanata, Stipa 

speciosa, and Aristida sp. Other known species include: 

Ambrosia dumosa (Gray) Payne (white burrobush) 

Atriplex hymenelytra (Torr.) S. Wats. (desertholly) 

Baccharis L. (baccharis) 

Encelia farinosa Gray ex Torr. (goldenhills) 

Ephedra L. (ephedra) 

Eriogonum inflatum Torr. & Frem. (Native American pipeweed) 

Eriogonum Michx. (eriogonum) 

Hymenoclea salsola Torr. & Gray ex Gray (white burrobush) 

Larrea tridentata (Sesse & Moc. Ex DC.) Coville (creosotebush) 

Lycium L. (wolfberry) 

Salazaria mexicana Torr. (Mexican bladdersage) 

Sphaeralcea ambigua Gray (desert globemallow) 

Tetradymia glabrata Torr. and Gray (littleleaf horsebrush) 

Yucca brevifolia Engelm. (Joshua tree) 

Yucca schidigera Roezl ex Ortgies (Mojave yucca) 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Mojave National Preserve has two federally listed species, desert tortoise, 

and Mohave tui chub. Both are also California state listed, as well as the 

Arizona bells vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae) and southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax trailli). Both bird species have been documented in 

the Preserve. California least Bells vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is 

suspected to occur in Mojave National Preserve but has not been documented. 

There is also potential habitat for California (or western) yellow-billed 

cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) but its presence is unlikely. 

There are no known federally listed or proposed plant species in Mojave. 

Eriogonum ericifolium var. thornei (Thorne’s buckwheat) is California state 

listed as endangered and is only known to occur in the New York Mountains at 

5,500 feet. 
23

Air Quality 

Visibility is one of the most important air quality resources in the desert 

region and is also the most easily affected by activities that generate dust 

and sulfur dioxide. Source emissions near Mojave include the Army’s National 

Training Center at Fort Irwin, Viceroy Mine near Searchlight, Nevada, the 

Mojave Generation Station near Laughlin, Nevada, Molycorp Mine and Stateline 

Power Generation Station near Primm, Nevada, and vehicle traffic on 

Interstates 15 and 40. 

The night sky is dark and offers visitors and researchers opportunities for 

star gazing mostly untainted by artificial light reflection. It is primarily 

impacted from traffic on the interstates and the lights from Baker, Primm, 

and Laughlin. 

Soundscapes 

Mojave is a generally quiet landscape with occasional, short-term 

interruptions of the natural quiet. Visitors usually experience little noise 

while in the backcountry. Occasional overflights of commercial jets at 

cruising altitudes, small private aircraft, and rare military jets at low 

altitudes may be heard. The Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad 

lines that traverse the Preserve are heavily used but the noise from freight 

trains is only occasionally audible within a few miles of the tracks. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Overview: Prehistory 

Evidence of human occupation in the Mojave Desert may date back to the 

Pleistocene Epoch. There is certain evidence of human use beginning in the 

Lake Mojave Period (10,000 to 5,000 B.C.), and continuing through the Pinto 

Period (5,000 to 2,000 B.C.), Gypsum Period (2,000 B.C. to A.D. 500), 

Saratoga Springs Period (A.D. 500 TO 1,200), and Protohistoric Period (A.D. 

1,000 to Euro-American Contact). 

Euro-American History 

Mojave National Preserve has a rich, varied history dating back to early 

Spanish and American exploration. An inventory of historic resources 

documents prehistoric and protohistoric Native American trails, Euro-American 

trails, wagon roads, railroads, highways, and other early transportation 

arteries. There is evidence of abandoned mining operations, homesteading, 

settlements associated with mining and the railroads, railroad grades and 

railway structures, military operations against the Native Americans, and 

military training camps during World War II. Ranching-grazing operations 

continue to this day. 

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES, RECREATION AND VISITOR USE 

The eastern Mojave Desert has long attracted visitors with its recreational 

opportunities including hunting, trapping, rockhounding, hiking, camping, and 

sightseeing. Soda Springs has been variously used as a public bathing 

establishment, base camp for gold mining, and a health resort. It is now 

home to the California Desert Studies Consortium of California State 

University, Fullerton. Mitchell Caverns has been a tourist attraction since 

the 1930s. It is managed by the State of California as part of the 

Providence Mountains State Recreation Area. In addition, the Sweeney Granite 

Mountains Desert Research Center is managed by the University of California, 

Riverside and hosts desert researchers from all over the world. 

Mojave offers visitors an opportunity for seclusion and a sense of wilderness 

even while traveling in a vehicle. Roads originally built for mining and 

ranching give visitors a chance to drive into many remote locations. The 

Park also has several major dune systems, among which the best known are the 

Kelso Dunes. Other recreational activities include cultural sites (e.g., 

abandoned mining districts), mountain ranges with cooler summer temperatures 
24

and forested areas, volcanic cinder cones, lava flows, rock outcrops, and 

unique wildlife and vegetation. Access comes in several forms: hiking, 

equestrian use, bicycling, four-wheel drive touring, motorcycles and allterrain vehicles on open roads, aircraft, backcountry use and roadside 

vehicle camping. 

