Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including 

Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental 

Assessment 

Joshua Tree National Park 

74485 National Park Drive 

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277-3597 

Contact: David Smith, Superintendent 

Phone: 760-367-5500 

Prepared by: 

National Park Service 

Pacific West Regional Office 

Park Planning and Environmental Compliance 

333 Bush Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

 

Note to Readers: 

A correction was made to the total acreage of Bureau of Land Management federal 

lands and State School lands after this document had been submitted for printing. 

This electronic version contains the updated/corrected acreage. 

An errata sheet has been prepared for the printed document. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

This page intentionally left blank
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

i 

 

SUMMARY 

The National Park Service (NPS) in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

has prepared the Eagle Mountain Boundary 

Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal 

Environmental Assessment (boundary study/EA) 

for an area within the Eagle Mountains, located 

in Riverside County, California. The study 

examines approximately 31,500 acres of land on 

the eastern border of Joshua Tree National Park, 

west of the Colorado River Aqueduct. 

The purpose of the study and environmental 

assessment is to consider whether to expand 

Joshua Tree National Park to include additional 

lands in the Eagle Mountain area, and to develop 

alternatives for protecting cultural, natural, and 

scenic resources related to the purpose of the 

national park. This document also evaluates the 

potential effects of a withdrawal and transfer of 

jurisdiction of federal lands in the area from the 

BLM to the NPS to protect resources related to 

the purpose of Joshua Tree National Park. 

Through evaluation of NPS criteria for 

boundary adjustments, the study finds that lands 

in the Eagle Mountain area are suitable for 

inclusion in Joshua Tree National Park, 

containing resource values and visitor 

opportunities that would help support the 

overall purpose of the park as directed by 

Congress. Including this area in the park could 

also improve park operational efficiency by 

providing access to one of the most remote areas 

of the park. Over 25,000 acres of land would be 

feasible for NPS to administer at this time, while 

other lands may become feasible in the future 

when current and proposed uses cease. 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been 

prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The NPS evaluates 

four alternatives in this EA, including: 

Alternative A: Continue Current 

Management (No Action) assumes the Eagle 

Mountain area would continue to be owned and 

managed by current public and private entities. 

No change would be made to the boundary of 

Joshua Tree National Park. 

Alternative B: Federal Agency-to-Agency 

Land Transfer (~22,135 acre boundary 

addition) proposes a transfer of federal lands 

administered by the BLM to the NPS for 

administration as part of Joshua Tree National 

Park. 

Alternative C: Agency Transfer with 

Enhanced Habitat Connectivity and 

Recreation – NPS Preferred Alternative and 

Proposed Action (~25,070 acre addition)

proposes a transfer of federal lands administered 

by the BLM (~22,515 acres) to the NPS for 

administration as part of Joshua Tree National 

Park. An additional ~2,555 acres of private and 

state lands are proposed for addition to the park 

boundary to further protect wildlife habitat and 

provide new public enjoyment opportunities. 

Alternative D: Restore 1936 Boundary to 

Provide Diverse Visitor and Resource 

Protection Opportunities – Phased Approach 

(~28,600 acre addition) proposes a boundary 

addition that represents a long-term vision for 

comprehensive protection of the area’s 

resources. Lands would be considered for NPS 

management if and when they would become 

available. Alternative D includes a transfer of 

BLM-administered lands (22,515 acres) to the 

NPS for administration as part of Joshua Tree 

National Park. Other lands could be acquired 

for park use overtime if and when they become 

available from willing sellers. Some lands, such 

as those associated with the proposed Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project, may not be available for decades. 

The environmental consequences of the 

alternatives are examined in Chapter 5. Results 

of public involvement, consultation, and 

coordination conducted during the planning 

process are included in Chapter 1: Purpose and 

Need (Study Process) and Chapter 6: Consultation 

and Coordination.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

ii 

How to Comment on this 

Document 

The NPS has distributed the boundary study / 

EA to other agencies and interested 

organizations and individuals for their review 

and comment. The public comment period for 

this document will last for approximately 60 

days. Please submit comments by May 27, 2016. 

This document is available online at the NPS 

Planning, Environment and Public Comment 

System (PEPC) website at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/eaglemountain. An 

online public comment form is provided at this 

website. 

Comments may also be made in person at one of 

the public meetings that will be conducted 

during the public review period. The specific 

dates and times for these meetings will be 

announced in local newspapers, in a newsletter, 

and online at the above website. 

For further information or to send written 

letters or comment forms on this document, 

contact or write: 

David Smith, Superintendent 

Joshua Tree National Park 

74485 National Park Drive 

Twentynine Palms, CA 92277-3597 

E-mail comments and questions to:

jotr_study@nps.gov 

Before including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be 

aware that the NPS practice is to make 

comments, including the names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public review. 

Individual respondents may request that their 

address be withheld from the planning record, 

which will be honored to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in which a 

respondent’s identity would be withheld from 

the record, as allowable by law. To have your 

name and/or address withheld state this 

prominently at the beginning of the comment

.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... i

How to Comment on this Document ............................................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Maps .............................................................................................................................................................. v

Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... vi

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background of Joshua Tree National Park ................................................................................................................................... 2

Park Foundation Document ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Study Area Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Boundary Study Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Elements of the Boundary Study .................................................................................................................................................. 17

Study Process ................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, Plans, and Policies .................................................................... 20

Chapter 2: Application of Boundary Adjustment Criteria ........................................................................... 29

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Criterion 1: Protect Significant Resources and Values, or Enhance Opportunities for Public Enjoyment Related To 

Park Purposes .................................................................................................................................................................................. 32

Criterion 2: Addresses Operational and Management Issues ................................................................................................. 49

Criterion 3: Otherwise Protect Park Resources that are Critical to Fulfilling the Park Purposes ..................................... 49

Summary of Results – Initial Boundary Adjustment Criteria .................................................................................................. 51

Other Significant Resources in the Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 52

Feasibility Criteria Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Protection Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................................................ 92

Overall Conclusion - Boundary Adjustment Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................... 92

Chapter 3: Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 95

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 95

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ................................................................................... 95

ALTERNATIVE A: Continue Current Management (No Action) ........................................................................................ 96

ALTERNATIVE B: Federal Agency-to-Agency Land Transfer ........................................................................................... 101

ALTERNATIVE C: Agency Transfer with Enhanced Habitat Connectivity and Recreation (NPS Preferred Alternative 

and Proposed Action) ................................................................................................................................................................... 106

ALTERNATIVE D: Restore 1936 Boundary to Provide Diverse Visitor and Resource Protection Opportunities – 

Phased Approach .......................................................................................................................................................................... 110

Chapter 4: Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 119

Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 119

Climate ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 119

Climate Change and Energy Conservation ............................................................................................................................... 120

Topography and Geology ............................................................................................................................................................ 121

Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 127

Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 133
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

iv 

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 133

Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 136

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 140

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 145

Visitor Opportunities and Access ............................................................................................................................................... 150

Soundscape .................................................................................................................................................................................... 151

Visual Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 151

Wilderness ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 152

Human Health and Safety ............................................................................................................................................................ 153

Land Use and Ownership ............................................................................................................................................................ 153

Park Operations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 158

Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 159

Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................. 165

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................... 165

Cumulative Impact Scenario ....................................................................................................................................................... 166

Impact Topics ................................................................................................................................................................................ 168

Topics Not Carried Forward for Full Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 168

Impact Topic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 175

CHAPTER 6: Consultation and Coordination ........................................................................................... 207

Public Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................................... 207

Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................................................................................................... 207

Agency Consultation .................................................................................................................................................................... 209

Comment Period ........................................................................................................................................................................... 211

Appendixes ................................................................................................................................................ 212

APPENDIX A: Presidential Proclamation and Legislative Acts for Joshua Tree National Park .................................... 213

APPENDIX B: Studies and Reports Required by 43 CFR 2310.3.2 (Segregation and Withdrawal Application) ........ 219

APPENDIX C: Parcel Information ............................................................................................................................................ 222

APPENDIX D: Unpatented Mining Claims ............................................................................................................................. 224

APPENDIX E: Sensitive Species Lists ....................................................................................................................................... 239

References ................................................................................................................................................. 245

LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................ 258

Pacific West Region Core Study Team ...................................................................................................................................... 258

Pacific West Region Extended Study Team ............................................................................................................................. 258

Joshua Tree National Park Study Team .................................................................................................................................... 258

Other NPS Contributors .............................................................................................................................................................. 258

BLM Team Members and Specialists ........................................................................................................................................ 258
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

v 

MAPS 

Map 1-1: Joshua Tree National Park .............................................................................................................. 4

Map 1-2: Park Boundary History ................................................................................................................... 5

Map 1-3: Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Map 1-4: Regional Development Projects .................................................................................................... 16

Map 2-1: Parcel Groups ............................................................................................................................... 31

Map 2-2: Desert Tortoise Habitat Connectivity: .......................................................................................... 36

Map 2-3: Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Connectivity ................................................................................. 36

Map 2-4: Wilderness and Roadless Areas .................................................................................................... 47

Map 2-5: Roads and Access .......................................................................................................................... 50

Map 2-6: Federal Lands Parcel Group ......................................................................................................... 56

Map 2-7: BLM Multiple Use Classes (NECO Plan) ...................................................................................... 60

Map 2-8: BLM Proposed Land Use Designations (DRECP) ......................................................................... 60

Map 2-9: Private Lands Parcel Group .......................................................................................................... 63

Map 2-10: Land Use Designations (Riverside County General Plan) ........................................................... 68

Map 2-11: Local Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 68

Map 2-12: State School Lands Parcel Group ................................................................................................ 70

Map 2-13: Townsite and Eagle Mountain School Parcel Groups ................................................................. 74

Map 2-14: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Parcel Group .............................. 77

Map 2-15: Feasibility Findings ..................................................................................................................... 91

Map 3-1: Alternative A (No Action) ........................................................................................................... 100

Map 3-2: Alternative B ............................................................................................................................... 105

Map 3-3: Alternative C ............................................................................................................................... 109

Map 3-4: Alternative D............................................................................................................................... 115

Map 4-1: Topography ................................................................................................................................ 122

Map 4-2: Geology ....................................................................................................................................... 125

Map 4-3: Eagle Mountain Mine Geology ................................................................................................... 126

Map 4-4: Minerals ...................................................................................................................................... 131

Map 4-5: Mining Claims, Past and Present Mineral Producers ................................................................. 132

Map 4-6: Watersheds ................................................................................................................................. 135

Map 4-7: Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 135

Map 4-8: Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 138

Map 4-9: Microphyll Woodlands ............................................................................................................... 138

Map 4-10: Special Status Plant Species ...................................................................................................... 139

Map 4-11: Special Status Animal Species ................................................................................................... 139

Map 4-12: Desert Tortoise Habitat - Study Area ........................................................................................ 144

Map 4-13: Bighorn Sheep Habitat - Study Area ......................................................................................... 144

Map 4-14: Ownership and Management .................................................................................................... 154

Map 5-1: Wetlands and Floodplains .......................................................................................................... 173
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

vi 

Tables 

Table 2-1: Parcel Groups ............................................................................................................................. 30

Table 2-2: Summary of Areas Determined Feasible for Addition to the Park Boundary (Boundary Size and 

Configuration) ............................................................................................................................................. 79

Table 2-3: Summary of Operational Costs for a Boundary Expansion ........................................................ 88

Table 3-1: Alternatives Comparison Table ................................................................................................ 116

Table 4-1: Former Mines and Associated Commodities Within the Study Area ........................................ 128

Table 4-2: Land Ownership in the Study Area ........................................................................................... 153

Table 4-3: Current and Future Population ................................................................................................ 162

Table 4-4: 2014 Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................ 162

Table 4-5: 2014 Education Attainment ...................................................................................................... 162

Table 4-6: 2014 Median Household and Per Capita Income ...................................................................... 162

Table 4-7: 2014 Employment and Unemployment ..................................................................................... 162

Table 4-8: 2014 Poverty Rates .................................................................................................................... 163

Table 5-1: Projects in the Cumulative Impact Scenario ............................................................................. 167

Table 6-1: Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments .......................... 208
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

vii 

ACRONYMS 

ACEC – Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP – Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

CCD - Census County Divisions 

CEQ – Council of Environmental Equality 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations 

BLM - Bureau of Land Management 

CDCA - California Desert Conservation Area 

CMA – Conservation Management Actions 

CSLC – California State Lands Commission 

DFA – Development Focus Area 

DRECP – Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan 

DWMA – Desert Wildlife Management Areas 

EA – Environmental Assessment 

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement 

EMMR – Eagle Mountain Mining and Railroad Company, LLC 

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA - Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FPA – Federal Power Act 

FTE - Full time equivalent staff 

GIS - Geographic information system 

GMP - - General Management Plan 

KEM – Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 

KSC – Kaiser Steel Corporation 

IMP - Interim Management Plan for the Kaiser Mountain Eagle Mountain Mine 

LUPA – Land Use Plan Amendment 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

viii 

MWD – Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

NCL - National Conservation Lands 

NECO Plan - Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan 

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act 

NLCS – National Landscape Conservation System 

NPS – National Park Service 

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places 

ROW – Right-of-way 

OHV - Off-highway vehicle 

PEPC - - NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment website 

SCE - Southern California Edison 

SEZ - Solar energy zone 

SMARA - Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 

SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer 

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS - U.S. Geological Survey 

WHMA - Wildlife Habitat Management Areas 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

1 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 

Introduction 

The National Park Service (NPS) in cooperation 

with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

has prepared this boundary study of the Eagle 

Mountain area in Riverside County, California 

to consider whether to expand the Joshua Tree 

National Park boundary to include additional 

properties, and to develop alternatives for 

protecting cultural, natural, and scenic resources 

related to the purpose of the national park. This 

document also evaluates the potential effects of 

a possible withdrawal of public lands from 

settlement, sale, location, and entry under the 

public land laws, including the United States 

mining laws, and leasing or other disposition 

under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

The purpose of the possible withdrawal would 

be to transfer jurisdiction over certain public 

lands from the BLM to the NPS to protect 

resources related to the purpose of Joshua Tree 

National Park. 

The study examines approximately 31,500 acres 

of land on the eastern side of Joshua Tree 

National Park bordered on the east by the 

Colorado River Aqueduct and surrounded by 

national park lands to the north, west, and south 

(See Map 1-1: Joshua Tree National Park and 

Map 1-3: Study Area). 

Legal Location: Townships 3 and 4 S., Ranges 

13 to 15 E., San Bernardino Meridian, Riverside 

County, California. 

Background 

Much of the study area was part of Joshua Tree 

National Monument when designated in 1936. 

The presence of patented mining claims 

containing substantial deposits of iron ore led to 

the removal of this area for mineral extraction 

purposes in 1950. The federal lands that were 

removed from the monument were transferred 

to the BLM for administration. From 1948 to 

1983, Kaiser Steel Corporation operated the 

Eagle Mountain Mine in this area where it 

extracted iron ore to supply its steel mill in 

Fontana, California. During this time it was the 

largest iron mine in the western United States 

(Force 2001). Ultimately, four large open pits of 

between one to two miles in length were 

constructed by Kaiser Steel Corporation. Fullscale iron ore mining ceased in 1983, although 

limited mining of surface materials continues 

today. 

In 1989, Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. (Kaiser) 

and Mine Reclamation Corporation proposed to 

develop the Eagle Mountain Landfill and 

Recycling Project in the Eagle Mountains in 

around the Eagle Mountain Mine. They also 

proposed renovation of the nearby Eagle 

Mountain Townsite to support landfill 

operations. To facilitate the landfill project, 

Kaiser proposed a land exchange to acquire the 

public lands managed by the BLM (3,481 acres) 

in the project area and acquire the federal 

reversionary interest in the Eagle Mountain 

Townsite. BLM approved the land exchange in 

1999. Litigation challenging the land exchange 

was filed soon thereafter. While the litigation 

was ongoing, Kaiser and its partners entered into 

an agreement with the Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County to take over the project. The 

federal courts ultimately found deficiencies in 

BLM’s process for approving the land exchange. 

Before BLM could correct the deficiencies 

identified by the courts, the Sanitation Districts 

of Los Angeles County in 2013 announced that it 

would no longer pursue acquisition of the Eagle 

Mountain landfill project. These developments 

effectively ended the viability of the landfill 

project. In December 2014, the litigation 

concluded when the federal district court issued 

a final judgment and order returning the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

2 

exchanged federal lands in the Eagle Mountain 

area to the BLM. The returned lands and the 

other BLM managed lands within the area and 

surrounding region continue to be available to 

various development proposals, including a 

current plan for a pumped storage hydroelectric 

project approved by Federal Regulatory Energy 

Commission (FERC). 

While some portions of the Eagle Mountain area 

have been disturbed as a result of mining 

operations, most of the lands within the study 

area remain undeveloped and in federal 

ownership. The Eagle Mountain area contains 

resources and values fundamental to the 

established purpose of Joshua Tree National 

Park. Such resources and values include: desert 

tortoise and bighorn sheep habitat and other 

habitat types important for maintaining 

biological diversity and healthy ecosystem 

function; interconnectivity of California desert 

lands; wilderness values and accessibility; dark 

night skies; hydrological resources; desert 

landforms; and recreational opportunities. 

Historic resources associated with the Eagle 

Mountain Mine and Townsite, the Colorado 

River Aqueduct, and General Patton’s World 

War II Desert Training Center may provide 

opportunities to expand the rich history 

interpreted at Joshua Tree National Park. 

Background of Joshua Tree 

National Park

Location and Description 

Joshua Tree National Park lies within both San 

Bernardino and Riverside counties, 

approximately 100 miles from the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area. More than 18 million people 

live within a three-hour drive of the park. The 

natural desert expanse of the park provides ideal 

conditions for campers, photographers, star 

gazers, naturalists, as well as anyone seeking 

space for quiet introspection, exploration, or 

outdoor learning. The extensive granite rock 

outcrops, boulder piles, desert mountain ranges, 

and canyons create a world-class destination for 

rock climbers, as well as hundreds of miles of 

scenic trails for hikers and equestrians (See Map 

1-1: Joshua Tree National Park).

Joshua Tree National Park lies along the eastwest transverse ranges of the Little San 

Bernardino Mountains in southern California. 

The southern boundary of the park follows the 

base of these mountains along the northern edge 

of the Coachella Valley; the northern boundary 

is defined by the Morongo Basin. Ecologically, 

Joshua Tree National Park lies at the 

convergence of two deserts—two large 

ecosystems whose characteristics are 

determined primarily by elevation and rainfall 

patterns. Below 3,000 feet, the Colorado Desert 

encompasses the eastern part of the park and 

features natural gardens of creosote bush, 

ocotillo, and cholla cactus. The special habitat of 

the Joshua tree is found in the higher, moister, 

and slightly cooler Mojave Desert. In addition to 

Joshua tree forests, the western part of the park 

also includes some of the most interesting 

geologic displays found in California’s deserts. 

Given its location along a transition zone 

between two desert ecosystems, the park is 

home to a fascinating diversity of desert plants 

and animals. There are more than 750 species of 

vascular plants. The park includes five fan palm 

oases, which are the few areas where surface 

water occurs naturally. The oases also support 

vegetation and wildlife distinct from other 

species found in the park. The park as a whole 

hosts a high diversity of fauna, including 250 

species of birds, and many unique reptiles, 

amphibians, mammals, and invertebrates. Some 

examples include the desert tortoise, the 

California tree frog, the desert bighorn sheep, 

and a species of tarantula that is found only in 

the Joshua tree ecosystem. 

Joshua Tree National Park includes a rich and 

diverse cultural history. Human occupation 

dates to at least the early Holocene period, with 

what is known as Pinto culture (7,000–10,000 

years ago); human occupation continued 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

3 

throughout the Holocene into the historical era 

with tribes known today as Cahuilla, 

Chemehuevi, Mojave, and Serrano. The park 

preserves thousands of sites and materials 

associated with these four overlapping 

ethnographic native cultures. In the late 19th 

century, European American surveyors, 

cattlemen, miners, and homesteaders began to 

arrive and, alongside native peoples, created a 

set of enduring social and cultural legacies for 

these lands. Historic sites preserve information 

on the history of the processing of gold ore, 

cattle ranching, rustling, World War II military 

training grounds, and homesteading of the 

southwestern deserts. 

Historic mine site at Joshua Tree National Park. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

4

Map 1-1: Joshua Tree NaƟ onal Park

Joshua Tree National Park, View of Eagle Mountains from Pinto Basin.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

5 

Brief History of the Park Boundary 

This section provides a history of Joshua Tree 

National Park’s boundary over time. See Map 1-

2: Park Boundary History for an illustration of 

the park’s boundary from 1936 through 1994. 

Full descriptions of relevant legislative actions 

and presidential proclamations are included in 

Appendix A: Presidential Proclamation and 

Legislative Acts for Joshua Tree National Park.

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

established Joshua Tree National Monument as 

a unit of the national park system (Proclamation 

No. 2193, 50 Stat. 1760, (August 10, 1936). The 

national monument included 825,340 acres of 

land, some of which remained in private 

ownership, including patented mining claims in 

the Eagle Mountain area. Establishment of the 

monument withdrew the lands from future 

mineral entry, which meant that no new mining 

claims could be established. Mining advocates 

concerned with the closure of the monument to 

new claims requested legislation to allow mining 

within the monument in December 1936 causing 

the NPS to evaluate the 1936 monument 

boundaries (Dilsaver 2015). 

Meanwhile, shortly after the monument was 

established, United States involvement in World 

War II created new demand for steel. In 1942, 

Kaiser Steel Corporation (Kaiser) opened the 

west coast’s first financially successful, largescale, fully-integrated steel mill in Fontana, 

California. Industrialist Henry J. Kaiser, whose 

industries developed several ship building yards 

to supply the war effort, had submitted previous 

proposals to open a west coast steel mill prior 

United States involvement in World War II. But 

it was the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 

1941 and subsequent U.S. involvement that 

ultimately led to federal approval and financing 

for construction of the steel mill in 1942. The 

Fontana steel mill was initially supplied with 

iron ore from the Vulcan Mine near Kelso in the 

Mojave Desert (Dias 1995). In 1943, the U.S. 

