U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

California Desert District

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos

Moreno Valley, CA 92553

January 2005

Final Environmental Impact Report and

Statement for the

West Mojave Plan

A Habitat Conservation Plan and

California Desert Conservation Area

Plan Amendment

Vol 1
BLM/CA/ES-2004-005 + 1790 -1600
United States 

Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos 

Moreno Valley, CA 92553 

January, 2005

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed is the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement (Final EIR/S) for the 

West Mojave Plan. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the federal lead agency, has 

prepared the Final EIR/S in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The County of San Bernardino and the City of Barstow, the California lead agencies, have 

prepared the Final EIR/S in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

This Final EIR/S is a comprehensive environmental analysis of seven alternatives 

(including the No Action Alternative) that address compliance with the federal and California 

endangered species acts (FESA and CESA, respectively). 

The purpose of the West Mojave Plan is to develop management strategies for the desert 

tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel and over 100 other sensitive plants and animals that would 

conserve those species throughout the western Mojave Desert, while at the same time 

establishing a streamlined program for compliance with the regulatory requirements of FESA 

and CESA. Agencies, local jurisdictions and others with a stake in the future of the western 

Mojave Desert have collaborated in the development of the West Mojave Plan. 

The public devoted substantial effort to providing in-depth review and input on the Draft 

EIR/S. During the 90-day public review of the Draft EIR/S, which ended on September 12, 

2003, commentators submitted nearly 300 letters. These offered numerous suggestions, 

comments and opinions concerning the Draft EIR/S. Responses to comments are presented in 

Chapter 6 of the Final EIR/S, and copies of all letters received can be found on the attached 

compact disk. 

The text of the Final EIR/S includes a number of changes and corrections suggested by 

commentators. Where the text of the Final EIR/S differs from that presented in the Draft EIR/S, 

a vertical black line in the left-hand margin indicates the location of the modified or clarified 

text. A summary of these modifications follows. Because most of the changes consisted of 

minor modifications, only a selection is presented below. 

• Conservation Area adjustments 

o Pisgah Crater (western portion dropped, expansion to northeast) 

o North Edwards (some lands excluded) 

o Alkali Mariposa Lily (realigned to capture the Amargosa Creek drainage, drop 
interim conservation areas) 

• Biological Transition Areas eliminated (portions added to DWMA) 

• New biological objectives for several species 

• Tortoise Survey Zones – minor modifications 

• Fee Zones – minor modifications 

• BLM DWMA Multiple Use Class M Lands changed to Class L 

• Revised Monitoring and Adaptive Management Table 

• Additional discussion of cumulative impacts 

• Appendix C.1 (Implementation Tasks, Costs and Priorities) Revision 

• Compact Disk Additions – species accounts, vegetation map, Draft EIR/S comment 

letters 

• BLM Route Designation 

o Adoption of Competitive “C” Routes Northwest of Spangler Open Area 

o Route Openings in Summit Range 

o Route closures in Fremont Kramer Tortoise DWMA to Offset “C” Routes 

o Selected closures in small conservation areas 

o Revised Juniper Subregion route network 

o “No Action” route network is BLM June 30, 2003 Decision Record 

The West Mojave Plan proposes a number of amendments to the BLM’s California 

Desert Conservation Area Plan. The BLM planning process includes an opportunity for 

administrative review through a plan protest to the BLM Director should a previous 

commentator on the plan believe that the decision has been issued in error. Only those persons 

or organizations that participated in the planning process may protest. Protests from parties 

having no previous involvement will be denied without further review. A protesting party may 

raise only those issues that were submitted for the record during the planning process. New 

issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the BLM, California Desert District 

Manager, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 for consideration in 

plan implementation, as potential plan amendments, or as otherwise appropriate. The period for 

filing protests begins when the EPA publishes in the Federal Register its Notice of Receipt of the 

West Mojave Plan Final EIR/S. To be considered “timely” the protest must be postmarked no 

later than the last day of the 30-day protest period. Also, although not a requirement, it is 

recommended that the protest be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. E-mail protests 

will not be accepted. Faxed protests will be considered as potential valid protests provided (1) 

that the signed faxed letter is received by the BLM Washington Office protest coordinator by the 

closing date of the protest period and (2) that the protesting party also provides the original letter 

by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Please direct 

faxed protests to “BLM Protest Coordinator” at 202-452-5112. Please direct the follow-up letter 

to the appropriate address provided below.

Protest must be filed in writing to: Director (210), Attention: Brenda Williams, P.O. 

Box 66538, Washington, D.C. 20035, or by overnight mail to: Director (210), Attention: 

Brenda Williams, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 1075, Washington, D.C. 20036. In order to be 

considered complete, the protest must contain, at a minimum, the following information: 

Proposed West Mojave Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement 

Federal Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Bureau of Land Management 

 California Desert District Office 

California Lead Agencies: County of San Bernardino 

 Land Use Services Department 

 City of Barstow 

 Community Development Department 

Project Location: Portions of San Bernardino, Inyo, Kern and Los Angeles 

Counties, California 

For Further Information: Linda Hansen, Bureau of Land Management 

 California Desert District Office 

 22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos 

 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 

 Randy Scott, County of San Bernardino 

 Land Use Services Department 

 385 North Arrowhead Avenue 

 San Bernardino, CA 92415 

 Scott Priester, City of Barstow 

 Community Development Department 

 220 East Mountain View Street 

 Barstow, CA 92311-2888 

Abstract The West Mojave Plan (Plan) is a habitat conservation plan and 

federal land use plan amendment that presents a comprehensive 

strategy to conserve and protect the desert tortoise, the Mohave 

ground squirrel and nearly 100 other sensitive plants and animals 

and the natural communities of which they are a part, while 

providing a streamlined program for complying with the 

requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species 

Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively). The planning area 

includes 3.2 million acres of public land and 3.0 million acres of 

private land. This document was produced through a 

collaborative effort of state and federal agencies and local 

jurisdictions. 
January, 2005
Table of Contents 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E.1 INTRODUCTION ES-1 

E.2 ALTERNATIVES ES-2 

E.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ES-3 

E.4 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: WOULD THEY BE MET? ES-5 

E.4.1 Desert Tortoise ES-5 

E.4.2 Mohave Ground Squirrel ES-9 

E.4.3 Other Species ES-10 

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 1-1 

1.1.1 Site Location and Description 1-1 

1.1.2 Environmental Impact Statement 1-2 

1.1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report 1-3 

1.1.4 Incidental Take Permits 1-7 

1.1.5 EIR/S Organization 1-8 

1.1.6 Use of EIR/S by Agencies and Jurisdictions 1-8 

1.1.7 Modifications to be Found in the Final EIR/S 1-10 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-10 

1.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN AND THE 

EXPANSION OF FORT IRWIN 1-12 

1.4 HISTORY OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 1-13 

1.4.1 Planning Issues 1-13 

1.4.2 1992 Memorandum of Understanding 1-13 

1.4.3 1997 Equitable Precepts 1-14 

1.4.4 Data Base 1-15 

1.4.5 Biological Evaluation 1-18 

1.4.6 Task Groups Develop the Conservation Strategy 1-19 

1.4.7 Public Review of DEIR/S 1-20 

1.5 NECESSARY DECISIONS AND APPROVALS 1-20 

1.5.1 Agency and Jurisdiction Decisions and Approvals 1-20 

1.5.2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Policies 1-21 

1.5.3 Relationship to Other Regional Plans 1-21 
Table of Contents 2

CHAPTER TWO 

ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1 

2.1.1 Overview 2-1 

2.1.2 Biological Goals and Objectives 2-2 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED ACTION: HABITAT CONSERVATION 

PLAN 2-9 

2.2.1 Habitat Conservation Area 2-11 

2.2.1.1 Structure and Components 2-12 

2.2.1.1.1 Overview 2-12 

2.2.1.1.2 Desert Tortoise Component of HCA 2-13 

2.2.1.1.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel Component of HCA 2-14 

2.2.1.1.4 Other Conservation Areas 2-14 

2.2.1.1.5 Open Space Corridors 2-17 

2.2.1.1.6 Special Review Areas (SRA) 2-18 

2.2.1.2 Miscellaneous BLM Management Issues 2-19 

2.2.1.2.1 BLM Multiple Use Class Changes 2-19 

2.2.1.2.2 California Desert Protection Act Non-Wilderness 2-21 

2.2.1.2.3 BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2-22 

2.2.1.2.4 Rand Mountains – Fremont Valley Management Plan 2-22 

2.2.1.2.5 Afton Canyon Natural Area 2-25 

2.2.1.2.6 Harper Dry Lake 2-25 

2.2.1.2.7 Western Mojave Land Tenure Adjustment Project 2-29 

2.2.1.2.8 Mojave River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determination 2-29 

2.2.1.2.9 Inyo County Land Disposal Tracts 2-30 

2.2.1.3 Allowable Ground Disturbance (AGD) 2-32 

2.2.2 Compensation Framework 2-33 

2.2.2.1 Administrative Structure 2-33 

2.2.2.2 Mitigation Fee 2-34 

2.2.2.3 Habitat Rehabilitation Credits 2-39 

2.2.3 Incidental Take Permits 2-43 

2.2.3.1 Covered Activities and Terms of Permits 2-43 

2.2.3.2 Treatment of Unlisted Species and Federal “No Surprises” Assurances 2-44 

2.2.3.3 Take Authorized by Incidental Take Permits 2-45 

2.2.3.4 Military Lands 2-52 

2.2.4 Species Conservation Measures 2-52 

2.2.4.1 Species Conservation Measures Applicable Throughout the HCA 2-53 

2.2.4.2 Desert Tortoise 2-57 

2.2.4.2.1 Take-Avoidance Measures 2-57 

2.2.4.2.2 Survey and Disposition Protocols 2-61 

2.2.4.2.3 Proactive Tortoise Management Programs 2-66 

2.2.4.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 2-76 

2.2.4.3.1 Take-Avoidance Measures 2-76 

2.2.4.3.2 Pre-Construction Surveys 2-76 
Table of Contents 3

2.2.4.3.3 Proactive MGS Management Programs 2-76 

2.2.4.4 Mojave River Bioregion 2-77 

2.2.4.5 Bats 2-78 

2.2.4.6 Other Mammals 2-81 

2.2.4.6.1 Bighorn Sheep 2-81 

2.2.4.6.2 Yellow-Eared Pocket Mouse 2-82 

2.2.4.7 Raptors 2-82 

2.2.4.7.1 Generally Applicable Raptor Prescriptions 2-82 

2.2.4.7.2 Burrowing Owl 2-83 

2.2.4.7.3 Ferruginous Hawk 2-85 

2.2.4.7.4 Golden Eagle 2-85 

2.2.4.7.5 Long-eared Owl 2-86 

2.2.4.7.6 Prairie Falcon 2-86 

2.2.4.8 Other Birds 2-87 

2.2.4.8.1 Bendire’s Thrasher 2-87 

2.2.4.8.2 Gray Vireo 2-88 

2.2.4.8.3 Inyo California Towhee 2-90 

2.2.4.8.4 LeConte’s Thrasher 2-90 

2.2.4.8.5 Western Snowy Plover 2-91 

2.2.4.9 Reptiles 2-91 

2.2.4.9.1 Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 2-91 

2.2.4.9.2 Panamint Alligator Lizard 2-93 

2.2.4.9.3 San Diego Horned Lizard 2-93 

2.2.4.9.4 Southwestern Pond Turtle 2-94 

2.2.4.10 Plants 2-94 

2.2.4.10.1 Southern Sierra Plants 2-94 

2.2.4.10.2 Carbonate Endemic Plants 2-95 

2.2.4.10.3 Alkali Wetland Plants 2-98 

2.2.4.10.4 Alkali Mariposa Lily 2-99 

2.2.4.10.5 Barstow Woolly Sunflower 2-100 

2.2.4.10.6 Charlotte’s Phacelia 2-103 

2.2.4.10.7 Crucifixion Thorn 2-104 

2.2.4.10.8 Desert Cymopterus 2-104 

2.2.4.10.9 Flax-like Monardella 2-106 

2.2.4.10.10 Kelso Creek Monkeyflower 2-106 

2.2.4.10.11 Kern Buckwheat 2-107 

2.2.4.10.12 Lane Mountain Milkvetch 2-108 

2.2.4.10.13 Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia 2-108 

2.2.4.10.14 Mojave Monkeyflower 2-109 

2.2.4.10.15 Mojave Tarplant 2-112 

2.2.4.10.16 Ninemile Canyon Phacelia 2-113 

2.2.4.10.17 Parish’s Phacelia 2-113 

2.2.4.10.18 Red Rock Poppy 2-114 

2.2.4.10.19 Red Rock Tarplant 2-114 

2.2.4.10.20 Reveal’s Buckwheat 2-114 

2.2.4.10.21 Short-joint Beavertail Cactus 2-115 
Table of Contents 4

2.2.4.10.22 Triple-ribbed Milkvetch 2-115 

2.2.4.10.23 White-margined Beardtongue 2-116 

2.2.5 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-118 

2.2.5.1 Regional Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management 2-118 

2.2.5.2 Cattle Grazing Outside Tortoise Habitat and the MGS 

Conservation Area 2-125 

2.2.5.3 Cattle Grazing Within Tortoise Habitat and the MGS 

Conservation Area 2-125 

2.2.5.3.1 Management under Existing Federal Biological Opinions 2-126 

2.2.5.3.2 New Management Prescriptions 2-126 

2.2.5.3.3 Health Assessments 2-127 

2.2.5.4 Cattle Grazing Within DWMAs 2-127 

2.2.5.4.1 Proposed Management Prescriptions 2-127 

2.2.5.4.2 Health Assessments 2-127 

2.2.5.5 Sheep Grazing Within All Allotments 2-127 

2.2.5.5.1 Management under Existing Federal Biological Opinions 2-129 

2.2.5.5.2 Proposed Management Prescriptions 2-129 

2.2.5.5.3 Health Assessments 2-129 

2.2.5.6 Sheep Grazing Within the MGS and the Mojave Monkeyflower Conservation 

Areas 2-130 

2.2.5.7 Sheep Grazing Within DWMAs 2-131 

2.2.5.8 Voluntary Relinquishment of Cattle and Sheep Allotments 2-133 

2.2.6 Public Land Motorized Vehicle Access Network 2-136 

2.2.6.1 Background 2-136 

2.2.6.2 Criteria 2-138 

2.2.6.3 Route Designation Methodology 2-141 

2.2.6.4 Take-Avoidance Measures 2-156 

2.2.6.5 Competitive Event Corridors and Race Courses 2-157 

2.2.6.6 El Paso Collaborative Access Planning Area 2-157 

2.2.6.7 Juniper Subregion 2-159 

2.2.6.8 Other Route Network Modifications 2-162 

2.2.6.9 California Back Country Discovery Trail 2-163 

2.2.6.10 Implementation 2-163 

2.2.6.11 Modification of Route Network 2-167 

2.2.7 Education Program 2-168 

2.2.7.1 Goals 2-168 

2.2.7.2 Targets 2-169 

2.2.7.3 Delivery 2-169 

2.2.7.4 Means 2-169 

2.2.8 Monitoring and Adaptive Management 2-172 

2.2.8.1 Alkali Wetland Communities Supplementary Discussion 2-197 

2.2.8.2 Desert Tortoise Supplementary Discussion 2-197 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE B: BLM ONLY 2-203 

2.3.1 Overview 2-203 

2.3.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-203 
Table of Contents 5

2.3.3 Compensation Framework 2-204 

2.3.4 Incidental Take Permits 2-204 

2.3.5 Species Conservation Measures 2-204 

2.3.6 Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Implementation 2-205 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE C: TORTOISE RECOVERY PLAN 2-206 