Hunting, in accordance with the California Desert Protection Act, is 

authorized within Mojave. California Department of Fish and Game determines 

and manages seasons, permits, hunting regulations and tags. Bighorn hunting 

season within Mojave National Preserve is managed by CDFG in cooperation with 

the NPS. Limited numbers of tags for desert bighorn sheep are issued each 

year by lottery; one additional tag is auctioned to the highest bidder. The 

number of tags is based on herd population data and habitat conditions. 

WILDERNESS

The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 established approximately 

695,000 acres of wilderness in Mojave National Preserve. Total wilderness 

acreage will be calculated once the wilderness boundaries have been finalized 

and approved by Congress. The National Park Service manages wilderness areas 

with the maximum statutory protection allowed – to preserve their wilderness 

character, and to gather information on their use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. Because of the general prohibition of mechanized or motorized 

equipment in wilderness, a minimum requirements analysis may be required for 

alternatives requiring such equipment or transport. Mojave National Preserve 

is a member of the Desert Managers Group and, as such, has adopted and 

implemented “Principles for Wilderness Management in the California Desert.” 

These principles promote consistency in desert wilderness management by the 

many land-managing agencies throughout southeastern California. 
25

SECTION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This section presents the likely beneficial and adverse effects to the 

natural and human environment that would result from implementing the 

alternatives under consideration. This section describes short-term and 

long-term effects, direct and indirect effects, cumulative effects, and the 

potential for each alternative to impair park resources. Interpretation of 

impacts in terms of their duration, intensity (or magnitude), and context 

(local, regional, or national effects) are provided where possible. 

METHODOLOGY 

This section contains the environmental impacts, including direct and 

indirect effects and their significance to the alternatives. It also assumes 

that the mitigation identified in the Mitigation and Monitoring section of 

this EA would be implemented under the action alternative. 

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on NPS staff knowledge of resources 

and the project area, review of existing literature, and information provided 

by experts in the NPS or other agencies. Any impacts described in this 

section are based on preliminary design of the alternatives under 

consideration. Effects are quantified where possible; in the absence of 

quantitative data, best professional judgment prevailed. 

CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPACT ANALYSES 

The following are laws, regulations, and/ or guidance that relates to the 

evaluation of each impact topic. 

Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Sensitive Species 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies. The NPS Organic Act, which directs parks to 

conserve wildlife unimpaired for future generations, is interpreted by the 

NPS to mean native animal life should be protected and perpetuated as part of 

the recreation area’s natural ecosystem. Natural processes are relied on to 

control populations of native species to the greatest extent possible. The 

restoration of native species is a high priority in national park units. 

Management goals for wildlife include maintaining components and processes of 

naturally evolving park ecosystems, including natural abundance, diversity, 

and ecological integrity of plants and animals. 

Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology. The impacts of wildlife were 

evaluated in terms of impacts to individual animals and wildlife habitat. 

Specific localized impacts were estimated based on knowledge garnered from 

similar past activities. 

The following are standards used by the NPS in interpreting the level 

of impact to wildlife: 

Negligible impacts: No species of concern is present; no impacts or 

impacts with only temporary effects are expected. 

Minor impacts: Nonbreeding animals of concern are present, but only in 

low numbers. Habitat is not critical for survival; other habitat is available 

nearby. Occasional flight responses by wildlife are expected, but without 

interference with feeding, reproduction, or other activities necessary for 

survival. 

Moderate impacts: Breeding animals of concern are present; animals are 

present during particularly vulnerable life-stages, such as migration or 

winter; mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival 

expected on an occasional basis, but not expected to threaten the continued 

existence of the species in the park. 

Major impacts: Breeding animals are present in relatively high numbers, 

and/or wildlife is present during particularly vulnerable life stages. 

Habitat targeted by actions has a history of use by wildlife during critical 
26

periods, but there is suitable habitat for use nearby. Few incidents of 

mortality could occur, but the continued survival of the species is not at 

risk. 

Impairment: The impact would contribute substantially to the 

deterioration of natural resources to the extent that the park’s wildlife and 

habitat would no longer function as a natural system. Wildlife and its 

habitat would be affected over the long-term to the point that the park’s 

purpose (Enabling Legislation, General Management Plan, Strategic Plan) could 

not be fulfilled and resource could not be experienced and enjoyed by future 

generations. 

In the absence of quantitative data concerning the full extent of actions 

under a proposed alternative, best professional judgment prevailed. 

CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPACT ANALYSES OF ALL OTHER ISSUES 

Impacts to soundscapes, visual resources, safety, visitor experience, and 

wilderness were analyzed using the best available information and best 

professional judgment of park staff. 

Terms referring to impact intensity, context, and duration are used in the 

effects analysis. Unless otherwise stated, the standard definitions for 

these terms are as follows: 

Negligible impacts: The impact is at the lower level of detection; 

there would be no measurable change. 

Minor impacts: The impact is slight but detectable; there would be a 

small change. 

Moderate impacts: The impact is readily apparent; there would be a 

measurable change that could result in a small but permanent change. 

Major impacts: The impact is severe; there would be a highly 

noticeable, permanent measurable change. 

Localized Impact: The impact occurs in a specific site or area. When 

comparing changes to existing conditions, the impacts are detectable only in 

the localized area. 