Bureau of Mines estimated that vast resources, 

possibly more than 3,000,000 tons of iron ore, 

Map 1-2: Park Boundary History
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

6 

existed at the Iron Chief Mine in the Eagle 

Mountains. Kaiser purchased the patented lands 

associated with the Iron Chief Mine in 1944. 

Iron ore reserves at the Vulcan Mine declined in 

the late 1940s while production of iron ore on 

the patented lands at Eagle Mountain 

commenced in 1948 under a conditional use 

permit with the National Park Service (Dilsaver 

2015). 

In response to pressure from the mining 

community to open park lands to new claims, 

the demand for mineral resources that grew 

during World War II, and with an eye to a 

potential new war with Korea, Congress 

removed substantial portions of the national 

monument in 1950, including the Eagle 

Mountain area (Dilsaver 2015). The 1950 

legislation (Act of Sept. 25, 1950, Pub.L. 81-837, 

64 Stat. 1033) reduced the size of the monument 

to 557,934 acres, excluding mineral rich areas in 

the north and southeast. Federal lands removed 

from the monument were transferred to the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for 

administration. 

To further support the Kaiser Steel 

Corporation’s (Kaiser) mining activities, 

Congress enacted a private law in 1952 

transferring, 460 acres of federal land in the 

Eagle Mountain area to Kaiser for purposes of 

establishing a mining camp or Townsite to house 

its employees and for other related needs, Act of 

July 8, 1952 (Priv. L. No. 790, 66 Stat. A130). The 

same Act also granted a 200-foot wide right-ofway to Kaiser across BLM-managed federal land 

for a railroad to haul iron ore from the mine the 

mill in Fontana, California. Private Law 790 

included a reversionary clause which provided 

that in the event the Townsite or railroad were 

not used for mill site or other incidental 

purposes related to mining for a continuous 

period of seven years, the properties would 

revert in fee to the United States. As a result of 

economic factors and international competition, 

Kaiser ceased active operation of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine by 1983. The reversionary 

interest in the Eagle Mountain Townsite and 

railroad, which had been conveyed to Kaiser as 

part of a BLM land exchange in 1999 was 

returned to the United States when the federal 

court approved the final judgment and order 

ending the landfill litigation in 2014. 

Subsequent designations and boundary 

adjustments. Congress designated 429,690 

acres of the monument as wilderness and 37,550 

acres as potential wilderness in 1976. In 1984, 

the monument was designated as part of a 

biosphere reserve system. In 1994, the California 

Desert Protection Act added 234,000 acres 

(including 163,000 acres of new wilderness) to 

the park, and re-designated the area as Joshua 

Tree National Park. Through the California 

Desert Protection Act, Congress expressly found 

that "the monument boundaries as modified in 

1950 and 1961 exclude and thereby expose to 

incompatible development and inconsistent 

management, contiguous Federal lands of 

essential and superlative natural, ecological, 

archeological, paleontological, cultural, 

historical, and wilderness values." 

Congressional testimony on the California 

Desert Protection Act indicates that the Eagle 

Mountain area was specifically excluded 

because of proposals to site a solid waste landfill 

in the area at the time the legislation was enacted 

(House Committee on Natural Resources 

Report 103-498, at 3606). Today, the park 

boundary currently contains over 770,000 acres 

in federal ownership and approximately 20,000 

acres of nonfederal lands. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

7 

Park Foundation Document 

Every unit of the national park system has a 

foundational document to provide basic 

guidance for planning and management 

decisions. Core components of a foundation 

document include park purpose, significance 

statements, and fundamental resources and 

values. Because these components are essential, 

defining elements for park management, they 

typically do not change over time. 

The purpose statement for Joshua Tree National 

Park is based on the park’s enabling legislation 

and related legislative history. Appendix A: 

Presidential Proclamation and Legislative Acts for 

Joshua Tree National Park includes the 

Presidential Proclamation that established 

Joshua Tree National Monument in 1936 and 

subsequent legislative acts related to the purpose 

of Joshua Tree National Park, including the 

section of the California Desert Protection Act 

of 1994 that designated the area a national park. 

Park Purpose 

The purpose of Joshua Tree National Park is to 

preserve and protect the scenic, natural, and 

cultural resources representative of the Colorado 

and Mojave deserts’ rich biological and geological 

diversity, cultural history, wilderness, recreational 

values, and outstanding opportunities for 

education and scientific study. 

Park Significance 

Significance statements express why a park’s 

resources and values are important enough to 

merit designation as a unit of the national park 

system. The following significance statements 

were identified for the park: 

 Joshua Tree National Park preserves a 

world-renowned, undisturbed 

population of Joshua trees (Yucca 

brevifolia), an integral component of the 

Mojave Desert ecosystem. 

 Outstanding examples of Mojave and 

Colorado Desert landscapes that 

converge at Joshua Tree National Park 

create a biologically rich system of plant 

and animal life characterized by iconic 

Joshua tree woodlands, native palm 

oases, and vast expanses of creosote 

scrub that are uniquely adapted to 

desert conditions. The park also 

contributes significantly to the 

connectivity of open lands and large 

protected areas across the California 

desert. 

 Joshua Tree National Park provides 

accessible and diverse opportunities in a 

remote desert to large and burgeoning 

urban populations. 

 Joshua Tree National Park preserves a 

rich array of prehistoric, historic, and 

contemporary resources that 

demonstrate the integral connection 

between desert ecosystems, land use, 

and human cultures. 

 Joshua Tree National Park lies along one 

of the world’s most active earthquake 

faults, the San Andreas Fault. Geologic 

processes, including tectonic activity, 

have played and continue to play a 

major role in shaping the mountains, 

valleys, and basins of the park. 

 Joshua Tree National Park offers 

unparalleled opportunities for research 

of arid land ecosystems and processes, 

adaptations of and to desert life, 

sustainability, and indications of climate 

change. The proximity of the park to 

urban regions of Southern California 

and Nevada enhances its value for 

scientific research and education. 

 Huge, eroded monzogranite boulder 

formations are world-renowned natural 

features that provide unique aesthetic, 

educational, and recreational 

opportunities for Joshua Tree National 

Park visitors. 

 Geologic, climatic, and ecological 

processes create scenic landscapes 

unique to deserts and fundamental to 

the character of Joshua Tree National 

Park. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

8 

Fundamental Resources and Values 

Fundamental resources and values help focus 

planning and management efforts on what is 

truly significant about a park. One of the most 

important responsibilities of NPS managers is to 

ensure the conservation and public enjoyment 

of those qualities that are essential 

(fundamental) to achieving the purpose of the 

park and maintaining its significance. If 

fundamental resources and values are allowed to 

deteriorate, the park purpose and/or 

significance could be jeopardized. 

The following fundamental resources and values 

have been identified for Joshua Tree National 

Park: 

 Oases and other riparian areas 

 Habitat for the desert tortoise 

 Interconnectivity of California desert 

lands 

 Biological diversity and healthy 

ecosystem function 

 Wilderness values and wilderness 

accessibility 

 Recreational opportunities and values 

 Night sky 

 Clean and breathable air 

 Natural quiet (soundscape) 

 Prehistoric sites and ethnographic 

resources relating to American Indian 

inhabitants, including the type site for 

Early Pinto culture 

 Historic and ethnographic resources 

related to European American 

inhabitants 

 History of the desert preservation 

movement 

 Museum collections of archives, natural 

history specimens, and archaeological 

artifacts, including the Campbell 

Collection 

 Geological resources 

 Hydrological resources 

 Desert landforms 

 Ever-expanding knowledge base 

 Opportunity to understand, apply, and 

share this knowledge to benefit the park 

and beyond 

 Recreational activities centered around 

the boulders and rock formations 

 Viewsheds 

 Access to scenic vistas 

 Visibility 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

9 

Study Area Description 

The study area includes approximately 31,500 

acres of land in the Eagle Mountains and 

Chuckwalla Valley (See Map 1-3: Study Area; 

photos of the study area are depicted on page 11). 

Located in Riverside County, California, the 

study area is bounded to the south, west, and 

north by Joshua Tree National Park. The eastern 

border of the study area is defined by the 

Colorado River Aqueduct, which roughly 

formed the original park boundary established 

in 1936. The study area is located approximately 

ten miles north of Interstate 10. Primary access is 

through the town of Desert Center via Kaiser 

Road or through the park via Black Eagle Mine 

Road. 

The majority of the study area (over 23,000 

acres) is federally owned land managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These 

lands are largely undisturbed and are adjacent to 

national park lands. Visitor use is sparse and 

primary recreational consisting of 

rockhounding, off-highway vehicle use, 

shooting, backcountry camping, and hiking. 

Mining occurs on several unpatented mining 

claims. Recently, through the Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use 

Amendment, BLM proposed to designate 

portions of the study area as national 

conservation lands or areas of critical 

environmental concern, in recognition of the 

nationally significant resource values of the area. 

Approximately 5,000 acres of land in the study 

area is in private ownership. Almost all of the 

private land is owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, 

LLC (KEM) a subsidiary of the Eagle Crest 

Energy Company (Eagle Crest) which purchased 

KEM and its assets from CIL&D, LLC (formerly 

known as Kaiser Ventures) in June 2015. 

CIL&D, through a subsidiary (Eagle Mountain 

Mining and Railroad Company, LLC or 

EMMR), has retained the railroad right-of-way 

assets and the right to sell above-ground iron ore 

tailings and rock from the property. This 

includes the extraction of rock and fine tailings 

from the waste rock piles remaining from 

previous mining activity but does not include 

any new extractive mining. The mining lease is 

for a term of 40 years, which is subject to 

extensions up to 100 years, if certain conditions 

are met. The KEM lands bisect the federal lands 

along an east-west corridor. They are comprised 

of the Eagle Mountain Townsite lands and other 

features associated with the Eagle Mountain 

Mine. The Eagle Mountain Townsite was a once 

a bustling community created for mine workers 

and their families. When the mine ceased fullscale operations in 1983, most residents moved 

elsewhere leaving structures primarily vacant. 

State and local agencies also own and/or manage 

land within the study area. The Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California owns 

lands along the eastern boundary of the study 

area (approximately 2,800 acres) for purposes of 

managing the extensive Colorado River 

Aqueduct which supplies a significant amount of 

water to the greater Los Angeles metropolitan 

region. The study area also contains lands 

managed by the Desert Center Unified School 

District, which operates a school in the area. The 

State of California owns approximately 340 acres 

of State School Lands. Managed by the 

California State Lands Commission, the State 

School Lands were granted to California by 

Congress in 1853 to benefit public education. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 1-3: Study Area 

10
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

The Colorado River Aqueduct forms the eastern 

boundary of the study area. Photo by Ecofl ight, 2011.

Homes at the Eagle Mountain Townsite.

Federal lands administered by the BLM make up most of lands in the the study area (~ 7 3 % ). Photo taken from Black Eagle Mine 

Road.

Aerial view of the Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite with the undeveloped Eagle Mountains in the background. Photo by 

Ecofl ight, 2011.

11
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

12 

Proposed Action 

For this environmental assessment, the 

proposed action is a 25,070-acre expansion of 

Joshua Tree National Park in the Eagle 

Mountain area, including the possible 

withdrawal and transfer of administrative 

jurisdiction of 22,515 acres of federal lands from 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the 

National Park Service (NPS). 

Purpose and Need 

Purpose 

This study evaluates the potential addition of 

approximately 31,500 acres of land in the Eagle 

Mountain area to Joshua Tree National Park in 

order to (a) protect important natural and 

cultural resources associated with the primary 

purpose of the park, and (b) address other park 

management issues. The study was initiated at 

the request of the Director of the National Park 

Service. Lands under evaluation in the study 

have been the subject of numerous development 

proposals that have the potential to impact park 

resources. Congressman Raul Ruiz (CA-36) 

formally requested that NPS complete a 

boundary study for the Eagle Mountain area in 

April 2015 so that ongoing decisions about the 

future of the area would be informed by a 

determination of whether the resources in the 

area are of national park value. 

Through this study, the NPS examines the 

feasibility and appropriateness of adding all or 

portions of the study area lands to the national 

park boundary. The boundary study also 

includes an environmental assessment (EA) that 

will serve as the environmental analysis under 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) required for park boundary adjustment 

considerations. The EA has been prepared in 

accordance with NEPA and NPS Director’s 

Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making.

This document further serves as the required 

environmental analysis for the possible 

withdrawal and subsequent transfer of 

approximately 22,515 acres of federal lands 

managed by the BLM to the NPS as authorized 

by provisions of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act1

 and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act2 (FLPMA). 

The NPS has requested the withdrawal of public 

lands within the study area (approximately 

22,515 acres managed by the BLM) for 20 years 

from settlement, sale, location, and entry under 

the public land laws, including the United States 

mining laws, and leasing or other disposition 

under mineral or geothermal leasing laws. These 

public lands are adjacent to the national park. 

The purpose of the withdrawal is to complete an 

administrative transfer of the identified public 

lands from the BLM to the NPS in accordance 

with 54 U.S.C. 100506(c)(1)(B) for 

administration as part of Joshua Tree National 

Park. 

To initiate this process, lands described in the 

withdrawal application would be segregated (i.e., 

restricted) from further disposition under 

various public land laws The segregation would 

remain in effect for a period of two years from 

the date of publication of a notice of the 

withdrawal proposal in the Federal Register. 

During this two-year period, proposed new land 

uses under the FLPMA would have to take into 

consideration any potential effects on NPS 

resource values. The segregation would prevent 

the location of new mining claims or disposal of 

the lands under the public land laws pending 

final action on the withdrawal proposal. 

Additionally, the segregative period allows for 

the petitioning agency (here, NPS) to conduct 

 

1

 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

authorizes NPS to accept an administrative transfer of 

lands from another federal agency for inclusion with 

an adjacent national park unit. See 54 U.S.C. § 

100506(c)(1)(B) (formerly found at 16 U.S.C. § 460l9(c)(1)(ii)). 

2 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

authorizes the Secretary to transfer jurisdiction over 

federal lands. See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1702(j), 1714 and 43 

C.F.R. § 2310.1-2. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

13 

required studies to inform the decision. This 

study is designed to meet those requirements. 

Licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, or 

other discretionary land use authorizations, 

including those related to the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (FERC 

Project No. 13123-002), may be issued by the 

BLM during the temporary segregative period, 

after coordination with the National Park 

Service to ensure protection and consideration 

of national park values. 

Appendix B: Studies and Reports Required by 43 

CFR 2310.3.2 (Segregation and Withdrawal 

Application) contains additional information 

about the segregation and withdrawal 

application and the components of this study 

that meet the requirements of 43 CFR Part 2300, 

subpart 2310, which outlines the requirements 

of the withdrawal process. 

Thus the purpose of this study and 

environmental assessment is to evaluate the 

suitability of the project area land for inclusion 

in Joshua Tree National Park. 

Need 

The cumulative and synergistic effect of changes 

in land use to the region as a result of energy 

development, urbanization, and the effects of 

climate change have the potential to dramatically 

impact the protection of biodiversity within 

Joshua Tree National Park (Hansen et. al. 2014). 

In recent years the California desert has become 

an important location for renewable energy 

facilities. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth 

Salazar signed Secretarial Order No. 3285 in 

March 2009 making renewable energy 

production a top priority for the Department of 

the Interior and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The State of California has 

enacted renewable resource goals to increase the 

percentage of renewable energy generation to 50 

percent by 2030. 

In an effort to meet both state and national goals 

for renewable energy, a large number of 

renewable energy projects have been approved 

and more are proposed on BLM-managed land, 

State-owned land, and private land in the 

California desert. Map 1-4: Regional 

Development Projects depicts existing and 

proposed renewable energy projects near the 

study area. Within the study area LH 

Renewables submitted an application to BLM to 

conduct testing for a 2,700-acre wind farm in the 

southeastern corner of the study area. This 

application was still pending as of December 

2015. Two miles west of the study area is one of 

the world’s largest photovoltaic solar power 

farms. The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm spans 

3,800 acres of land managed by the BLM. The 

Riverside East Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), located 

just four miles southeast of the study area 

encompasses 147,915 developable acres of 

BLM-administered lands within the Chuckwalla 

Valley, the southern portion of Palen Dry Lake, 

and Palo Verde Mesa. This area is visible from 

several points within Joshua Tree National Park 

(BLM 2015a). 

Another development project in the study area 

has been proposed by Eagle Crest Energy 

Company (Eagle Crest). Eagle Crest’s Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project (pumped storage hydroelectric project) 

received a 50-year license from the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in June 

2014 (Project No. 13123-002). If constructed, 

the project will occupy 1,150 acres of public land 

(approximately 620 acres within the study area) 

and 1,377 acres of private land (approximately 

1,050 within the study area). The public lands 

needed for the central portion of the pumped 

storage hydroelectric project were previously 

withdrawn from the operation of the public 

lands laws pursuant to the Federal Power Act. 

The pumped storage hydroelectric project will 

store energy from solar, wind and geothermal 

power plants for release during times of peak 

demand and to maintain the stability of the 

electrical grid. Two of the four existing mine pits 

at the Eagle Mountain Mine will serve as 

reservoirs to transfer water back and forth 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

14 

through an underground turbine system, 

producing up to 1,300 megawatts of electricity. 

The project foot print and associated rights-ofway span wildlife corridors that are linked to 

habitat in the surrounding park lands. 

The Eagle Mountain area remains a key building 

block for landscape-scale conservation in the 

California desert. Inclusion of the study area in 

the national park boundary could help to 

achieve landscape-scale conservation objectives 

for the unique California desert region. In 

addition, the study area: 1) contains areas 

important for maintaining wilderness values, 

biodiversity, and other natural values within 

Joshua Tree National Park; 2) includes cultural 

resources that expand on cultural themes 

interpreted at the national park; and 3)offers 

new opportunities for public enjoyment. 

The boundary study is needed for the following 

reasons: 

 Formerly included within the boundary 

of Joshua Tree National Monument 

when established in 1936, the area of 

study is bounded on three sides by 

national park lands, including the most 

pristine wilderness areas of the park. 

Values include dark night skies, high air 

quality, and natural quiet, all of which 

could be affected by proposed future 

uses of the area. 

 Regional development projects, 

urbanization, and the effects of climate 

change will pose additional challenges 

to maintaining park biodiversity. 

Although some portions of the study 

area have been developed and altered to 

support the area’s former mining 

operations, the majority of the study 

area lands (roughly 80%) are primarily 

undeveloped, containing regionally 

important habitat and migration 

corridors for rare and threatened 

wildlife that inhabit Joshua Tree 

National Park. In addition, some 

natural recovery of the area has begun in 

areas that were previously mined. 

Landscape-scale conservation 

approaches that include opportunities 

to protect regional wildlife corridors 

will be an important component in 

addressing threats to park biodiversity. 

 Future use and development of study 

area lands could affect important water 

resources within the park. Joshua Tree 

National Park’s aquifers and springs are 

connected underground to aquifers in 

the Eagle Mountain area. 

 The study area contains historic 

resources such as the Eagle Mountain 

Mine and Townsite which may provide 

opportunities to expand the mining 

history currently interpreted in Joshua 

Tree National Park. Other historic 

resources include features related to the 

development of the Colorado River 

Aqueduct and portions of General 

Patton’s extensive World War II Desert 

Training Center. There is also high 

potential for discovery of archeological 

resources related to the area’s long 

history of human use. 

 The study area provides opportunities 

to expand public enjoyment at Joshua 

Tree National Park. In addition to the 

area’s interpretive value, visitor 

opportunities include improved access 

to some of the most remote areas of the 

park, and the potential for introducing 

new recreational opportunities. 

 Administratively, the site’s proximity to 

Interstate 10 could improve NPS access 

to the southeastern end of the park, 

providing park resource managers with 

new avenues to monitor and study 

resources in these areas. 

There is a need to protect the area from further 

mineral exploration and development to 

prevent the loss resources and public enjoyment 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

15 

opportunities related to the purpose of Joshua 

Tree National Park. The purpose of the possible 

withdrawal is to protect this area from 

settlement, sale, location, and entry under the 

public land laws, including the United States 

mining laws, and leasing or other disposition 

under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

By regulation, withdrawals are subject to a 20-

year timeframe, after which, the withdrawal 

would terminate unless an application for and 

extension of this withdrawal is submitted and 

approved. The withdrawal would also terminate 

once an administrative transfer of the identified 

public lands from the BLM to the NPS in 

accordance with 54 U.S.C. 100506(c)(1)(B) is 

completed. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 1-4: Regional Development Projects

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, located approximately two miles east of the study area, spans 3 ,800 aces in the Chuckwalla 

Valley.

16
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

17 

Boundary Study Criteria 

This boundary study examines the cultural, 

historic, and natural significance of the study 

area properties to determine how they 

contribute to the purpose of Joshua Tree 

National Park. The NPS will evaluate the 

properties under consideration according to 

criteria set forth originally in the 1991 NPS 

Boundary Criteria document (NPS 1991b) and 

clarified in Section 3.5 of the NPS Management 

Policies 2006 (NPS 2006). For a property to be 

included in a boundary expansion, at least one 

of three criteria must be met. 

The inclusion of the property must: 

 protect significant resources and values, 

or enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purposes; 

 address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or the 

need for boundaries to correspond to 

logical boundary delineations such as 

topographic features or roads; or 

 otherwise protect park resources that 

are critical to fulfilling park purposes 

(NPS 2006). 

Those lands found suitable under the foregoing 

criteria must further meet the following two 

requirements: 

 The added lands will be feasible to 

administer, considering size, 

configuration, and ownership; costs; the 

views of and impacts on local 

communities and surrounding 

jurisdictions; and other factors such as 

the presence of structures, hazardous 

substances, or nonnative species. 

 Other alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not adequate 

(NPS 2006). 

Elements of the Boundary Study 

In evaluating properties for possible inclusion 

within the park’s boundary, the NPS used the 

following steps: 

 Delineation of a study area to identify 

the extent of possible properties to 

include in the study; 

 Evaluation of those properties for 

history, ownership, and potential to 

complement the purpose of the park; 

 Application of the boundary criteria to 

potential addition lands; 

 Development of alternatives; 

 Assessment of the impacts of each 

alternative (including a no action 

alternative) on cultural, natural, and 

socioeconomic resources; 

 Analysis of impacts of the expansion 

related to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects in the area. 