2.4.1 Overview 2-206 

2.4.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-206 

2.4.3 Compensation Framework and Incidental Take Permits 2-207 

2.4.4 Species Conservation Measures 2-207 

2.4.4.1 Desert Tortoise Take-Avoidance Measures 2-207 

2.4.4.2 Desert Tortoise Survey and Disposition Protocols 2-208 

2.4.4.3 Proactive Tortoise Management Programs 2-208 

2.4.5 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-209 

2.4.6 Public Land Motorized Vehicle Access Network 2-209 

2.4.7 Education Program 2-210 

2.4.8 Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Implementation 2-210 

2.5 ALTERNATIVE D: ENHANCED ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION 2-211 

2.5.1 Overview 2-211 

2.5.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-211 

2.5.3 Compensation Framework 2-211 

2.5.4 Species Conservation Measures 2-212 

2.5.5 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-215 

2.5.6 Public Land Motorized Vehicle Access Network 2-215 

2.6 ALTERNATIVE E: ONE DWMA – ENHANCED RECREATION 

OPPORTUNITIES 2-217 

2.6.1 Overview 2-217 

2.6.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-217 

2.6.3 Compensation Framework 2-218 

2.6.4 Recreation Program 2-218 

2.6.5 Species Conservation Measures 2-218 

2.6.6 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-219 

2.7 ALTERNATIVE F: NO DWMA – AGGRESSIVE DISEASE AND RAVEN 

MANAGEMENT 2-220 

2.7.1 Overview 2-220 

2.7.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-220 

2.7.3 Compensation Framework 2-220 

2.7.4 Species Conservation Measures 2-221 

2.7.5 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-222 

2.8 ALTERNATIVE G: NO ACTION 2-222 

2.8.1 Overview 2-222 

2.8.2 Habitat Conservation Area 2-222 

2.8.3 Compensation Framework 2-223 

2.8.4 Incidental Take Permits 2-223 

2.8.5 Species Conservation Measures 2-223 

2.8.6 Public Land Livestock Grazing Program 2-224 

2.8.6.1 Objective A - Implement Standards 2-224 
Table of Contents 6

2.8.6.2 Objective B – Conform Grazing Activities 2-224 

2.8.7 Public Land Motorized Vehicle Access Network 2-225 

2.8.8 Education Program 2-226 

2.9 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

CONSIDERATION 2-226 

2.10 ALTERNATIVE DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATION 2-228 

2.11 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2-230 

CHAPTER THREE 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 PLANNING AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3-1 

3.1.1 Bureau of Land Management 3-1 

3.1.1.1 California Desert Conservation Area Plan 3-1 

3.1.1.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 3-3 

3.1.1.3 Wilderness Areas 3-8 

3.1.1.4 Land Tenure Adjustment Program 3-10 

3.1.2 Other State and Federal Agencies 3-11 

3.1.2.1 United States National Park Service 3-11 

3.1.2.2 California Department of Fish and Game 3-11 

3.1.2.3 California Department of Parks and Recreation 3-12 

3.1.2.4 California Department of Transportation 3-13 

3.1.3 Local Jurisdictions 3-13 

3.1.3.1 Inyo County 3-13 

3.1.3.2 Kern County 3-14 

3.1.3.3 Los Angeles County 3-15 

3.1.3.4 San Bernardino County 3-19 

3.1.3.5 City of Adelanto 3-21 

3.1.3.6 Town of Apple Valley 3-21 

3.1.3.7 City of Barstow 3-22 

3.1.3.8 City of California City 3-23 

3.1.3.9 City of Hesperia 3-24 

3.1.3.10 City of Lancaster 3-25 

3.1.3.11 City of Palmdale 3-26 

3.1.3.12 City of Ridgecrest 3-27 

3.1.3.13 City of Twentynine Palms 3-27 

3.1.3.14 City of Victorville 3-28 

3.1.3.15 Town of Yucca Valley 3-28 

3.1.4 Federal Endangered Species Act 3-29 

3.1.4.1 Background 3-29 

3.1.4.2 Listed Species 3-29 

3.1.4.3 Recovery Plans 3-30 

3.1.4.4 Critical Habitat 3-32 
Table of Contents 7

3.1.4.5 Exceptions to FESA’s Take Prohibition 3-32 

3.1.5 California Endangered Species Act 3-37 

3.1.5.1 Background 3-37 

3.1.5.2 Listed Species 3-37 

3.1.5.3 Incidental Take Permit 3-37 

3.1.6 Acquiring Incidental Take Permits: Procedures and Costs 3-38 

3.2 AIR QUALITY, SOILS AND WATER 3-43 

3.2.1 Climate and Air Quality 3-43 

3.2.1.1 Climate 3-43 

3.2.1.2 Air Quality 3-45 

3.2.2 Geology and Soils 3-55 

3.2.3 Water 3-60 

3.2.3.1 Groundwater Basins 3-60 

3.2.3.2 Mojave River 3-63 

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-64 

3.3.1 Natural Communities 3-65 

3.3.2 Desert Tortoise 3-69 

3.3.2.1 Regulatory Status 3-69 

3.3.2.2 Tortoise Habitat Designations 3-69 

3.3.2.3 Tortoise Life History 3-73 

3.3.2.4 Tortoise Populations 3-76 

3.3.2.4.1 Permanent Study Plots 3-76 

3.3.2.4.2 Desert Tortoise Field Surveys 3-78 

3.3.2.4.3 Desert Tortoise Distribution 3-91 

3.3.2.5 Threats to Tortoises: Mortality Factors 3-95 

3.3.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Anthropogenic Mortality Factors 3-95 