Short-Term Effect: The effect occurs only during or immediately after 

implementation of the alternative. 

Long-Term Effect: The effect could occur for an extended period after 

implementation of the alternative. The effect could last several years or 

more and could be beneficial or adverse. 

IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS 

Impairment to park resources and values are analyzed in this section. 

Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible 

NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including 

the opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those 

resources or values. An impact would be more likely to constitute impairment 

to the extent that it affects a resource or value whose conservation is key 

to the cultural or natural integrity of the park or that is a resource or 

value needed to fulfill a specific purpose identified in the enabling 

legislation. An impact would be less likely to constitute impairment if it is 

an unavoidable result of an action necessary to preserve or restore the 

integrity of park resources or values that cannot be reasonably mitigated. 

A determination of impairment is made in the “Conclusion” section of all 

natural and cultural resource impact topics of this document. Impairment 

statements are not required for recreational values/visitor use and 

experience or safety-related topics. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project 

alternative’s incremental impacts when they are added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who carries out the action 
27

(40 CFR Part 1508.7). Guidance for implementing NEPA (Public Law 91-190, 

1970) requires that federal agencies identify the temporal and geographic 

boundaries within which they will evaluate potential cumulative effects of an 

action and the specific past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

that will be analyzed. This includes potential actions within and outside the 

recreation area boundary. The geographical boundaries of analysis vary 

depending on the impact topic and potential effects. While this information 

may be inexact at this time, major sources of impacts have been assessed as 

accurately and completely as possible, using all available data. 

The primary activities with the potential to cumulatively affect the 

resources relate to the wilderness resource and the impacts from air tours, 

administrative overflights and NPS management activities, and other humangenerated noise such as boat and personal water craft use. Past, present and 

future bighorn sheep management activities, habitat loss and fragmentation 

are also considered in evaluating cumulative impacts. 

IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE HABITAT, SENSITIVE SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The No Action alternative will have no impacts on wildlife, including desert 

bighorn sheep and desert tortoise, in Mojave National Preserve. Both species 

will continue to exist in Mojave National Preserve without interruption. 

The Eagle Crags population may continue to decline to extirpation. There 

will be no opportunity to determine areas to which females move or utilize. 

The population may become extirpated. 

According to CDFG and BLM records, 25 sheep were translocated from Old Dad 

Peak to Eagle Crags in 1983 and then augmented with another 16 from Old Dad 

Peak in 1987. Currently, the Eagle Crags population appears to have a sex 

ratio that, for whatever reason, is biased strongly toward males. Indeed, 

helicopter surveys conducted in 2001 and 2002 have borne this out; fewer than 

10% of the animals located were females. Disease investigations (based on 

animals captured for telemetry purposes in 2002) have not produced evidence 

that any sex-specific pathogen may be responsible for this phenomenon. 

Further, there is no evidence that sex-specific predation has been issue, but 

that possibility cannot be ruled out. Use of telemetry on collared males 

during rut has failed to reveal areas in which females may be concentrated. 

Thus, we surmise that the population structure is as observed (perhaps the 

result of some random series of events), and that an influx of females into 

the population will enhance the reproductive base and thereby increase the 

likelihood of population persistence. Further, the addition of marked 

females to the population will facilitate efforts to locate areas used 

predominantly by females during sexual segregation, assuming the newly marked 

individuals behave similarly to the extant local population. An 

understanding of the way that females select habitat in the Eagle Crags (or 

on Fort Irwin, located adjacent to the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station) 

has important implications for the conservation program and for the 

persistence of this population. Survival of telemetry collared sheep has 

been high but some sheep dispersed to adjacent ranges, including the Panamint 

Range on the west side of Death Valley National Park. 

If the number of females composing the Eagle Crags population is, in fact as 

low as census data indicate, CDFG asserts that the population will probably 

not persist in the long term. Stochastic events have the potential to more 

than offset reproductive gains in any particular year, given the apparently 

very low reproductive base. Hence, it is likely that the Eagle Crags 

population may “wink out” as a result of those stochastic events. Such an 
28

outcome would have negative implications for the maintenance of a 

metapopulation structure among geographic areas occupied by mountain sheep in 

southwestern Inyo and northwestern San Bernardino counties. Loss of the 

Eagle Crags population would undo the apparent benefits (increased gene flow, 

pioneering behavior) that appear to have occurred as a result of the original 

translocation. Hence, efforts to restore the structure of the metapopulation 

would be unsuccessful, and the probability of persistence of small, isolated 

populations of mountain sheep in areas adjacent to Eagle Crags would be 

reduced. In short, the outcome could include not only the loss of the Eagle 

Crags population, but also the potential loss of other, nearby populations. 