New legislation for the area’s federal lands is not 

needed to transfer administrative jurisdiction of 

the area’s federal lands from the BLM to the 

NPS. This transfer can be accomplished within 

the Secretary of the Interior’s existing legal 

authorities. However, boundary expansion 

proposals for lands not in federal ownership 

may require authorization by the United States 

Congress. Following authorization of a 

boundary adjustment, the implementation of 

actions related to expansion of lands within the 

park boundary will depend on future funding 

and NPS priorities. The approval of a boundary 

adjustment does not necessarily guarantee that 

funding and staffing needed for implementation 

would be forthcoming. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

18 

Study Process 

Scoping 

Scoping for this study included both internal 

and public scoping. Internal scoping was 

conducted with staff from the Joshua Tree 

National Park, the National Park Service (NPS) 

Pacific West Regional Office, and other 

members of the project team, and included a site 

visit to the study area. In July 2015, the NPS 

initiated public scoping. The public comment 

period occurred from July 13, 2015 to August 21, 

2015. On July 13, the NPS sent out a public 

scoping newsletter to over 160 individuals, 

organizations, and agencies. Newsletters were 

also distributed at local public meetings and at 

park visitor centers. The newsletter included an 

overview of the study process, preliminary 

findings, and a range of boundary adjustment 

options for consideration in the study. The 

newsletter was posted for comment on the NPS’ 

Planning, Environment and Public Comment 

(PEPC) website: 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/eaglemountain. A 

press release announcing the start of public 

scoping and the public meeting schedule was 

sent to media outlets, and several articles were 

published on both the study and public 

meetings. On July 16, 2015, the study team 

provided a briefing for agencies that manage 

land and resources in the study area. 

Preliminary options presented during public 

scoping included: 

 Continuation of current management 

(no action). No portions of the study 

area would be considered for inclusion 

in Joshua Tree National Park. 

 Federal Agency-to-Agency Land 

Transfer (~22,500 acres). This option 

would explore a transfer of federal lands 

under management by the BLM to the 

NPS to be managed as part of Joshua 

Tree National Park. 

 Agency Transfer with Enhanced 

Habitat Connectivity and Recreation 

(~24,800 acres). This option would 

consider a transfer of BLM-managed 

public lands to the NPS, as well as 

inclusion of former Eagle Mountain 

Mine lands in the western end of the 

study area. Acquisition of any nonfederal lands would be accomplished 

through purchase from willing sellers or 

by donation only. 

 Restore 1936 Boundary to Provide 

Diverse Visitor and Resource 

Protection Opportunities (~28,000 

acres). This option would explore 

including most of the lands in the study 

area within Joshua Tree National Park. 

Acquisition of any non-federal lands 

would be accomplished through 

purchase from willing sellers or by 

donation only. 

Public Involvement 

The study team conducted four public meetings 

during the scoping period, including one online 

meeting (July 29, 2015) and three meetings in the 

vicinity of Joshua Tree National Park held 

August 4-6, 2015 (Desert Center, Joshua Tree, 

and Palm Desert). Meetings were well attended 

(230 total attendance), with the greatest 

participation in Joshua Tree, California (150 

attending). At each meeting, the study team 

presented the preliminary findings and a range 

of boundary adjustment options. Participants 

were able to ask questions and provide 

comments on the study, which were recorded 

on flipcharts by NPS staff. NPS also took notes 

of comments and questions during the online 

meeting. Attendees were provided information 

about how to submit comments electronically 

and through the mail. The NPS received 

approximately 11,000 comment letters during 

the comment period from many individuals, 

diverse groups and organizations, local 

businesses, tribal organizations, and two letterwriting campaigns. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

19 

Issues and Concerns Identified During Public 

Scoping 

NEPA regulations require an “early and open 

process for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and for identifying the significant 

issues related to a proposed action.” To 

determine the scope of issues to be analyzed in 

depth within this boundary study / EA, meetings 

were conducted with NPS staff, interested 

stakeholders, and members of the public. 

The public scoping comments covered a broad 

range of topics. The majority of the comments 

were either directly related to the preliminary 

options or to the primary topics of mineral 

interests and rights, legislative history, 

documentation of various resource types 

associated with the study area, and 

recommendations for topics to be addressed in 

the environmental analysis. Most comments 

supported the NPS management of resources in 

the study area and the fourth option, which 

explored adding most of the lands in the study 

area to Joshua Tree National Park (Restore 1936 

Boundary to Provide Diverse Visitor and Resource 

Protection Opportunities). Other comments 

preferred no action citing concerns that NPS 

management would generally restrict access and 

activities such as placer mining. 

Primary areas of concern included: 

 Cumulative Effects of Development 

and Energy Projects. Many 

commenters expressed concern about 

the cumulative effects of renewable 

energy and other development projects 

on resources in Joshua Tree National 

Park. Comments expressed concern 

about the potential effects of the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project planned for the 

area, particularly with regard to the 

impact on local groundwater supplies 

and wildlife. 

 Impacts to Access and Recreational 

Use. Concerns were raised that National 

Park Service management would restrict 

existing recreational uses of the area. 

Some users were specifically concerned 

about restrictions of off-road vehicle use 

and that access in general might be 

restricted under NPS management. 

 Impacts to Mining Activity. Of 

particular concern was the potential 

impact on mining club members which 

maintain several unpatented claims on 

BLM-managed public lands in the area. 

Miners were concerned that the 

expense of conducting validity exams on 

their mining claims to resolve whether 

they retain a valid existing right would 

be prohibitive. 

 Mineral Resource Potential. A few 

commenters expressed concern that the 

mineral resources of the area would 

become unavailable for use if the lands 

were added to Joshua Tree National 

Park. 

 Information to Consider for the 

Environmental Analysis. The 

following topics were suggested for 

documentation and evaluation in the 

environmental analysis: cumulative 

impacts from regional development 

projects, effects on water 

resources/supplies, wildlife protection 

and regional habitat connectivity, 

mining history, mineral rights, mineral 

resources, effects on current 

recreational users, ethnographic 

resources and values, historic and 

archeological sites, paleontological 

resources, night sky, effects on 

wilderness and viewsheds, hazardous 

materials that may be present as result of 

previous mining activities, costs and 

financial feasibility of NPS management, 

socioeconomic impacts, and 

transmission lines and other 

infrastructure. 

 Agency Consultation. Commenters 

suggested that the NPS work closely 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

20 

with the BLM on the study, with 

particular regard to how the Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan will 

affect management and protection of 

the study area. See discussion of this 

plan in the section to follow, Applicable 

Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive 

Orders, Plans, and Policies. 

 Tribal Consultation: The NPS received 

comments from several tribal 

organizations with cultural ties to the 

area that offered information and 

requested consultation with NPS under 

the Section 106 process of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

 Reversionary Interest in the Eagle 

Mountain Townsite. Many 

commenters had questions about 

whether the legislative actions that 

removed lands from Joshua Tree 

National Monument in 1950 and 

granted Kaiser Steel Corporation use of 

land for a Townsite contained 

provisions for returning that land to the 

federal government when such mining 

activities ceased. 

 Other Information. Comments 

provided additional sources of 

information for the NPS to consider in 

the study process. 

The issues and concerns identified during 

scoping were grouped into impact topics that are 

analyzed in Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences. 

Applicable Federal Laws, 

Regulations, Executive Orders, 

Plans, and Policies 

The NPS is governed by laws, regulations, and 

management plans before, during, and following 

any management action related to the developed 

NEPA document. The following are those 

applicable to the proposed action. 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 

The Archeological Resources Protection Act was 

enacted in 1979 and recognizes that 

archeological resources on federal and Indian 

lands represent an accessible and irreplaceable 

part of the heritage of the United States, and that 

many of these resources are endangered because 

of their commercial attraction. The act provides 

protection for archeological resources on 

federal lands and provides for a permitting 

system for all types of archeological 

investigations including survey and excavation. 

Excavation without permits or in violation of 

permit conditions is punishable by federal law. 

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended 

The General Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as 

amended (30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54 and §§ 611-615) is 

the major federal law governing locatable 

minerals. This law allows citizens of the United 

States the opportunity to explore for, discover, 

and purchase certain valuable mineral deposits 

on federal lands that are open for mining claim 

location and patent (open to mineral entry). 

These mineral deposits include most metallic 

mineral deposits and certain nonmetallic and 

industrial minerals. The law sets general 

standards and guidelines for claiming the 

possessory right to a valuable mineral deposit 

discovered during exploration. The General 

Mining Law, as amended, allows for the 

enactment of state laws governing location and 

recording of mining claims and sites that are 

consistent with federal law. Federal regulations 

pertaining to establishing a claim are found at 43 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

21 

CFR 3830. Surface management of mining 

activities is defined by 43 CFR 3715 and 3809. 

Mining in the Parks Act of 1976 

To prevent or minimize the damage caused by 

activities on mining claims in the National Park 

System, Congress enacted the Mining in the 

Parks Act in 1976 (54 U.S.C. §§ 100731-100737). 

The Act: 

 closed all units to claim location, 

including the last six units of the System 

that had remained open to claim 

location (Crater Lake National 

Monument, Mt. McKinley National 

Monument, Glacier Bay National Park, 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 

Death Valley National Monument and 

Coronado National Monument); 

 directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

determine the validity of unpatented 

claims; and 

 directed the Secretary to regulate all 

mineral activity within all National Park 

System units in connection with mineral 

rights on valid unpatented and patented 

claims. 

To implement the Act, the NPS issued 

regulations at 36 C.F.R. Part 9, Subpart A (36 

C.F.R. Part 9A) in 1977. These regulations are 

applicable to all mineral activities in park units 

related to unpatented and patented mining 

claims, and make all mining claim operations in 

parks contingent on NPS approval of a plan of 

operations. The 36 C.F.R. Part 9A regulations 

do not apply to non-mineral activity on patented 

claims. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as Amended 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

was passed by Congress in 1969 and took effect 

on January 1, 1970. This legislation established 

this country’s environmental policies, including 

the goal of achieving productive harmony 

between human beings and the physical 

environment for present and future generations. 

It provided the tools to implement these goals by 

requiring that every federal agency prepare an 

in-depth study of the impacts of “major federal 

actions having a significant effect on the 

environment” and alternatives to those actions. 

It also required that each agency make that 

information an integral part of its decisions. 

NEPA also requires that agencies make a diligent 

effort to involve the interested and affected 

public before they make decisions affecting the 

environment. 

Besides setting environmental planning policy 

goals, NEPA created the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ), an agency of the 

president’s office, to oversee the implementation 

of NEPA. CEQ published NEPA regulations in 

1978 (40 CFR 1500–1508). These regulations 

apply to all federal agencies, and in them, CEQ 

requires each federal agency to “implement 

procedures to make the NEPA process more 

useful to agency decision-makers and the 

public” (40 CFR 1500.2). Agencies are to review 

and update these regulations as necessary. The 

NPS has in turn adopted procedures to comply 

with the act and CEQ regulations, as found in 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking, and the revised NPS NEPA Handbook 

(2015). The Department of the Interior’s NEPA 

regulations, found in 43 CFR Part 46, also apply 

to this EA. 

National Historic Preservation Act, as 

Amended (16 USC 470) 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended (NHPA), protects buildings, sites, 

districts, structures, and objects that have 

significant scientific, historic, or cultural value. 

The act established affirmative responsibilities of 

federal agencies to preserve historic and 

prehistoric resources. Effects on properties that 

are listed in or are eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places must be 

taken into account in planning and operations. 

Any properties that may qualify for listing in the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

22 

National Register of Historic Places must not be 

transferred, sold, demolished, substantially 

altered, or allowed to deteriorate except under 

conditions that ensure their continued 

preservation and meet the requirements in 36 

CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act 

Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on 

properties listed in or eligible for listing in the 

National Register and to afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. The 

historic preservation review process mandated 

by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued 

by ACHP. 

By the terms of the 2008 Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 

Compliance between NPS, ACHP, and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers: “The Streamlined Review 

Process may be used for the acquisition of land 

for park purposes, including additions to 

existing parks.” The second criterion for use of 

the Streamlined Review Process (identification 

and evaluation of all types of historic properties 

within the project area of potential effect (APE); 

see Section III.A.2) does not apply to this 

activity, provided the acquisition does not 

include any further treatment or alteration of 

properties, since access to land for inventory 

and evaluation prior to NPS acquisition may be 

limited. Any known or potential historic 

properties on the land acquired should be 

protected from demolition by neglect. Pursuant 

to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(vi), demolition by neglect 

constitutes an adverse effect. If any undertakings 

proposed in conjunction with an acquisition 

have the potential to affect historic properties, 

the Streamlined Review Process may not be 

used. Streamlined review means that no State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

consultation is required. 

The preferred alternative in this study would 

authorize the NPS to acquire from willing 

donors or sellers all tracts within the study area 

that meet NPS’ boundary adjustment criteria 

(see Chapter 3: Alternatives for discussion of the 

alternatives considered in this study). The 

preferred alternative does not make any 

treatment recommendations for any historic 

properties that may be located on lands within 

the expansion area. Any treatment 

recommendations for historic properties would 

be developed at a later date in consultation with 

the California SHPO. Accordingly, the 

streamlined Section 106 review process has been 

used in this study. 

NPS Organic Act 

Originally enacted in 1916, the National Park 

Service Organic Act (Organic Act) applies to all 

units of the National Park System (System units) 

and directs the NPS “to conserve the scenery, 

natural and historic objects, and wild life in 

System units and to provide for the enjoyment of 

the scenery, natural and historic objects, and 

wild life in such a manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations” (54 USC 100101). Congress 

reiterated this mandate in the Redwood 

National Park Expansion Act of 1978 by stating 

that NPS must conduct its actions in a manner 

that will ensure no “derogation of the values and 

purposes for which the System units have been 

established, except as may have been or shall be 

directly and specifically provided by Congress” 

(54 USC 100101). 

These interrelated authorities express the 

fundamental purpose of the National Park 

System which is to conserve park resources and 

values and to provide for visitor enjoyment of 

these resources and values. The mandate to 

protect park resources and values is 

complemented by a statutory prohibition on the 

impairment of park resources and values. To 

avoid impairment, park managers are directed to 

seek ways to avoid and minimize adverse 

impacts on park resources and values to the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

23 

greatest extent practicable. Where there are 

conflicts between conserving resources and 

values and providing for enjoyment of them, 

conservation is to be the predominant goal (NPS 

2006). Because conservation remains 

predominant, the NPS seeks to avoid or to 

minimize adverse impacts on park resources and 

values. However, the NPS has discretion to 

allow impacts on park resources and values 

when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a park (NPS 2006, Sec. 1.4.3). 

Although many actions and activities cause 

impacts, the NPS cannot allow an adverse 

impact that would constitute impairment of the 

affected resources and values unless specifically 

authorized by Congress. An action constitutes 

an impairment when its impacts “harm the 

integrity of park resources or values, including 

the opportunities that otherwise would be 

present for the enjoyment of those resources or 

values.” To determine impairment, the NPS 

must evaluate “the particular resources and 

values that would be affected; the severity, 

duration, and timing of the impact; the direct 

and indirect effects of the impact; and the 

cumulative effects of the impact in question and 

other impacts” (NPS 2006). 

National Parks Omnibus Management 

Act of 1998 

The National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

(and in particular those provisions codified in 54 

USC 100702, 100704 and 100706) underscores 

NEPA and is fundamental to NPS park 

management decisions. Both acts provide 

direction for articulating and connecting the 

ultimate resource management decision to the 

analysis of impacts, using appropriate technical 

and scientific information. Both also recognize 

that such data may not be readily available; 

therefore, the acts provide options for resource 

impact analysis should this be the case. 

The National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

directs the NPS to obtain scientific and technical 

information for analysis. The NPS handbook for 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking. states that if “such information cannot 

be obtained due to excessive cost or technical 

impossibility, the proposed alternative for 

decision will be modified to eliminate the action 

causing the unknown or uncertain impact or 

other alternatives will be selected” (NPS 2006, 

Sec 4.4). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

Amended 

This act requires all federal agencies to consult 

with the Secretary of the Interior or the 

Secretary of Commerce, depending on the 

species, on projects and proposals that have the 

potential to affect federally endangered or 

threatened plants and animals. The Endangered 

Species Act requires each federal agency to 

insure, through the consultation process, that 

any action authorized, funded or carried out by 

the action agency is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat for listed species (16 

U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The consultation process 

may result in the development of reasonable and 

prudent measures to minimize harm to listed 

species or critical habitat. 

Executive Orders / Director’s Orders 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

This executive order directs the NPS to support 

the preservation of cultural properties and to 

identify and nominate to the National Register 

of Historic Places cultural properties within a 

System unit and to “exercise caution...to assure 

that any NPS-owned property that might qualify 

for nomination is not inadvertently transferred, 

sold, demolished, or substantially altered.” 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations 

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 

Executive Order 12898. This order directs 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

24 

agencies to address environmental and human 

health conditions in minority and low-income 

communities to avoid the disproportionate 

placement of any adverse effects from federal 

policies and actions on these populations. 

Secretarial Order No. 3330, Improving 

Mitigation Policies and Practices of the 

Department of the Interior 

Secretarial Order No. 3330 recognizes the 

importance of a landscape-scale approach to 

identify and facilitate investment in key 

conservation priorities in a region and the 

importance of mitigation strategies and 

measures in project planning and design to 

maintain natural and culture resource values and 

to improve the resilience of our nation's 

resources in the face of climate change. 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking. 

This order sets forth the policy and procedures 

by which the NPS will comply with NEPA and 

assigns the roles and responsibilities of NPS 

organizations and employees for carrying out 

NPS NEPA obligations. The NPS NEPA 

Handbook (revised 2015) provides an overview 

of the legal and policy framework that the NPS 

uses to implement NEPA. 

Director’s Order 25: Land Protection 

This Order articulates the framework for land 

protection, and the process for the acquisition of 

land and interests in land, within the authorized 

boundaries of units of the National Park System. 

Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource 

Management 

Director’s Order 28 calls for the NPS to protect 

and manage cultural resources in its custody 

through effective research, planning, and 

stewardship and in accordance with the policies 

and principles contained in the NPS 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006). This 

order also directs the NPS to comply with the 

substantive and procedural requirements 

described in the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation, the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, and the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings. Additionally, the NPS would comply 

with the NPS Programmatic Agreement with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers. The accompanying 

handbook to this order addresses standards and 

requirements for research, planning, and 

stewardship of cultural resources as well as the 

management of archeological resources, cultural 

landscapes, historic and prehistoric structures, 

museum objects, and ethnographic resources. 

Director’s Order 77: Natural Resource 

Protection 

The purpose of this document is to provide 

guidance to park managers for all planned and 

ongoing natural resource management activities. 

Managers must follow all federal laws, 

regulations, and policies. This document 

provides the guidance for park management to 

design, implement, and evaluate a 

comprehensive natural resource management 

program that will guide other management 

decisions so park resources are not impaired. 

Director’s Order 77 directs park management to 

make decisions, such as where to build facilities, 

based on knowledge of the park resources and 

their conditions. A program of natural and social 

science research including inventory and 

monitoring should be conducted to help 

facilitate and provide an accurate scientific basis 

for management decisions. Managers must 

establish baseline conditions to be able to 

monitor or detect changes resulting from 

management decisions. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

25 

NPS Management Policies 2006 

The NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006) 

is the basic NPS-wide policy document, 

adherence to which is mandatory unless 

specifically waived or modified by the NPS 

director or certain departmental officials, 

including the secretary of the interior. Actions 

under this boundary study / EA are guided by 

relevant portions of the management policies. 

Local and Agency Plans 

Joshua Tree National Park General 

Management Plan, Development Concept 

Plans and Environmental Impact Statement 

(1995) 

The Joshua Tree National Park General 

Management Plan (GMP) provides a framework 

for park decision-making; defines priorities and 

management direction for resource protection, 

research, and monitoring; and addresses the 

balance between visitor use and resource 

protection. Based on these priorities, the GMP 

establishes management zones within a park and 

prescribes desired conditions, a range of visitor 

experiences, and appropriate management 

activities for each zone. While the 1995 GMP 

prescribed management zoning of the national 

monument, it did not specify prescriptions for 

managing the natural zone in the monument or 

the 234,000 acres that were added to the park in 

1994. This guidance is provided in the 

subsequent wilderness and backcountry 

management plan. 

Land Protection Plan for Joshua Tree National 

Park (1996) 

NPS Management Policies 2006 require that each 

unit of the national park system prepare a land 

protection plan to determine and publicly 

document what lands or interests in lands within 

an authorized boundary need to be in public 

ownership and what means of protection are 

available to help achieve the purposes for which 

the unit was created. A land protection plan 

guides a park unit’s priorities for land 

acquisition. The Land Protection Plan for Joshua 

Tree National Park was completed in 1986 and 

then updated in 1996 to encompass an 

additional 234,000 acres of lands that were 

added to the park boundary as part of the 

California Desert Protection Act of 1994. 

Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness 

Area, Backcountry and Wilderness Plan, 

Amendment to the 1995 General 

Management Plan (2000) 

The Backcountry and Wilderness Management 

Plan, General Management Plan Amendment

accomplishes the two objectives deferred by the 

1995 GMP: 1) management direction for the 

natural zone in the former national monument, 

and 2) management direction for of all the land 

added to the park in 1994 as a result of the 

California Desert Protection Act. 

Joshua Tree National Park Foundation 

Document (2015) 

The Joshua Tree National Park Foundation 

Document provides basic guidance for planning 

and management decisions related to the park. 

The core components of a foundation document 

include a brief description of the park as well as 

the parks purpose, significance, fundamental 

resources and values, and interpretive themes. 

The foundation document also includes special 

mandates and administrative commitments, an 

assessment of planning and data needs that 

identifies planning issues, planning products to 

be developed, and the associated studies and 

data required for park planning. Along with the 

core components, the assessment provides a 

focus for park planning activities and establishes 

a baseline from which planning documents are 

developed. The foundation document identified 

a boundary study as a needed planning 

document to address the issue of habitat 

fragmentation and its effects on park wildlife. 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

(CDCA), 1980 as amended 

The CDCA is a 25-million acre expanse of land 

in Southern California designated by Congress 

in 1976 through Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. The Bureau of Land 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

26 

Management (BLM) administers about 10 

million acres of CDCA lands. When Congress 

created the CDCA, it recognized its special 

values, proximity to the population centers of 

Southern California, and the need for a 

comprehensive plan for managing the area. 