3.3.2.5.2 Natural Mortality Factors 3-102 

3.3.2.5.3 Older and Newer Die-off Regions 3-113 

3.3.2.6 Tortoises and Off Highway Vehicles 3-119 

3.3.2.6.1 Dispersed Casual OHV Use 3-119 

3.3.2.6.2 Direct Impacts of OHVs on Desert Tortoise Populations 3-120 

3.3.2.6.3 Direct Impacts of OHVs on Desert Tortoise Habitat 3-125 

3.3.2.6.4 Indirect Impacts of OHVs on Desert Tortoises and Habitat 3-127 

3.3.2.6.5 Off-Highway Vehicle Open Areas 3-128 

3.3.2.6.6 Organized Competitive OHV Events 3-135 

3.3.2.7 Current Effectiveness of Existing Protected Areas 3-137 

3.3.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 3-144 

3.3.3.1 Mohave Ground Squirrel Range 3-144 

3.3.3.2 Life History 3-146 

3.3.3.2.1 Species Description 3-146 

3.3.3.2.2 Seasonal Activity 3-147 

3.3.3.2.3 Substrate Affinities and Burrow Use 3-147 

3.3.3.2.4 Home Ranges 3-147 

3.3.3.2.5 Reproduction 3-147 

3.3.3.2.6 Dispersal 3-148 

3.3.3.3 Winterfat, Spiny Hopsage, and MGS Occurrence 3-148 
Table of Contents 8

3.3.3.4 MGS Associations with Regional Plant Communities 3-155 

3.3.3.5 Threats 3-157 

3.3.3.6 Regulatory Protection of the Mohave Ground Squirrel 3-167 

3.3.4 Bats 3-169 

3.3.5 Other Mammals 3-170 

3.3.5.1 Bighorn Sheep 3-170 

3.3.5.2 Mojave River Vole 3-172 

3.3.5.3 Yellow-eared Pocket Mouse 3-172 

3.3.6 Birds 3-173 

3.3.6.1 Bendire’s Thrasher 3-173 

3.3.6.2 Brown-crested Flycatcher 3-173 

3.3.6.3 Burrowing Owl 3-174 

3.3.6.4 Ferruginous Hawk 3-174 

3.3.6.5 Golden Eagle 3-175 

3.3.6.6 Gray Vireo 3-175 

3.3.6.7 Inyo California Towhee 3-176 

3.3.6.8 LeConte’s Thrasher 3-177 

3.3.6.9 Long-Eared Owl 3-177 

3.3.6.10 Prairie Falcon 3-178 

3.3.6.11 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 3-178 

3.3.6.12 Summer Tanager 3-179 

3.3.6.13 Vermilion Flycatcher 3-179 

3.3.6.14 Western Snowy Plover 3-180 

3.3.6.15 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 3-181 

3.3.6.16 Yellow-breasted chat 3-181 

3.3.6.17 Yellow Warbler 3-181 

3.3.7 Reptiles 3-182 

3.3.7.1 Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard 3-182 

3.3.7.2 San Diego Horned Lizard 3-183 

3.3.7.3 Southwestern Pond Turtle 3-183 

3.3.7.4 Panamint Alligator Lizard 3-184 

3.3.8 Plants 3-184 

3.3.8.1 Alkali Mariposa Lily 3-184 

3.3.8.2 Barstow Woolly Sunflower 3-185 

3.3.8.3 Carbonate Endemics (Cushenbury Buckwheat, Cushenbury Milkvetch, 

Cushenbury Oxytheca and Parish's Daisy) 3-186 

3.3.8.4 Charlotte’s Phacelia 3-186 

3.3.8.5 Crucifixion Thorn 3-187 

3.3.8.6 Desert Cymopterus 3-187 

3.3.8.7 Kelso Creek Monkeyflower 3-188 

3.3.8.8 Kern Buckwheat 3-189 

3.3.8.9 Lane Mountain Milkvetch 3-189 

3.3.8.10 Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia 3-190 

3.3.8.11 Mojave Monkeyflower 3-190 

3.3.8.12 Mojave Tarplant 3-191 

3.3.8.13 Parish's Alkali Grass 3-191 
Table of Contents 9

3.3.8.14 Parish’s Phacelia 3-192 

3.3.8.15 Parish’s Popcorn Flower 3-192 

3.3.8.16 Red Rock Poppy 3-193 

3.3.8.17 Red Rock Tarplant 3-193 

3.3.8.18 Salt Springs Checkerbloom 3-193 

3.3.8.19 Shockley’s Rock Cress 3-194 

3.3.8.20 Short-joint Beavertail Cactus 3-194 

3.3.8.21 Triple-ribbed Milkvetch 3-195 

3.3.8.22 White-Margined Beardtongue 3-195 

3.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC 3-196 

3.4.1 Regional Economic Profile 3-196 

3.4.1.1 Regional Environment 3-197 

3.4.1.2 Study Area Demographics 3-199 

3.4.1.3 Study Area Growth Capacity 3-204 

3.4.1.4 Study Area Market Share 3-205 

3.4.1.5 Study Area Property Valuation 3-207 

3.4.1.5.1 Subarea Valuation 3-207 

3.4.1.5.2 Habitat Conservation Area Valuation 3-209 

3.4.2 Livestock Grazing 3-210 

3.4.3 Mineral Potential and Development 3-217 

3.4.3.1 Mineral Potential 3-217 

3.4.3.2 Strategic and Critical Minerals 3-224 

3.4.3.3 Identified Resources by Commodity 3-227 

3.4.3.4 Current and Historic Mineral Commodity Production 3-229 

3.4.3.5 Coolgardie Mesa 3-237 

3.4.3.6 Reclamation and Restoration Procedures 3-238 

3.4.3.7 State Designated Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate 

Resources 3-238 

3.4.4 Recreation 3-239 

3.4.4.1 Patterns of Use 3-239 

3.4.4.2 Trends 3-244 

3.4.4.3 Off-Highway Vehicle Use 3-246 

3.4.4.3.1 Driving OHVs for Recreation 3-246 

3.4.4.3.2 Driving OHVs to Access Other Recreation 3-249 

3.4.4.4 Economic Contribution of OHV Recreation 3-250 

3.4.5 Circulation and Landfills 3-253 

3.4.5.1 Circulation Element 3-253 

3.4.5.1.1 Transportation Methods 3-253 

3.4.5.1.2 West Mojave Planning Area Roads 3-255 

3.4.5.2 Landfills 3-257 

3.5 MOTORIZED VEHICLE ACCESS NETWORK 3-264 

3.5.1 Policies and Legislation 3-264 

3.5.1.1 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 3-264 

3.5.1.2 Executive Order No. 11644 3-265 

3.5.1.3 Federal Regulations (43 CFR 8342.1) 3-265 

3.5.1.4 California Desert Conservation Area Plan 3-265 
Table of Contents 10

3.5.1.5 Route Designation Definitions 3-267 

3.5.2 Motorized Vehicle Access 3-267 

3.5.2.1 Motorized Vehicle Access Needs 3-268 

3.5.2.2 Off Road Vehicle Designations Prior to 2002 3-269 

3.5.2.3 OHV Route Subregions and BLM 2001-2 Route Inventory 3-272 

3.6 ENERGY PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION 3-274 

3.6.1 Powerlines, Pipelines and Fiberoptic Cables 3-274 

3.6.2 Energy Generation Plants 3-277 

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-279 

3.7.1 Archaeological, Historical, Paleontological and Ethnographic Resources 3-279 

3.7.1.1 Area of Effect 3-279 

3.7.1.2 Existing Database 3-279 

3.7.1.3 Regional Overview: Prehistoric 3-280 

3.7.1.4 Regional Overview: Historic 3-281 

3.7.1.5 Known Significant Sites 3-282 

3.7.1.6 Potentially Significant Areas 3-284 

3.7.1.7 Ethno-historic Overview 3-287 

3.7.1.8 Significant Paleontological Localities 3-288 

3.7.2 Tribal Governments and Policies 3-293 

3.7.3 BLM Consultation Procedures 3-293 

CHAPTER FOUR 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1 

4.2 ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED ACTION 4-4 

4.2.1 Air Quality, Soils and Water 4-4 

4.2.1.1 Air Quality 4-4 

4.2.1.2 Soils 4-8 

4.2.1.3 Water Quality 4-9 

4.2.2 Biological Resources 4-12 

4.2.2.1 Natural Communities 4-12 

4.2.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-14 

4.2.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-45 

4.2.2.4 Bats 4-50 

4.2.2.5 Other Mammals 4-51 

4.2.2.5.1 Bighorn Sheep 4-51 

4.2.2.5.2 Mojave River Vole 4-53 

4.2.2.5.3 Yellow-eared Pocket Mouse 4-53 

4.2.2.6 Birds 4-54 

4.2.2.6.1 Bendire’s Thrasher 4-54 

4.2.2.6.2 Brown-crested Flycatcher 4-55 
Table of Contents 11

4.2.2.6.3 Burrowing Owl 4-55 

4.2.2.6.4 Ferruginous Hawk 4-56 

4.2.2.6.5 Golden Eagle 4-57 

4.2.2.6.6 Gray Vireo 4-57 

4.2.2.6.7 Inyo California Towhee 4-58 

4.2.2.6.8 LeConte’s Thrasher 4-59 

4.2.2.6.9 Long-eared Owl 4-59 

4.2.2.6.10 Prairie Falcon 4-60 

4.2.2.6.11 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 4-60 

4.2.2.6.12 Summer Tanager 4-61 

4.2.2.6.13 Vermilion Flycatcher 4-62 

4.2.2.6.14 Western Snowy Plover 4-62 

4.2.2.6.15 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 4-63 

4.2.2.6.16 Yellow-Breasted Chat 4-63 

4.2.2.6.17 Yellow Warbler 4-64 

4.2.2.7 Reptiles 4-64 

4.2.2.7.1 Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard 4-64 

4.2.2.7.2 Panamint Alligator Lizard 4-66 

4.2.2.7.3 San Diego Horned Lizard 4-66 

4.2.2.7.4 Southwestern Pond Turtle 4-67 

4.2.2.8 Plants 4-68 

4.2.2.8.1 Alkali Mariposa Lily 4-68 

4.2.2.8.2 Barstow Woolly Sunflower 4-68 

4.2.2.8.3 Carbonate Endemic Plants 4-69 

4.2.2.8.4 Charlotte’s Phacelia 4-70 

4.2.2.8.5 Crucifixion Thorn 4-71 

4.2.2.8.6 Desert Cymopterus 4-71 

4.2.2.8.7 Flax-like Monardella 4-72 

4.2.2.8.8 Kelso Creek Monkeyflower 4-72 

4.2.2.8.9 Kern Buckwheat 4-73 

4.2.2.8.10 Lane Mountain Milkvetch 4-73 

4.2.2.8.11 Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia 4-74 

4.2.2.8.12 Mojave Monkeyflower 4-75 

4.2.2.8.13 Mojave Tarplant 4-75 

4.2.2.8.14 Parish’s Alkali Grass 4-76 

4.2.2.8.15 Parish’s Phacelia 4-76 

4.2.2.8.16 Parish’s Popcorn Flower 4-77 

4.2.2.8.17 Red Rock Poppy 4-77 

4.2.2.8.18 Red Rock Tarplant 4-77 

4.2.2.8.19 Reveal’s Buckwheat 4-78 

4.2.2.8.20 Salt Springs Checkerbloom 4-78 

4.2.2.8.21 Shockley’s Rock Cress 4-78 

4.2.2.8.22 Short-joint Beavertail Cactus 4-78 

4.2.2.8.23 Triple-ribbed Milkvetch 4-79 

4.2.2.8.24 White-margined Beardtongue 4-79 

4.2.3 Socio-Economics 4-80 
Table of Contents 12

4.2.3.1 HCP Program Components Affecting Urban Growth 

 and Fiscal Revenue 4-80 

4.2.3.1.1 Urban Growth 4-84 

4.2.3.1.2 Fiscal Revenue 4-91 

4.2.3.2 Employment & Income 4-93 

4.2.3.3 Livestock Grazing 4-97 

4.2.3.3.1 Regional Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Management 4-97 

4.2.3.3.2 Cattle Grazing Outside Tortoise and MGS Habitat 4-97 

4.2.3.3.3 Cattle Grazing Within Tortoise Habitat and MGS 

Conservation Area 4-98 

4.2.3.3.4 Cattle Grazing Within DWMAs 4-99 

4.2.3.3.5 Sheep Grazing in All Allotments 4-100 

4.2.3.3.6 Sheep Grazing In MGS and Mojave Monkeyflower 

Conservation Areas 4-101 

4.2.3.3.7 Sheep Grazing in DWMAs 4-101 

4.2.3.3.8 Voluntary Relinquishment of Grazing Allotments 4-102 

4.2.3.4 Mineral Development 4-103 

4.2.3.4.1 General Discussion 4-103 

4.2.3.4.2 Regional Mineral Development 4-105 

4.2.3.4.3 Mineral Development Within Specific Conservation Areas 4-106 

4.2.3.4.4 Mineral Impacts: Conclusion 4-110 

4.2.3.5 Regional Recreation Opportunities 4-111 

4.2.3.6 Regional Transportation System 4-116 

4.2.3.7 Visual Resources 4-116 

4.2.4 Motorized Vehicle Access Network 4-117 

4.2.5 Cultural Resources 4-125 

4.2.5.1 Activities That Would Affect Cultural Resources 4-125 

4.2.5.2 Regional Analysis: Potential Areas of Conflict 4-126 

4.2.5.3 Off Road Vehicle Route Designation 4-127 

4.2.5.3.1 Effects Of Networks: Ridgecrest Field Office 4-128 

4.2.5.3.2 Effects Of Networks: Barstow Field Office 4-133 

4.2.6 Mojave River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Determination 4-134 

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 4-135 

4.3 ALTERNATIVE B: BLM ONLY 4-141 

4.3.1 Air Quality, Soils and Water 4-141 

4.3.2 Biological Resources 4-142 

4.3.2.1 Natural Communities 4-142 

4.3.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-145 

4.3.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-151 

4.3.2.4 Mojave River Bioregion 4-154 

4.3.2.5 Bats 4-155 

4.3.2.6 Other Mammals 4-155 

4.3.2.7 Birds 4-156 

4.3.2.8 Reptiles 4-159 

4.3.2.9 Plants 4-160 
Table of Contents 13

4.3.3 Socio-Economics 4-162 

4.3.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-162 

4.3.3.2 Mineral Development 4-163 

4.3.4 Cultural Resources 4-163 

4.4 ALTERNATIVE C: TORTOISE RECOVERY PLAN 4-164 

4.4.1 Air Quality 4-164 

4.4.2 Biological Resources 4-164 

4.4.2.1 Natural Communities 4-164 

4.4.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-166 

4.4.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-170 

4.4.2.4 Bats 4-174 

4.4.2.5 Other Mammals 4-174 

4.4.2.6 Birds 4-174 

4.4.2.7 Reptiles 4-174 

4.4.2.8 Plants 4-175 

4.4.3 Socio-Economics 4-176 

4.4.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-176 

4.4.3.2 Mineral Development 4-177 

4.4.4 Cultural Resources 4-178 

4.4.5 Cumulative Impacts 4-178 

4.5 ALTERNATIVE D: ENHANCED ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION 4-179 

4.5.1 Air Quality 4-179 

4.5.2 Biological Resources 4-179 

4.5.2.1 Natural Communities 4-179 

4.5.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-181 

4.5.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-188 

4.5.2.4 Bats 4-193 

4.5.2.5 Other Mammals 4-193 

4.5.2.6 Birds 4-193 

4.5.2.7 Reptiles 4-194 

4.5.2.8 Plants 4-194 

4.5.3 Socio-Economics 4-196 

4.5.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-196 

4.5.3.2 Mineral Development 4-197 

4.5.3.3 Recreation 4-197 

4.5.4 Cultural Resources 4-198 

4.5.5 Cumulative Impacts 4-198 

4.6 ALTERNATIVE E: ONE DWMA, ENHANCED RECREATION 4-199 

4.6.1 Air Quality 4-199 

4.6.2 Biological Resources 4-200 

4.6.2.1 Natural Communities 4-200 

4.6.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-202 

4.6.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-217 

4.6.2.4 Bats 4-220 

4.6.2.5 Other Mammals 4-220 
Table of Contents 14

4.6.2.6 Birds 4-220 

4.6.2.7 Reptiles 4-220 

4.6.2.8 Plants 4-220 

4.6.3 Socio-Economics 4-221 

4.6.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-221 

4.6.3.2 Mineral Development 4-221 

4.6.3.3 Regional Recreation Opportunities 4-222 

4.6.4 Cultural Resources 4-222 

4.6.5 Cumulative Impacts 4-222 

4.7 ALTERNATIVE F: NO DWMA – AGGRESSIVE DISEASE AND RAVEN 

MANAGEMENT 4-223 

4.7.1 Air Quality 4-223 

4.7.2 Biological Resources 4-223 

4.7.2.1 Natural Communities 4-223 

4.7.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-223 

4.7.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-247 

4.7.2.4 Bats 4-249 

4.7.2.5 Other Mammals 4-249 

4.7.2.6 Birds 4-249 

4.7.2.7 Reptiles 4-249 

4.7.2.8 Plants 4-250 

4.7.3 Socio-Economics 4-251 

4.7.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-251 

4.7.3.2 Mineral Development 4-251 

4.7.4 Cultural Resources 4-251 

4.7.5 Cumulative Impacts 4-251 

4.8 ALTERNATIVE G: NO ACTION 4-252 

4.8.1 Air Quality 4-252 

4.8.2 Biological Resources 4-252 

4.8.2.1 Natural Communities 4-252 

4.8.2.2 Desert Tortoise 4-253 

4.8.2.3 Mohave Ground Squirrel 4-260 

4.8.2.4 Bats 4-262 

4.8.2.5 Other Mammals 4-262 

4.8.2.5.1 Bighorn Sheep 4-262 

4.8.2.5.2 Mojave River Vole 4-262 

4.8.2.5.3 Yellow-eared Pocket Mouse 4-263 

4.8.2.6 Birds 4-263 

4.8.2.6.1 Bendire’s Thrasher 4-263 

4.8.2.6.2 Brown-crested Flycatcher 4-263 

4.8.2.6.3 Burrowing Owl 4-263 

4.8.2.6.4 Ferruginous Hawk 4-264 

4.8.2.6.5 Golden Eagle 4-264 

4.8.2.6.6 Gray Vireo 4-264 

4.8.2.6.7 Inyo California Towhee 4-264 

4.8.2.6.8 LeConte’s thrasher 4-265 
Table of Contents 15

4.8.2.6.9 Long-eared Owl 4-265 

4.8.2.6.10 Prairie Falcon 4-265 

4.8.2.6.11 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 4-265 

4.8.2.6.12 Summer tanager 4-265 

4.8.2.6.13 Vermilion flycatcher 4-266 

4.8.2.6.14 Western Snowy Plover 4-266 

4.8.2.6.15 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo 4-266 

4.8.2.6.16 Yellow-breasted Chat 4-266 

4.8.2.6.17 Yellow Warbler 4-267 

4.8.2.7 Reptiles 4-267 

4.8.2.7.1 Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 4-267 

4.8.2.7.2 Panamint Alligator Lizard 4-268 

4.8.2.7.3 San Diego Horned Lizard 4-268 

4.8.2.7.4 Southwestern Pond Turtle 4-268 

4.8.2.8 Plants 4-269 

4.8.2.8.1 Alkali Mariposa Lily 4-269 

4.8.2.8.2 Barstow Woolly Sunflower 4-265 

4.8.2.8.3 Carbonate Endemic Plants 4-269 

4.8.2.8.4 Charlotte’s Phacelia 4-269 

4.8.2.8.5 Crucifixion Thorn 4-270 

4.8.2.8.6 Desert Cymopterus 4-270 

4.8.2.8.7 Flax-like Monardella 4-270 

4.8.2.8.8 Kelso Creek Monkeyflower 4-270 

4.8.2.8.9 Kern Buckwheat 4-271 

4.8.2.8.10 Lane Mountain Milkvetch 4-271 

4.8.2.8.11 Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia 4-271 

4.8.2.8.12 Mojave Monkeyflower 4-272 

4.8.2.8.13 Mojave Tarplant 4-272 

4.8.2.8.14 Parish’s Alkali Grass 4-272 

4.8.2.8.15 Parish’s Phacelia 4-272 

4.8.2.8.16 Parish’s Popcorn Flower 4-273 

4.8.2.8.17 Red Rock Poppy 4-273 

4.8.2.8.18 Red Rock Tarplant 4-273 

4.8.2.8.19 Reveal’s Buckwheat 4-273 

4.8.2.8.20 Salt Springs Checkerbloom 4-273 

4.8.2.8.21 Shockley’s Rock Cress 4-274 

4.8.2.8.22 Short-joint Beavertail Cactus 4-274 

4.8.2.8.23 Triple-ribbed Milkvetch 4-274 

4.8.2.8.24 White-margined Beardtongue 4-274 

4.8.3 Socio-Economics 4-275 

4.8.3.1 Livestock Grazing 4-275 

4.8.3.2 Mineral Development 4-276 

4.8.4 Motorized Vehicle Access Network 4-279 

4.8.5 Cultural Resources 4-280 

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts 4-280 
Table of Contents 16

CHAPTER FIVE 

STATUTORY SECTIONS 

5.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 5-1 

5.2 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 

OF RESOURCES 5-2 

5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5-3 

5.4 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CONSERVATION 5-3 

5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS 5-3 

5.5.1 Introduction 5-3 

5.5.2 Composition of the Affected Community 5-4 

5.5.3 Public Participation Strategies 5-4 

5.5.4 Tribal Representation In The Process 5-4 

5.5.5 Health and Services 5-5 

5.5.6 Community Character 5-5 

5.6 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-6 

5.7 ACCRONYMS AND GLOSSARY 5-8 

5.7.1 West Mojave Planning Terms (Terms created for the West Mojave Plan) 5-10 

5.7.2 Agency Terminology 5-13 

5.7.3 Conservation Biology Terms 5-24 

5.8 LIST OF REFERENCES 5-26 

CHAPTER SIX 

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

6.1 OVERVIEW 6-1 

6.2 TOPICAL RESPONSES 6-7 

6.2.1 Topical Comment 1: How Will the West Mojave Plan be Funded? 6-7 

6.2.2 Topical Comment 2: Proposed Pisgah ACEC Modifications 6-8 

6.2.3 Topical Comment 3: Route Designation in the Juniper Subregion 6-9 

6.2.4 Topical Comment 4: El Mirage Valley Motorized Vehicle Access 6-9 

6.2.5 Topical Comment 5: Motorized Vehicle Access Policy Concerns 6-10 

6.2.6 Topical Comment 6: Motorized Vehicle Access Analysis Concerns 6-12 

6.2.7 Topical Comment 7: Site-Specific Motorized Vehicle Access Concerns 6-14 

6.2.8 Topical Comment 8: Cumulative Impacts 6-16 

6.3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS 6-17

6.3.1 Letter 9: Mr. Jim Wilson, Lost Coyotes Motorcycle Club 6-17 

6.3.2 Letter 10: Mr. Greg Herring, President, First Class Miners 6-18 
Table of Contents 17

6.3.3 Letter 60: Mr. Dave Fisher, Shield F Ranch 6-18 

6.3.4 Letter 61: City of Lancaster 6-23 

6.3.5 Letter 65: County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Works 6-24 

6.3.6 Letter 126: Kern County Wool Growers Association 6-24 

6.3.7 Letter 127: Sierra Club, Mojave Group 6-25 

6.3.8 Letter 128: Mr. Billy Mitchell 6-26 

6.3.9 Letter 129: Ms. Jenny Wilder 6-27 

6.3.10 Letter 134: Quail Unlimited, Chapter 457 6-27 

6.3.11 Letter 155: Mr. Lee Turrini 6-31 

6.3.12 Letter 165: Ms. Carol Wiley 6-31 

6.3.13 Letter 170: Mr. Jeff Leonard 6-32 

6.3.14 Letter 172: U. S. Borax, Inc. 6-32 

6.3.15 Letter 173: Ms. Cathey Smith, Harper Lake Allotment 6-32 

6.3.16 Letter 176: Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning 6-35 

6.3.17 Letter 180: Kern County Waste Management Department 6-36 

6.3.18 Letter 181: Mr. Gerald E. Hillier, Public Land Users Services 6-39 

6.3.19 Letter 182: Center for Biological Diversity 6-53 

6.3.20 Letter 183: American Motorcyclist Association, et al 6-71 

6.3.21 Letter 184: Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter 6-98 

6.3.22 Letter 185: Ms. Marie Brashear 6-102 

6.3.23 Letter 186: California Cattlemen’s Association 6-106 

6.3.24 Letter 187: Defenders of Wildlife 6-106 

6.3.25 Letter 188: Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, Inc. 6-117 

6.3.26 Letter 189: DeathValley.com 6-126 

6.3.27 Letter 190: California Native Plant Society 6-127 

6.3.28 Letter 191: Lucerne Valley Economic Development Association 6-155 

6.3.29 Letter 192: Mojave Desert Resource Conservation District 6-160 

6.3.30 Letter 208: Mr. Marion Ely 6-161 

6.3.31 Letter 209: City of Ridgecrest 6-163 

6.3.32 Letter 215: Mr. Tom and Ms. Jeanne Wetterman 6-164 

6.3.33 Letter 219: Mr. Pedro Indacochea 6-165 

6.3.34 Letter 225: Ms. Jaqueline Campo, Victorville Industrial Minerals, Inc. 6-165 

6.3.35 Letter 228: United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 

Center 6-166 

6.3.36 Letter 231: San Diego Gas and Electric 6-167 

6.3.37 Letter 236: County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 6-168 

6.3.38 Letter 237: City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airports 6-170 

6.3.39 Letter 238: Mr. Paul Condon 6-170 

6.3.40 Letter 239: United States Environmental Protection Agency 6-172 

6.3.41 Letter 244: Lounsbery Ferguson Altona & Peak LLP 6-173 

6.3.42 Letter 245: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro 6-183 

6.3.43 Letter 246: Mr. Freddie Iturriria 6-183 

6.3.44 Letter 271: County of Kern, Planning Department 6-183 

6.3.45 Letter 275: Gerald E. Hillier, Public Land Users Services 6-187 

6.3.46 Letter 276: Cushenbury Mine Trust 6-187 

6.3.47 Letter 277: Dave Fisher 6-187 
Table of Contents 18

6.3.48 Letter 278: California Department of Fish and Game 6-188 

6.4 PUBLIC HEARING RESPONSES 6-254 

6.4.1 Lone Pine Public Hearing 6-254 

6.4.2 Ridgecrest Public Hearing 6-256 

6.4.3 Redlands Public Hearing 6-258 

6.4.4 Yucca Valley Public Hearing 6-260 

6.4.5 Palmdale Public Hearing 6-262 

6.4.6 Barstow Public Hearing 6-265 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A 1992 Memorandum of Understanding 

Appendix B Measures Applicable to Each Jurisdiction 

Appendix C Implementation Plan 

Appendix D New and Revised ACEC Management Plans 

Appendix E Wilderness Areas 

Appendix F Mojave River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report 

Appendix G Incidental Take Permit Background Data 

Appendix H Climate and Air Quality 

Appendix I Best Management Practices for New Construction in Tortoise 

Habitat 

Appendix J Boarman Threats Analysis 

Appendix K Kryzsik Trilogy 

Appendix L Additional Tortoise Background Data 

Appendix M Mohave Ground Squirrel Background Data 

Appendix N Economics 

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Appendix P Minerals 

Appendix Q Utilities: Existing Biological Opinions 

Appendix R Route Designation 

Appendix S Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy and Reclamation 

Standards (partially on CD) 