It is the opinion of CDFG that such occurrences would negatively impact the 

conservation of mountain sheep. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

According to CDFG, mountain sheep occupying the Old Dad Peak ecosystem 

represent a large and healthy population. CDFG has provided incomplete 

information regarding past translocation numbers, dates of past 

translocations, and destination locations of past translocation efforts 

specific to the Old Dad herd as a source population. It is known that, in 

1989, 35 ewes were removed for translocation. An additional 31 females were 

removed in 1992. Since the early 1980s, the population has been monitored on 

an annual basis, and has been estimated consistently in the range of 

approximately 100 to 200 individuals in size (Figure 1). As such, it is the 

largest population in California and has been the primary source of 

translocation stock. In 1995, a massive loss (n=46) of sheep, including 16 

adult ewes, occurred as a result of botulism poisoning. The population has 

been recovering since then. The 2004 Old Dad/Kelso Peak Bighorn Sheep 

Helicopter Survey October 6-7, 2004 observed 152 sheep, of which 60 were 

adult ewes, with a ratio of 67 rams to 100 ewes. The simultaneous double 

count method produced an estimated 176 total for the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd. 

Risks to the population that are associated with this translocation are 

minimal, in the sense that 25 percent of the female cohort is proposed to be 

removed for this effort. Based on the demonstrated record of management of 

this population, risks to population persistence are minimal in both the 

short and long terms, and replacement of removed animals is likely to occur 

within one year, especially given the amount of forage available as a result 

of recent rains and the influence of density-dependent processes. Removal of 

10 ewes from the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd would, based on actual number of 

ewes observed in 2004, reduce the total number of ewes to 50, just meeting 

CDFG’s criteria for translocation (p. 10). 

During the last year, mountain sheep have been observed in areas removed from 

Eagle Crags including near Little Lake, Inyo County, on the west side of 

China Lake Naval Weapons Station, or essentially opposite to the position of 

Eagle Crags on the east side. Genetic investigations indicate that haplotype 

E was derived from animals observed at Little Lake; that is the most common 

haplotype at Old Dad Peak, the source of the majority of animals that were 

translocated to the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station during the 1980s. 

CDFG and NAWS assert that this finding is consistent with the notion that 

animals translocated from Old Dad Peak to the Naval Air Weapons Station have 

pioneered new geographic areas, suggesting that the translocated sheep have 

been important in facilitating gene flow among other populations in the 

vicinity of Eagle Crags and the Argus Range. One rationale for translocating 

animals to Eagle Crags was to enhance the possibility of gene flow between 

adjacent ranges, and that objective appears to have been met. Further, 

movements between adjacent ranges will be enhanced merely by the fact that 

more animals are present in Eagle Crags as a result of the proposed 

translocation. This has positive implications for the restoration and 

maintenance of a metapopulation structure for mountain sheep inhabiting 

southwestern Inyo and northwestern San Bernardino counties, and is consistent 
29

with the California Department of Fish and Game’s statewide management 

objectives for mountain sheep. 

At Eagle Crags, the number of female sheep will be augmented by up to 15 

individuals. Information on habitat use, seasonal distribution and survival 

of female sheep will be obtained. Productivity of the population will be 

enhanced. 

Short-term risks to the subject population may include the spread of 

diseases. Past serological, bacterial, and virological investigations have 

not yielded evidence of diseases that would have serious implications for the 

population at Old Dad Peak. Indeed, the performance of that population over 

the past 25 years is consistent with the hypothesis that diseases are not a 

factor of concern at Old Dad Peak and, hence, disease is not considered a 

significant risk to the sheep population at Eagle Crags. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

This alternative will have no negative impact on the Old Dad herd in Mojave 

National Preserve. Impacts to the Marble Mountains herd might be similar to 

those identified for the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd in Alternative B. Because 

the Marble Mountain herd is smaller than the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd, impacts 

may be more pronounced. It must be noted that the population estimates in 

this EA are not actual herd counts; therefore, the extent of these impacts to 

the Marble Mountain herd can only be speculated. 

Impacts to the Eagle Crags population would be the same as those identified 

for Alternative B. 

Impairment 

The desert bighorn herds at Old Dad Mountains and Kelso Peak, Marble 

Mountains, and Eagle Crags are all manipulated wildlife populations. It is 

not possible to define a range of natural variability for manipulated herds; 

in consequence, impairment to desert bighorn cannot be concluded for either 

Alternative B or Alternative C. Impacts to other wildlife at these locations 

from either of the Action alternatives are inconclusive. These herds were 

established back in the over 20 to 30 years ago. Any impacts they may have 

had to other wildlife have been long established by now. There is no 

evidence of bighorn sheep translocations causing the extirpation of other 

wildlife, therefore impairment to wildlife cannot be concluded from 

Alternatives B or C. 

IMPACTS TO NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES 

Alternative A: No Action 

There will be no impacts to the natural soundscapes of Mojave National 

Preserve or to that of Eagle Crags from the No Action alternative. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

Impacts to the natural soundscape will be temporary and can be mitigated 

through scheduling and operational protocols. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Impacts to natural soundscapes in Marble Mountains would be similar to 

impacts to Mojave National Preserve. 
30

Impacts to the Eagle Crags population would be the same as those identified 

for Alternative B. 

Impairment 

All identified impacts under Alternatives A, B, and C are non-existent, 

negligible, or mitigable. None of the alternatives will adversely impact the 

natural soundscapes or, therefore, result in impairment. 

IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES 

Alternative A: No Action 

No Action will have no impacts on the visual resources of Mojave National 

Preserve or Eagle Crags. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

Dust and vehicle emissions will have a minor, temporary negative impact to 

the viewshed. 