Congress stated that the CDCA Plan must be 

based on the concepts of multiple use, sustained 

yield, and maintenance of environmental 

quality. The study area is within the CDCA. 

Refer to the feasibility analysis in Chapter 2: 

Boundary Adjustment Criteria Evaluation and 

the land use description in Chapter 4: Affected 

Environment for a more detailed discussion of 

the CDCA Plan as it relates to the study area. 

Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert 

Coordinated Management Plan, 2002 (NECO 

Plan), an Amendment to the CDCA Plan 

The NECO Plan is an amendment to the CDCA 

Plan. It is a landscape-scale, multiagency 

planning effort that protects and conserves 

natural resources while simultaneously 

balancing human uses of the California portion 

of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem. The planning 

area encompasses over five million acres. The 

NECO Plan also established two Desert Wildlife 

Management Areas (DWMAs) encompassing 

1.75 million acres that are managed as areas of 

critical environmental concern (ACEC) for 

recovery of the desert tortoise. Southern Mojave 

and Sonoran Wildlife Habitat Management 

Areas (WHMAs) for bighorn sheep were 

established totaling over one million acres. The 

NECO Plan also combined herd management 

areas for wild burros and horses; designated 

routes of travel; identified principles for 

acquisition of private lands and disposal of 

public lands; provided access to resources for 

economic and social needs; and incorporated 23 

wilderness areas established by the 1994 

California Desert Protection Act in the CDCA. 

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(DRECP LUPA) October 2015 

The DRECP seeks to facilitate renewable energy 

development in appropriate places in the desert 

while conserving other resources and uses. The 

BLM Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment 

(LUPA) is considered Phase I of the DRECP. 

The proposed LUPA would amend the BLM 

California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) 

Plan as well as the Bishop and Bakersfield 

Resource Management Plans, specifically related 

to natural resource conservation and renewable 

energy development. The LUPA Decision Area 

includes 10,869,000 acres of BLM-managed 

lands within the CDCA and Bakersfield and 

Bishop Resource Management Plans. The study 

area is within the LUPA Decision Area. 

The BLM land use planning designations 

identified in the DRECP LUPA include: 

 Areas suitable for renewable energy 

development (development focus areas) 

 Areas potentially available for renewable 

energy development (variance process 

lands) 

 Areas to be managed for biological, 

cultural, and scientific conservation 

(BLM conservation designations also 

known as national conservation lands, 

areas of critical environmental concern, 

and wildlife allocation areas) 

 Areas to be managed for recreational use 

(special recreation management areas 

and extensive recreation management 

areas) 

 Areas that will continue to be managed 

for multiple use without a specified 

allocation 

The Record of Decision for the DRECP LUPA is 

not signed at the time of completion of this EA. 

It is anticipated that a Record of Decision will be 

signed in the near future. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

27 

Riverside County General Plan and Zoning 

Ordinances 

The study area lies within Riverside County. 

Counties have primary authority over land use in 

privately held unincorporated areas. Counties 

adopt ordinances to regulate land use activities 

and to implement goals and objectives in their 

General Plans. The principal land use plan 

affecting the private lands is the Riverside County 

General Plan (General Plan), which articulates 

the vision and planning principles for 

development in Riverside County. The study 

area is within the Desert Center Area Plan which 

provides a more focused development plan for 

the Desert Center area. The three local open 

space policies defined for Desert Center within 

the General Plan are: 

 Encourage clustering of development 

for the preservation of contiguous open 

space; 

 Work to limit off-highway vehicle use 

within the Desert Center Area Plan; and 

 Stipulate that new development must 

conform to the Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat designation requirements and 

prescribes land use designations for the 

area. 

Zoning classifications are defined in the Riverside 

County Land Use Ordinance, Ordinance 348, as 

amended (Riverside County 2015b). The 

ordinance details all permitted uses on private 

property based on the assigned zone 

classification. For the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite, Riverside County adopted specific 

plans in 1997 to accommodate a non-hazardous 

waste landfill that was previously proposed for 

the area. The specific plans have not been 

updated since the landfill project was 

abandoned. Specific plans are highly customized 

policy or regulatory tools that provide a bridge 

between the General Plan and individual 

projects, in a more area-specific manner than is 

possible with community-wide zoning 

ordinances. The specific plan provides land use 

and development standards that are tailored to 

respond to special conditions and aspirations 

unique to the area proposed for development. 

Refer to the feasibility analysis for parcel groups 

in Chapter 2: Boundary Adjustment Criteria 

Evaluation and land use description in Chapter 

4: Affected Environment for a more detailed 

discussion of County planning and zoning 

policies that pertain to study area lands. 

Other Related Projects 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project 

In 2014 the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) issued a license to Eagle 

Crest Energy Company (Eagle Crest) for the 

construction and operation of a pumped storage 

hydroelectric project. The project will occupy 

2,527 acres of private and federal lands on the 

site of the Eagle Mountain Mine which ceased 

full-scale operations in 1983. The project will 

use off-peak energy to pump water from a lower 

reservoir to an upper reservoir during periods of 

low electrical demand. Former mining pits will 

be used for the reservoirs. Eagle Crest will use 

available power produced by existing and 

proposed wind and/or solar projects in the area 

to provide at least a portion of the pumping 

power to the project. The project will also be 

able to provide ancillary services to the electric 

grid, including load following, system regulation 

through spinning and non-spinning reserve, and 

immediately available 1,300 megawatts of 

standby generating capacity (FERC 2014). 

Environmental Assessment, possible Plan 

Amendment Right of Way for Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Project 

(underway) 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

preparing possible plan amendments associated 

with an environmental assessment for the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project transmission and water supply lines in 

Riverside County, California. The 30-day 

scoping process took place in 

November/December 2015. The project area is 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

28 

approximately 30 miles west of Blythe, 

California, and ranging from 5 miles north of 

Interstate 10 at Desert Center, crossing the 

interstate from north to south and terminating at 

the Southern California Edison Red Bluff 

substation. The environmental assessment will 

focus on the right-of-way for generator tie lines 

(i.e. electrical lines connecting energy facilities 

to the larger electrical grid) and water supply 

lines, and the possible plan amendment for the 

sections of the generator-tie and water supply 

lines that do not fall within designated utility 

corridors. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

29 

CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT CRITERIA 

Introduction 

This boundary study examines the cultural, 

historic, and natural significances of the 

properties to determine how they fit into the 

thematic context of Joshua Tree National Park. 

It also examines the potential for lands to 

address management issues or resource 

protection. 

The study evaluates the properties under 

consideration according to criteria set forth in 

Section 3.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006

(NPS 2006). If the acquisition will be made using 

appropriated funds, and it is not merely a 

technical boundary revision, the criteria set forth 

by Congress in 54 U.S.C. §100506 must be met. 

For a property to be included in a boundary 

expansion that may be necessary or desirable for 

carrying out the purposes of a park unit, at least 

one of the three criteria must be met: 

1. Protect significant resources and 

values, or enhance opportunities for 

public enjoyment related to park 

purposes; 

2. Address operational and management 

issues, such as the need for access or the 

need for boundaries to correspond to 

logical boundary delineations such as 

topographic features or roads; or 

3. Otherwise protect park resources that 

are critical to fulfilling the park purposes 

(NPS 2006). 

All recommendations for boundary changes 

must also meet both of the following criteria 

from Section 3.5 of the NPS Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006): 

A. The added lands will be feasible to 

administer, considering size, 

configuration, and ownership costs; the 

views and impacts on local communities 

and surrounding jurisdictions; and other 

factors such as the presence of 

structures, hazardous substances or 

exotic species. 

B. Other alternatives for management 

and resource protection are not 

adequate. 

The following section addresses the criteria that 

must be considered for adjustments to the 

boundaries of national park units in accordance 

with §3.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006. 

Properties Evaluated for Inclusion

The study includes properties that for the 

purposes of evaluation have been sorted into 

groups. For ease of reference, clustered 

properties are referred to herein as “parcel 

groups.” Each “parcel group” has been evaluated 

for the presence of significant cultural or natural 

resources and values related to the park’s 

purpose, as well as feasibility factors such as 

ownership, use, costs, and threats to the 

resources. The study area includes six separate 

parcel groups that are shown on Map 2-1: Parcel 

Groups and described in Table 2-1: Parcel 

Groups.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

30 

Table 2-1: Parcel Groups 

Parcel Group Description Number of 

Parcels (APN)* 

Appx. 

Acreage

Federal Lands Parcel 

Group 

Includes federal lands under BLM management 166 23,140

Private Lands Parcel 

Group 

Primarily includes privately owned lands that were 

formally associated with the Eagle Mountain Mine. 

42 4,550

State School Land Parcel 

Group 

Includes those parcels held in trust by the State of 

California for the benefit of the State Teachers’ 

Retirement System and managed by the State 

Lands Commission

7 340

Townsite Parcels Privately owned parcels associated with the Eagle 

Mountain Townsite. Some parcels extend beyond 

the extent of the Townsite patent area (460 acres) 

identified in Private Law 790

25 500

Eagle Mountain School 

Parcel 

This parcel is owned by the Desert Center Unified 

School District for operation of the Eagle Mountain 

School. 

1 90

Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern 

California Parcel Group 

Includes those parcels managed by the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

for operation and maintenance of the Colorado 

River Aqueduct

30 2,850

Total 271 31,470

Source: Riverside County 2015 

* In some cases only a portion of a parcel is included in the study area. Specific parcels associated with each group 

is included in Appendix C: Parcel Information.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-1: Parcel Groups

31

The study area lands are important regional migration corridors for desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoise.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

32 

Criterion 1: Protect Significant 

Resources and Values, or Enhance 

Opportunities for Public 

Enjoyment Related To Park 

Purposes 

Park purpose and significance statements from 

the Joshua Tree National Park Foundation 

Document (2015), as described in Chapter 1: 

Purpose and Need, provide a framework for 

evaluating whether study area resources would 

contribute to the protection of significant 

resources and opportunities to enhance public 

enjoyment related to park purpose. 

The purpose of Joshua Tree National Park 

is to preserve and protect the scenic, 

natural, and cultural resources 

representative of the Colorado and 

Mojave deserts’ rich biological and 

geological diversity, cultural history, 

wilderness, recreational values, and 

outstanding opportunities for education 

and scientific study. 

This purpose statement was derived from the 

presidential proclamation that established 

Joshua Tree National Monument in 1936 and all 

subsequent legislation, including the 1994 

California Desert Protection Act which 

designated the area Joshua Tree National Park. 

Appendix A: Presidential Proclamation and 

Legislative Acts for Joshua Tree National Park

includes the Presidential Proclamation and 

other legislative acts for Joshua Tree National 

Park. The following section evaluates how study 

area lands contribute to the protection of 

significant resources and public enjoyment 

opportunities related to park purpose. 

Natural Resources Representative of the 

Colorado and Mojave Deserts’ Rich 

Biological Diversity. 

As stated in the park foundation document, 

“Outstanding examples of Mojave and Colorado 

Desert landscapes that converge at Joshua Tree 

National Park create a biologically rich system of 

plant and animal life characterized by iconic 

Joshua tree woodlands, native palm oases, and 

vast expanses of creosote scrub that are uniquely 

adapted to desert conditions. The park also 

contributes significantly to the connectivity of 

open lands and large protected areas across the 

California desert.” The study area contains a rich 

array of desert habitat representative of the 

Colorado and Mojave deserts. Of particular 

importance is the use of the area for the 

migration of sensitive wildlife. 

Significance of the Colorado Desert Ecoregion 

The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (DRECP 

LUPA) (BLM 2015b) recognizes the national 

significance of the desert ecosystems in the study 

area and proposes two separate designations to 

recognize these resources. The western federal 

lands are proposed as for National Conservation 

Lands (NCL) while the lands to the east of the 

Eagle Mountain Mine are proposed to be 

included in the Chuckwalla Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC). These 

proposed areas would comprise about 12,500 

acres of federal lands within the study area. 

These proposed designations are discussed 

further in the feasibility discussion for the 

federal lands parcel group. Map 2-8: BLM 

Proposed Land Use Designations depicts the 

proposed NCL and ACEC designations within 

the study area described in the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the 

DRECP LUPA. 

Within the portion of the study area that would 

be located in the Colorado Desert subarea of 

NCL, the DRECP LUPA identified numerous 

significant resource values. There is critical 

habitat for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) 

and habitat for 60 other special status plants and 

animals, including the desert bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis nelson). The subarea contains 

important habitat linkages for terrestrial reptiles, 

mammals, and burrowing owls, distributed 

among 14 BLM wilderness areas from the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

33 

Colorado River to Joshua Tree National Park. 

Mountain cliff sites in designated BLM 

wilderness areas in the subarea are important to 

maintaining robust golden eagle populations. 

The DRECP LUPA recognizes the significance 

of Sonoran old-growth microphyll woodlands 

that provide the highest amount of aboveground 

biomass of any plant community in the Sonoran 

Desert outside of the Colorado River riparian 

zone. The woodlands constitute a reservoir for 

carbon sequestration (Map 4-6: Microphyll 

Woodlands in Chapter 4: Affected Environment

depicts microphyll woodlands in the study area). 

The complex physical structure and cover of the 

woodlands provide essential habitat for 

neotropical migratory birds crossing the 

California deserts to reach nesting sites in the 

Pacific Coast states and Alaska. The Chuckwalla 

ACEC is noted as containing one of the best 

examples in California of diverse Sonoran 

Desert plant communities of creosote, ocotillo, 

and nine species of cacti, in addition to 

providing critical habitat for an area that 

contains some of the highest densities of desert 

tortoise (BLM 2015a).

Habitat and Migration Corridors 

The study area contains important habitat and 

functions as a significant migration corridor for 

wildlife in Joshua Tree National Park and other 

protected areas in the Mojave and Colorado 

deserts. These functions directly contribute to 

protection of biological diversity identified in 

the park purpose. There has been a growing 

awareness of the need to protect broader 

landscapes to sustain wildlife and natural 

habitat, particularly in light of ecosystem 

stressors such as development, and warming 

temperatures and rainfall patterns associated 

with climate change (DeFries et al. 2007; Hansen 

et al. 2014). Development associated with 

renewable energy projects and urbanization can 

result in habitat fragmentation. Movement 

through contiguous habitat is essential to 

wildlife survival, whether it be the day-to-day 

movements of individuals seeking food, shelter, 

or mates, dispersal of offspring to find new 

homes, or seasonal migration to find favorable 

conditions. Movement is also essential for gene 

flow, for recolonizing unoccupied habitat after a 

local population goes extinct, and for species to 

shift their geographic range in response to global 

climate change (Hansen and DeFries 2007). 

Protection of migration corridors is an 

important adaptation strategy for mitigating the 

effects of climate change on biological resources 

(Overpeck et. al. 2013) 

Desert Tortoise. The study area is important to 

the linkage of habitat for the desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii), a threatened species that is 

identified as a fundamental resource to Joshua 

Tree National Park. Some of the most protected 

desert tortoise habitat in the California desert is 

found in the park, as park tortoises are relatively 

free of many stressors such as habitat 

fragmentation and loss, off-highway vehicle use, 

large scale development, and predation from 

feral dogs and ravens. However, the number of 

tortoises in Joshua Tree National Park has 

decreased significantly in the last two decades 

(Lovich et al. 2014). 

The U.S. Geological Survey developed a 

quantitative habitat model for the range of the 

Mojave population of desert tortoise, which 

includes portions of the Colorado Desert in 

California (Nussear et al. 2009). See Map 2-2: 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Connectivity. The model 

provides a measure of the statistical probability 

of desert tortoise occurrence and a geospatial 

depiction of known and potential desert tortoise 

habitat. To date, the U.S. Geological Survey 

model is viewed as the best available data for 

predicting desert tortoise occurrence on a 

landscape scale; however, it does not account for 

site-specific and anthropogenic conditions 

across the landscape that affect habitat potential 

at a local scale. This model depicts the 

importance of the study area lands for broader 

landscape connectivity. 

The eastern end of the study area, between the 

Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (Desert Sunlight) 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

34 

and the Eagle Mountain Mine, contains some of 

the region’s most important desert tortoise 

habitat and provides a physical connection 

between the Pinto Basin and Chuckwalla Valley 

tortoise populations (Nussear et al. 2009, 

USFWS 2011b). This connection is made in one 

of the key remaining north/south regional 

habitat corridors, linking Joshua Tree National 

Park and valuable habitat to the south in the 

Orocopia and Chuckwalla Mountains. While the 

corridor is already fragmented in some areas by 

existing roads and development, the portion in 

the study area is relatively free of development 

and other disturbances, well protected, and 

contains a known population of desert tortoises. 

This corridor was shrunk through the 

development of Desert Sunlight, placing 

importance on protection from further 

reduction and on maintaining genetic 

connectivity. 

One of the primary threats to the survival of 

desert tortoise is ongoing habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation. Threats to 

habitat connectivity include urbanization, 

habitat conversion from frequent wildfire, and 

other activities that modify the landscape 

(USFWS 2011a). This species occupies large 

home ranges, making contiguous habitat an 

important component of their survival. As 

identified in the Revised Recovery Plan for the 

Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii), another factor integral to 

desert tortoise recovery is “maintaining the 

genetic variability of the species and sufficient 

ecological heterogeneity within and among 

populations to allow tortoises to adapt to 

changes in the environment over time (USFWS 

2011a).” 

Desert Bighorn Sheep. The study area also 

serves as an important genetic and demographic 

corridor for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis nelson), which is a BLM California 

Sensitive Species, a State Fully Protected Species, 

and a State Game Species (BLM 2002). One of 

the most genetically diverse bighorn populations 

resides in the Eagle Mountains. Research and 

genetic testing has identified the corridor from 

the Eagle Mountains across study area lands to 

the Coxcomb Mountains to be critically 

important for maintaining connectivity among 

desert bighorn sheep herds, See Map 2-3: 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat Connectivity (Creech 

2014, Epps, et. al. 2010). Within Joshua Tree 

National Park, the bighorn sheep population in 

the Coxcomb Mountains is considered most 

important to maintaining meta-population 

connectivity, while those in the Eagle Mountains 

are second most important. Among all existing 

bighorn herds in the greater Mojave Desert, 

both of these populations rank in the top third in 

terms of importance to bighorn meta-population 

connectivity (Creech et al. 2014, Epps et al. 

2007). Herds of bighorn sheep currently travel 

through study area lands disturbed by the Eagle 

Mountain Mine. However, the current mining 

of aggregate within the study area is small in 

scale with relatively little disturbance to bighorn 

present in the project area. A 2010 survey of 

wildlife in and around the study area conducted 

to inform the planning for the proposed Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project identified 51 desert bighorn sheep were 

seen in six different locations (Wildlife Research 

Institute 2010). 

As with the desert tortoise, one of the most 

significant threats to desert bighorn sheep is the 

loss and fragmentation of habitat (63 FR 13136; 

USFWS 2000; Wehausen 2006). Habitat 

fragmentation has resulted in loss of genetic 

diversity (Epps et al. 2005) as well as reductions 

in fitness and vigor making bighorn sheep more 

vulnerable to stressors such as disease, drought, 

and predation. The proposed Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project would be 

located within the Bighorn Sheep migration 

corridor between the Eagle and Coxcomb 

mountains. The introduction and spread of 

pneumonia in bighorn populations to the north 

of Joshua Tree National Park, with the potential 

for spread to the park’s populations, has added 

concerns and the need for protecting the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

35 

viability and genetic links between remaining 

populations. 

Other Wildlife. In addition to the habitat 

migration corridors for desert tortoise and 

bighorn sheep, the study area contains ideal 

habitat for other wildlife. For example, golden 

eagles are known to nest in the Eagle Mountains, 

both within the study area and surrounding 

mountain systems (Wildlife Research Institute 

2011). The BLM has identified three nesting 

sites on BLM lands within the study area. As 

part of its July 7, 2010 filing, Eagle Crest Energy 

Company provided results from golden eagle 

surveys that took place in March and April 2010. 

The surveys covered mountainous areas within 

10 miles of the proposed project. The surveyors 

located a total of 34 golden eagle nest sites 

distributed among nine active and five inactive 

eagle territories in and near the study area. Five 

golden eagles were seen; other species observed 

included: common ravens, great horned owls, a 

long-eared owl, an osprey, prairie falcons, redtailed hawks, Swainson’s hawks, and turkey 

vultures (Wildlife Research Institute 2010). 

Parcel Group Analysis - Natural Resources 

Representative of the Colorado and Mojave 

Deserts’ Rich Biological Diversity. 

The resource values associated with this area of 

park significance are primarily found within the 

federal lands parcel group managed by the BLM. 

The majority of the federal lands are 

undisturbed. A GIS analysis of vegetation data 

indicated that approximately 6% of the federal 

lands are disturbed lands that have had previous 

mining activities. Private lands south and west 

of the Eagle Mountain Mine and the State 

School Lands parcels south of the mine are also 

largely undisturbed. Together these lands form 

large contiguous areas of open space with 

undisturbed habitat. 

Lands associated with the Eagle Mountain Mine 

have been heavily impacted by prior mining 

activity and infrastructure (roads, power lines, 

and pipelines that supported mining), effectively 

reducing habitat value for wildlife (BLM 2011). 

However, recent studies have shown that the 

preferred bighorn sheep migration route from 

the Eagle Mountains to the Coxcomb 

Mountains crosses through the former mine 

lands (Epps et. al. 2010). Bighorn sheep tracks, 

beds, and scat were also documented in and 

around the Townsite area in surveys conducted 

for the environmental impact analysis for the 

landfill proposal (Riverside County and BLM 

1996). Desert tortoise habitat is found 

throughout the study area on both private and 

public lands. However, the highest quality 

habitat is in the easternmost portions of the 

study area, between the Colorado River 

Aqueduct and the Eagle Mountain Mine on 

lands within the federal lands, Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California, and 

private lands parcel groups (Nussear 2009). 