Appendix T Recreation 

Appendix U Cultural Resources 

Appendix V CEQA Scoping Meetings and Comments 

Appendix W Caltrans Maintenance Activities 

Appendix X Biological Transition Areas Dropped from Further Consideration 

Appendix Y Species Addressed by the Plan 
Table of Contents 19

MAPS 

1-1 Planning Area 1-4 

1-2 Regional Planning Efforts 1-5 

2-1 Alternative A Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

2-2 Alternative A Multiple Use Classes Oversize and on CD 

2-3 Rand Mountains CDCA Plan Amendments 2-24 

2-4 Afton Canyon CDCA Plan Amendments 2-26 

2-5 Harper Dry Lake CDCA Plan Amendment 2-27 

2-6 New Land Tenure Adjustment Project Zones 2-28 

2-7 Inyo County Land Disposal Tracts 2-31 

2-8 Fee Compensation Areas 2-36 

2-9 Tortoise Survey and No Survey Zones 2-62 

2-10 Lane Mountain Milkvetch Conservation Areas 2-89 

2-11 Carbonate Endemic Plants CDCA Plan Amendment 2-97 

2-12 Alkali Mariposa Lily Conservation Areas 2-101 

2-12A North Edwards Conservation Area 2-105 

2-12B Pisgah CDCA Plan Amendment 2-117 

2-13 Cattle Allotments With Grazing Exclusions 2-129 

2-14 Portions of Sheep Allotments Not Available for Sheep Grazing 2-134 

2-14A Route Subregions 2-143 

2-15 Alternative B Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

2-16 Alternative C Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

2-17 Alternative D Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

2-18 Alternative D Multiple Use Classes On CD 

2-19 Alternative E Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

2-20 Alternative E Multiple Use Classes On CD 

2-21 Alternative F Conservation Areas Oversize and on CD 

3-1 Political Boundaries and Land Ownership Oversize and on CD 

3-2 Air Basins 3-47 

3-3 Air Quality Management Districts 3-48 

3-4 Federal PM10 Planning Area 3-49 

3-5 Federal Ozone Planning Area 3-50 

3-6 Tortoise Sign Count Surveys Since 1988 3-82 

3-7 1984 Tortoise Range and Density Map 3-83 

3-8 Higher Density Tortoise Sign Counts 3-85 

3-9 Distribution of Live Tortoises Observed Relative to Higher Density Sign Count 

Areas 3-90 

3-10 2002 Tortoise Range Map 3-92 

3-11 Total Corrected Tortoise Sign (TCS) Distribution 1990-2002 On CD 

3-12 Tortoise Carcass Distribution 3-106 

3-13 Tortoise Die-Off Regions 3-114 

3-14 Distribution of Recreational and Residential Vehicle Impact Regions (1998 – 

2002) 3-121 
Table of Contents 20

3-15 Range of Mohave Ground Squirrel 3-145 

3-16 1998 Mohave Ground Squirrel Transects 3-151 

3-17 Vehicle Disturbances and Mohave Ground Squirrel Habitat 3-164 

3-18 Grazing Allotments 3-213 

3-19 Mineral Potential, Active and Inactive Mines, and Mining Claim Density – 

Fremont-Kramer DWMA 3-218 

3-20 Mineral Potential, Active and Inactive Mines, and Mining Claim Density – 

Superior-Cronese DWMA 3-219 

3-21 Mineral Potential, Active and Inactive Mines, and Mining Claim Density – OrdRodman DWMA 3-220 

3-22 Mineral Potential, Active and Inactive Mines, and Mining Claim Density – 

Pinto DWMA 3-221 

3-23 Natural Communities and Landforms On CD 
Executive Summary ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E.1 INTRODUCTION 

The West Mojave Plan (Plan) is a habitat conservation plan and federal land use plan 

amendment that (1) presents a comprehensive strategy to conserve and protect the desert tortoise, 

the Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) and nearly 100 other sensitive plants and animals and the 

natural communities of which they are a part, and (2) provides a streamlined program for 

complying with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA 

and FESA, respectively). 

The Plan is being prepared through the collaborative effort of cities, counties, state and 

federal agencies having jurisdiction over lands within the region. The Plan will allow 

streamlined project permitting at the local level, equitable sharing of costs among participants, 

and shared stewardship of biotic resources. The collaborators include: 

• Local Jurisdictions: The cities of Adelanto, Barstow, California City, Hesperia, 

Lancaster, Palmdale, Ridgecrest, Twentynine Palms, and Victorville, and the towns of 

Apple Valley and Yucca Valley; the Counties of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino; and the Indian Wells Valley Water District. 

• State of California: The California Department of Fish and Game and California 

Department of Transportation 

• Federal: The Bureau of Land Management and the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

These agencies and local jurisdictions are cooperating with a variety of nongovernmental organizations, including businesses, environmental organizations, user groups and 

others with a stake in the future management of the planning area, to develop the West Mojave 

Plan. Over 100 non-governmental organizations (NGO) have participated in this process. 

Representatives of the agencies, jurisdictions and NGOs comprise the West Mojave Supergroup. 

The 9,359,070-acre planning area is located to the north of the Los Angeles metropolitan 

area. The Plan’s conservation program applies to both public and private lands within this area. 

These lands include 3,263,874 acres of BLM-administered public lands, 3,029,230 acres of 

private lands and 102,168 acres of lands administered by the State of California. 

 This Executive Summary is organized as follows: 

• A brief description of each of the seven alternatives analyzed by this Environmental 

Impact Report and Statement (EIR/S). 

• A summary of the impacts that would result from implementing each alternative. 

• A discussion of the relative likelihood that each of the seven alternatives would achieve 

the biological goals and objectives established for each of nearly 100 sensitive species 

addressed by this plan. 
Executive Summary ES-2

Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/S are presented in Chapter 6. Many of 

the comments requested modifications or clarifications of either the West Mojave Plan’s 

conservation strategy or the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR/S. Where the text 

of the Final EIR/S differs from that presented in the Draft EIR/S, a vertical black line in the lefthand margin indicates the location of the modified or clarified text. A summary of these 

modifications follows. Because most of the changes consisted of minor modifications, only a 

selection is presented below. 

• Conservation Area adjustments 

o Pisgah Crater (western portion dropped, expansion to northeast) 

o North Edwards (some lands excluded) 

o Alkali Mariposa Lily (realigned to capture the Amargosa Creek drainage, drop 

interim conservation areas) 

• Biological Transition Areas eliminated (portions added to DWMA) 

• New biological objectives for several species 

• Tortoise Survey Zones – minor modifications 

• Fee Zones – minor modifications 

• BLM DWMA Multiple Use Class M Lands changed to Class L 

• Revised Monitoring and Adaptive Management Table 

• Additional discussion of cumulative impacts 

• Appendix C.1 (Implementation Tasks, Costs and Priorities) Revision 

• Compact Disk Additions – species accounts, vegetation map, comment letters 

• BLM Route Designation 

o Adoption of Competitive “C” Routes Northwest of Spangler Open Area 

o Route Openings in Summit Range 

o Route closures in Fremont Kramer Tortoise DWMA to Offset “C” Routes 

o Selected closures in small conservation areas 

o Revised Juniper Subregion route network 

o “No Action” route network is BLM June 30, 2003 Decision Record 

E.2 ALTERNATIVES 

 The West Mojave Plan identifies measurable biological goals and objectives for each of 

the sensitive species that is addressed by the Plan. This Final EIR/S examines seven alternative 

conservation strategies, each of which presents a different and unique approach to achieving 

those biological goals and objectives. The seven alternatives include the following: 

• Alternative A: PROPOSED ACTION - HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. This 

alternative presents a multi-species conservation strategy applicable to public and private 

lands throughout the planning area. It would serve as (1) an amendment of BLM’s 

CDCA Plan for public lands, and (2) a “habitat conservation plan” for private lands. 

Incidental take permits for 49 “covered species” would be issued to participating local 

jurisdictions and state agencies. 
Executive Summary ES-3

• Alternative B: BLM Only. This alternative consists of those elements of Alternative A 

that are applicable to, and that could be implemented on, BLM-administered public lands. 

It is applicable to public lands only. 

• Alternative C: Tortoise Recovery Plan. This combines those elements of Alternative 

A that are applicable to the Mohave ground squirrel and other sensitive species with the 

management program recommended by the 1994 Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) 

Recovery Plan. CDCA Plan amendments and a habitat conservation plan would be 

adopted and incidental take permits would be issued to participating local jurisdictions 

and state agencies. The public expressly requested detailed consideration of this 

alternative during NEPA scoping meetings. 

• Alternative D: Enhanced Ecosystem Protection. This alternative places a high 

priority on the conservation of sensitive plants and animals, even if adoption of those 

recommendations would limit motorized vehicle access to and multiple use of the 

western Mojave Desert. Its recommendations had their origin in discussions among the 

participating agencies and members of the public during NEPA scoping and the 

development of Alternative A. CDCA Plan amendments and a habitat conservation plan 

would be adopted and incidental take permits would be issued to participating local 

jurisdictions and state agencies. 

• Alternative E: One DWMA – Enhanced Recreation Opportunities. This alternative 

places a high priority on multiple uses of desert lands, including motorized vehicle 

recreation, even if this might preclude the implementation of some of the programs that 

otherwise might be implemented to conserve species and ecosystems. It also responds to 

a specific request raised by the public during scoping meetings that the EIR/S explore 

whether a single DWMA, protecting only the remaining areas of relatively higher tortoise 

populations, might be an effective means of conserving desert tortoises. CDCA Plan 

amendments and a habitat conservation plan would be adopted and incidental take 

permits would be issued to participating local jurisdictions and state agencies. 

• Alternative F: No DWMA – Aggressive Disease and Raven Management. This 

alternative proposes a tortoise conservation strategy that relies on an aggressive program 

of tortoise disease management and raven control, supported by limited fencing, rather 

than the establishment of tortoise DWMAs to protect habitat. Subject to these 

modifications, the Alternative A conservation program for other species would be 

implemented. CDCA Plan amendments and a habitat conservation plan would be 

adopted and incidental take permits would be issued to participating local jurisdictions 

and state agencies. 

• Alternative G: No Action. Existing conservation strategies currently being applied by 

each of the participating agencies would continue to be implemented. 

E.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

 

Alternatives A through E vary in the amount of new conservation within DWMAs, 

ACECs, and Conservation Areas from 1.20 million acres (19.8% of the total of undisturbed 

lands) to 1.79 million acres (29.4%) in Alternative C. These new conservation areas add to the 

existing 1.15 million acres (18.4%) and achieve much greater protection of desert tortoise 

habitat. For the primary communities of this habitat, creosote bush scrub and saltbush scrub, the 
Executive Summary ES-4

increase in habitat conservation is 23-34%. The proportional increase is similar for the Mohave 

ground squirrel. 

 In addition to increasing the quantity of habitat conserved, the Plan focuses on protecting 

the highest quality tortoise and ground squirrel habitat, as defined by highest sign counts and live 

tortoises and persistent capture locations for the Mohave ground squirrel. The alternatives 

incorporating private land conservation (A, C, D, E) create large habitat blocks capable of 

sustaining ecosystem processes, landform diversity, all trophic levels and populations large 

enough to be viable in the face of fluctuations caused by the extreme desert environment. For 

the desert tortoise, maintenance of conserved habitat with a high carrying capacity is necessary 

for recovery after the disease runs its course or a cure is found, and after raven predation is 

reduced. 

 The Plan presents significant cumulative impacts, both positive and negative to most of 

the covered species. The beneficial cumulative impacts include the establishment of large, 

unfragmented habitat blocks, measures to reduce tortoise mortality, measures to minimize 

disturbance impacts to conserved lands and measures addressing unique components of diversity, 

such as endemic species, disjuncts and habitat specialists. The provision of incidental take areas 

where permitting is streamlined accommodates development of large acreages of disturbed lands 

and degraded habitat. The developed lands put increasing pressure on the conserved lands, from 

resource extraction, incidental land uses such as utilities and from recreation. The allowable loss 

of habitat exceeds conservation in all alternatives. Cumulatively this loss would reduce 

populations of many common species in a very substantial way. As long as the covered species, 

which are the rarest and those with known declines, are adequately conserved in the Habitat 

Conservation Area, the cumulative impact would not be significant or adverse. The more 

common species would survive within the HCA and are present in abundance outside the west 

Mojave as well. 

Although large acreages are available as incidental take areas, not all of these lands 

would be developed or even disturbed during the term of the Plan. The growth projections for 

urban development can be accommodated on a small fraction of the land within the ITA. Many 

areas without water, utilities, or easy access would remain undeveloped, even from rural 

residences. The monitoring and adaptive management aspects of the Plan would track the 

success of the conservation measures, and these undeveloped lands would remain available if 

alterations are needed in the quantity of conserved lands in the future. They are also available 

for future recreation areas and for developments such as mining or energy production that can be 

pursued in remote areas. The allocation of lands for different uses achieved by the West Mojave 

Plan should not be considered as the final determination of land use for the planning area. It is 

rather a dynamic process of utilizing the best available science and land use planning to achieve 

conservation of the species and communities known to be in jeopardy. Technologies of the 

future can and are expected to alter provisions of the Plan to improve upon the implementation of 

its objectives. 

Motorized Vehicle Access Network Mileage: Alternative A proposes minor 

modifications of a BLM route network adopted on June 30, 2003 that includes 2,265 miles of 

open routes within a “redesign area”, 159 miles within the Ord Pilot region, 406 miles within 
Executive Summary ES-5

ACECs for which route networks were designated after 1980, and 2,268 miles of remaining 

1985-87 designations, or 5,098 miles overall, a total that includes single-track motorcycle routes. 

Proposed mileage of non-motorcycle routes in higher density tortoise population areas would be 

384, a decrease from the 439 miles that were open prior to June 30, 2003. The 406 miles within 

the ACECs would be less than the pre-June 30, 2003 total of 427. Within the Juniper subregion, 

a redesigned network consisting of 73 miles of open routes and 25 miles of routes limited to use 

by single-track vehicles (e.g. motorcycles) would replace the 152 miles of open routes adopted 

on June 30, 2003. 

E.4 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: WOULD 

THEY BE MET?

E.4.1 Desert Tortoise 

This section considers the four biological goals and associated objectives identified for 

desert tortoise conservation by the USFWS and CDFG in 1998 during biological evaluation 

meetings (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1999). The goals and objectives are reiterated, and 

followed by tables that indicate for each alternative whether the goals and objectives are met or 

not. Generalized summary statements follow indicating why certain objectives are met or not. 

Alternatives are reiterated as follows: 

• Alternative A: Proposed Action – Habitat Conservation Plan 

• Alternative B: BLM Only 

• Alternative C: Tortoise Recovery Plan 

• Alternative D: Enhanced Ecosystem Protection 

• Alternative E: One DWMA – Enhanced Recreation Opportunities 

• Alternative F: No DWMA – Aggressive Disease and Raven Management 

• Alternative G: No Action 

Goal 1: Protect sufficient habitat to ensure long-term tortoise population viability (see Table 

ES-1). 

Objective 1.1: Establish a minimum of three, preferably four, Desert Wildlife Management 

Areas that would be managed for the long-term survival and recovery of the desert tortoise, 

and which would also benefit other special-status plant and animal species. 

Objective 1.2: Ensure that at least one DWMA exceeds 1,000 square miles in size 

Objective 1.3: Design DWMAs so that they are well distributed across the recovery unit, 

edge-to-area ratios are minimized, impediments to the movement of tortoises are avoided, 

and (where feasible) boundaries are contiguous. 
Executive Summary ES-6

Table ES-1 

Tortoise Biological Goal 1 

BIOLOGICAL GOAL 1 SEVEN ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION 

OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G 

1.1 Establish 3 or 4 DWMAs Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 

1.2 At least one DWMA 1,000 mi2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No 

1.3 Good reserve design Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

 Alternatives A through D share the common characteristics of establishing four DWMAs, 

with at least one that is 1,000 mi2

, and incorporating the appropriate reserve design criteria given 

in Objective 1.3. This is not true for the BLM-only alternative. Although the alternative 

maintains the external, larger DWMA boundary, private lands are excluded, undermining the 

adequate DWMA size and configuration (i.e., lack of conservation on private land, checkerboard 

ownership pattern within the DWMA would undermine conservation efforts). Although 

Alternative E would result in the establishment of a single 1,000 mi2 DWMA, it fails to meet 

Objectives 1.1 and 1.3. Alternatives F and G would fail to establish any DWMAs, and therefore 

would fail to meet any of the three criteria. 

Goal 2: Establish an upward or stationary trend in the tortoise population of the West 

Mojave Recovery Unit for at least 25 years (see Table ES-2). 

Objective 2.1: Achieve population growth rates (lamdas) within DWMAs of at least 1.0. 

Objective 2.2: Attain a minimum average population density of 10 adult female tortoises 

per square mile within each DWMA. 

Objective 2.3: Establish a program for tortoise population monitoring that would detect 

an increase, decrease, or stable trend in tortoise population densities, and include an 

information feedback loop that ensures that necessary changes would be made in 

management. 

Table ES-2 

Tortoise Biological Goal 2 

BIOLOGICAL GOAL 2 SEVEN ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION 

OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G 

2.1 Achieve stable populations Unk Unk Unk Unk No No No 

2.2 Achieve 10 females/mi2 Unk Unk Unk Unk No No No 

2.3 Population monitoring No No No No No No No 

 There are limited means of assessing the seven alternatives in their efficacy to meet Goal 

2 and its objectives. Success would be measured in terms of the population’s response to 

implementing proactive conservation programs identified in each alternative. Achieving stable 

populations and a certain density of tortoises per square mile is unknown for the first four 

alternatives. Although Alternative E would result in the establishment of a single DWMA, even 

if the objectives were met for so small an area, poor reserve design, including very high surface 

area to boundary ratio, would effectively undermine the efficacy of conservation. Failure to 

establish DWMAs under Alternatives F and G would exacerbate rather than facilitate attaining 

these objectives. 
Executive Summary ES-7

Unfortunately, the ability to realize Goal 2, for all alternatives, is hampered by the 

likelihood of catastrophic die-offs that could ultimately extirpate tortoises regardless of proactive 

conservation management. It would also appear that distance sampling, which is suggested as 

the means of monitoring the population, might fail in its ability to detect increases or decreases 

in the population. The methodology does fairly well to measure rapid declines in the population 

over a three to five year period, but would fail to detect gradual increases, which may take a 

dozen or more years to detect. The method would be better applied in above-average 

concentration areas, as a tool to detect die-offs; continuing to apply it in extirpation areas will 

result in low sample sizes, which would fail to meet the minimum sample size of 80 

tortoises/stratum required by the methodology. 