No impacts to the visual resources of Eagle Crags have been identified. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Impacts to visual resources at Marble Mountains might be similar to those 

identified for Old Dad Mountain and Kelso Peak. 

No impacts to the visual resources of Eagle Crags have been identified. 

Impairment 

All identified impacts under Alternatives A, B, and C are non-existent, 

negligible, or mitigable. None of the alternatives will adversely impact the 

visual resources of Mojave National Preserve or, therefore, result in 

impairment. 

IMPACTS TO VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Alternative A: No Action 

No impacts to visitor use in Mojave National Preserve 

Not applicable – Eagle Crags is not accessible to the general public. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

The Proposed Action will likely diminish the visitor wilderness experience 

because of the interruption of solitude and natural quiet. These impacts are 

minor, temporary, and therefore can be restored. There is the possibility of 

diminished hunting opportunities for bighorn at least in the short term. 

Not applicable – Eagle Crags is not accessible to the general public. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Impacts to visitor experience at Marble Mountain might be similar to those 

identified for Old Dad Mountain/Kelso Peak. There is the possibility of 
31

diminished hunting opportunities for bighorn sheep in the short term at 

Marble Mountain. 

Not applicable – Eagle Crags is not accessible to the general public. 

Impairment 

All identified impacts under Alternatives A, B, and C are non-existent, 

negligible, or mitigable. None of the alternatives will adversely impact the 

visitor experience. It can, therefore, be concluded that neither 

Alternatives A, B, nor C will result in impairment to visitor experiences in 

Mojave National Preserve. 

IMPACTS TO SAFETY 

Alternative A: No Action 

No impacts to safety in Mojave National Preserve or Eagle Crags. Moreover, 

Eagle Crags is not accessible to the general public. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

Safety risks in Mojave National Preserve and Eagle Crags can be mitigated by 

implementing safety standards and procedures as defined in Alternative B. 

Moreover, Eagle Crags is not accessible to the general public. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Same as Alternative B. 

Impairment 

All identified impacts under Alternatives A, B, and C are non-existent, 

negligible, or can be minimized. None of the alternatives will compromise 

human safety. It can, therefore, be concluded that neither Alternatives A, 

B, nor C will result in impairment to human safety in Mojave National 

Preserve. 

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Alternative A: No Action 

No impacts to prehistoric or historic cultural resources in Mojave National 

Preserve or Eagle Crags. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

It is extremely unlikely that there would be any adverse effects on 

prehistoric or historic cultural resources resulting from the capture 

operations. Similarly, the staging compound can be placed to avoid all 

cultural resources. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Same as for Alternative B. 

Impairment 

All identified impacts under Alternatives A, B, and C are non-existent or 
32

avoidable. None of the alternatives will compromise the cultural resources 

of the park. It can, therefore, be concluded that neither Alternatives A, B, 

nor C will result in impairment to cultural resources in Mojave National 

Preserve. 

IMPACTS TO WILDERNESS 

Alternative A: No Action 

No impacts to designated wilderness in Mojave National Preserve. 

Eagle Crags is an active military test and training facility and does not 

contain wilderness. 

Alternative B: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Old Dad Mountain to Eagle Crags 

This alternative will have minor, temporary negative impacts to wilderness at 

Old Dad Mountains/Kelso Peak. 

Eagle Crags is an active military test and training facility and does not 

contain wilderness. 

Alternative C: Translocate Bighorn Sheep from Another Source Population to 

Eagle Crags 

Marble Mountains is a California Wildlife Area managed by the California 

Department of Fish and Game. It does not have federally designated 

wilderness. 

Eagle Crags is an active military test and training facility and does not 

contain wilderness. 

Impairment 

Alternative B will have temporary negative impacts to wilderness values at 

Old Dad Mountains/Kelso Peak. These impacts can be minimized and/or 

mitigated. It can, therefore, be concluded that none of the alternatives 

will have adverse impacts to, or lead to impairment of wilderness. 
33

TABLE 3: COMPARATISON OF IMPACTS OF ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Impact Issue No Action 

Alternative (A) 

Propose to 

Translocate from Old 

Dad/Kelso Peak to 

Eagle Crags (B) 

Proposal to 

Translocate from 

Another Source to 

Eagle Crags (C) 

No impacts at 

Mojave National 

Preserve. 

Impacts to Old Dad 

herd are minimal to 

significant, 

depending on the 

analysis, and shortto medium-term in 

duration. This is a 

manipulated 

population with 

recurrent human 

intervention. The 

herd will recover 

within the medium 

term. Based on 

previous CDFG 

management actions, 

if the herd does not 

recover, it is 

assumed CDFG will 

intervene to 

mitigate impacts. 

There will be no 

significant impacts 

to the Old Dad/Kelso 

Peak herd over the 

long term. 

Impacts to Marble 

Mountain 

population are 

minimal to 

significant, 

depending on the 

analysis, and 

short- to mediumterm in duration.

There is a 

potential for 

these impacts to 

be more 

pronounced on the 

Marble Mountains 

herd than the Old 

Dad/Kelso Peak 

herd. 

Wildlife, 

Wildlife Habitat, 

Sensitive Species 

of Concern 

Potential to 

extirpate Eagle 

Crags population.