All of the study area parcel groups contain 

habitat, including important wildlife corridors, 

which support the rich biological diversity of the 

Colorado and Mojave. The federal land parcel 

group contains mostly undisturbed lands and 

therefore has the highest quality habitat. 

However, former mine lands on private land 

contain an important migration corridor for 

desert bighorn sheep, despite the extensive 

disturbance. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-2: Desert Tortoise Habitat ConnecƟ vity

Map 2-3: Bighorn Sheep Habitat ConnecƟ vity

36
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

37 

Cultural Resources Representative of the 

Colorado and Mojave Deserts 

The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 

changed the designation of Joshua Tree National 

Monument to Joshua Tree National Park 

enlarging the boundaries to include “contiguous 

federal lands of national park caliber.” The 

legislation expanded the park purpose 

recognizing a wide array of superlative values 

including archeological, cultural, and historical. 

As stated in the Joshua Tree National Park

Foundation Document significance statements, 

“Joshua Tree National Park preserves a rich 

array of prehistoric, historic, and contemporary 

resources that demonstrate the integral 

connection between desert ecosystems, land use, 

and human cultures. Encapsulated in this 

significance statement is a wide array of 

archeological resources, historic structures, and 

cultural landscapes.” Three main 

archeologically significant time periods are 

represented within the park: Lake MohavePinto; Saratoga Springs; and Protohistoric. 

Ethnographically, four Native cultures are 

associated with the land area in and around 

Joshua Tree National Park: the Cahuilla; 

Serrano; Chemehuevi; and Mohave. 

Joshua Tree National Park has five historic sites 

that are actively interpreted by the park and 

represent important relationships between 

human uses of the desert ecosystem. These 

include ranching, mining, milling, and 

homesteading sites of late 1800s through early 

1900s California: Lost Horse Mine and Mill; 

Ryan Ranch; Keys Ranch; Wall Street Mill; and 

Barker Dam. Other historic resources are 

located throughout the park, and are typically 

associated with ranching, mining, and 

homesteading. 

Cultural resources within the study area provide 

an excellent opportunity to protect and interpret 

historic and prehistoric resources that 

demonstrate the integral connection between 

desert ecosystems, land use, and human 

cultures. 

Archeological and Ethnographic Resources 

The study area likely has ethnographic 

importance to all of the four native cultures that 

are currently associated with the national park. 

In addition to these four groups, the study area is 

also important to La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites 

Protection Circle, which identifies associated 

sacred sites within the area. Comprehensive 

surveys of the area for archeological sites have 

not been completed. However, archeological 

sites have been identified in surveys for various 

development projects in the region. These 

surveys have identified isolates including lithic 

scatters, ceramic scatters, prehistoric trails, rock 

rings, and other isolated features (ASM Affiliates 

2011b; ASM Affiliates 2009b; RECON 1991). 

Many archeological sites related to historic uses, 

particularly from former mining activities, are 

apparent as well. Common artifacts include tin 

cans and old mining claim posts. These 

resources contribute to the significance of the 

Joshua Tree National Park in their 

demonstration of a long history of human use. 

The area remains important to ethnographic 

groups today. With the area’s long history of 

human use, the study area also provides 

potential for greater scientific discovery and 

understanding of past lifeways. 

Historical Resources 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite. The most 

prominent historic resources within the study 

area are the Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite. 

These resources expand on mining history 

themes currently interpreted at Joshua Tree 

National Park, providing a 20th century 

component to mining in the California desert. 

While in full operation, the Eagle Mountain 

Mine was the largest iron mine in the western 

United States (Force 2001). It has also been 

identified as one of the largest open pit mines in 

the United States (Dilsaver 2015; Goin and 

Raymond 2004). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

38 

The presence of iron was recognized by the 

earliest prospectors in the Eagle Mountain area. 

Jack Moore discovered iron ore deposits in 1881 

while prospecting in the area. The Southern 

Pacific Railroad later took interest in the iron 

ore in 1912 when E.E. Harriman acquired claims 

and formed the Iron Chief Mining Company. 

Harriman never actually developed the mine 

which did not occur until industrialist Henry J. 

Kaiser pursued the acquisition of the patented 

claims in 1944 in search of iron ore to supply his 

recently built steel mill in Fontana, California. At 

the time, the Fontana steel mill was the only fully 

integrated steel mill operation on the West 

Coast. The steel mill was approved by the federal 

government in 1942 following the Japanese 

attack on Pearl Harbor. Federal approval and 

financing of the mill was justified largely to 

supply steel for the extensive wartime 

construction industries, primarily ship building. 

However, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 

1941, Kaiser had already recognized the need for 

a steel mill to supply the growing residential and 

commercial construction markets on the west 

coast (Anicic 2006). The Eagle Mountains 

contained one-third of the state’s iron reserves. 

Production in the mine began in 1948 and 

continued until the steel mill closed in the early 

1980s as result of lower cost foreign steel and 

iron ore (Anicic 2006, Cox 1996; Goin and 

Raymond 2004, Dilsaver 2015). 

Because of the Eagle Mountain Mine’s remote 

location, Kaiser planned the construction of a 

mining camp to house workers. A report on the 

mine conducted by the Bureau of Mines in 1956 

describes what is now known as the Townsite as 

a “model camp with all modern conveniences.” 

The “camp” included homes, which had modern 

comforts such as air conditioning, dormitories, a 

mess hall, a commissary, post office and 

recreational facilities. In 1956 the population of 

the Townsite was 600. At its height the Townsite 

was home to 3,700. The camp was designed to be 

attractive not just to mine workers, but to their 

families, as well. Lawns had sprinkler systems 

and amenities such as swimming pools, 

playgrounds and recreation centers were 

provided. A commercial district contained a 

bank, small shopping center, medical facilities, 

and a service station. Schools were constructed 

in 1956 and 1962. Former residents described 

life in the town as idyllic, although single men 

working at the mine were noted as frustrated by 

the dormitory housing and prohibitions such as 

entertaining women in the dormitories (Goin 

and Raymond 2004). With the exception of a 

few, most residents of the Townsite were forced 

to move elsewhere when mining operations 

ceased in 1983. A small repopulation occurred 

when a prison was operated in the former 

commercial area of the Townsite. Employees of 

the prison occupied portions of the Townsite 

until the prison closed in 2003. Only a few 

residents, employees of Kaiser Eagle Mountain, 

currently reside at the Townsite. Many 

structures at the Townsite have been removed or 

boarded up due to lack of use. However, some 

buildings remain and the overall arrangement 

and pattern of the site is still quite apparent on 

the landscape. 

In 1995 the Bureau of Land Management and 

Riverside County contracted assessments of 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic 

Places for the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite as part of the environmental 

compliance process for the proposed solid waste 

landfill. The assessment of eligibility for the 

Eagle Mountain Mine noted the mine’s potential 

significance in regards to its role in iron ore 

mining industry in California, the Unites States, 

and the World. The mine was considered at the 

forefront of technology and employed the latest 

advances in equipment. It was the largest open 

pit mine in the United States during the 1960s; it 

contained the largest pelletizing plant in the 

world; and was the first mine to use 100-ton 

semitrucks for hauling ore. The assessment also 

noted potential significance of the mine in its 

connection to industrialist Henry J. Kaiser. The 

evaluation did not find the Eagle Mountain 

Mine eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places. At the time the assessment 

was conducted the mine was not yet 50 years old 

and therefore did not meet the eligibility criteria. 

Any property less than fifty years old must be 

determined of exceptional importance to meet 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

39 

eligibility requirements for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The mine assessment 

also noted that much of the ore processing 

equipment was removed in the 1980s affecting 

overall integrity (Cox 1996). 

A separate assessment, a Class III cultural 

resource inventory, was conducted for the Eagle 

Mountain Townsite as part of the environmental 

impact statement for the proposed landfill. This 

assessment found that there were no significant 

historical resources at the Townsite (Schmidt 

1995). 

The Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite are 

now more than 50 years and will be reevaluated 

for potential eligibility for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places as a State Historic 

Preservation Office requirement for the 

proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project. 

Structures, constructed landscapes, and artifacts 

within the study area related to the Eagle 

Mountain Mine’s operations provide an 

opportunity to convey the cultural contribution 

and story of Henry J. Kaiser and the Kaiser Steel 

Corporation and mining in the 20th century. 

Parcel Group Analysis - Cultural Resources 

Representative of the Colorado and Mojave 

Deserts 

All of the parcel groups within the study area, 

with the exception of the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California Parcel Group, 

likely contain some aspect of cultural resources 

representative of the Colorado and Mojave 

deserts as they relate to the purpose of Joshua 

Tree National Park. The federal and private land 

parcel groups contain evidence of past human 

uses. Most visibly evident are the artifacts and 

landscape changes associated with the long 

history of mining in the area. The area broadly 

has ethnographic importance to American 

Indian tribes with ties to Joshua Tree National 

Park. The federal lands have not been 

comprehensively surveyed. Those surveys that 

have been completed have mostly been in and 

around areas with previous disturbance 

associated with the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite. 

Historic resources related to the Eagle Mountain 

Mine and Townsite are primarily located on 

private lands. However, some features are 

located on adjacent BLM-managed federal 

lands. The federal lands also contain evidence 

of mining history that occurred prior to the 

establishment of Joshua Tree National 

Monument in 1936 (Hardesty and Smith 2009). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Aerial view of the Eagle Mountain Townsite (1956). Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Aerial view of the Townsite in 2011. Photo by Ecofl ight.

40
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Vacant Townsite homes (2002). Photo courtesy of Roy Hooper.

In contrast, occupied homes circa 2002. Photo courtesy of Roy Hooper.

Trailer housing during active use of the Townsite. Date unknown. Photo courtesy of Roy Hooper.

41
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

View of processing area at the Eagle Mountain Mine, looking east toward the North and South pits (1956). Bureau of 

Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Remnants of processing facilites at Eagle Mountain Mine (2002). Photo courtesy of Roy Hooper.

42
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Children selling lemonade in the Eagle Mountain Townsite (1982). Photographer: Mike Mullen. Herald Examiner Collection/ 

Los Angeles Public Library.

Eagle Mountain Townsite commercial area (1982). Photographer: Mike Mullen. Herald Examiner Collection/ Los Angeles 

Public Library.

43
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

44 

Outstanding Opportunities for Education 

and Scientific Study 

The Presidential Proclamation that established the 

park in 1936 recognized objects of scientific 

interest. The Foundation Document further 

articulates that, “Joshua Tree National Park offers 

unparalleled opportunities for research of arid 

land ecosystems and processes, adaptations of and 

to desert life, sustainability, and indications of 

climate change. The proximity of the park to 

urban regions of Southern California and Nevada 

enhances its value for scientific research and 

education.” The Eagle Mountain area could 

provide new opportunities to conduct research on 

the restoration of ecological communities, wildlife 

habitat values, and cultural resources. 

Some vegetative recovery and re-establishment is 

occurring on large piles of waste rock that have 

not been disturbed for decades. There is potential 

interest in researching this successional process in 

desert ecosystems. 

Parcel Group Analysis Outstanding 

Opportunities for Education and Scientific 

Study 

Most of the parcel groups would provide some 

measure of opportunities for research and 

educational opportunities related to natural or 

cultural resources. For the private land and 

Townsite parcel groups, permission would need 

to be obtained from existing landowners. 

Opportunities to Enhance Public 

Enjoyment Related to Park Purpose 

Accessible and Diverse Visitor Opportunities 

Joshua Tree National Park provides accessible 

and diverse opportunities in a remote desert to 

large and burgeoning urban populations. Some 

areas of the park are within a two-hour drive from 

the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan 

areas. In 2015 visitation reached two million. The 

demographics of surrounding communities are 

also evolving with population growth being the 

highest in the Coachella Valley near the southern 

boundary of the park where visitor facilities, 

including trailheads, are minimal. The study area 

could provide additional access to lands in the 

southeastern region of the park. 

Current visitation to the study area is sparse. 

Members of a local mining club have unpatented 

claims in the area and conduct group outings. 

Other visitors explore the area on all-terrain 

vehicles. Existing infrastructure within the study 

area such as roads and facilities would provide 

access for visitors to the site within minimal new 

construction. Such infrastructure could help 

address current recreational demands at Joshua 

Tree National Park. For example, the study area 

could provide new opportunities for biking. 

Currently, biking on roads within the existing 

park boundary is unsafe and inadequate due to 

road design (narrow shoulders), road surface 

quality (deteriorated pavement), and road signage 

(driver and biker education). Mountain biking has 

also grown in popularity. However, mountain 

bikers express concern regarding lack of single 

track mountain biking trails and very limited 

overall mountain biking opportunities. Bicycling is 

prohibited in wilderness areas, which comprise 

much of Joshua Tree National Park. Within the 

Townsite and former mining areas, there are many 

paved and dirt roads that could potentially 

accommodate more biking opportunities allowing 

the park to provide this opportunity without 

impacting more remote wilderness areas of the 

park. 

The study area could provide the national park 

with opportunities to expand camping capacity. 

Currently campsite capacity averages around 80% 

full during peak visitation months. Seasonal 

crowding is common. Formalizing camping at the 

west end of the study area, near Joshua Tree 

National Park wilderness, could potentially help 

mitigate some ongoing impacts to historic 

resources all-terrain vehicle use in the area. For 

example, it may help protect cultural resources 

such as Grub Stake Cabin located in the 

northwestern end of the study area which has 

been impacted by visitors to the area. 

Interpretive opportunities are significant given the 

area’s rich history. The dramatic landscape 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

45 

changes evoke an industrial mining landscape that 

is in stark contrast with historic mining sites 

currently interpreted in the park. The Eagle 

Mountain Mine and Townsite was featured in the 

book “Changing Mines in America” (Goin and 

Raymond 2004), because of its compelling visual 

appearance and cultural interest. Many former 

industrial landscapes are featured in heritage 

areas and other historic sites that attract many 

annual visitors. Goin and Raymond note that in 

the 19th century, middle class tourists visited 

mines and other industrial sites as much as they 

toured conventional scenic landscapes such as 

Niagara Falls or Yosemite (Goin and Raymond 

2004). 

Parcel Group Analysis - Accessible and Diverse 

Visitor Opportunities. Existing public enjoyment 

opportunities are primarily confined to the federal 

lands parcel group where visitors can access 

backcountry areas via Black Eagle Mine Road 

from the national park. Black Eagle Mine Road 

also extends through to Desert Center. However, 

it is closed to the public where it crosses private 

lands. 

Although public enjoyment of the federal lands is 

somewhat limited at this time due to the remote 

location and limited access, the federal lands 

parcel group offers excellent opportunities for 

backcountry camping, hiking, and night-sky 

viewing. The area also provides interpretive 

opportunities with regard to historic mine sites, 

dark night skies, and past uses of the area by 

native cultures. 

The private land parcel group and Townsite 

parcel group have the greatest potential for public 

access since these lands contain existing paved 

roads located a short distance from Interstate 10. 

Within the Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite 

lands are numerous paved and unpaved roads. 

However, the private land and Townsite parcel 

groups are currently fenced or otherwise closed to 

general public access. If at some point in time 

these areas became open to public access or 

available for inclusion in the park boundary, they 

would offer interpretive and recreational 

opportunities. The Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California parcels support infrastructure 

related to the Colorado River Aqueduct and 

feature limited opportunity for public enjoyment. 

Protection of Wilderness Values 

Outside of the disturbed mine areas, the study 

area contains pristine and untrammeled lands that 

abut Joshua Tree National Park wilderness areas. 

The congressionally designated Joshua Tree 

Wilderness comprises approximately seventy-five 

percent of Joshua Tree National Park. Between 

the original wilderness designation in 1976, the 

lands added through the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1994, and through the passage of 

public law P.L. 111-11 in 2009 Joshua Tree 

Wilderness currently totals 595,364 acres, with 

70,557 acres of potential wilderness and 402 acres 

of proposed wilderness. Collectively, 84% of the 

park is designated, proposed or potential 

wilderness. Map 2-4: Wilderness and Roadless 

Areas conveys existing wilderness areas and 

roadless areas located within the study area. 

The park’s wilderness provides opportunities for 

primitive recreation and solitude in wild settings. 

Wilderness access is limited to hikers, since no 

motorized equipment is permitted and thus 

vehicles and bicycles are not allowed. The 

wilderness areas adjacent to the study area are 

some of the most pristine in the park. Values 

include dark night skies, excellent air quality, and 

natural quiet, all of which could be affected by 

proposed future uses of the area. Inclusion of 

these lands within the national park boundary 

would ensure a greater degree of protection of the 

park’s wilderness values. 

Areas adjacent to existing park wilderness contain 

roadless areas with wilderness values. In 1979 as 

part of the California Desert Conservation Area 

Plan development, BLM conducted a 

comprehensive wilderness inventory of the desert 

region, including two separate areas in the Eagle 

Mountains. The California Statewide Wilderness 

Study Report published in 1990 proposed final 

recommendations and a Record of Decision for 

the study was published in 1991. Portions of the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

46 

61,000-acre Eagle Mountains Wilderness Study 

Area (51,434 acres) were ultimately recommended 

as wilderness while another 7,028 acres of this 

area were not recommended for wilderness (BLM 

1990; BLM 1991). 

The recommended wilderness area included some 

lands along the southwestern boundary of the 

study area. The primary reasons that the area was 

recommended as suitable for wilderness was 

because the area: 1) possessed outstanding 

wilderness values; 2) was adjacent to existing 

wilderness in Joshua Tree National Monument; 

and 3) possessed numerous special features that 

would benefit from wilderness designation. 

Wilderness values ascribed to the area included 

opportunities for solitude, primitive and 

unconfined recreation and the area’s diversity of 

landforms. The study also identified the Eagle 

Mountains as a natural extension of the 

outstanding diversity of desert landscapes 

protected on surrounding national park lands. 

Special features noted included: habitat for desert 

tortoise; potential occurrence of rare plant 

species; and the existence of cultural values (BLM 

1991). Almost all of the recommended wilderness 

areas were designated wilderness when they were 

added to Joshua Tree National Park in 1994. The 

areas not recommended for wilderness were those 

areas directly adjacent to Black Eagle Mine Road. 

They were determined unsuitable primarily 

because of mining claims and the presence of 

former mining activities on the landscape (BLM 

1991). 

Parcel Group Analysis - Protection of 

Wilderness Values. Some portions of federal land 

parcels adjacent to the park boundary contain 

wilderness values as identified in previous studies. 

The areas closest to the park boundary and away 

from Black Eagle Mine Road are most pristine. 

The areas have also been identified as primarily 

roadless in recent inventories of roadless areas. 

Protection of these lands would increase 

protection of wilderness values on adjacent park 

lands. 

Scenic Resources 

Geologic, climatic, and ecological processes create 

scenic landscapes unique to deserts and 

fundamental to the character of Joshua Tree 

National Park. Despite visual disturbances from 

previous mining activities, much of the study area 

contains scenic landscapes visible from Joshua 

Tree National Park. Protection of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) lands adjacent to 

Joshua Tree National Park wilderness would 

protect the natural and untrammeled character of 

the park’s designated wilderness areas. 

BLM conducted an extensive visual analysis of the 

area in completing the environmental compliance 

documentation for the proposed Eagle Mountain 

Landfill. In the visual analysis, the BLM notes that 

disturbed areas in the eastern portion of the study 

area are shielded from view by the western 

reaches of the Eagle Mountains. From the east, 

the visual disturbance from mining including the 

Townsite development, large tailing piles, and 

former mining pits dominate the landscape. 

Parcel Group Analysis – Scenic Resources. 

Portions of the federal land parcel group closest 

to the national park boundary contain highly 

scenic landforms. The private land and Townsite 

parcel groups contain developed areas where 

disturbance is highly visible. These areas have 

greater interest for cultural tourism. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-4: Wilderness and Roadless Areas

L

47
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Dark Nights skies at Joshua Tree National Park.

Mining demonstration by local mining group on BLM-administered lands.

Mountain scenery from the BLM-administered lands.

48
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

49 

Criterion 2: Addresses Operational 

and Management Issues 

Including the study area lands within the national 

park boundary would address a number of 

operational and management issues including: 

improved access for visitors and NPS staff to this 

remote area of the park and a more logical 

boundary delineation. 

Park staff could have greater access to study area 

lands from the west through the Black Eagle Mine 

Road, which connects to the Cottonwood Springs 

visitor and administrative area within the park. A 

large boulder blocks access along Black Eagle 

Mine Road from the park, approximately about 

two miles east of the national park boundary. See 

Map 2-5: Roads and Access. 

Increased access could open up opportunities for 

additional patrols and research opportunities 

related to desert succession, bighorn sheep and 

desert tortoise. Roads connecting Interstate 10 to 

the former Eagle Mountain Townsite are paved 

and in good condition. These areas can be easily 

accessed from Interstate-10. 

Formerly part of the national park, the study area 

is bounded on three sides by parklands. Including 

these lands in the boundary would create a more 

logical boundary delineation that is easily 

identified by park staff and potential visitors to the 

area. 

Parcel Group Analysis - Addresses 

Operational and Management Issues such 

as Access and Boundary 

The federal lands parcel group is directly adjacent 

to Joshua Tree National Park. The federal lands 

and western State School Lands are currently 

accessible by Black Eagle Mine Road whose 

western terminus is located within the park. 

However, the current condition of this road, 

which is unmaintained and passable only by fourwheel drive vehicle, makes access lengthy and 

potentially unsafe. Some maintenance 

improvements could provide safer access along 

this road, making it easier for park staff to access 

and study the area’s resources. 

The private land parcels to the east and Townsite 

area contain a number of paved roads that can be 

more conveniently accessed from Interstate 10. 

These lands are currently closed to the public. 

However, if they became available to NPS for park 

management they would greatly increase access to 

the area while avoiding impacts to the more 

remote, pristine areas in the western portions of 

the study area. Currently, it can take park staff 90 

minutes to two hours to access the area. Access 

from the Cottonwood visitor and administrative 

area by vehicle to the study area via I-10 would be 

a shorter, 40-minute drive along paved roads. 

The 1936 park boundary extended to the right-ofway for the Colorado River Aqueduct. The 

western edge of the Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California parcel group would form a 

logical boundary delineation for park 

management today. 