 Goal 3: Ensure genetic connectivity among desert tortoise populations, both within the 

West Mojave Recovery Unit, and between this and other recovery units (see Table ES-3). 

Objective 3.1: Delineate and maintain movement corridors between DWMAs, and with 

the Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit, the Eastern Colorado Recovery Unit, and the 

Northern Colorado Recovery Unit. 

Objective 3.2: Ensure a minimum width of two miles for movement corridors, and 

include provisions for major highway crossings. 

Table ES-3 

Biological Goal 3 

BIOLOGICAL GOAL 3 SEVEN ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION

OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G 

3.1 Delineate movement corridors No No No No No No No 

3.1 Connectivity to eastern recovery unit No No No No No No No 

3.2 Minimum width for connectors No No No No No No No 

 As indicated in the table, none of the objectives would be realized by any of the 

alternatives. However, one has to question the validity of the biological goal in the first place. 

For example the four critical habitat units designated by the USFWS and analogous DWMAs 

recommended by the recovery team were used to derive the current proposals, yet with the 

exception of a small part of the Superior-Cronese DWMA, which is contiguous with the Eastern 

Mojave Recovery Unit, there are no places where connectivity between conservation areas is 

possible. 

Given highways, freeways, and the city of Barstow, there was never an opportunity to 

connect the Ord-Rodman DWMA with either of the western DWMAs. Connectivity between the 

three DWMAs to the west with the Pinto Mountain DWMA was never physically possible. Fort 

Irwin occupies most of the contiguous areas between the Western Mojave Recovery Unit and the 

Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit; 29 Palms Marine Corps Base occupies most of the contiguous 

boundary with the Northern Colorado Recovery Unit; and Joshua Tree National Park completely 

encompasses the mutual boundary between the Western Mojave and Eastern Colorado recovery 

units. Given that the Department of Defense and National Park Service manage these areas, 

respectively, there was never any opportunity for BLM to establish conservation areas in these 
Executive Summary ES-8

places to provide for connectivity. Even so, there are undeveloped (albeit severely degraded on 

military installations) habitats between areas in the West Mojave and recovery units to the east, 

which will allow for genetic transfer. National Park Service management, in combination with 

the BLM’s Chuckwalla DWMA of the NECO Plan, provides for conserved and connected 

habitat to the Eastern Colorado Recovery Unit. 

 There is also the question of whether or not connectivity is appropriate in the West 

Mojave. Sign count data collected since 1998 revealed that there appears to be a spread of 

disease or some other mortality factor that may be facilitated by the connectivity suggested in the 

recovery plan. If these patterns are truly resulting from disease spread, one needs to question the 

validity of maintaining connectivity among conservation areas. Having the Ord-Rodman and 

Pinto Mountain DWMAs physically separated from the two western DWMAs may strengthen 

the conservation strategy because there is no connectivity and they may be less vulnerable to 

regional spread of disease. 

 That the alternatives fail to result in connectivity among the DWMAs and adjacent 

recovery units is not considered a serious flaw with any of the alternatives for the reasons given 

above. Although there is no connectivity between conservation areas, there are still habitats 

crossing these borders that will allow tortoises to pass unimpeded from one recovery unit to an 

adjacent one. It is strongly recommended that the new recovery team consider the issue of 

connectivity in light of the new information now available. 

 Goal 4: Reduce tortoise mortality resulting from interspecific (i.e., raven predation) and 

intraspecific (i.e., disease) conflicts that likely result from human-induced changes in the 

ecosystem processes (see Table ES-4). 

Objective 4.1: Initiate proactive management programs addressing each conflict, to be 

implemented by each affected agency or jurisdiction. 

Objective 4.2: Establish an environmental education program to facilitate public 

understanding and support for proactive management programs necessary to reduce 

tortoise mortality. 

Objective 4.3: Continue research programs and monitoring programs that assess the 

relative importance of human activities and natural processes that affect desert tortoise 

populations. 

Table ES-4 

Tortoise Biological Goal 4 

BIOLOGICAL GOAL 4 SEVEN ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION

OBJECTIVES A B C D E F G 

4.1 Address each conflict Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

4.2 Establish education program Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

4.3 Continue research and monitoring Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

 Alternative A, upon which Alternatives C and D are predicated, was specifically designed 

to address the 22 known or suspected threats to tortoises discussed in the recovery plan and 

recently summarized by Boarman (2002). Each program must be considered on its own merits, 
Executive Summary ES-9

but in general, Alternatives A, C, and D were designed with these threats in mind, and are 

intended to meet Objective 3.1. Their efficacy is susceptible to limited funding, public support, 

and many other factors that are not easily foreseeable or controlled. 

 Effective conservation must necessarily rely on cooperation among all land managers, 

and include both private and public lands. Alternative B would fail to implement Objective 3.1 

for this reason. Alternative E could work to implement Objective 3.1 in the 1,000 mi2

 area, but 

its relatively small size and high area to edge ratio fatally flaws it as providing for regional 

tortoise conservation. The focus on disease and raven management is too narrow to allow 

Alternative F to accomplish the objective. 

 Establishing an education program is often touted as important to regional conservation 

plans yet is seldom realized or implemented. In spite of this ubiquitous problem, each of the 

alternatives (excepting Alternative G, No Action) proposes some form of enhanced education. 

For this objective to be realized, managers must take a different, proactive look at regional 

education, or the conservation strategy is likely to be undermined. 

 Research and monitoring (Objective 4.3) are strongly encouraged for Alternatives A, C, 

and D but are missing, or only partially applied (Alternative F), in the remaining alternatives. It 

is difficult (and questionable) to assign limited funds to continued research when there are 

numerous, costly conservation programs that need to be implemented. Monitoring is essential, 

but the efficacy of distance sampling to function as intended is questionable. 

E.4.2 Mohave Ground Squirrel 

 Table ES-5 presents an overview of the likely success of each alternative in meeting the 

biological goals established by the West Mojave Plan for the threatened Mohave ground squirrel. 

Table ES-5 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Biological Goals 

 Biological Goals Met or Not: 

comparisons among alternatives 

Goal 1. Ensure long-term protection of MGS habitat throughout the species range. 

Objectives for Goal 1 A B C D E F G 

Upon Plan adoption, establish management areas for the longterm conservation of MGS habitat: 

1.1a Establish the MGS CA for the protection of unfragmented 

habitats outside military installations. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

1.1b Establish BTAs to minimize indirect impacts of human 

development to the MGS CA

Yes No No Yes No No No 

1.2 Allow for adjustments to the MGS CA boundary based on 

findings of scientific studies. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

1.3 Implement appropriate actions to ensure the long-term 

protection of habitat in the MGS CA throughout the life of the 

Plan. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

1.4 On a yearly basis, track the loss of MGS habitat resulting 

from Plan implementation. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 
Executive Summary ES-10

 Biological Goals Met or Not: 

comparisons among alternatives 

1.5 Cooperate with military installations by sharing scientific 

information and reviewing management plans (INRMP, 

CLUMP, etc) to assist environmental managers in evaluating 

MGS habitat protection on the bases. 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Goal 2. Ensure long-term viability of the MGS throughout its range. 

Objectives for Goal 2

2.1 As per the mandate of the CDFG, minimize and fully 

mitigate the impacts of the Plan’s authorized incidental take of 

the MGS throughout the life of the Plan. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

2.2 Upon Plan adoption, initiate and conduct studies that would 

determine the following measurable biological parameters: (a) 

the regional status, (b) potential “hot spots” (refugia), (c) genetic 

variation throughout the range, and (d) the ecological 

requirements of the MGS. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

2.3 Establish long-term study plots throughout the range and 

annually monitor their MGS populations. Fund continued 

monitoring in the Coso Range to provide baseline population 

data. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

2.4 Use the biological and population data from Goal 2, 

Objectives 2 and 3 to modify the management prescriptions, as 

warranted, to ensure the long-term viability of the species. 

Yes No Yes Yes No No No 

 The findings here are similar to those for the tortoise; Alternatives A, C, and D, with a 

few exceptions, would better realize MGS conservation than the other alternatives. The same 

flaws identified with Alternatives B, E, F, and G for the tortoise would apply to MGS 

conservation. Given that the species is only State-listed, Alternatives B and G would, for the 

most part, be the same. 

E.4.3 Other Species 

 Table ES-6 presents a summary in comparative form of acres of habitat conserved, and 

acres available for incidental take, for each covered species addressed by the West Mojave Plan 

for each alternative. 
Executive Summary ES-11

Table ES-6 

Acreage of Conservation and Incidental Take of Covered Species in Each Alternative. 

A 

PREFERRED

B 

BLM ONLY* 

C 

RECOVERY 

PLAN 

D 

ENHANCED 

ECOSYSTEM 

E 

ENHANCED 

RECREATION 

DISE

AND R

Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved 

Desert tortoise 

1,477,630 See text 

for ITA 

1,023,329 454,301 in 

DWMA. 

See text for 

ITA 

1,514,847 See text 

for ITA 

1,505,494 4,393 

See text for 

ITA 

715,424 4,393 in 

DWMA. 

See text for 

ITA 

See text 

app

Mohave ground squirrel 

1,701,947 See text 

for ITA 

1,280,106 See text for 

ITA 

1,701,947 See text 

for ITA 

1,701,947 See text for 

ITA 

1,701,947 See text for 

ITA 

1,701,947 

Alkali Mariposa Lily 

Permanent = 

3,500+ 

Isolated sites 

40,861 0 40,861 Permanent = 

3,500+ 

Isolated sites 

40,861 Permanent = 

3,500+ 

Isolated sites 

40,861 Permanent 

= 3,500+ 

Isolated 

sites 

40,861 Permanent 

= 3,500+ 

Isolated 

sites 

Barstow Woolly Sunflower 

50,548+ 50 17,682+ 32,872 50,548+ 50 50,548+ 50 50,548+ 50 50,548+ 

Bats All significant 

roosts 

< 25 

bats at 

any one 

site 

All significant 

roosts 

No t limited All significant 

roosts 

< 25 

bats at 

any one 

site 

All significant 

roosts 

< 25 bats at 

any one site 

All 

significant 

roosts 

< 25 bats at 

any one site 

All 

significant 

roosts 

Bendire’s Thrasher* 

132,497 3,973 132,497 3,973 132,497 3,973 132,497 3,973 132,497 3,973 132,497 

Browncrested 

flycatcher 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 

Burrowing owl 

Unk. No 

mortalit

y. 

Limited. 

Occurrences 

on BLM lands 

No 

mortality. 

Limited. 

Unk. No 

mortalit

y. 

Limited. 

Unk. No 

mortality. 

Limited. 

Unk. No 

mortality. 

Limited. 

Unk. 

Carbonate Endemic Plants 

5,169 Minimal 4,393 776 5,169 Minimal 5,169 Minimal 5,169 Minimal 5,169 

Charlotte’s phacelia 

All known 

sites 

50 30 of 37 sites 7 sites All known sites 50 All known sites 50 All known 

sites 

50 All known 

sites 

Crucifixion thorn 

All known 

sites 

50 All known 

sites 

50 All known sites 50 All known sites 50 All known 

sites 

50 All known 

sites 

Desert cymopterus 

Most occupied 

habitat 

50 Most occupied 

habitat 

50 Most occupied 

habitat 

50 Most occupied 

habitat 

50 Most 

occupied 

habitat 

50 Most 

occupied 

habitat 
Executive Summary ES-12

A 

PREFERRED

B 

BLM ONLY* 

C 

RECOVERY 

PLAN 

D 

ENHANCED 

ECOSYSTEM 

E 

ENHANCED 

RECREATION 

DISE

AND R

Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved 

Ferruginous hawk 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat 

Unknow

n but 

minimiz

ed 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat on BLM 

lands 

Potential 

electrocutio

ns on 

private 

lands 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat 

Minimiz

ed 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat 

Minimized Prevents 

and 

remedies 

electrocutio

n threat 

Minimized Prevents 

and 

remedies 

electrocutio

n threat 

Golden eagle* 

20,495 at 

Middle Knob. 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

0 17,671 at 

Middle Knob. 

Prevents and 

remedies 

electrocution 

threat on BLM 

lands 

0 20,495 at Middle 

Knob. Prevents 

and remedies 

electrocution 

threat. Minimizes 

mining impacts. 

0 20,495 at Middle 

Knob. Prevents 

and remedies 

electrocution 

threat. Minimizes 

mining impacts. 

0 20,495 at 

Middle 

Knob. 

Prevents 

and 

remedies 

electrocutio

n threat. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

0 20,495 at 

Middle 

Knob. 

Prevents 

and 

remedies 

electrocutio

n threat. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

Gray vireo 15,954+ Unk. 4,393+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ Inyo California towhee 

98% of area 

(public lands) 

2% of 

area 

(private 

lands) 

98% of area 

(public lands) 

2% of area 

(private 

lands) 

98% of area 

(public lands) 

2% of 

area 

(private 

lands) 

98% of area 

(public lands) 

2% of area 

(private 

lands) 

98% of area 

(public 

lands) 

2% of area 

(private 

lands) 

98% of are

(public 

lands) 

Kelso Creek Monkeyflower* 

1,870 50 1,870 Unk. 

Minimal 

1,870 Unk. 

Minimal 

1,870 Unk. 

Minimal 

1,870 Unk. 

Minimal 

1,870 

Kern buckwheat 

All except 

<0.1 

<0.1 Most occupied 

habitat 

Estimated 5 

acres 

All except <0.1 <0.1 All except <0.1 <0.1 All except 

<0.1 

<0.1 All except 

<0.1 

Lane Mountain milkvetch 

14,597 0 10,164 4,433 14,597 0 14,597 0 14,597 0 14,597 

LeConte’s thrasher 

1,782,892 Unk. 1,392,984 Unk. 1,811,468 Unk. 1,782,892 Unk. 1,521,707 Unk. 48,804+ 

Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia 

All known 

drainages 

50 Sites within 

JTNP 

All other 

known 

drainages 

All known 

drainages 

50 All known 

drainages 

50 All known 

drainages 

50 All known 

drainages 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

42,865+ 4 sites, 

see text 

37,270 5,595+ 42,865+ 4 sites, 

see text 

42,865+ 4 sites, see 

text 

42,865+ 4 sites, see 

text 

42,865+ 

Mojave monkeyflower 

57,087 Unk. 36,630 20,457 57,087 50 57,087 50 57,087 50 57,087 

Mojave River vole 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 0 Unk All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 
Executive Summary ES-13

A 

PREFERRED

B 

BLM ONLY* 

C 

RECOVERY 

PLAN 

D 

ENHANCED 

ECOSYSTEM 

E 

ENHANCED 

RECREATION 

DISE

AND R

Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved 

Mojave tarplant 

All occupied 

habitat 

50 (new 

location

s) 

All occupied 

habitat 

Unk. All occupied 

habitat 

50 (new 

location

s) 

All occupied 

habitat 

50 (new 

locations) 

All 

occupied 

habitat 

50 (new 

locations) 

All 

occupied 

habitat 

Parish’s alkali grass 

All of single 

known site 

0 0 Unk. 0 All of 

single 

known 

site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

0 

Parish’s phacelia 

898 50 512 376 898 50 898 50 898 50 898 

Parish’s popcorn flower 

All of single 

known site 

0 0 Unk. All of single 

known site 

0 All of single 

known site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

Prairie falcon 20,495 at 

Middle Knob. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

0 17,671 at 

Middle Knob. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

0 20,495 at Middle 

Knob. Minimizes 

mining impacts. 

0 20,495 at Middle 

Knob. Minimizes 

mining impacts. 

0 20,495 at 

Middle 

Knob. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

0 20,495 at 

Middle 

Knob. 

Minimizes 

mining 

impacts. 