Eagle Crags 

population will be 

augmented. There is 

also a potential to 

enhance productivity 

of the population. 

Minor short-term 

risks to subject 

population including 

the unlikely spread 

of diseases at Old 

Dad and Eagle Crags. 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

No impacts at 

Mojave National 

Preserve. 

Temporary impacts to 

Mojave National 

Preserve that can be 

mitigated through 

scheduling and 

operational 

protocols. 

Temporary impacts 

to Marble 

Mountains 

Wildlife Area 

that can be 

mitigated through 

scheduling and 

operational 

protocols. 

Natural 

Soundscapes 

No impacts at 

Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to the 

natural soundscape 

of Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to the 

natural 

soundscape of 

Eagle Crags. 
34

Impact Issue No Action 

Alternative (A) 

Propose to 

Translocate from Old 

Dad/Kelso Peak to 

Eagle Crags (B) 

Proposal to 

Translocate from 

Another Source to 

Eagle Crags (C) 

Visual Resources No impacts to the 

visual resources 

of Mojave 

National 

Preserve. 

Minor, temporary 

impacts from dust 

and vehicle 

emissions. Fewer 

desert bighorn 

available for 

wildlife viewing. 

Minor, temporary 

impacts from dust 

and vehicle 

emissions. Fewer 

desert bighorn 

available for 

wildlife viewing.

No impacts to the 

visual resources 

of Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to the 

visual resources of 

Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to the 

visual resources 

of Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to 

visitor use in 

Mojave National 

Preserve 

This alternative 

will likely diminish 

the visitor 

wilderness 

experience because 

of the interruption 

of solitude and 

natural quiet. 

These impacts are 

minor, temporary, 

and therefore can be 

restored. 

Visitor Same as B. 

Experience 

Eagle Crags is 

not accessible to 

the general 

public. 

Eagle Crags is not 

accessible to the 

general public. 

Eagle Crags is 

not accessible to 

the general 

public. 

No impacts to 

safety in Mojave 

National 

Preserve. 

Impacts mitigated by 

safety standards/ 

procedures. 

Safety Same as B. 

No impacts to 

safety at Eagle 

Crags. 

No impacts to safety 

at Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to 

safety at Eagle 

Crags. 

No impacts to 

prehistoric or 

historic cultural 

resources in 

Mojave National 

Preserve. 

No adverse effects 

on prehistoric or 

cultural resources 

in Mojave National 

Preserve. 

Unknown but 

potentially 

similar to 

Alternative B but 

for Marble 

Mountains. 

Cultural 

Resources 

No impacts to 

cultural 

resources at 

Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to 

cultural resources 

at Eagle Crags. 

No impacts to 

cultural 

resources at 

Eagle Crags. 

Wilderness No impacts to 

designated 

wilderness in 

Mojave National 

Preserve. 

This alternative 

will have minor, 

temporary negative 

impacts to 

wilderness. 

If the herd in 

the Providence 

Mountains is 

chosen as the 

source 

population, this 

alternative would 

have greater 

negative impacts 

to the resources 

than Alternative 

B. 
35

Impact Issue No Action 

Alternative (A) 

Propose to 

Translocate from Old 

Dad/Kelso Peak to 

Eagle Crags (B) 

Proposal to 

Translocate from 

Another Source to 

Eagle Crags (C) 

Eagle Crags is an 

active military 

test and training 

facility and does 

not contain 

wilderness. 

Eagle Crags is an 

active military test 

and training 

facility and does 

not contain 

wilderness. 

Eagle Crags is an 

active military 

test and training 

facility and does 

not contain 

wilderness. 
36

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Alternative A 

By maintaining the status quo, the No Action Alternative will not change the 

dynamics of the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd. The skewed sex ratio of the Eagle 

Crags herd will likely persist, increasing its potential for extirpation. 

The State of California’s efforts to reintroduce bighorn sheep in historical 

ranges throughout the State will suffer a setback as a result. It is not 

known how CDFG might counterbalance this loss but possibilities include 

introducing bighorn in other areas. Because the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd has 

been used historically as a source population for bighorn introductions, it 

will likely be considered as such again. If CDFG attempts a new introduction 

somewhere other than Eagle Crags, it will need to cull substantially more 

than 10 bighorn, including both females and males, and will likely consider 

the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd as its source population. 

Alternative B 

The Proposed Action will relocate approximately 10 female bighorn sheep from 

Old Dad/Kelso Peak to Eagle Crags. CDFG hopes to balance the sex ratio of 

the Eagle Crags herd and improve its viability with this augmentation of 

female sheep. Adverse impacts to the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd are expected to 

be temporary and recoverable. Habitat conditions at Old Dad/Kelso Peak may 

improve slightly but, because this would be temporary until the herd had 

regained its numbers, the overall impacts are considered negligible. In 

summary, no cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action have been identified. 

Alternative C 

Translocating sheep to Eagle Crags from another source population – 

specifically, Marble Mountains – will shift the adverse impacts identified in 

Alternative B from the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd to the Marble Mountains 

population. Because the Marble Mountain herd has been estimated to be 

smaller than the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd, culling sheep will have more 

pronounced adverse impacts and the herd is expected to take longer to recover 

from this loss. The Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd and its habitat will be 

unaffected. As with the Proposed Action, Alternative C is not expected to 

have cumulative impacts. 