If the private land, Townsite, federal land and 

State School Land parcel groups were added to 

the boundary, it would create a more logical 

boundary delineation making it easier for NPS to 

prevent the encroachment of unauthorized 

activities on park lands. 

Criterion 3: Otherwise Protect Park 

Resources that are Critical to 

Fulfilling the Park Purposes 

Only one of the three ‘eligibility’ criteria needs to 

be met in evaluating the study area or portion of it. 

The study team did not identify findings related to 

this criterion.

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

50

Black Eagle Mine Road at the intersecƟ on of x road in Joshua Tree NaƟ onal Park

Map 2-5: Roads and Access
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

51 

Summary of Results – Initial 

Boundary Adjustment Criteria 

Conclusion – Criterion 1: Protect Significant 

Resources and Values, or Enhance 

Opportunities for Public Enjoyment Related To 

Park Purposes 

All of the parcel groups within the study area 

contain resources or public enjoyment 

opportunities related to the purpose of Joshua 

Tree National Park, meeting the first boundary 

adjustment criterion. Most parcel groups, if they 

were available for park management would 

support both resource protection and public 

enjoyment opportunities, with the exception of 

the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (MWD) parcel group. Although the 

MWD parcels contain habitat for the desert 

tortoise, there is little opportunity for public 

enjoyment as the parcels support infrastructure 

and operations related to the Colorado River 

Aqueduct. 

The federal land, private land, and western State 

School Land parcels form a large block of open 

space contiguous with existing parklands. These 

properties contain important habitat, including 

migration corridors, whose conservation would 

provide for greater protection of Joshua Tree 

National Park’s fundamental resources and values 

including desert tortoise habitat, biological 

diversity and healthy ecosystem function, and 

interconnectivity of California desert lands. 

Maintaining and reestablishing connectivity 

between core habitat areas would help prevent 

isolation of wildlife populations such as bighorn 

sheep. Protecting these broader landscape 

connections helps ensure the resiliency of natural 

systems, particularly related to ecosystem 

stressors such as fragmentation from 

development, increased fire frequency, and 

increasing temperatures as a result of climate 

change. In the context of climate change, the 

presence of multiple migration corridors may 

create opportunities for adaptive responses and 

for supporting resiliency, particularly for 

threatened species. 

Cultural resources within the study area provide 

an excellent opportunity to protect and interpret 

historic and prehistoric resources that 

demonstrate the integral connection between 

desert ecosystems, land use, and human cultures. 

Inclusion of these resources within the park 

boundary would help to further protect and 

interpret historic values and stories related to the 

purpose of Joshua Tree National Park. Study area 

resources such as the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite could expand on mining history themes 

currently interpreted at Joshua Tree National 

Park. Sites, structures, and artifacts within the 

study area related to the Eagle Mountain Mine 

and Townsite provide an opportunity to convey 

the cultural contribution and story of mining in 

the 20th century, and its relevance to the growth 

of southern California and the West. Many of the 

lands associated with the mine and Townsite are 

currently closed to the public. However, if they 

became available for park management could 

provide important opportunities for 

interpretation. 

Existing infrastructure such as roads and facilities 

within the parcel groups that contain resources 

related to the mine and Townsite (Private, 

Townsite and Eagle Mountain School) could 

provide access for visitors to an area of the park 

that is currently difficult to reach and experience. 

Such infrastructure could also help address 

current recreational demands at Joshua Tree 

National Park such as for camping and biking. 

The wilderness areas adjacent to the study area 

within the federal land parcel group are some of 

the most pristine in the national park. Visitors to 

the area can enjoy dark night skies, high air 

quality, and natural quiet, all of which could be 

affected by proposed future uses of the area. 

Despite visual disturbances from previous mining 

activities, much of the study area contains scenic 

landscapes visible from Joshua Tree National 

Park. Protection of lands adjacent to Joshua Tree 

National Park wilderness could benefit the natural 

and untrammeled character of the park’s 

designated wilderness areas. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

52 

Conclusion – Criterion 2: Addresses 

Operational and Management Issues Criterion 

The study area properties meet the third criterion 

for a boundary adjustment, addressing 

operational and management issues such as access 

and clear boundary delineation. Adding the study 

area lands west of the MWD parcel group to the 

Joshua Tree National Park Boundary could 

improve access to the east side of the park and 

define a more logical boundary delineation to 

prevent encroachment of unauthorized activities. 

This would enhance the ability of the NPS to 

manage the lands within the park. 

Conclusion – Criterion 3: Otherwise Protect 

Park Resources that are Critical to Fulfilling the 

Park Purposes Criterion 

The study team did not identify findings related to 

this criterion.

Other Significant Resources in the 

Study Area 

In addition to containing resources that further 

the purpose of Joshua Tree National Park, the 

study area also contains other resources with 

important cultural significance. These resources 

include the Colorado River Aqueduct and related 

lands and facilities, and resources related to the 

World War II Desert Training Center, CaliforniaArizona Maneuver Area. 

Colorado River Aqueduct 

The Colorado River Aqueduct is a 242-mile-long 

conveyance system that transports water from the 

Colorado River to Lake Mathews in Riverside 

County. The aqueduct was constructed in the late 

1930s and was placed into service in 1941. The 

Historic American Engineering Record for the 

Colorado River Aqueduct completed in 1998 

documents its significance: 

“When completed, it was one of the longest 

water-conveyance facilities in the world. The 

aqueduct includes power lines, tunnels, siphons, 

covered conduits, open canals, dams, reservoirs, 

and five pumping plants, involving ingenious 

engineering solutions and newly introduced 

construction equipment. The project also 

employed over 35,000 people during its eight-year 

span and as many as 10,000 at one time, making it 

southern California's single-largest work 

opportunity during the Great Depression. In 1995, 

the Colorado River Aqueduct was named a 

National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by 

the American Society of Civil Engineers. Today, it 

is the major water supply for urban and suburban 

southern California (Gruen 1998, ASCE 2015).” 

The Colorado River Aqueduct and nearby Desert 

Center also represent an interesting aspect of 

history related to the evolution of the Kaiser 

Permanente Insurance model, California’s largest 

managed healthcare system today. Kaiser 

Permanente was established by Henry J. Kaiser 

and Dr. Sidney R. Garfield during the 1940s. 

Together they created what is now the world’s 

largest private healthcare system and the first 

group health plan in the nation to fully 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

53 

incorporate prepayment, group practice, and large 

geographic scale medical facilities (Hendricks 

1993). 

The model originated in Desert Center with the 

healthcare services provided to construction 

workers for the Colorado River Aqueduct. It was 

here that Dr. Sidney Garfield started one of the 

first prepayment systems specifically for New 

Deal workers constructing large public work 

projects in the California desert. In 1933, Dr. 

Garfield contracted with Industrial Indemnity, an 

insurance consortium formed by the major 

contractors involved in the Colorado River and 

Hoover Dam projects to meet the legal 

requirements for worker’s compensation. Dr. 

Garfield located a hospital (Contractors General 

Hospital), near Desert Center, a mid-point along 

the Colorado River Aqueduct, with the goal of 

providing medical services to aqueduct 

construction workers. Together with Industrial 

Indemnity, a prepayment system was set up with 

5,000 workers where they would prepay 

premiums to treat medical injuries. Workers paid 

five cents a day. 

The location of the hospital was near a work camp 

for the Colorado River Aqueduct located along 

the base of the Eagle Mountains. Dr. Garfield was 

considered unusual amongst physicians in that he 

felt that patients would respond to care better if 

they were in a comfortable and attractive 

environment. Contractors General Hospital was 

clean, bright and air conditioned. Archeological 

remains of the hospital still exist. However, it is 

not certain at this time whether the remains are in 

the study area (Gilford 2006; Hendricks 1993). 

Henry J. Kaiser, who had men working on the 

aqueduct, became aware of Dr. Garfield’s work 

through Industrial Indemnity and later asked Dr. 

Garfield to set up a medical system for his 

employees at his Grand Coulee Dam construction 

site. Subsequently, Mr. Kaiser enlisted Dr. 

Garfield to help establish a health care system for 

shipyard workers at the Kaiser Shipyards in 

Richmond, California. The healthcare program 

for the shipyard workers evolved into Kaiser 

Permanente (Hendricks 1993). 

General Patton’s World War II Training 

Camp 

In 1942, General Patton established the World 

War II Desert Training Center to train troops in 

combat under harsh conditions to prepare for 

combat the Germans in the deserts of North 

Africa. Known as the Desert Training Center, 

California-Arizona Maneuver Area (DTCCAMA), it was the largest military training area in 

the world, covering 18,000 square miles of desert 

lands in California and Arizona. See page 54 for a 

map of the California-Arizona Maneuver Area. 

One million troops trained there until the camp 

closed in 1944. The headquarters of the training 

center, Camp Young, was located west of the 

study area in Chiriaco Summit (BLM 2015e and 

1985, Bischoff 2009). 

The divisional camp closest to the project area 

was Camp Desert Center. Camp Desert Center 

encompassed 34,000 acres and was located 

southeast of the study area, north of Interstate 10, 

between Desert Center and Chiriaco Summitt. 

Components of the camp included an evacuation 

hospital, maneuvers area, several campsites, and 

temporary housing. However not much is known 

about the history. Camp remains, including rocklined roads and walkways, tent areas, and trash 

have been identified, just outside of the study area 

east of Eagle Mountain Road. A National Register 

of Historic Places evaluation contained in the 

Historical and Archeological Context for the 

California Desert for the DTC-CAMA determined 

that more research was needed to determine 

whether or not the camp is eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places (Bischoff 

2009). 

Although specific sites and visible remains have 

not been identified within the study area to this 

date, there is the potential to uncover visible 

remains of training in the area, such as tank tracks, 

exploded ordinance, target ranges, and 

ammunition cans. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Desert Training Center, California-Arizona Maneuver Area

The Colorado River Aqueduct as it transitions from canal to tunnel. The aqueduct forms the eastern edge of the study area. 

Photo by Ecofl ight, 2011.

54
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

55 

Feasibility Criteria Evaluation 

All recommendations for boundary changes 

must also meet the following feasibility criteria: 

the added lands will be feasible to administer 

considering their: size, configuration, 

ownership, costs, and other factors. This 

assessment evaluates the practical ability of NPS 

to manage and operate lands within a potential 

boundary expansion. 

Size, Configuration, Ownership and Use 

Federal Lands Parcel Group 

Size and Ownership. The federal lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) include approximately 166 parcels (or 

portions of parcels) totaling approximately 

23,140 acres. The federal lands are contiguous to 

the national park boundary and make up the 

majority of land under study. Aside from dirt 

roads and remnants of former mining activity, 

the lands within this parcel group are mostly 

undeveloped. See Map 2-6: Federal Lands Parcel 

Group. 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. Primary use 

of the federally owned land is for rockhounding, 

camping, small-scale mining by mining club 

members and other individuals, and off-highway 

vehicle use. Visitation is sparse due to the area’s 

remote location. 

Mining. Portions of the federal lands were used 

by Kaiser Steel Corporation in association with 

the Eagle Mountain Mine. Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain, LLC, a subsidiary of Eagle Crest 

Energy Company, maintains 460 unpatented 

mining and millsite claims on the federal lands in 

the study area. Another six unpatented mining 

claims are owned by individuals and members of 

a local mining club (BLM 2015b). Today, 

commercial mining activity at Eagle Mountain 

Mine, in the form of aggregate sales, occurs only 

on private lands. Appendix D: Unpatented Mining 

Claims contains a list of unpatented mining and 

millsite claims in the study area. 

Members of the mining club, First Class Miners, 

Inc., maintain mining claims located in the 

northwestern corner of the study area, close to 

the park boundary. Activities associated with 

this club include: camping; placer mining; 

exploration via all-terrain vehicles; conducting 

educational demonstrations of mining 

techniques through Copper Mountain College; 

and exploring the surrounding area for minerals, 

primarily gold. Several other unpatented mining 

claims are held by individuals. The six claims for 

which these activities are associated are all 

located in the western portion of the study area. 

Other Existing Rights. Approximately 620 acres 

of federal land in this parcel group has been 

withdrawn under the Federal Power Act for the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project (Docket No. P-13123), license issued by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) in 2014. The BLM-managed lands 

withdrawn for this project have a power site 

reservation which restricts use of the lands for 

any other purposes until FERC lifts the 

reservation. More detailed information about 

this project is provided in the private lands 

parcel group feasibility evaluation. These lands 

would not be available for transfer to the 

National Park Service at this time. 

The FERC license contains a construction 

commencement date of June 2018. However, the 

licensee may ask for a single two-year extension 

of this deadline. Additional rights-of-way across 

federal lands will also be needed for the 

transmission and water lines associated with the 

pumped storage hydroelectric project and are 

currently being evaluated in an environmental 

assessment by the BLM. 

Several transmission lines cross the federal 

lands, primarily in the southeastern portion of 

the study area. Southern California Edison has 

electrical infrastructure and telecommunications 

infrastructure located within the study area, as 

does Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC, and the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California. This infrastructure requires periodic 

inspection and maintenance. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-6: Federal Lands Parcel Group

56

Federal lands 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

57 

BLM Management Policies. Multiple BLM land 

management policies and designations apply to 

the study area lands. Through the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

Congress established the California Desert 

Conservation Area (CDCA) and directed the 

BLM to inventory and to prepare a 

comprehensive land use management plan for 

the CDCA (CDCA Plan). The 25-million acre 

CDCA includes 12 million acres of public lands. 

The general goal of the CDCA Plan is to provide 

for the use and protection of the desert’s natural, 

cultural, and aesthetic resources. The BLMadministered land in the study area is in the 

CDCA Plan area and is subject to management 

guidelines in the 1980 CDCA Plan and its 

subsequent amendments (BLM 1999). Map 2-7: 

Multiple Use Classes (NECO Plan) and Map 2-8: 

BLM Proposed Land Use Designations depict 

existing and proposed BLM management 

policies for the study area. 

Multiple Use Classes. The CDCA Plan establishes 

four multiple use classes and plan elements for 

specific resources or activities, such as 

motorized vehicle access, recreation, and 

vegetation. As amended in the North and Eastern 

Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan

(NECO Plan), a plan developed for a geographic 

subset of the larger CDCA, public lands west and 

north of the Eagle Mountain Mine but east of 

the park boundary are managed as Multiple Use 

Class-L guidelines. Public lands south and east 

of the Eagle Mountain Mine are managed 

according to Multiple Use Class-M guidelines 

(BLM and CDFG 2002). 

 Class “L” (limited use) lands are 

managed to provide lower intensity, 

carefully controlled multiple uses while 

ensuring that sensitive resource values 

are not significantly diminished. 

Allowable uses in Class L areas include 

electric generation plants (wind, solar or 

geothermal); gas, electric and 

transmission facilities and cables; 

communications sites; livestock grazing; 

mining; and low to moderate 

recreational activities. 

 Class “M” (moderate use) lands are 

managed to provide for a wider variety 

of uses such as mining; livestock grazing, 

moderate to high density recreational 

uses; utilities, and all types of electrical 

generation plants (BLM 1999, BLM and 

CDFG 2002). 

Proposed BLM Designations. The Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed 

Land Use Plan Amendment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (DRECP LUPA) (BLM 2015a), 

which serves as the most recent proposed land 

use plan amendment to the CDCA Plan, 

proposes to apply two new BLM land-use 

designations. If adopted, these designations 

would only apply to a little more than half of the 

BLM-managed lands within the DRECP Plan 

Area. The lands that are not proposed to receive 

a new land use designation in the DRECP LUPA 

are referred to as “unallocated lands (BLM 

2015a).” The BLM has not signed a Record of 

Decision for the DRECP LUPA. 

National Conservation Lands. BLM-managed 

federal lands west of the Eagle Mountain Mine 

(approximately 5,870 acres) are proposed to be 

designated as a National Conservation Lands 

(NCL) through the DRECP LUPA. A portion of 

the proposed NCL includes State School Land 

and private land. However, this proposed BLM 

land use designation would not apply to these 

nonfederal lands unless BLM were to acquire 

management authority over these lands such as 

through a land exchange with the California 

State Lands Commission (CSLC) (BLM 2015a). 

The NCL designation would incorporate these 

lands into to the broader National Landscape 

Conservation System (NLCS). The 2009 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act, PL 111–

11 created the NLCS “to conserve, protect and 

restore nationally significant landscapes that 

have outstanding cultural, ecological and 

scientific values for the benefit of current and 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

58 

future generations.” National program policies 

that generally apply to BLM public lands also 

apply to NLCS components to the extent that 

they are consistent with the designating 

proclamation or legislation, other applicable law, 

and BLM policy. The BLM’s objectives in 

implementing the NLCS policy include: 

 Effectively managing valid existing 

rights and compatible uses within 

monuments and national conservation 

areas. 

 Managing discretionary uses within 

monument and national conservation 

areas to ensure the protection of the 

objects and values for which the 

monuments and national conservation 

areas were designated. 

 Using science, local knowledge, 

partnerships, and volunteers to 

effectively manage monuments and 

national conservation areas. 

 Providing appropriate recreational 

opportunities, education, interpretation, 

and visitor services to enhance the 

public’s understanding and enjoyment 

of the monuments and national 

conservation areas. 

BLM Manual 6100 provides general policy to 

BLM personnel on managing public lands in the 

NLCS. This manual lists the designations 

identified in the act as components of the NLCS. 

National program policies that are applicable to 

all BLM public lands apply to lands in the NLCS 

to the extent they are consistent with the 

Omnibus Act of 2009, the designating legislation 

or proclamation, other applicable law, and BLM 

NLCS program policy. 

Although Public Law 111-11 provides for lands 

within the CDCA to become National 

Conservation Lands, it does not include specific 

management direction to protect resource 

values on these lands. Therefore, more specific 

direction is proposed in the DRECP LUPA 

planning process to protect these resource 

values. Discretionary activities would only be 

allowed if a NEPA analysis indicated that they 

were compatible with the conservation values of 

the area. Specific management plans would be 

developed for NCL and ACEC’s established 

through the DRECP LUPA. In addition, to 

achieve the purposes of FLPMA Section 601 and 

the 2009 Omnibus, and consistent with 

FLPMA’s multiple use and sustained yield 

mandate, the BLM has stated that it would 

consider for mineral withdrawal any National 

Conservation Lands it identifies in connection 

with the DRECP decision. In the DRECP LUPA 

Record of Decision, the BLM will identify 

priority areas within the National Conservation 

Lands for consideration in a Phase 1 analysis of 

mineral withdrawals. In identifying these 

priority areas, or “Phase 1” areas, the BLM will 

consider the following: 

 History of conservation commitment 

 Importance of the conservation values 

 Current trends (e.g., species population 

trend) 

 Current absence of significant mining 

activity or production 

The evaluation of these Phase 1 areas for a 

potential withdrawal will be the subject of a 

separate planning process that would begin as 

soon as practicable after approval of the DRECP 

LUPA Record of Decision. Upon conclusion of 

the Phase 1 environmental analysis, review, and 

decision, the BLM would expect to commence a 

Phase 2 analysis of withdrawals for any 

remaining NCL within the DRECP planning 

area not previously considered or otherwise 

subject to withdrawal (BLM 2015a). 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. In the 

eastern portion of the study area, the DRECP 

LUPA land use plan amendment proposes an 

area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) 

for the broader Chuckwalla Valley area 

(Chuckwalla ACEC). The designation of ACECs 

was authorized in Section 202 (c)(3) of FLPMA, 

and was designed to be used as a process for 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

59 

determining the special management required 

by certain environmental resources or hazards 

(BLM 1999). To qualify as an ACEC, an area 

must contain resources, values, systems or 

processes, or hazards that meet the relevance 

and importance criteria. ACECs have special 

site-specific management prescriptions in order 

to protect the specific natural or cultural 

resource for which the ACEC was designated. 

Approximately 6,630 acres of federal land within 

the study area is included in the proposed 

Chuckwalla ACEC (BLM 2015a). 

The DRECP LUPA proposed recommended 

management actions for the Chuckwalla ACEC, 

would take effect when a new ACEC 

Management Plan is completed. The 

Chuckwalla ACEC description states that 

renewable energy development would not be 

compatible with the proposed Chuckwalla 

ACEC unit values. For locatable minerals, 

withdrawal is recommended for areas that were 

part of the former Chuckwalla ACEC extent 

(outside of the study area). Removal of mineral 

materials (common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel, pumice, pumicite, clay, rock, and 

petrified wood) would be allowed only in 

portions of the proposed ACEC where impacts 

to vegetation and wildlife would be negligible. 

No surface occupancy would be permitted to 

remove leasable minerals (e.g., oil and gas, oil 

shale, geothermal resources, potash, sodium, 

native asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen, 

bituminous rock, phosphate, sulfur, and coal). 

Stopping, parking and vehicle camping would be 

allowed no more than 100 feet from the 

centerline of an approved route of travel (BLM 

2015a). 

Transmission Corridors. The CDCA Plan 

recognizes designated approximately two-milewide utility corridors targeted for transmission 

lines, pipelines, and related structures such as 

substations and compression stations. One such 

corridor traverses the eastern edge of the study 

area, primarily near the Colorado River 

Aqueduct. The plan states that sites associated 

with power generation or transmission not 

identified in the CDCA Plan would be 

considered through the plan amendment 

process (BLM 1980). The proposed DRECP 

LUPA states that transmission development and 

operation would occur in previously designated 

corridors and other identified areas, both inside 

and outside of development focus areas. The 

proposed DRECP LUPA also identifies potential 

transmission lines that could connect renewable 

energy generation in the DRECP Plan Area to 

load centers. 

Local Planning and Zoning. Local zoning 

would generally not apply to federally owned 

lands. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-8: BLM Proposed Land Use DesignaƟ ons (DRECP)

60

Map 2-7: MulƟ ple Use Classes (NECO Plan)

Study Area

L M
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

61 

Analysis – Federal Lands Parcel Group. 

Because the federal lands are contiguous to the 

park boundary, and public access is primarily 

from the national park, these lands would be of 

adequate size and configuration for inclusion in 

the park boundary. The DRECP LUPA 

recognizes that much of the area lands are of 

national significance. However, BLM proposed 

land use designations would only apply to 

portions of the study area. 