Red Rock poppy 

All occupied 

habitat 

50 All occupied 

habitat 

Minimal All occupied 

habitat 

50 All occupied 

habitat 

50 All 

occupied 

habitat 

50 All 

occupied 

habitat 

Red Rock tarplant 

All occupied 

habitat 

50 All occupied 

habitat 

Minimal All occupied 

habitat 

50 All occupied 

habitat 

50 All 

occupied 

habitat 

50 All 

occupied 

habitat 

Salt Springs checkerbloom 

All of single 

known site 

0 0 Unk. All of single 

known site 

0 All of single 

known site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

0 All of 

single 

known site 

San Diego horned lizard 

15,954+ Unk. 4,393+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ Unk. 15,954+ 

Shockley’s rock-cress 

5,169 0 4,393 776 5,169 0 5,169 0 5,169 0 5,169 

Short-joint beavertail cactus 

10,785 50 0 All 10,785 50 10,785 50 10,785 50 10,785 

Southwestern pond turtle 

All known 

sites 

(conditional at 

some) 

Unk. Selected sites Unk. All known sites 

(conditional at 

some) 

Unk. All known sites 

(conditional at 

some) 

Unk. All known 

sites 

(conditional 

at some) 

Unk. All known 

sites 

(conditiona

at some) 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 

Summer tanager 

Mojave River 

sites 

(conditional) 

Unk. Selected sites Unk. Mojave River 

sites (conditional 

Unk. Mojave River 

sites (conditional 

Unk. Mojave 

River sites 

(conditional 

Unk. Mojave 

River sites 

(conditiona

Triple-ribbed milkvetch 

All known 

sites 

0 Sites on public 

land 

Unk. All known sites 0 All known sites 0 All known 

sites 

0 All known 

sites 
Executive Summary ES-14

A 

PREFERRED

B 

BLM ONLY* 

C 

RECOVERY 

PLAN 

D 

ENHANCED 

ECOSYSTEM 

E 

ENHANCED 

RECREATION 

DISE

AND R

Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved Take Conserved 

Vermilion flycatcher 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 

Western snowy plover 

All known 

sites 

0 All known 

sites 

0 All known sites 0 All known sites 0 All known 

sites 

0 All known 

sites 

Whitemargined beardtongue 

All known 

sites 

50 Most known 

sites 

Unk. All known sites 50 All known sites 50 All known 

sites 

50 All known 

sites 

Yellow-eared pocket mouse 

Unk Unk Selected 

ACECs 

Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk 

Yellow warbler 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional) 

0 All sites 

(conditional

) 

0 All sites 

(conditiona

) 

Yellowbreasted chat Mojave River sites 

(conditional) 

10,785 (Big 

Rock Creek) 

0 Mojave River 

sites 

(conditional) 

0 Mojave River 

sites (conditional) 

10,785 (Big Rock 

Creek)) 

0 Mojave River 

sites (conditional) 

10,785 (Big Rock 

Creek) 

0 Mojave 

River sites 

(conditional

) 

10,785 (Big 

Rock 

Creek) 

0 Mojave 

River sites 

(conditiona

) 

10,785 (Big 

Rock 

Creek) 

See also Table 2-11. Unk. = Unknown. 

* Acreages are for BLM managed lands only ** Los Angeles County may expand its SEA boundaries, providing some conservation for this species. *** See text for potential conservation of the No Action Alternative. Continued review of projects under CEQA, by BLM in Category 1 habitat, and by FWS in oc

will result in some conservation by provision of compensation lands or set-asides. 
Chapter 1 1-1

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW 

The West Mojave Plan (Plan) is a habitat conservation plan and federal land use plan 

amendment that (1) presents a comprehensive strategy to conserve and protect the desert tortoise, 

the Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) and over 100 other sensitive plants and animals and the 

natural communities of which they are a part, and (2) provides a streamlined program for 

complying with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA 

and FESA, respectively). 

The Plan is being prepared through the collaborative effort of cities, counties, state and 

federal agencies having jurisdiction over lands within the region. The Plan will allow 

streamlined project permitting at the local level, equitable sharing of costs among participants, 

and shared stewardship of biotic resources. The collaborators include: 

• Local Jurisdictions: The cities of Adelanto, Barstow, California City, Hesperia, 

Lancaster, Palmdale, Ridgecrest, Twentynine Palms, and Victorville, and the towns of 

Apple Valley and Yucca Valley; the Counties of Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino; and the Indian Wells Valley Water District. 

• State of California: The California Department of Fish and Game and California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

• Federal: The Bureau of Land Management and the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

These agencies and local jurisdictions are cooperating with a variety of non-governmental 

organizations, including businesses, environmental organizations, user groups and others with a 

stake in the future management of the planning area, to develop the West Mojave Plan. Over 100 

non-governmental organizations (NGO) have participated in this process. Representatives of the 

agencies, jurisdictions and NGOs comprise the West Mojave Supergroup. 

1.1.1 Site Location and Description 

 The 9,357,929-acre planning area is located to the north of the Los Angeles metropolitan 

area (See Maps 1-1 and 1-2 and Table 1-1). The Plan’s conservation program applies to both 

public and private lands within this area. These lands include 3,263,874 acres of BLMadministered public lands, 3,029,230 acres of private lands and 102,168 acres of lands 

administered by the State of California. The Plan will be consistent with the integrated natural 

resource management plans that have been adopted for 2,667,445 acres of military lands, and 

with programs being implemented on nearly 300,000 acres of lands within Joshua Tree National 

Park. 
Chapter 1 1-2

Table 1-1 

 Land Ownership in Planning Area

LAND OWNERSHIP APPROXIMATE 

ACRES 

APPROXIMATE 

PERCENTAGE 

Private Landowners 

 Counties and Cities 3,029,230 

32 

State of California 

State Lands Commission 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

Department of Fish and Game 

102,168 

71,059 

27,166 

3,943 

1 

Federal Government 

Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Forest Service 

Department of Defense 

3,556,730 

292,689 

167 

3,263,874 

 2,356 

2,667,445 

37 

29 

TOTAL 9,357,929 100

 

1.1.2 Environmental Impact Statement 

The West Mojave Plan is a major federal action that has attracted a high level of public 

interest and participation. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would adopt the Plan 

through amendment of its California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan and approval of 

other actions called for by the West Mojave Plan. To comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, preparation of an environmental impact statement is necessary, and must be 

completed prior to a BLM decision to approve and adopt the Plan’s conservation strategy. 

This Environmental Impact Report and Statement (EIR/S) is intended to serve as BLM’s 

NEPA compliance document for the West Mojave Plan and CDCA Plan Amendment. It is a 

broad-scope analysis of a proposed habitat conservation plan and six other alternatives, including 

the No Action Alternative. All subsequent environmental analyses for land-use proposals in the 

planning area could be tiered to the EIR/S. 

A Notice Of Intent To Prepare A West Mojave Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

was published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1991. This Notice announced the holding 

of public scoping meetings in January 1992. Meetings were held at the following locations: 

Ridgecrest (January 6, 1991), Barstow (January 7, 1991), Twentynine Palms (January 8, 1991), 

Bakersfield (January 9, 1991), Victorville (January 13, 1991), Lancaster (January 14, 1991), and 

Riverside (January 15, 1991). These meetings initiated the West Mojave planning process. 

A federal Revised Notice of Intent to Prepare West Mojave Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register in May 2002. This notice announced the 

holding of seven additional NEPA scoping meetings. Those meetings were held at the following 
Chapter 1 1-3

locations: Palmdale (June 26, 2002), San Bernardino (June 27, 2002), Victorville (June 28, 

2002), Ridgecrest (July 1, 2002), Lone Pine (July 2, 2002), Pasadena (July 9, 2002) and Yucca 

Valley (July 10, 2002). At these meetings the suggested conservation strategy developed by the 

West Mojave Supergroup and its task groups was discussed and comments accepted. Comments 

received during scoping area available for public review at the BLM’s California Desert District 

Office, Moreno Valley, California. 

1.1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report 

The County of San Bernardino and the City of Barstow are acting as co-lead agencies 

under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are responsible for preparation of 

the portions of the document that pertain to state environmental review procedures. Because 

local jurisdictions may adopt the plan by enacting ordinances and/or amending land use plans, 

compliance with CEQA is required under California regarding actions taken by state agencies or 

local governments. 

This EIR has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources 

Code 00 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, 

00 15000 et seq.), and the County and City local CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is intended to serve 

as an informational document for the public agency decision-makers and the general public 

regarding the characteristics and objectives of the proposed project, potential environmental 

impacts, recommended mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives to the project. 

The EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 

15168, which reads in part: 

(a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be 

characterized as one large project and are related either: 

• Geographically, 

• As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 

• In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern 

the conduct of a continuing program, or 

• As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory 

authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in 

similar ways. 

Various advantages of use of a program EIR and its use with later activities are discussed 

further in the Guidelines Section 15168 (b)(c). This EIR is intended to serve as the foundation 

environmental document for review of subsequent actions within the West Mojave planning area 

for all related state agency and local jurisdiction discretionary approvals required to implement 

the proposed Plan. A list of agencies and jurisdictions that may use the plan as well as the 

actions that may be taken by those entities is displayed in Table 1-2. 
Barstow

Adelanto

Hesperia

Palmdale

Lancaster

Ridgecrest

Victorville

Apple Valley

Yucca Valley

California City

Twentynine Palms

I n y o C o . I n y o C o .

SSaann BBeerrnnaarrdd i n o C o . i n o C o .

KKeerrnn CCoo ..

RR i v e r s i d e C o . i v e r s i d e C o .

LLooss AAnnggee l e s C o . l e s C o .

58

14

14

18

62

66

40

15

15

190

395

138

178

247

395

Planning Area

Map 1-1

10/12/04

West Mojave Plan FEIR/S

Legend

Cities

County Lines

Highways

Plan Boundary

Scale: 1 : 1,750,000

0 10 20 30

Miles

0 10 20 30

Km

N
In yo C o

Sa n Be r na r di n o Co

Ke r n Co

Ri ve r s i de Co

Tu la r e Co

Sa n D ie go Co Imp e ria l Co

Lo s An g e le s Co

Mo no Co

Ora n g e Co

Regional Planning Efforts

Map 1-2 10/1/04

West Mojave Plan

West Mojave Plan FEIR/S

Legend

County Lines

CDCA Boundary

West Mojave Plan

Northern and Eastern Mojave Plan (BLM)

NPS (Death Valley, Mojave Preserve)

Northern and Eastern Colorado Plan (BLM)

Coachella Valley Plan (CVAG/BLM)

Western Colorado Desert Plan (BLM)

Imperial Sand Dunes Plan (BLM)

Lower Colorado River Plan (BoR)

So. California Province Forest Plan (USFS)

Scale: 1 : 3,000,000

0 20 40 60

Miles

0 40 80 120

Km

N
Chapter 1 1-6

Scope of the EIR: The scope of the EIR has been established through the various public 

meetings that have been held by the BLM over the last 10 years, but more extensively since 1997 

when a re-structured planning effort was initiated by the participating agencies, led by the BLM. 

 More recently, by the CEQA co-lead agencies conducted public scoping as required by CEQA 

to ensure that issues affecting the local jurisdictions and affected communities were addressed. 

The renewed planning effort by the BLM, as described in Sections 1.4.3 through 1.4.6, 

established a “Super Group” of interested stakeholders and a Steering Committee. In addition, 

Task Groups were convened that were open to any interest group or member of the public, which 

functioned as working groups to develop key elements of the plan. As described above, the 

BLM conducted formal scoping meetings pursuant to NEPA requirements during June and July 

of 2002. Subsequently, the CEQA co-lead agencies were identified and public scoping meetings 

as required by the CEQA Guidelines, were conducted to provide additional opportunities for the 

pubic to comment on the issues to be addressed in the EIR/S. The CEQA public scoping 

meetings were held during the public comment period for the Notice of Preparation of the EIR 

covering the plan. Written comments received in response to the NOP were also considered in 

establishing the scope of the EIR/S. 

On December 27, 2002, a Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for the 

West Mojave Plan on 6.4 Million Acres Located In California Desert Conservation Area (NOP) 

was published by the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department and the Kern 

County Planning Department. The NOP indicated that the counties would be coordinating the 

development of a programmatic EIR for the West Mojave Plan as co-lead agencies. The Notice 

of Preparation announced the holding of three CEQA scoping meetings. These meetings were 

held at the following locations: Bakersfield (January 9, 2003), Ridgecrest (January 10, 2003), 

and San Bernardino (January 16, 2003). 

Due to additional interest in San Bernardino County’s role as co-lead agency, on January 

24, 2003 the County of Kern and the County of San Bernardino released an Extension Of 

Comment Period And Addition Of Second Public Scoping Meeting In San Bernardino County. 

The additional scoping meeting was held in Victorville on February 5, 2003. 

A Revised NOP was issued on April 9, 2003, which indicated that the City of Barstow 

would join San Bernardino County as co-lead agency instead of Kern County. Following the 

announcement by Kern County on March 10, 2003, that it no longer would act in the capacity of 

CEQA co-lead agency, the City agreed to serve in that capacity to represent the various cities 

that may participate in the West Mojave Plan. 

Appendix U presents a summary of the comments received on the NOP and during the 

public scoping meetings. The issues to be addressed and the areas of controversy surrounding 

the West Mojave Plan are listed in the Section 1.4.1 of this document. 
Chapter 1 1-7

1.1.4 Incidental Take Permits 

To allow the incidental take of federally listed species on private lands, the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would issue incidental take permits to local jurisdictions 

under the authority of Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA (Section 10(a) permits). To allow incidental 

take of state-listed species, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would issue 

incidental take permits to local jurisdictions under the authority of Section 2081 of CESA 

(Section 2081 permits). The Plan would function as the “habitat conservation plan” (HCP) 

required by FESA as a precondition to the issuance of its Section 10(a) permit, and would 

indicate how the permit issuance criteria for both the Section 10(a) and Section 2081 permits 

would be met. The term of those permits would be thirty years. 

A critical component of the Section 10(a) permit is the Implementing Agreement (IA). 

The IA defines the roles and obligations of each party (permitter and permittee(s)) and provides 

a common understanding of actions that will be undertaken to minimize and mitigate the effects 

on the subject listed and unlisted species and their habitats. The agreement legally binds the 

permittees to the requirements and responsibilities of a conservation plan and Section 10(a) 

permit. It may also assign the responsibility for planning, approving, and implementing the 

mitigation measures under the HCP. 

The USFWS has established guidance on the preparation of HCPs and associated IAs in 

the form of the Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996) and an Addendum 

(June 2000). While the Handbook is intended primarily as internal agency guidance, it has been 

used extensively by entities seeking an Incidental Take Permit. The Handbook identifies the 

specific components of an HCP that must be addressed to satisfy the criteria for issuance of an 

incidental take permit along with the key elements that an IA must contain. 

Because many of the multi-species HCPs that have been prepared in California involve 

state listed species, the convention has been to use a single HCP document to address both state 

and federal requirements. Both the USFWS and the CDFG have recognized the advantages of 

utilizing one document to address both agencies’ requirements for issuance of the respective 

incidental take permits. 

 The Draft EIR/S for the West Mojave Plan described both the proposed HCP and 

amendments to the BLM’s CDCA Plan. The Final EIR/S has been revised in response to 

comments received from the public on the Draft EIR/S as well as from discussions with both 

USFWS and CDFG. 

In order to satisfy the specific requirements of the USFWS and the CDFG with regards to 

the Section 10(a) and 2081 permit procedures, a final HCP and IA must be submitted along with 

formal applications by local government. This is a subsequent action that is contemplated as part 

of the program addressed in this EIR/S. The final HCP will reflect the selected alternative as 

adopted by the local government lead agencies. The final HCP will be a stand-alone document 

that incorporates the relevant sections from the EIR/S that meet USFWS and CDFG technical 

guidance to satisfy the submittal requirements for the incidental take permits. Any further 
Chapter 1 1-8

environmental review associated with incidental take permit procedures will comply with the 

requirements of NEPA and CEQA. 

1.1.5 EIR/S Organization

The EIR/S is organized into the following parts: 

• Chapter One - Introduction provides an overview of the Plan, the reasons for its 

preparation, applicable statutes, regulations, and policies, and the history of the planning 

process. 

• Chapter Two - Alternatives describes the seven alternative conservation strategies 

examined in detail by this document. A tabular comparison of these alternatives is 

provided. This chapter also describes other suggested strategies that were discussed 

during the planning process but ultimately eliminated from detailed consideration by the 

EIR/S. 

• Chapter Three - Affected Environment describes those aspects of the natural and 

human environment that are likely to be affected by the adoption of the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. These include the region’s biological, recreation and cultural 

resources, a social and economic profile of the western Mojave Desert, energy production 

and transmission, and a discussion of motorized vehicle access to public lands. 

• Chapter Four - Environmental Consequences presents an analysis of the effects that 

adoption of each of the alternatives could have on the natural and human environment. 