IMPAIRMENT 

No impairment to the resources reviewed in this environmental assessment was 

identified. Most of the impacts identified are negligible, temporary, and/or 

avoidable or can be minimized. The full extent of impacts to the desert 

bighorn herds at Old Dad Mountains/Kelso Peak, Marble Mountains, and Eagle 

Crags is unknown and cannot be measured. These herds were established by 

human intervention and are regularly manipulated, are hunted annually, and 

have unnatural population dynamics. By definition, impairment cannot result 

with regard to a resource that has already been altered through human 

intervention. Both Alternatives B and C propose additional human 

intervention and manipulation and, therefore, will not impair these herds of 

bighorn sheep. Alternative A, the No Action, does not change the status quo 

and will likewise not lead to impairment. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Alternative B best meets the criteria that defines an environmentally 

preferred alternative. Between the three alternatives presented, this 

alternative has the least amount of adverse impacts to the source population 

while achieving the initial desired result of enhancing the Eagle Crags herd 

and correcting for its skewed sex ratio. The Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd is more 

numerous than the Marble Mountains herd and would, therefore, more readily 
37

recover from a reduction in ewes. Under Alternative C, it is also unknown 

what impacts to cultural resources might be sustained in the Marble 

Mountains. While Alternative A has no adverse impacts to the Old Dad/Kelso 

Peak herd, under its implementation the Eagle Crags herd would more rapidly 

face extirpation. 

This alternative offers the greatest potential contribution to the long-term 

survival of desert bighorn sheep in California, to be enjoyed by present and 

future generations. It provides the best chance to sustain the Eagle Crags 

herd. It also presents short- to medium-term adverse but recoverable impacts 

to the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd at Mojave National Preserve. Because the Old 

Dad/Kelso Peak herd is estimated to be larger than the Marble Mountains herd 

and because of the size of this estimate, the Old Dad/Kelso Peak herd has a 

good chance of recovering from the loss of five to 15 ewes. At the same 

time, the Eagle Crags herd would be augmented and, therefore, have a greater 

potential for survival. 

By furthering the survival of bighorn sheep in California, the Proposed 

Action would enhance wildlife populations and species diversity. It would 

restore a culturally significant element of California’s history and 

prehistory. Abundant herds of desert bighorn offer opportunities for 

hunting, another culturally important activity in this region. These herds 

occupy historical ranges of desert bighorn; their impacts on the land are 

similar to the impacts left by native populations over the centuries. They 

do not present undue risks to human health or safety. Their impacts to the 

habitat, like those of their historical predecessors, fit into the balance of 

the ecosystem. Sustaining bighorn populations in places such as Mojave 

National Preserve and Marble Mountains also provides wildlife viewing 

opportunities to the public. Although Eagle Crags is not accessible to the 

public, the viability of this herd contributes to the long-term recovery of 

bighorn in the State, including other regions where bighorn are visible to 

the public. 

Alternative B presents the least potential damage to the biological and 

physical environment of Mojave National Preserve and Marble Mountain while 

improving the Eagle Crags herd’s chances of survival. It has the best 

potential for enhancing historic and cultural components of California 

history and augmenting the natural resources of the State. 
38

SECTION V: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 

A 30-day public scoping period occurred between August 4 and September 4, 

2003, through a press release (Appendix C). One comment was received during 

the review period concerning the impacts the project activities would have 

on desert bighorn sheep. The three alternatives presented in this document 

were formulated and agreed upon in 2005 through interagency cooperation 

between NPS and CDFG. 

Public notice of the availability of this environmental assessment will be 

published in local newspapers, and on the Mojave National Preserve Internet 

Web site (http://www.nps.gov/moja). Individuals and organizations could 

request the environmental assessment in writing, by phone, or by e-mail. The 

environmental assessment was circulated to various federal and state 

agencies, individuals, businesses, and organizations on the park’s mailing 

list for a 30-day public review period. Copies of the environmental 

assessment were made available at area libraries. 

A copy of the environmental assessment can be obtained by direct request to: 

Mojave National Preserve 

Attention: Bighorn Sheep Translocation EA 

2701 Barstow Road 

Barstow, CA 92311 

(760) 252-6101 

SECTION VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

Mojave National Preserve

Danette Woo, Environmental Compliance Specialist 

Debra Hughson, Science Advisor 

Larry Whalon, Chief of Resource Management 

Robert Bryson, Park Archeologist/Cultural resources Lead 

California Department of Fish and Game

Vernon Bleich, Senior Environmental Scientist 

Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, California

Thomas Campbell, Wildlife Biologist 
39

SECTION VI: LIST OF REFERENCES 

BLM & CDFG (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and 

California Department of Fish and Game). 1989. Old Dad Peak Mountain 

Sheep Habitat Management Plan. Needles and Bishop, California. 

Bleich, V. C., R. T. bowyer, and J. D. Wehausen. 1997. Sexual segregation 

in mountain sheep: resources or predation? Wildlife Monographs 

134:1-50. 

Bleich, Vernon C., Christina D. Hargis, Jeffrey A. Keay, John D. Wehausen. 