The Federal Power Act withdrawal associated 

with the proposed Eagle Mountain pumped 

storage hydroelectric project provides that 

federal lands included in an application are 

"from the date of filing of application. . .reserved 

from entry, location, or other disposal under the 

laws of the United States until otherwise 

directed by [FERC] or by Congress (16 U.S.C. § 

818)." As a result of safety concerns associated 

with the project, no public access will be 

permitted on the project site. For these reasons, 

it would not be feasible to include the 620 acres 

that have been previously withdrawn under the 

Federal Power Act for construction of the 

pumped storage hydroelectric project in the 

park boundary at this time. At such time that the 

620 acres are no longer needed for this use, 

those lands could be considered for inclusion in 

the park boundary. 

Mining operations on unpatented and patented 

claims may only take place in parks in 

accordance with an NPS permit and NPS 

regulations. In 1976, Congress enacted the 

Mining in the Parks Act (54 U.S.C. §100731 et 

seq.), which closed all units of the National Park 

System to the location of new mining claims. 

Through the Mining in the Parks Act, Congress 

also directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

regulate all activities resulting from the exercise 

of valid existing rights on patented or 

unpatented mining claims within any unit of the 

National Park System. The Secretary has 

delegated this authority to the National Park 

Service (NPS). In 1978, the NPS promulgated 

the requisite regulations which are located in 

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Part 9, Subpart A. The NPS regulations 

control the conduct of mineral operations so as 

to minimize damage to park values and 

purposes. 

Because any transfer of land from the BLM to 

the NPS would be subject to valid existing rights, 

existing unpatented mining and millsite claims 

would not be voided. However, unpatented 

claims would have to undergo a validation 

process and further comply with NPS 

regulations before mining activity could 

continue. Among the requirements the claim 

holder must meet is the discovery of a valuable 

mineral deposit. The burden of proving a 

discovery rests entirely with the claim holder. If 

claims are determined to be valid, then mining is 

permitted per NPS regulations. Because 

validation of mining claims can be a lengthy 

process, such costs could prove to be difficult 

for claimholders who currently operate under 

BLM’s small miner waivers. Such areas, which 

total over 300 acres3

, could be remain under 

BLM management until such time they that they 

are no longer active or are relinquished. 

However, if the remaining lands surrounding 

such claims were transferred to the NPS for 

administration, it may create challenges for 

federal management agencies since the lands 

were managed by different, and sometimes 

conflicting, management policies. 

The vast majority of the unpatented mining and 

millsite claims (460) are owned by a corporate 

entity whose primary use of the lands and 

interests in lands in the Eagle Mountain area 

would be for a pumped storage hydroelectric 

project. Many of these claims are outside of the 

footprint of the proposed pump storage 

hydroelectric project and Eagle Crest Energy 

Company has indicated that it does not intend to 

 

3 During the completion of this study and environmental 

assessment, the number and location of several unpatented 

claims held by individuals changed. One claim closed while 

several were added. If unpatented claim areas were excluded 

from a boundary addition, additional surveys would be 

needed to determine their exact location.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

62 

conduct mining operations on its unpatented 

mining claims at this time. If such lands were 

included in the park boundary and Eagle Crest 

Energy Company or its affiliates chose to mine 

on the unpatented claims, they would need to 

comply with NPS regulations for mining in the 

parks. 

In summary, approximately 22,515 acres of the 

federal lands parcel group would be eligible for 

inclusion in a boundary adjustment. This 

acreage excludes the lands withdrawn under the 

Federal Power Act for the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project (620 acres). Retaining the 

six unpatented mining claims in active use by the 

mining club and other individuals under BLM 

management may be considered. However such 

exclusion would create a complex boundary 

configuration and management challenges for 

both agencies. 

Private Lands Parcel Group 

Size and Ownership. This group includes 42 

parcels (or portions of parcels) totaling 

approximately 4,550 acres of privately owned 

land, most of which is associated with the Eagle 

Mountain Mine and under ownership by one 

entity, Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC (KEM) 

which was acquired by Eagle Crest Energy 

Company from CIL&D, LLC in 2015. The 

United States patented these lands to KEM’s 

predecessors over time in furtherance of mineral 

production. A separate parcel comprising 31 

acres located in the northwestern section of the 

study area is also included in this parcel group 

but is under different ownership. There is no 

active mining occurring on this parcel at this 

time. See Map 2-9: Private Lands Parcel Group. 

With the exception of three small parcels, the 

KEM private lands are contiguous and 

surrounded by federally owned land. KEM also 

owns lands that were patented to Kaiser Steel 

Corporation for the purposes of the Eagle 

Mountain Townsite, which served as the 

company town for the employees of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine from 1948 to 1983. The 

feasibility of these parcels for inclusion in the 

park boundary is analyzed separately (see 

below) because of the reversionary interest of 

the federal government in such lands. 

The parcels in this group primarily consist of 

mountainous terrain that has been extensively 

disturbed as a result of past mining activity. 

Inactive open pits, tailings piles, and remnant 

tailings ponds exist on these properties. Most of 

the ore processing and refining facilities 

associated with the former mining activities have 

been removed (FERC 2012). Despite the 

disturbance from previous mining activity, some 

of the private land parcel group lands are part of 

an important migratory corridor for desert 

bighorn sheep (Epps et al. 2010). Additionally, 

the mine itself has historical value and if added 

to the park would provide NPS an opportunity 

to share with visitors its historical significance. 

Kaiser Steel Corporation constructed a 52-mile 

private railroad to transport iron ore from the 

Eagle Mountain Mine to the Kaiser steel mill in 

Fontana, California. The northern-most 4.5 

miles are within the study area. The railroad 

begins at the Southern Pacific Railroad at 

Ferrum Junction near the northeastern shore of 

the Salton Sea. From Ferrum Junction, the rail 

line travels in a northeast direction along Salt 

Creek, crosses under Interstate 10, and follows 

the foothills of the Eagle Mountains and along 

the western boundary of the existing Townsite 

and into the mine (Riverside County and BLM 

1996). An existing right-of-way from the BLM 

covers approximately 28.6 miles of the 52-mile 

rail line; the remainder of the rail line traverses 

the private lands, and other landowners which 

have issued easements or other permits for the 

rail line (Riverside County and BLM 1996). The 

railroad is currently non-operational and tracks 

are damaged in some locations. Through an 

agreement with KEM, Eagle Mountain Mining 

and Railroad, LLC (EMMR), maintains the 

railroad assets. EMMR has expressed interest in 

repairing the railroad to facilitate the transport 

of aggregate from the mine. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-9: Private Lands Parcel Group

63

View of the Eagle Mountain Mine, looking east from the federal lands. Photo by Steven Scamman.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

64 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. Primary use 

of the private lands in the study area has been for 

mineral extraction. Large scale mining at the 

Eagle Mountain Mine ceased in 1983. In the 

future, Eagle Crest Energy Company plans to use 

approximately 1,650 acres of the former Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain Mine site for its pumped 

storage hydroelectric project. 

Most of the lands in this group are patented 

mineral lands owned by KEM. A separate, 

individually owned patented parcel (31 acres) in 

the northwestern corner of the study also exists 

(Riverside County 2015a). The California State 

Lands Commission (CSLC) maintains a vested 

mineral interest on one of the KEM parcels 

within the former eastern pit of the Eagle 

Mountain mine. This area is within the footprint 

identified for the proposed pumped storage 

hydroelectric project. CSLC had issued a lease to 

Kaiser in 1978 covering 145 acres of this 467-

acre parcel. Iron ore was extracted from the 

eastern pit for nearly 40 years until operations 

ceased in 1983. Kaiser’s lease from the CLSC 

expired in December 2002 (FERC 2012). The 

mine waste deposited on the parcel is owned by 

KEM (CLSC 2015). 

Mining Operations. Although full-time operation 

of the Eagle Mountain Mine was curtailed in 

1983, the Eagle Mountain Mine has remained in 

operation on a more limited scale and is 

considered active (CA Mine ID#91-33-0060). 

Current activity includes a limited amount of 

above-ground mining, processing, and transport 

of material derived from stockpiles of waste rock 

from the previous extraction of iron ore. 

Products include iron ore, crushed and mixed 

rock, rip-rap, and decorative and landscape 

stone (Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013). 

A reclamation plan for the Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain Mine was completed by Kaiser Steel 

Corporation and approved by Riverside County 

in 1980. The reclamation plan covers 8,890 

acres. The 2013 Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine 

Interim Management Plan reports that 

approximately 4,300 acres are disturbed. The 

reclamation plan for the mine calls for aggregate 

generated during the iron ore mining to be 

placed in dump locations and left to weather at 

“their natural angle of repose.” A Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and 

Revegetation Plan have also been developed for 

the disturbed lands. The purpose of the SWPPP 

is to prevent water pollution as a result of the 

current small-scale mining and processing 

activities. The Revegetation Plan is prescribed in 

the 1980 Reclamation Plan and calls for 

voluntary re-growth of vegetation finding that 

there are fine materials on the surface to support 

such voluntary growth (Kaiser Eagle Mountain, 

LLC 2013). 

The Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine Interim 

Management Plan, approved by Riverside 

County, states that “surface mining operations at 

the Mine will continue for the foreseeable 

future, and will be responsive to market 

conditions (Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013, 

p. 9).” Whether estimated reserves are 

economically recoverable depends on several 

factors including the market price of iron ore, 

costs to process and ship the iron ore, and costs 

for improvements to support the mining and 

processing (Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013). 

Construction of the proposed pumped storage 

hydroelectric project would preclude full-scale 

extraction of iron ore during the life of the 

project. Access to iron reserves beneath the 

project footprint would only become accessible 

for mining operations in the future if the project 

were decommissioned. FERC estimates that the 

recoverable iron ore at Eagle Mountain Mine 

that would become inaccessible in the east and 

central pits once the project is constructed and 

operational (FERC 2012, CLSC 2015). Above 

ground mining of existing waste rock piles 

would continue during operation of the pumped 

storage hydroelectric project. Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain, LLC (now owned by Eagle Crest) has 

entered into an agreement with Eagle Mountain 

Mining and Railroad (EMMR) granting EMMR 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

65 

the right to conduct “above-ground mining 

activities on and related to the mining properties 

and in and related to the East Pit area of the 

Eagle Mountain Mine, for a renewable term up 

to 100 years. Other areas in and around the 

Townsite would be used for processing, 

operations, and administrative uses. 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project (pumped storage hydroelectric project).

The proposed pumped hydroelectric storage 

project would supply system peaking capacity 

and transmission regulating benefits to the 

regional electrical grid. The proposed project 

would occupy 1,150 acres of federal lands (620 

acres within the study area as described above) 

and about 1,377 acres of private lands, most of 

which (805 acres) is included within the private 

lands parcel group. An additional 220 acres of 

the proposed project boundary lies within the 

Townsite parcel group (FERC 2014). 

The project would consist of: (1) an upper and 

lower reservoir (2) an underground powerhouse 

with four reversible pump-turbine units each 

rated at 325 megawatts for a total generating 

capacity of 1,300 megawatts; (3) a 16.4-mile-long 

above ground transmission line; and (4) 

groundwater supply facilities. The Central Pit of 

the Eagle Mountain Mine would be utilized for 

the Upper Reservoir and the East Pit of the mine 

would form the lower reservoir for the project 

(FERC 2012; FERC 2014). 

The project would use off-peak energy to pump 

water from the lower reservoir to the upper 

reservoir during periods of low electrical 

demand and generate valuable peak energy by 

passing the water from the upper to the lower 

reservoir through the generating units during 

periods of high electrical demand. (FERC 2012). 

The project requires a transmission line that 

would extend approximately 16.4 miles from the 

project switchyard to the Red Bluff Substation 

for interconnection to the Devers -Palo Verde 

transmission 500-kV line owned by Southern 

California Edison. The proposed route for the 

project’s double-circuit 500-kV transmission 

line would be located almost entirely on public 

lands managed by BLM. Exceptions include 

privately owned land and a small crossing of 

land owned by the Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California as the route crosses the 

Colorado River Aqueduct and transmission 

lines. Eagle Crest proposes a 200-foot-wide 

corridor for construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the proposed transmission line 

(FERC 2012, Eagle Crest Energy Company 

2015). 

Eagle Crest states that the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project facilities are not safe for 

public recreation due to the highly fluctuating 

water levels and that public access to the project 

area would be closed. No visitor facilities are 

proposed (Eagle Crest Energy Company 2015). 

Local Planning and Zoning. The principal land 

use plan affecting the private lands parcel group 

is the Riverside County General Plan (General 

Plan), which articulates the vision and planning 

principles for development in Riverside County. 

Properties in the eastern portion of the private 

lands parcel group are located within the Desert 

Center Area Plan which provides a more focused 

development plan for the Desert Center area 

(Riverside County 2003). Map 2-10 depicts land 

use designations for the study area. Land use 

designations that apply to the private lands 

parcel group include: 

 The Community Development - Public 

Facilities (PF) land use designation 

applies to most of the lands within the 

private lands parcel group. This land use 

designation reflects the previous 

proposal to construct a landfill on the 

Eagle Mountain Mine site. This 

designation allows for civic uses such as 

County administrative buildings and 

schools. 

 The Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) 

land use designation allows for the 

protection of open space for natural 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

66 

hazard protection, and natural and 

scenic resource preservation. Existing 

agriculture is permitted. 

 The Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) land 

use designation applies to several areas 

south of the Townsite. This designation 

allows for recreational uses including 

parks, trails, athletic fields, and golf 

courses. 

 The Open Space - Mineral Resources (OSMIN) land use designation allows for 

mineral extraction and processing 

facilities. Such areas are held in reserve 

for future mineral extraction and 

processing. This designation applies to 

the easternmost parcels of the private 

lands parcel group. 

 The Rural - Mountains (R-M) land use 

designation allows for single-family 

residential uses with a minimum lot size 

of 10 acres, including areas of at least 10 

acres where a minimum of 70% of the 

area has slopes of 25% or greater. The 

area also allows limited animal keeping, 

agriculture, recreational uses, 

compatible resource development 

(which may include the commercial 

extraction of mineral resources with 

approval of a surface mining permit) and 

associated uses and governmental uses. 

This policy would apply to one isolated 

parcel owned by KEM. 

Zoning classifications are defined in the 

Riverside County Land Use Ordinance, 

Ordinance 348, as amended (Riverside County 

2015b). Map 2-11: Local Zoning depicts the 

zoning classifications for the study area. The 

ordinance details all permitted uses on private 

property based on the assigned zone 

classification. For the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite, Riverside County adopted specific 

plans to accommodate a non-hazardous landfill 

that was previously proposed for the area. 

Specific plans are highly customized policy or 

regulatory tools that provide a bridge between 

the General Plan and individual projects, in a 

more area-specific manner than is possible with 

community-wide zoning ordinances. The 

specific plan is a tool that provides land use and 

development standards that are tailored to 

respond to special conditions and aspirations 

unique to the area proposed for development. 

The eastern half of the private lands parcel 

group is assigned to Specific Plan No. 305, Eagle 

Mountain Landfill. The landfill proposal was 

abandoned by the Sanitation Districts of Los 

Angeles County in 2013, and the federal lands 

needed for the project were returned to the 

BLM in 2014. The Desert Center Area Plan states, 

“As an approved landfill site, the property is 

designated Public Facilities, which is within the 

Community Development foundation 

component. However, this site is within the 

Community Development foundation 

component solely to recognize the public facility 

use. Any alternative land use on this site, other 

than for public facilities, shall be uses within an 

Open Space foundation component designation 

(Riverside County 2003).” 

Outside of the specific plan zone area most of 

private land parcel group to the west lies in the 

Mineral Resource Zone (M-R-A). Within this zone 

permitted uses for parcels not less than 20,000 

square feet include: agricultural uses; electric 

and gas distribution, transmission substations, 

telephone and microwave stations; water well 

and other uses related to the storage and 

distribution or water; and riding and hiking 

trails, recreation lakes, and campgrounds. With 

the issuance of a surface mining permit, various 

uses related to mining are allowed including 

excavation, processing, beneficiating, 

stockpiling, and facilities and equipment to 

support mineral extraction and processing 

(Riverside County 2015b). Near the Townsite, a 

small parcel lies in the Controlled Development 

Zone (W-2) which allows for a wide range of 

permitted uses including single-family dwellings, 

field and tree crops, outside storage of materials, 

and limited animal husbandry. Many additional 

uses are allowed by approval or by permit, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

67 

including “structures and the pertinent facilities 

necessary and incidental to the development and 

transmission of electrical power, guest ranches, 

educational institutions, and sanitary facilities 

(Riverside County 2015).” Another isolated 

parcel in the southwestern corner of the private 

lands parcel group lies within the Natural Assets 

Zone (N-A). Permitted uses in this zone include 

some dwellings and accessory buildings, field 

and tree crops, grazing subject to stated 

limitations, and apiaries. Several other uses, 

including utility substations are allowed by 

approval or permit (Riverside County 2015b). 

Analysis – Private Lands Parcel Group. When 

combined with the federal lands, the private 

land parcel group would form a logical 

boundary delineation that would include areas 

with historical values and high potential for 

recreation and educational opportunities, as 

described in the previous section. Although 

much of the land is disturbed, the lands remain 

important for habitat for desert bighorn sheep 

and other wildlife. 

The boundary configuration would not include 

the private lands that have been previously 

withdrawn under the Federal Power Act, or 

other private lands currently used for 

commercial mining activities (approximately 

2,320 acres). These lands would not be available 

for public use. At such time that the private lands 

are no longer needed for these uses, those lands 

could be considered for inclusion in the park 

boundary. 

Approximately 2,230 acres of the private land 

parcel group that would not be needed for the 

pumped storage hydroelectric project or mining 

activities would be a feasible addition to the 

national park boundary when combined with 

the federal land parcels. The Eagle Crest Energy 

Company has indicated that it would consider 

donation of lands excess to the proposed 

pumped storage hydroelectric project to 

National Park Service. The individually owned 

31-acre parcel could be acquired or added to the 

boundary if the land owner was willing to sell or 

donate the land to the NPS. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-10: Land Use DesignaƟ ons (Riverside County General Plan)

Map 2-11: Local Zoning

68
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

69 

State School Lands Parcel Group 

Size and Ownership. The California State 

Lands Commission (CSLC) holds seven “State 

School Land” parcels within the study area 

totaling approximately 340 acres. Three of the 

parcels are located adjacent to the Eagle 

Mountain Mine and are bisected by the KEM 

private lands (approximately 325 acres of 

patented lands). The other four parcels 

(approximately 15 acres) are located in the far 

northeastern end of the study area near the 

Colorado River Aqueduct surrounded by lands 

owned and managed by the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California (MWD). Access 

to the larger parcels in the western end of the 

study area is from Black Eagle Mine Road which 

crosses through these parcels. There are no 

public roads that access the four isolated parcels 

located adjacent to the Colorado River 

Aqueduct. 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. State School 

Lands were granted to the State of California by 

the federal government under the Act of March 

3, 1853 (10 Stat. 244). A supplementary act in 

1927 extended to the State the grant of mineral 

lands. School lands were placed into a statutory 

trust in 1984 when the Legislature enacted the 

School Land Bank Act (Act) and created the 

School Land Bank Fund. The CSLC is the 

trustee of the Fund. The Act states that school 

lands and attendant interests are to be 

proactively managed and enhanced to provide 

an economic base in support of public schools. 

The Act further requires the CSLC to take all 

action necessary to fully develop school lands, 

indemnity interests, and attendant mineral 

interests into a permanent and productive 

resource base. The California Public Resources 

Code §6217.5 requires, with one exception, that 

all net revenues, monies, and remittances from 

school and lieu lands (i.e., royalties, rents, and 

interest generated from promissory notes) are 

deposited into the State Treasury to the credit of 

the Teachers’ Retirement Fund, which benefits 

the State Teachers’ Retirement System (CSLC 

2015). 

The BLM and CSLC are pursuing an exchange 

of state and federal lands in the California 

desert. On October 1, 2015, the agencies signed a 

memorandum of intent for a proposed land 

exchange. The first phase of the land exchange 

will exchange 61,000 acres of non-revenue 

generating school lands in federal wilderness 

and other conservation areas for approximately 

5,600 acres of federal lands with the potential 

for, or previously developed with, renewable 

energy facilities. 

CSCL also holds a vested mineral interest on 466 

acres of KEM lands that lie within the project 

area for the pumped storage hydroelectric 

project. This vested interest is discussed in the 

private lands parcel group analysis. 

Planning and Zoning. The Riverside County 

General Plan land use designations for the State 

School Lands are Open Space-Conservation (OSC) which calls for the protection of open space 

for natural hazard protection, and natural and 

scenic resource preservation; and Open Space - 

Mineral Resources (OS-MIN) which allows for 

mineral extraction and processing facilities. 

Proposed BLM Designations. The 325 acres of 

State School Lands located west of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine have been included in the area 

proposed as a national conservation lands in the 

DRECP LUPA. BLM land use designations do 

not apply to nonfederal lands. However, BLM 

may enter into land exchanges with the CSLC 

(BLM 2015a). 

Analysis – State School Lands Parcel Group. 

The three western State School Land parcels 

(approximately 325 acres), when combined with 

the federal and private land parcel groups would 

form a logical boundary delineation. These lands 

could be included in the national park boundary 

through a future land exchange. The four small 

and discontinuous parcels located near the 

Colorado River Aqueduct would not be 

desirable for inclusion in the national park 

boundary. These separate, small parcels are 

surrounded by lands managed by MWD to 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

70 

support the operation of the Colorado River 

Aqueduct. The MWD parcel group western edge 

forms a natural delineation for a boundary 

adjustment and is consistent with the boundary 

configuration as defined in the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1994. 