• Chapter Five addresses the relationship between local short-term uses of the 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, growth inducing effects, energy 

consumption and conservation, environmental justice considerations, and effects found 

not to be significant. It includes references cited, a list of preparers and a table of 

acronyms. 

• Chapter Six presents a summary of comments received during the scoping process. 

• Appendices that include supporting technical materials and studies. 

1.1.6 Use of EIR/S by Agencies and Jurisdictions 

The EIR/S would be used by many of the collaborating agencies and local jurisdictions in 

making decisions concerning the West Mojave Plan. These entities are listed in Table 1-2 along 

with the possible uses of the EIR. Public agencies (i.e., Responsible and Trustee Agencies) that 

may use this EIR in their decision-making or permit processing, will consider the information in 

this EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. The role 

of a state or local public entity acting as a responsible agency under CEQA is described in 

Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines. 
Chapter 1 1-9

Table 1-2 

 Agencies and Jurisdictions Expected to use EIR/S During Decision-making Process

AGENCY/JURISDICTION STATUS POTENTIAL USE(S) 

 OF THE EIR/S 

Bureau of Land Management NEPA Lead Agency CDCA Amendment 

San Bernardino County CEQA Co-Lead Agency 

NEPA Cooperating Agency 

Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Kern County CEQA Responsible Agency 

NEPA Cooperating Agency 

Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Inyo County CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Los Angeles County CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA Cooperating Agency Section 7 Consultation & 

Section 10a(1B) Permit 

California Department of Fish and 

Game 

CEQA Responsible and Trustee 

Agency 

Incidental Take Permit per 

Section 2081 

Caltrans CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Adelanto CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Apple Valley CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Barstow CEQA Co-Lead Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

California City CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Hesperia CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Lancaster CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Palmdale CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Ridgecrest CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Twentynine Palms CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Victorville CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Yucca Valley CEQA Responsible Agency Plan adoption and other 

implementing actions 

Indian Wells Valley Water District CEQA Responsible Agency Adopt Plan 

Per CEQA, the term “responsible agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency having 

discretionary approval power over the project. Responsible Agency means a public agency that proposes to carry 

out or approve a project, for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or negative declaration. 

Trustee Agency means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project that 

are held in trust for the people of California. Per NEPA, “cooperating agency” means an agency (including, by 

agreement, a local agency) having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact 

involved in a major federal action. 
Chapter 1 1-10

1.1.7 Modifications to be Found in the Final EIR/S 

Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/S are presented in Chapter 6. Many of 

the comments requested modifications or clarifications of either the West Mojave Plan’s 

conservation strategy or the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR/S. Where the text 

of the Final EIR/S differs from that presented in the Draft EIR/S, a vertical black line in the lefthand margin indicates the location of the modified or clarified text. A summary of these 

modifications follows. Because most of the changes consisted of minor modifications, only a 

selection is presented below. 

• Conservation Area adjustments 

o Pisgah Crater (western portion dropped, expansion to northeast) 

o North Edwards (some lands excluded) 

o Alkali Mariposa Lily (realigned to capture the Amargosa Creek drainage, increase 

size and drop interim conservation areas) 

• Biological Transition Areas eliminated (portions added to DWMA) 

• New biological objectives for several species 

• Tortoise Survey Zones – minor modifications 

• Fee Zones – minor modifications 

• BLM DWMA Multiple Use Class M Lands changed to Class L 

• Revised Monitoring and Adaptive Management Table 

• Additional discussion of cumulative impacts 

• Appendix C.1 (Implementation Tasks, Costs and Priorities) Revision 

• Compact Disk Additions – species accounts, vegetation map, Draft EIR/S comment 

letters 

• BLM Route Designation 

o Adoption of Competitive “C” Routes Northwest of Spangler Open Area 

o Route Openings in Summit Range 

o Route closures in Fremont Kramer Tortoise DWMA to Offset “C” Routes 

o Selected closures in small conservation areas 

o Revised Juniper Subregion route network 

o “No Action” route network is BLM June 30, 2003 Decision Record 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The West Mojave planning area is rich in biological diversity because of its varied 

vegetation communities and landforms and because of its location adjacent to the Transverse 

Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, the Colorado Desert and the Great Basin. With its proximity to the 

rapidly growing cities of the Los Angeles basin, the West Mojave planning area is subject to 

increasing demand for community development, recreation and resource utilization. One result 

is an increasing loss of species habitat. 

Loss or degradation of species habitat along and beyond the urban interface can lead to 

the listing of plants and animals as threatened or endangered by the USFWS and/or the CDFG. 
Chapter 1 1-11

USFWS has listed thirteen western Mojave species; CDFG has listed eleven; six are listed by 

both agencies (see Table 1-3). It was the listing of the desert tortoise by USFWS and CDFG in 

1990 and 1989, respectively, that was the impetus for the preparation of the West Mojave Plan. 

Several dozen other plants and animals are at risk of listing in the next few decades, unless 

proactive conservation steps are taken. 

Table 1-3 

 Special Status Species Summary 

CATEGORY LISTED PROPOSED OTHER TOTAL 

Fish 1 0 0 1 

Amphibians 3 0 0 3 

Reptiles 1 0 4 5 

Birds 7 0 30 37 

Mammals 1 0 13 14 

Plants 8 0 55 63 

TOTAL 21 0 102 123 

Because species are interdependent, the steps necessary to conserve species cannot be 

taken in isolation. Species exist naturally as members of a network of varying connections to 

other species and their habitats. The inherent interdependence of species and ecosystems makes 

it difficult to protect any given plant or animal without taking into account factors that may apply 

to many species. Both species and natural communities must be considered. 

Once a species is listed, federal agencies such as the BLM are required to ensure that 

declining populations recover to levels sufficient to ensure their long-term survival. Any new 

development project on public lands that may affect a listed species can proceed only after the 

agency “consults” with USFWS and receives a biological opinion finding that the project would 

not jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the wild. Once recovery is attained, the 

species can be delisted. 

CESA and FESA impose special requirements on private lands as well. In most cases, 

persons may not take a species listed as threatened or endangered. This protection extends to the 

listed species’ habitat. Take is permitted, however, if a landowner obtains an incidental take 

permit. Such permits are required from the agency that listed the species (USFWS and/or 

CDFG). Obtaining these permits can be a time-consuming and expensive process. Permitting 

delays will only increase if unattended biological problems lead to more species being listed. 

This situation has led to two unmet needs, for: (1) a regional biological strategy to 

conserve plant and animal species and their habitats and prevent future listings; and (2) an 

efficient, equitable and cost-effective process for complying with threatened and endangered 

species laws. 

The purpose of the West Mojave Plan is to satisfy both of these needs. The Plan includes 

a conservation strategy which would allow state and federal land management agencies to 

implement their mandates under FESA and CESA to recover listed species and their habitats, 
Chapter 1 1-12

and to conserve natural communities. At the same time, it proposes a streamlined program 

which would significantly reduce the time and expense involved in obtaining biological opinions 

and incidental take permits. 

1.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN 

AND THE EXPANSION OF FORT IRWIN 

 The National Training Center at Fort Irwin provides a battlefield environment for training 

brigade-sized units of the United States Army. It is the Department of the Army’s premier 

combat training center. Due to changes in technology and tactics, the Army has sought to 

include additional lands within the boundaries of the installation to enable it to conduct training 

that meets the future combat needs of the Army. To this end, the Army has been examining 

possible base expansion scenarios for more than a decade. 

In December 1996 the BLM, as lead federal agency due to its role as administrator of 

public lands likely to be included in any base expansion, published a draft Environmental Impact 

Statement titled “Army’s Land Acquisition Project for the National Training Center, Fort Irwin 

California, and Proposed Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan.” The 

DEIS examined several potential alternative base expansion scenarios, and was released for a 90-

day public review. 

In December 2001, Congress enacted the Fort Irwin Military Land Withdrawal Act. This 

statute withdrew approximately 110,000 acres of public lands adjacent to Fort Irwin and 

transferred jurisdiction from BLM to the Army. While the purpose of the transfer was to provide 

the lands necessary for expanded training at Fort Irwin, the Army was precluded from using the 

lands for that purpose until it completed the steps necessary to comply with NEPA and the 

federal endangered species act. Completion of these steps will require the preparation of a 

supplemental draft EIS (SDEIS) and a final EIS, and a Section 7 consultation with USFWS. Fort 

Irwin has assumed federal lead responsibility for preparation of the base expansion SDEIS, 

because the critical NEPA question has become the use of these lands by Army rather than their 

transfer to Army. The supplemental draft EIS was published in April 2004. 

The Fort Irwin Military Land Withdrawal Act requires that “the analysis [of the Fort 

Irwin base expansion] shall be coordinated, to the extent practicable and appropriate, with the 

review of the West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan that, as of the date of the enactment 

of this Act, is being undertaken by the Bureau of Land Management.” Accordingly, the 

preparation of this final EIR/S has been coordinated with the Army’s base expansion planning 

team so that the information presented in each document is consistent and the potential and 

cumulative impacts of the projects are adequately addressed. 
Chapter 1 1-13

1.4 HISTORY OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

1.4.1 Planning Issues

The issues to be addressed by the West Mojave Plan have been identified through a tenyear public involvement process that began with a first round of scoping meetings (held in 

January 1992), increasingly frequent Supergroup meetings, several dozen meetings of task 

groups established by the Supergroup between December 1999 and May 2002, a final round of 

NEPA scoping meetings held in June and July 2002, and most recently concluding with CEQA 

scoping meetings held in January and February 2003 and an opportunity to comment on the 

Notice of Preparation for the EIR. A summary of the most important issues is presented in Table 

1-4. 

Table 1-4 

 Planning Issues

ISSUE DISCUSSION 

Desert Tortoise Identify conservation areas and adopt conservation strategies that minimize 

take on private land and recover populations on public land. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Identify conservation areas and adopt conservation strategies that minimize 

take on private land and recover populations on public land. 

Other Listed and Sensitive Species Adopt conservation strategies that minimize take on private land, recover 

populations on public land, and prevent future listings of unlisted species. 

Streamlined Endangered Species 

Act Compliance 

Develop a streamlined process that would allow applicants for city, county, 

state and federal permits and authorizations to accelerate existing costly and 

time-consuming permit issuance procedures. 

Motorized Vehicle Access 

Network for Public Lands 

Provide appropriate motorized vehicle access to public lands for 

commercial, recreational and other purposes in a manner that is compatible 

with species conservation. 

Expansion of Fort Irwin Develop conservation strategies that will be effective even if expanded 

military training programs are implemented on lands transferred in 2001 to 

Fort Irwin. 

Standards and Guidelines for 

Public Lands 

Develop rangeland standards for managing ecosystem health and guidelines 

for managing domestic livestock uses. 

Regional Economic Growth Promote economic growth within the planning area. 

1.4.2 1992 Memorandum of Understanding 

The West Mojave planning process was formally initiated in 1992 by the execution of a 

Memorandum of Understanding By and Between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the 

Undersigned Participating Agencies (MOU; see Appendix A). Recognizing that CESA and 

FESA direct the parties to “protect certain species of concern and their habitats from adverse 

effects resulting from public and private development and actions” and acknowledging that “the 

private sector cannot now be assured that project review will be timely or that mitigation, 

compensation, and other requirements will be consistent among the participating agencies” 

(MOU, page 1), the MOU identified the following “Purposes of the Plan”: 
Chapter 1 1-14

1. Protection of Species of Concern: To conserve and protect species of concern and the ecosystem 

on which they depend within the western Mojave Desert. 

2. Provide Equity in Regulation: To provide a comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize 

mitigation and compensation requirements so that public and private actions will be regulated 

equally and consistently, reducing delays, expenses, and regulatory duplication. It is intended that 

the Plan will eliminate uncertainty in developing private projects and will prescribe a system to 

ensure that the costs of compensation/mitigation are applied equitably to all agencies and parties. 

3. Reduce Cumulative Impacts: To prescribe mitigation measures for private development and 

agency actions to lessen or avoid cumulative impacts to the species of concern and eliminate, 

whenever possible, case-by-case review of impacts of projects when consistent with the mitigation 

and compensation requirements prescribed by the Plan. [MOU, page 2]

The MOU provided that the Plan “will function as the Habitat Conservation Plan for the 

[incidental take] permit applications” by participating local governments. 

1.4.3 1997 Equitable Precepts

In mid-1997 the participating agencies, led by the BLM, restructured the planning 

process to ensure (1) greater public participation in developing a conservation strategy that 

would meet the needs of the participants, and (2) collection and use of the best science 

reasonably available, including recent field surveys. As a first step in this restructuring, on 

September 10, 1997, the West Mojave Supergroup adopted Equitable Precepts to guide the 

preparation of the West Mojave Plan. These consisted of the Mission Statement and Principles 

set forth below: 

Mission Statement 

The West Mojave Plan will provide an improved and streamlined process which minimizes the 

need for individual consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) while providing better science for species 

conservation. 

The [West Mojave] Plan will allow projects to be approved and signed-off rapidly. Project 

proponents will know the mitigation measures that will be required of them before the project is 

presented to the local government or, in the case of public land, presented to the state or federal 

agency. 

Principles 

1. The ultimate goal of the [West Mojave] Plan will be based on specified measures to 

enable project proponents to comply with the requirements of CESA and FESA. 

2. The [West Mojave] Plan will be equitable, predictable and compatible with local, state 

and federal agency permitting procedures so as to be easily administered. 

3. The mitigation strategy will be responsive to the needs and unique characteristics of the 

many diverse industries and activities in the program area on both public and private land 

while allowing compatible growth. 

4. Project proponents shall have a choice of utilizing the conservation program or working 
Chapter 1 1-15

directly with the CDFG or USFWS to address Endangered Species Act compliance. 

5. The [West Mojave] Plan will incorporate realistic fiscal considerations, with identified 

sources, i.e. federal, state, local, public and private. 

6. The [West Mojave] Plan will ensure that no one group of desert users will be singled out 

to disproportionately bear the burden of the [West Mojave] Plan implementation. 

7. The [West Mojave] Plan will have the flexibility to respond to future legislative, 

regulatory and judicial requirements. 

1.4.4 Data Base

The West Mojave Plan is based upon the best science reasonably available. To meet this 

standard, data were reviewed to identify pertinent life history information, assess threats to 

covered species, and provide the most appropriate management prescriptions to address those 

threats. Where existing information was considered incomplete, species experts were consulted 

to fill in the data gaps. The planning team consulted 8 botanists, 13 ornithologists, 3 

mammalogists, and 4 herpetologists to ensure that data for those taxa were the most complete 

and accurate information available. For the desert tortoise, this meant collecting and digitizing 

existing transect data and performing new surveys over approximately 3,615 square miles that 

had not been recently surveyed. Previous planning for Mohave ground squirrel conservation 

(Remple 1991, Clark 1993) and recent studies (Leitner and Leitner 1989, 1990, 1996a, 1996b; 

Leitner et al. 1995, 1997) were important for designing reserves and determining appropriate 

management prescriptions. New field surveys were conducted in the spring of 2001 for sensitive 

birds and plants.1

 

Biological data for the Plan were obtained from a variety of sources. The data were 

compiled, analyzed, and stored to support various components of the Plan preparation and 

implementation process. The sources of data include known location information for covered 

species and habitats. These data were complied from various sources, including the following: 

• California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) records. Data from the NDDB were 

from 1999 and have been updated periodically since then. 

• CDFG, BLM, Army and USFWS data. 

• Data collected from biologists knowledgeable about the plan area and/or a given species. 

 This included records from consultants and non-profit organizations (e.g. California 

Native Plant Society, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Mojave Desert Bird Club). 

• Data from individual biologists obtained during planning meetings. 

• Location data from voucher specimens held in museums and herbaria. 

• Published records and species distribution information from peer-reviewed journal 

articles, where information on species has been described at an appropriate scale. 

• Presence-absence tortoise survey data resulting from studies required by county and local 

government since the 1990 listing. 

 

1 See Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of these data. 
Chapter 1 1-16

Dr. William Boarman prepared a survey of the threats adversely affecting the desert 

tortoise for the West Mojave planning effort. This was the peer-reviewed Threats to the Desert 

Tortoise: A Critical Review of the Scientific Literature (attached as Appendix J). Dr. Boarman’s 

threats analysis was instrumental in identifying potential conservation measures to address each 

known threat adversely affecting the tortoise. 

Species Accounts: For each plant or animal addressed by the Plan, a Species Account

was prepared. A wildlife biologist or botanist possessing recognized expertise concerning the 

species in question authored each of these documents. The accounts described the general status, 

habitat, life history, distribution, biological goals, and threats faced by each species, as well as a 

detailed bibliography. All species accounts were peer reviewed. GIS maps were created for 

each species showing known occurrences and general distribution, and all cited papers and 

reports were obtained and copies filed. 