1991. Interagency Coordination and the Restoration of Wildlife 

Populations. In Natural Areas and Yosemite: Prospects for the Future. 

National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. P. 

277-284. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1983. A Plan for Bighorn Sheep. 

Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Mountain Sheep Management 

Plan: Old Dad Peak Management Unit. Prepared by Vernon C. Bleich, 

Robert L. Vernoy, and Richard A. Weaver. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Helicopter flight survey, 

unpublished data. 

California Department of Fish and Game. California T&E Species and Species 

of Special Concern.

Dunne, George C. 1977. Geology and Structural Evolution of Old Dad 

Mountain, Mojave Desert, California. In Geological Society of America 

Bulletin: Vol. 88, No. 6, pp. 737-748. 

Epps, C. W., V. C. Bleich, J. D. Wehausen, and S. G. Torres. 2003. Status 

of bighorn sheep in California. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 

47:20-35. 

NPS (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2002. General 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Barstow, 

California. 

National Archives and Records Administration. 1994. California Desert 

Protection Act (Public Law 103-433). Accessed online at: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/index.html. 

Torres, S. G., V. C. Bleich, and J. D. Wehausen. 1994. Status of Bighorn 

Sheep in California, 1993. 1994 Desert Bighorn Council Transactions. 

Wehausen, John D. 1997. Mountain Sheep at Old Dad Peak: An Analysis of 

Population Dynamics. Unpublished report. 

Wehausen, John D. 1992. Demographic Studies of Mountain Sheep in the Mojave 

Desert: Report IV. University of California White Mountain Research Station 

at Bishop, California, and California Department of Fish and Game.
40

APPENDIX A 

MINIMUM TOOL REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS - PART 1 

Proposed 

Action 

Superintendent authorizes use. 

Document and critique incident 

Proceed with project through park compliance 

process 

Disapprove 

other laws and policies? 
Is the action covered by an approved Wilderness Plan (or like plan?) 

Is the proposed action covered by a CE, EA/FONSI, or EIS/ROD? 

Proceed with project through park review process 

Proceed with project through park review process 

Defer until compliance is completed. 

41
MINIMUM TOOL REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS 

PART 2 

Is the Action essential to meet planned Wilderness Objectives? 

Do not proceed 

Can the action be accomplished outside wilderness? 

Conduct outside wilderness 

Determine alternative that has the least impact on Wilderness character and 

resources 

List alternative ways to accomplish the action 

42
Can the action be accomplished through visitor education? 

Then use: 

Interpretation Authority of Resource Leave No Trace Wilderness Ethics 

Select appropriate Select 

mechanized tool. 

Non- appropriate 

routine uses only 

or 

minimum tool 

administrative 

research. and skills 

43
44

Minimum Requirement Analysis

Decision Screening Questions

1 Does your action insure that wilderness is not occupied and modified? 

2 Does your action maintain or move the Wilderness toward less human 

influence within legal constraints? 

3 Does your rationale allow Wilderness to retain solitude and elements of 

surprise and discovery? 

4 Did you evaluate the traps of making decisions based on economy, 

convenience, comfort, or commercial value? 

5 Did you look beyond the short-term outputs to ensure that future 

generations will be able to use and enjoy the benefits of an enduring 

resource of Wilderness? 

6 Does the alternative support the Wilderness resource in its entirety 

rather than maximizing an individual resource? 

7 Do you recognize the unique characteristics for this particular 

Wilderness? 

8 Does the action prevent the effects of human activities from dominating 

natural conditions and processes? 
45

APPENDIX B 

Minimum Requirements Analysis 

of the project proposal for 

Wilderness Preservation and Management 

1. Project Name: The Translocation of Desert Bighorn Sheep from Mojave 

National Preserve to the Naval Air 

Weapons Station, China Lake, California. 

2. Analysis Preparation Date: 05 October, 2005 

3. NEPA Number: 05-esf-009b 

4. Case File Number: 

5. Case File Location: Wilderness files, Barstow NPS Office 

6. Findings: 

A. The proposed activity is consistent with existing statutes, 

regulations, policies and plans. 

B. The proposed activity would involve prohibited uses listed in Section 

4(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

C. The proposed activity involving prohibited uses could not be 

reasonably accomplished outside of the wilderness area. 

D. The proposed activity could not be reasonably accomplished 

without use of the actions prohibited by the Wilderness Act. 

7. Determinations: 

1. There are no reasonable alternatives that do not involve any prohibited 

acts in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

2. The selection of the preferred alternative was not guided solely 

by cost, convenience or efficiency but may have considered time 

and cost effectiveness. 

3. Impacts on the wilderness character and issues associated with the 

various alternatives are as follows: 

a. Helicopter Transportation of sheep and personnel – temporary 

impacts to wilderness character; potential concern for human 

health and safety. 

b. Horse Use and Walking -- temporary impacts on wilderness 

character. Would have rendered project infeasible because it is 

not possible to capture sheep on foot or on horseback. High 

human health and safety risk 

c. No Action -- long-term impacts on wildlife (potential bighorn 

sheep expatriation). 

8. Decision: Alternative a. Helicopter Transportation, is hereby 

selected. 
46