Current Management Situation: In March 1999, a report was published detailing the 

Current Management Situation of Special Status Species in the West Mojave Planning Area

(CMS). This report identified existing policies and management actions being applied by each 

of the participating agencies with respect to each of the species being addressed by the Plan. 

Geographic Information System Database: A digital library of over 300 geographic 

data layers was assembled, displaying biological, political, topographic and other critical 

planning information. 

Motorized Vehicle Access Network Field Survey: Between September 2001 and 

March 2002, thirteen field crews inventoried nearly 8,000 miles of motorized vehicle access 

routes within the western Mojave Desert. Both four wheel drive and motorcycle crews 

participated in the survey. Routes were recorded using global positioning system technology. 

The nature of the route (graded gravel, good dirt, motorcycle trail) was recorded, and nearly twodozen types of pertinent desert features mapped (including campsites, mines, trailheads, and 

water sources). This information was transferred into the planning team’s digital GIS library. In 

addition, data collected by BLM field survey crews in 1985 and 1987, and during the preparation 

of BLM management plans for areas of critical environmental concern between 1980 and the late 

1990s, was digitized and stored in the GIS database. This data was supplemented by data 

digitally collected from aerial photography taken in 1995 and 1996, and covering most public 

lands within the planning area. 

 In response the many comments on the Juniper subregion, an inventory of existing routes 

of travel was performed in October 2003. Using this new database, comment clarification letters 

and comments at three meetings held to discuss this subregion, BLM revised the route 

designations in the Juniper subregion to provide a more accurate and effective transportation 

network. 

Development of the List of Species Addressed by the Plan: The list of species to be 

addressed by the Plan was based on wildlife agency compilations of threatened, endangered, 

vulnerable, and declining species. Species addressed by the plan include both those for which 
Chapter 1 1-17

private land incidental take permit coverage would be sought (“covered species”), and those for 

which a public land conservation strategy would be adopted and implemented by the BLM 

through its California Desert Conservation Area Plan. 

Criteria for inclusion on the list included the following: 

• Species listed as threatened or endangered by the state and federal governments. 

• Species proposed for listing by the federal government. 

• Species designated as candidates for listing by the state and federal government. 

• “Species of Special Concern” on the Department’s “Special Animals” list. 

• Plants included on the Department’s “Special Plants” list. 

• Plants and animals on the BLM “sensitive species” list. 

• Plants included on List 1B or List 2 of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of 

Rare and Endangered Plants of California. 

The Supergroup approved the list of 98 plant and animal species to be addressed by the 

Plan in 1996. The USGS then contracted with experts on each species, who prepared the species 

accounts for use in development of the Plan. 

On May 5, 1997 and April 3, 1998, local botanists submitted a list of plants and animals 

seen at Middle Knob and in surrounding areas. These records were examined, and those species 

found within the West Mojave Plan area were included. On September 1 1998, the California 

Native Plan Society submitted a list of fourteen rare plants within the West Mojave and 

requested their addition to the Plan list. This list was reviewed and species with sufficient 

information were added to the list of species to be addressed by the West Mojave Plan. 

 The Current Management Situation of Special Status Species in the West Mojave 

Planning Area was published March 31, 1999. This document detailed existing conservation 

measures in place for each jurisdiction for each of the original 98 species. 

 

Using the species accounts and the Current Management Situation, West Mojave Plan 

biologists met with the wildlife agencies to prepare an evaluation. The evaluation team reviewed 

all species on the Supergroup list along with the proposed additions. Fifty-eight species were 

dropped from the list and were not further addressed by the Plan because of insufficient data, 

because they were being separately addressed by other Habitat Conservation Plans and 

Biological Opinions already in place or underway, because they were too common, or for other 

reasons. The Evaluation Report of September 22, 1998 discussed the reasons for retention or 

deletion of species from the covered species list. 

Changes were made in the federal, state and CNPS lists between 1998 and now. The 

Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plans of California was revised in August 2001, and plants 

that were added to List 1B and List 2 were added to the West Mojave list if sufficient 

information was available to prepare conservation plans. Plants that were deleted from the 

earlier edition were deleted from the West Mojave list. Similarly, CDFG’s list of “Special 

Animals” changed over time, and these changes were incorporated into the West Mojave list. 
Chapter 1 1-18

The final list of species was completed on June 26, 2002. This list was provided to 

members of the Task Groups and Supergroup and all interested stakeholders. As this list was 

reviewed by the local jurisdictions, a few additional changes were made, such as deletion of 

Kelso Creek monkeyflower, mountain plover and Bendire’s thrasher from the request for 

incidental take coverage. 

In response to comments on the West Mojave Plan, other species were deleted from the 

request for incidental take coverage. Concerns expressed by CDFG resulted in deletion of nine 

species because of insufficient information or for other reasons. These are bighorn sheep, 

spotted bat, pallid bat, long-legged myotis, Western mastiff bat, golden eagle, Panamint alligator 

lizard, Reveal’s buckwheat, and flax-like monardella. 

The Plan now lists 49 species as covered species proposed for receipt of incidental take 

permits under the Section 10(a) and 2081 permits. Wildlife agency review of this document and 

the Implementing Agreement may result in the exclusion of other species from permit coverage. 

 The list of all species addressed by the Plan, along with the scientific names, is included as 

Appendix Y. 

1.4.5 Biological Evaluation

Following the assembly of the database, a “Biological Evaluation” was conducted in a 

series of meetings between March 1998 and June 2000. Participants included biologists from the 

West Mojave planning team, USFWS, CDFG and invited experts. Biologists evaluated the 

effectiveness of current management, identified management shortfalls, and suggested measures 

to address those shortfalls. Evaluation meetings were structured around the following seven 

questions: 

• How important is the planning area to the species as a whole? 

• Does the planning area contain essential habitat for the species to complete its life 

history? 

• Why was the species placed on the special status list? What is the concern? 

• Is current management adequate to protect the species? 

• Is the geographical size and location of conservation areas adequate to protect the 

species? If not, what additional areas need to be committed to assure protection of 

the species? 

• Is the management of proposed conservation areas adequate to protect the 

species? If not, what management improvements could be implemented to assure 

protection of the species within the target conservation areas? 

• Is management of lands outside conservation areas adequate to protect the 

species? If not, what management improvements could be implemented to assure 

protection of the species outside conservation areas? 

An Evaluation Report addressing the Desert Tortoise, mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and 

amphibians was published on September 22, 1999 and distributed to the Supergroup. A Mohave 
Chapter 1 1-19

ground squirrel Evaluation Report was completed and distributed on September 14, 2000. 

Finally, an Evaluation Report addressing rare plants was completed and distributed on October 

15, 2001. 

1.4.6 Task Groups Develop the Conservation Strategy

In November 1999, the West Mojave Supergroup established four task groups to develop 

components of the West Mojave Plan. Task group members were not appointed; rather, any 

organization or individual could attend and participate in a task group meeting. All meetings 

were open to the public and, at one time or another, a representative of nearly every Supergroup 

entity attended a task group session. Task groups were not established to make decisions for the 

participating agencies and jurisdictions, nor were they intended to function as formal appointed 

advisory bodies. Rather, the task groups provided an informal public forum to allow 

collaborative interagency and stakeholder planning and information gathering, as an extension of 

public scoping efforts. These Task Groups included: 

• Task Group 1, Conservation Strategy 

• Task Group 2, Motorized Vehicle Access Network 

• Task Group 3, Regulatory Issues 

• Task Group 4, Plan Implementation 

A 14-member Steering Committee was established by the Supergroup to resolve deadlocks and 

provide guidance to the task groups. 

 Task groups met 47 times between December 1999 and May 2002. On two occasions 

task groups deadlocked on issues. Six meetings of the Steering Committee successfully resolved 

these deadlocks. 

Numerous issues were too complex or controversial to resolve at a single task group 

meeting. In such cases, subcommittees composed of volunteers were asked to discuss the issue 

and return with a proposed solution at the following task group meeting. Task Group 1 formed 

over a dozen subcommittees that dealt with issues as diverse as the expensive tortoise fencing 

program, desert recreation, mitigation fees and compensation structure, and “best management 

practices” to apply as standard take-avoidance measures. To assist Task Group 2 and the route 

designation process, two subcommittees were formed: a field survey advisory group and a route 

designation technical committee. A subcommittee might meet once or, once established, be 

recalled on numerous occasions to address difficult issues. Over 50 subcommittee meetings 

were held in addition to task group meetings. 

As the task group process evolved, certain issues would emerge that would result in 

considerable public interest or controversy, including the design of the motorized vehicle access 

network and the role of equestrians in desert planning. When this occurred, public information 

meetings were held throughout the desert on an irregular basis. About a dozen of these 

meetings, attended by up to 250 persons, were held during the task group process. Many persons 

who first became involved through these meetings later joined one or another of the task groups. 
Chapter 1 1-20

1.4.7 Public Review of DEIR/S

 A Draft EIR/S was released for a 90-day public review that began on June 13, 2003 and 

ended on September 12, 2003. Public hearings were held in Victorville (July 15, 2003), Lone 

Pine (July 16, 2003), Ridgecrest (July 17, 2003), Redlands (July 22, 2003), Yucca Valley (July 

23, 2003), Palmdale (July 24, 2003) and Barstow (July 30, 2003). Responses to written and oral 

comments received from the public are presented in Chapter 6 of this Final EIR/S. Chapters 1 

through 5, as well as the appendices, include changes made in response to those comments. 

1.5 NECESSARY DECISIONS AND APPROVALS 

1.5.1 Agency and Jurisdiction Decisions and Approvals 

 

Bureau of Land Management Implementation of the West Mojave Plan on public lands 

would require approval of the Plan by the BLM’s California State Director through a Record of 

Decision (ROD). This approval process would include the amendment of the CDCA Plan to 

ensure consistency with the provisions of the West Mojave Plan. By executing the ROD, BLM 

will adopt both the West Mojave Plan and any necessary CDCA Plan amendments. The 

amendments that would be necessary to implement each alternative are listed in Chapter 2, 

beginning with Section 2.2.10, the amendments associated with Alternative A. 

The West Mojave Plan Record of Decision would also amend 25 existing Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) management plans, and would serve as the ACEC management 

plan for 14 newly-designated ACECs. These new and revised ACEC management plans may be 

found in Appendix D. 

 The BLM Record of Decision will be issued after the final environmental impact report 

and statement is published, and after any protests are submitted and resolved. 

Cities and Counties: Adoption of the West Mojave Plan by cities and counties would 

not require amendments to local jurisdiction general plan land use elements. Modifications of 

city and county conservation elements may occur, however, to provide reference to the West 

Mojave Plan and associated conservation strategies. Certain jurisdictions may also amend their 

zoning and development ordinances to provide consistency with the HCP’s conservation 

strategies. Local jurisdictions adopting the West Mojave Plan would need to adopt a fee 

ordinance in order to implement the mitigation fee described in Chapter 2. 

Measures applicable to each jurisdiction are identified in Appendix B. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service: For the West Mojave Plan’s streamlined 

FESA compliance procedures to be implemented, USFWS would have to issue an incidental take 

permit under Section 10(a) of FESA to the participating cities and counties, and to Caltrans. 

This could include the issuance of “no surprises” assurances for unlisted species. A biological 
Chapter 1 1-21

opinion prepared pursuant to Section 7 of FESA would have to be issued to the BLM and any 

other participating federal agencies. 

California Department of Fish and Game: CDFG would issue an incidental take 

permit under Section 2081 of CESA to the participating cities, counties and Caltrans. 

1.5.2 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Policies 

 All decisions and approvals would be consistent with applicable federal and California 

statutes, regulations and policies, including but not limited to the following: 

• Federal Endangered Species Act 

• California Endangered Species Act 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• California Environmental Quality Act 

• California Fish and Game Code 

• California Planning Statutes 

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• California Desert Protection Act 

• Clean Water Act 

• Clean Air Act 

• Wilderness Act 

• Taylor Grazing Act 

• Sikes Act 

• Mining and Minerals Policy, and National Materials and Minerals Research and 

Development Acts 

• Mining, Mineral Leasing, Material Disposal and Reclamation Acts 

• Federal Executive Orders and Congressional Mandates 

This plan recognizes that unforeseen national security measures may require immediate 

compliance by utilities to operate or construct features designed to secure and protect energy and 

communication systems. Should the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Energy 

Commission, California Energy Commission or California Public Utility Commission proclaim 

the necessity of such measures, utilities will be allowed to implement said measures. 

Appropriate mitigation and plan compliance shall be sought “after the fact.” Where variance to 

the Plan is required, parties shall negotiate to accomplish the spirit of the Plan. 

1.5.3 Relationship to Other Regional Plans

Southern California and southern Nevada are the sites of a number of important regional 

planning efforts, many of which are addressing the same issues that are being considered by the 

West Mojave Plan (see Map 1-2). These include regional habitat conservation plans, natural 

community conservation plans and federal land use plans and amendments. In fact, most of the 
Chapter 1 1-22

land surface between Las Vegas, Nevada and San Diego, California lies within the scope of an 

ecosystem-planning program. 

The following is a brief summary of major planning efforts being undertaken 

immediately adjacent to or within the West Mojave planning area. 

Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP): The 

lead for this plan is the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. The planning area 

includes most of the urban and urbanizing area of the Coachella Valley as well as the Santa Rosa 

Mountains, and portions of Joshua Tree National Park, all within Riverside County. This 

MSHCP lies adjacent to and southeast of the West Mojave planning area. The plan addresses 

issues of urbanization on private and state lands. As part of this planning effort, BLM has 

prepared a separate CDCA plan amendment applicable to federal lands within the Coachella 

Valley plan area. Both CVMSHCP and the West Mojave Plan are developing conservation 

strategies for species whose range overlaps both planning areas. These include the management 

of the Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia, the triple-ribbed milkvetch, the Whitewater and 

Big Morongo Canyon ACECs and, to a minor degree, the desert tortoise. A Record of Decision 

for the BLM Coachella Valley CDCA Plan Amendments was signed in December 2002. 

 

Northern and Eastern Mojave Plan (NEMO): The BLM’s NEMO plan addressed 

recovery of the desert tortoise and management of a few additional species of concern on public 

lands. NEMO addressed only BLM programs, and only the BLM’s CDCA Plan was amended; 

private lands and other federal agencies were not affected. The NEMO planning area lies to the 

northeast of the western Mojave Desert, in the area that generally lies between Death Valley 

National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. The most important cross-boundary issues 

that affect both NEMO and West Mojave involve the management of a small Mojave ground 

squirrel population northeast of Trona, and ensuring that CDCA Plan Amendments are 

consistent. A Record of Decision for NEMO was signed in December 2002. 

Northern and Eastern Colorado Plan (NECO): The NECO plan, like NEMO, 

primarily concerned the management of BLM lands located to the east and southeast of the West 

Mojave planning area, although a broader-based planning program was conducted in 

collaboration with the Marine Corps, the National Park Service and local governments. NECO’s 

decisions affected federal lands only. The most important cross-boundary issues that affect both 

NEMO and West Mojave involve the management of the Mojave fringe toed lizard (two thirds 

of the known range lies within the West Mojave, and one third within NECO), as well as 

ensuring that CDCA Plan Amendments are consistent. A Record of Decision for NECO was 

signed in December 2002. 

Southern California Province Forest Plan: This plan is being prepared by four 

National Forests located in Southern California, including the Angelus and San Bernardino 

National Forests, which are adjacent to and south of the West Mojave planning area. Decisions 

reached by the Southern California Province Plan will affect National Forest lands only. The 

most important cross-boundary issues that affect both the Forest Service planning efforts and the 

West Mojave Plan involve the implementation of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy; 
Chapter 1 1-23

developing conservation programs for the San Diego horned lizard, the short-joint beavertail 

cactus, the gray vireo and the arroyo toad; and the coordination of motorized vehicle access 

networks. 

Military Integrated Resource Management Plans (INRMPs): Each of the five 

military bases located within the West Mojave planning area has prepared, or is preparing, an 

INRMP to guide the management of natural resources on each base. The INRMPs affect 

military lands only. The most important cross-boundary issues that affect both the West Mojave 

Plan and INRMPs follow: (1) For Edwards Air Force Base, management of the desert tortoise, 

Mohave ground squirrel, alkali mariposa lily, desert cymopterus and Barstow woolly sunflower; 

(2) for China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, the management of the desert tortoise, Mohave 

ground squirrel, Townsend’s big-eared bat, bighorn sheep, and Inyo California towhee; (3) for 

Fort Irwin, management of desert tortoise and the Lane Mountain milkvetch; (4) for the Marine 

Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, the management of the desert tortoise, 

California leaf-nosed bat, bighorn sheep, Mojave fringe-toed lizard and white-margined 

beardtongue; and (5) for the Marine Corps Logistics Base near Barstow, the management of the 

desert tortoise.