Map 2-12: State School Lands Parcel Group 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

71 

Townsite Parcel Group 

Size and Ownership. The Townsite parcel 

group includes 25 parcels that make up an 

approximately 500-acre block of land. Most of 

the lands are part of a 460-acre patent for a 

millsite and campsite that was conveyed to 

Kaiser Steel Corporation in 1955 (U.S. Patent # 1 

153422). Pursuant to the Act of July 8, 1952, 

(Private Law Number 790, 66 Stat. A130), the 

patent states that in the event that these lands are 

not used for a continuous period of seven years 

for “camp site, mill site or other incidental 

purposes in connection with mining operations 

by Kaiser Steel Corporation or its successors in 

interest,” the land will revert in fee to the United 

States. Private Law 790 also conveyed a 200 foot 

right-of-way to Kaiser to construct a railroad, 

roads, and pipelines needed to support the mine 

and Townsite. The right-of-way is also subject to 

the reversionary clause of Private Law 790. The 

final court order resolving the landfill litigation 

provides that the continuous seven-year period 

of non-use related to Private Law 790’s 

reversionary interest does not apply to the 

period between 1999 (the date of the land 

exchange) and 2014 (the end of the lawsuit.) 

Therefore, any non-use by KEM from 1999 to 

2014 would not trigger the reversionary clause. 

Today, KEM is the owner of the Townsite and 

railroad right-of-way. Future non-use of these 

properties could cause the United States to seek 

a reversion of these properties. All of the 

Townsite parcels are owned by KEM with the 

exception of one small parcel (0.15 acres) that is 

listed as owned by General Telephone Company 

of California c/o GTE in Riverside County 

assessor data. See Map 2-13: Townsite and Eagle 

Mountain School Parcel Groups.

Primary vehicular access to the Townsite is by 

Kaiser Road, which enters the Townsite from 

the east. Kaiser Road connects to State Highway 

177 and Interstate 10 at Desert Center 

approximately 11 miles south of the Townsite. 

The Kaiser Eagle Mountain Railroad traverses 

the Townsite's southern and western perimeter. 

Although many structures have been moved, 

demolished or fallen into disrepair, the former 

Townsite’s overall footprint and development 

pattern is still evident. While portions of the 

Townsite are visible from Kaiser Road, the area 

is fenced with controlled access. 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. During fullscale operation of the Eagle Mountain Mine, the 

Townsite supported a community that reached 

3,700 during its peak occupancy. Residents 

included employees of the mine and their 

families. Kaiser constructed 416 homes, trailer 

spaces, and 450 dormitory rooms and 

apartments. Other supporting community 

infrastructure included commercial services, 

recreational facilities, churches, schools, medical 

services, and a full range of utilities and services 

including water, sewer, electrical, and telephone 

(Kaiser Steel Corporation 1978, Riverside 

County and BLM 1996). 

When Kaiser suspended regular iron-mining 

operations in 1983, the Townsite was closed and 

its residents moved elsewhere. The Townsite 

was vacated with the exception of a few 

remaining Kaiser employees. From 1986 through 

2003, a privately run state prison occupied a 

portion of the Townsite. The shopping center 

structures were renovated to accommodate this 

use and employees of the correctional facility 

resided in the residential areas of the Townsite. 

After its closure in 2003, members of the Board 

of Supervisors of Riverside County studied the 

site as a potential county correctional facility; 

however, a 2007 feasibility study recommended 

that the County not pursue this option (DMJM 

Design/AECOM, 2007). 

As described in the environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for the previously proposed 

landfill, water for irrigation and domestic 

(except for drinking water) purposes within the 

Townsite is provided by two Kaiser-owned wells 

in the Chuckwalla Basin. These wells pump 

water approximately 7 miles to the Town 

Booster Station where the water is chlorinated 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

72 

and then pumped to and stored in two 500,000-

gallon tanks located directly west of the 

Townsite. The Town Booster Station is located 

north of the Townsite, and south of the coarse 

tailings pile. From these tanks, the water is 

gravity-fed to the Townsite. Drinking water 

must be brought in from off-site. Also described 

in the landfill EIS, a separate unchlorinated 

industrial water system is located in the former 

mineral processing and equipment maintenance 

area (Riverside County and BLM 1996). 

Sewer service to homes and structures within 

the Townsite is provided by the Eagle Mountain 

Mine wastewater collection and treatment 

system. Southern California Edison Company 

provides power to a substation for distribution 

to the mine and the Townsite. Southern 

California Gas Company provides natural gas to 

the area. Telephone services are provided by 

through a substation located within the 

Townsite (Riverside County and BLM 1996). 

Currently, many of the structures are in a state of 

disrepair from disuse. If historic structures are 

not maintained on a regular basis they fall into 

poor or ruined condition. As structural 

condition worsens, structures become harder 

and more expensive to maintain. 

Portions of the Townsite parcel group are 

proposed to be used for the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project (approximately 220). Eagle 

Crest is not proposing to use the Eagle 

Mountain Townsite for employee housing, but 

expects that workers needing short-term 

housing would find lodging in the available 

houses, rental units, or hotel/motel rooms in the 

area (FERC 2012). Eagle Crest Energy Company 

is proceeding with a preservation program for 

Townsite structures per the FERC license 

agreement for the pumped storage hydroelectric 

project. 

Per its mining agreement with KEM, EMMR will 

use portions of the Townsite parcel group for 

above ground mining operations and 

administrative purposes. 

Local Planning and Zoning. Land use 

designations that apply to the Townsite parcel 

group include: 

 The Community Development - Public 

Facilities (PF) land use designation 

applies to the northern portions of the 

Townsite parcel group. This land use 

designation reflects the previous 

proposal to construct a landfill on the 

Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine site. This 

designation allows for civic uses such as 

County administrative buildings and 

schools. 

 The Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) land 

use designation applies to several areas 

of the Townsite. This designation allows 

for recreational uses including parks, 

trails, athletic fields, and golf courses. 

 The Commercial Retail (CR) land use 

designation would apply to former 

commercial areas within the Townsite. 

It would allow for local and regional 

serving retail and service uses. 

 The Medium Density Residential (MDR)

land use designation would allow singlefamily detached and attached residences 

with a density range of two to five 

dwelling units per acre. Limited 

agriculture and animal keeping is 

permitted, however, intensive animal 

keeping is discouraged. This designation 

generally applies to the residential areas 

of the Townsite. 

 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land 

use designation allows for single-family 

detached residences on large parcels of 

1⁄2 to 1 acre. Limited agriculture and 

animal keeping is permitted, however, 

intensive animal keeping is discouraged. 

 The Very Low Density Residential

(VLDR) land use designation allows for 

single-family detached residences on 

large parcels of 1 to 2 acres. Limited 

agriculture and animal keeping is 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

73 

permitted, however, intensive animal 

keeping is discouraged. 

The Townsite parcels are zoned Specific Plan

relating to Specific Plan No. 306, Eagle Mountain 

Townsite. Adopted in 1997, Specific Plan No. 

306 is a community development specific plan 

that was designed to guide redevelopment of the 

Townsite to accommodate employees of the 

formerly proposed landfill (Riverside County 

2003). Had the landfill been constructed, the 

Townsite would have been revitalized to provide 

housing for the landfill employees. However, 

there is no intent to repopulate the Townsite to 

support the pumped storage hydroelectric 

project, the current planned use for the area. 

Analysis – Townsite Parcel Group. Inclusion of 

the Townsite in the park boundary would create 

logical boundary delineation when combined 

with the federal and private land parcel groups. 

However, inclusion of the Townsite in the 

national park boundary is not feasible at this 

time due to the use of some areas for commercial 

mining activities and construction of the 

proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project. 

At such time as these activities cease, and when 

the Townsite would revert back to federal 

ownership, this parcel group would form a 

logical boundary delineation that could offer a 

range of opportunities to protect the cultural 

resources and provide public enjoyment 

opportunities for education, research, 

recreation, and interpretation. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-13: Townsite and Eagle Mountain School Parcel Groups

74

Aerial view of the Eagle Mountain Townsite in 2015.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

75 

Eagle Mountain School Parcel 

Size and Ownership. An approximately 90-acre 

parcel located adjacent to and east of the 

Townsite parcel group is owned by Desert 

Center Unified School District for the operation 

of Eagle Mountain School. The school could be 

considered a component of the cultural 

landscape associated with the Townsite. 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. The school 

is in active use and serves the greater 

Chuckwalla Valley. Enrollment is relatively small 

(23) since the full-scale operations of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine ceased in 1983 and the 

Townsite was vacated. Riverside County 

maintains the portion of Kaiser Road that 

accesses the school. 

The Eagle Mountain School conducts classes for 

kindergarten through eighth grade and occupies 

the former high school campus. The adjacent 

middle school campus, which is also owned by 

the school district, is currently inactive but could 

accommodate an additional 150 students 

(Riverside County and BLM 1996). 

Local Planning and Zoning. The Desert Center 

Area Plan land use designation for the Eagle 

Mountain School parcel is Low Density 

Residential (LDR). Allowable uses include singlefamily detached residences on large parcels of 1⁄2 

to 1 acre and limited agriculture including 

intensive equestrian and animal keeping. The 

zoning classification for the school parcel is 

Controlled Development (W-2). As previously 

stated, this zone allows for a wide range of 

permitted uses. Uses allowed by approval or by 

permit include “educational institutions, public 

parks and playgrounds (Riverside County 

2015b).” 

Analysis – Eagle Mountain School Parcel. The 

Eagle Mountain School parcel would not be 

feasible for addition to the national park 

boundary at this time given its current use by the 

Desert Center Unified School District. 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California Parcel Group 

Size and Ownership. The Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California (MWD) owns 

and operates structures and facilities in 

connection with the Colorado River Aqueduct, 

which forms the eastern boundary of the study 

area. MWD is a regional wholesaler that delivers 

water to 26 member public agencies serving 19 

million people living in Los Angeles, Orange, 

Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and 

Ventura counties (MWD 2014). MWD owns 30 

parcels totaling approximately 2,850 acres of 

land that follows linearly along the Colorado 

River Aqueduct for the operation and 

maintenance of the aqueduct. MWD maintains 

facilities to support the aqueduct as well as 

permanent easement rights of way for its ditches 

and canals. The Colorado River Aqueduct 

defines the western end of the study area. 

Public access is not permitted to the aqueduct 

and related facilities. However, where the 

aqueduct is above ground it is visible where 

public roads that cross the canal. Eagle 

Mountain Road provides access to the Eagle 

Mountain Pumping Plant to the south, but the 

road is gated before reaching the pumping plant 

(FERC 2012). 

Current Uses and Existing Rights. The 

Colorado River Aqueduct is an open channel 

from the northeastern extent of the study area to 

approximately east of the Eagle Mountain Mine 

East Pit. South of the East Pit, the aqueduct 

flows underground into a concreate tunnel and 

then flows by gravity to the MWD’s Eagle 

Mountain Pumping Plant, located on the 

southeastern edge of the study area on Kaiser 

Truck Road. Along the northern section of the 

aqueduct within the study area are constructed 

levees. The pumping plant location also includes 

housing for MWD employees. Near the 

pumping plant, MWD operates a small airstrip 

(FERC 2012). A 400 foot wide 230 kV 

transmission line and a 33-kV distribution line 

that run southwest to northeast along Power 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

76 

Line Road is maintained by MWD (BLM and 

DOE 2012).

Planning and Zoning. The Desert Center Area 

Plan land use designation that applies to the 

MWD lands is Open Space-Conservation (OS-C)

(Riverside County 2015a). 

The MWD parcels are within two zoning areas, 

the Natural Assets Zone (N-A) (below Eagle 

Mountain Road) and the Mineral Resource Zone 

(M-R-A). Permitted uses in areas zoned Natural 

Assets Zone include dwellings and accessory 

buildings, field and tree crops, grazing subject to 

stated limitations, and apiaries. Several other 

uses, including utility substations, are allowed by 

approval or by permit. For the Mineral Resources 

Zone(M-R-A), permitted uses include: 

agricultural uses; electric and gas distribution, 

transmission substations, telephone and 

microwave stations; water well and other uses 

related to the storage and distribution or water; 

and riding and hiking trails, recreation lakes, and 

campgrounds. With the issuance of a surface 

mining permit various uses related to mining are 

allowed (Riverside County 2015b). 

Analysis – Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California Parcel Group. Because the 

lands within this parcel group are directly 

managed by MWD for the purposes of 

maintaining the facilities and infrastructure 

associated with the Colorado River Aqueduct 

these lands would not be feasible for inclusion in 

the park boundary. MWD requires 

unobstructed access to its facilities and 

properties at all times in order to repair and 

maintain its aqueduct system. Although the 

aqueduct has historical value, the area would not 

be available for visitor opportunities. 

The edge of this parcel group forms a logical 

delineation that would include the previously 

described parcel groups, and is consistent with 

the park boundary as redefined in the California 

Desert Protection Act of 1994. The 1994 

boundary near the study area extends only to the 

parcels managed by the MWD. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-14: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Parcel Group

77

Colorado River Aqueduct.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

78 

Conclusion – Boundary Size and 

Configuration 

As determined in the previous section, all of the 

parcel groups, with the exception of the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California Parcels, contain resources and public 

enjoyment opportunities related to the park 

purpose of Joshua Tree National Park and could 

increase park management efficiency. Based on 

the evaluation of ownership patterns, existing 

rights, current land use and management 

policies for the six parcel groups, approximately 

25,070 acres would be considered feasible for 

inclusion in the national park boundary at this 

time, forming a logical boundary configuration 

that includes significant resources and public 

enjoyment opportunities related to park 

purposes. This would include most of the 

federal land parcel group, portions of the private 

land parcel group, and the western State School 

Land parcels. 

Properties with important resource values that 

would not be feasible at this time are considered 

potentially feasible (approximately 3,530 acres), 

meaning that when current uses cease the lands 

would then be desirable for addition to the park 

boundary. Those areas determined potentially 

feasible include lands associated with the 

proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project, the Townsite, and the 

adjacent school parcel. Existing uses of these 

parcels are currently not compatible with park 

management. 

The MWD parcel group and State School Land 

parcels adjacent to the Colorado River Aqueduct 

are not considered feasible for park 

management since these lands contain facilities 

and infrastructure actively used for management 

of the Colorado River Aqueduct. The MWD 

parcels also form a logical boundary break that is 

consistent with the park boundary as defined in 

the California Desert Protection Act of 1994. 

For the lands considered feasible and potentially 

feasible, three different approaches to boundary 

adjustment configurations are evaluated in 

Chapter 3: Alternatives. One approach 

(Alternative B) considers a boundary adjustment 

that includes only federal lands. These lands are 

under consideration for segregation and 

withdrawal as authorized by FLPMA. Another 

approach explores an alternative that includes 

the federal, state, and private lands determined 

feasible at this time (Alternative C). The final 

approach represents a long term vision for a 

park boundary addition (Alternative D) which 

incorporates strategies for including lands 

considered suitable and potentially feasible, 

should they become available for park 

management. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

79 

Table 2-2: Summary of Areas Determined Feasible for Addition to the Park Boundary (Boundary 

Size and Configuration) 

Parcel Group Total 

Acreage 

Not Feasible (Acres) Potentially Feasible (Acres) Feasible

(Acres) 

Federal Lands Parcel 

Group 

23,140 0  620 acres allocated to the 

pumped storage hydroelectric 

project 

22,515 

Private Lands Parcel 

Group 

4,550 0  805 acres allocated to the 

pumped storage hydroelectric 

project 

 1,515 acres in private ownership 

(mining and other private uses) 

2,230 

State School Land 

Parcel Group 

340  15 acres of lands 

located adjacent to the 

Colorado River 

Aqueduct 

 325 

Townsite Parcels 500 0  220 acres allocated to the 

pumped storage hydroelectric 

project 

 280 acres (mining and private 

other uses) 

0 

Eagle Mountain 

School Parcel 

90 0 90 0 

MWD Parcel Group 2,850  2,850 lands used for 

operation and 

maintenance of the 

Colorado River 

Aqueduct 

0 0 

Total (Acres) 31,470 2,870 3,530 25,070 

 

Other Factors 

Safety 

Given the long history of mining in the area, 

there are remnant mine shafts and other features 

left on the landscape. Areas used for mining are 

often associated with safety issues and resource 

impacts, depending on the extent of the mining 

activities. Mine sites can also present an 

immediate danger of physical injury or death 

due to open vertical shafts and horizontal adits 

(entrances to a mine). Mill sites that are no 

longer in use may contain deteriorating 

buildings and equipment. Dangers may include 

deadly gases and asphyxiation, collapsing mine 

walls, hazardous substances, and rotting 

structures. Mitigation can range from 

temporary measures including fencing and signs 

to more costly permanent measures, including 

steel and concrete covers. The only permanent 

mitigation action is to fill in shafts and adits and 

demolish or remove buildings and structures. 

However, some features have cultural values 

while others contain sensitive bat species 

(Burghart, Norby and Pranger 2014). 

Mining and other mineral resource development 

has occurred in many areas throughout the 

United States that are now units of the National 

Park System. The NPS conducted a Systemwide 

inventory and assessment of its abandoned mine 

lands (AML) sites from 2010 through 2013, 

identifying 37,050 AML features in 133 NPS 

units. The majority of features (81%) are located 

in California desert national parks such as 

Joshua Tree National Park. The BLM has 

conducted similar inventories for BLM-
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

80 

managed federal lands in California (Burghart, 

Norby and Pranger 2014). 

Cultural resources related to mining history are 

a component of the park’s history and 

significance. National Parks such as Joshua Tree 

have a long history of mitigating the safety 

concerns related to mining infrastructure that 

has been applied to current mine sites 

throughout park. Joshua Tree National Park has 

worked to address the safety and environmental 

hazards associated with abandoned mine lands 

while seeking to retain resources with cultural 

values. This has included capping or gating 

existing mine shafts or adits, stabilizing mining 

superstructures, and heavy metal mineral clean 

up adjacent to milling sites. For mine sites not 

considered abandoned, the NPS would work 

with responsible parties to address the safety 

issues and other hazards through a variety of 

methods appropriate to the type of resources 

and the relative safety risk. 

Construction of the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project may also pose 

safety issues. However, the reservoirs would be 

fenced, and access to other nearby project 

features would be controlled through security 

gates and enforced with onsite personnel (FERC 

2012). 

Hazardous Substances 

The Department of the Interior discourages 

acquisition of property contaminated with 

hazardous substances. Department policy states 

that contaminated lands should not be acquired 

unless otherwise directed by Congress, court 

order, or as determined by the Secretary of the 

Interior. Prior to acquiring any land for 

inclusion in the park boundary, properties under 

consideration would be assessed for 

environmental contaminants (Level I 

environmental site assessment). If 

contamination exists, further evaluation would 

take place to determine the feasibility of 

managing the land given the potential liability 

and costs for remediation and/or restoration. 

This site assessment would be sufficient to 

evaluate the potential for environmental 

liabilities associated with a property acquisition. 

NPS policy requires subsequent assessments if 

known or potential environmental 

contamination is identified. These additional 

phases include a Level II Survey to conduct 

further research or investigation into areas of 

potential concern, including characterizing the 

nature and extent of contamination, and a Level 

III Survey to determine the potential cost of 

remediation. Costs of remediation could be 

borne by responsible parties prior to transfer to 

the NPS. 

Previous but now out-of-date environmental site 

assessments were completed for some lands 

within the study area. In 1996, the BLM 

completed Level I survey checklists for the 

Townsite and BLM administered lands that 

were proposed for a land exchange with Kaiser 

for purposes of constructing a solid waste 

landfill. The Level I surveys identified no 

potential hazardous substances either on or in 

the vicinity of the Townsite and concluded that 

"[t]he above described lands have been 

examined in accordance with Section 120(h) of 

CERCLA. No evidence of recorded information 

was found to indicate that any hazard substance 

was stored for one year or more or disposed of 

or released on the property (Riverside County 

and BLM 1996). 

Although no hazardous substances were found 

to be stored on the Townsite lands, the buildings 

and structures in the Townsite likely contain 

hazardous materials that may require extensive 

abatement such as lead from paint and asbestos. 

If such lands were to revert back to the United 

States, some level of remediation would need to 

be considered at that time. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

81 

Invasive Exotic Plant Species 

“Alien plant invasions constitute one of the most 

pervasive, fast-moving and often visually striking 

manifestations of global change” (Arroyo et al., 

2000). According to Executive Order 13112 an 

invasive plant species is defined “as an alien 

species whose introduction does or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health.” Nonnative invasive plants can 

establish beyond their native range often 

through intentional or accidental transportation 

of whole plants or plant propagules. Some 

invasive plants are escapees from cultivation and 

over time can become naturalized. The 

propagules of invasive plants can piggyback 

within crops or on domestic animals or even on 

the footwear of nature lovers out for a hike 

(Arroyo et al., 2000). Regardless of the pathway 

for introduction, invasive plants are widely 

recognized as a major threat to native species, 

only behind that of habitat loss (Wilcove et al., 

1998; Levine et al., 2003; Thompson, 2005). 

There have been many well documented, wide 

spread plant invaders to the desert ecosystem, 

such as red brome (Bromus madritensis), cheat 

grass (Bromus tectorum), and salt cedar 

(Tamarisk ramosisima). In 2014, approximately 

63 plants (~8%) on Joshua Tree’s plant list were 

considered nonnative, 41 of which were 

classified as invasive (NPS 2014). 

The abundance of exotic invasive plants within 

the federal lands in the study area is not 

currently known. However, given the 

remoteness of the area, such species are most 

likely located along the few road corridors that 

traverse the area. The environmental impact 

statement from the former landfill project notes 

that activities associated with mine operations, 

including the development of the Townsite, 

introduced exotic plant and animal species to 

the local ecosystem, and fragmented habitat 

through road construction and other 

development (Riverside County and BLM 1996). 

The environmental impact statement for the 

pumped storage hydroelectric project 

documents three known species for the 

disturbed mine lands and Townsite areas. These 

species include red brome (Bromus madritensis), 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Mediterranean 

split grass (Schismus spp.)—and two dicots—

Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii) and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium). As a 

requirement of the FERC license for the 

hydroelectric project, Eagle Crest intends to 

complete an invasive plant species monitoring 

and control plan that will focus on prevention, 

early detection and eradication to prevent the 

spread of invasive plant species (FERC 2012). 

Regional Growth and Development 

Human activities originating outside park lands, 

including illegal roads and trails crossing park 

boundaries, as well as developments adjacent to 

the park, have impacts on resources within the 

park. Illegal roads, trails and associated driving 

activities damage and fragment habitat, disturb 

wildlife, introduce nonnative flora and fauna 

and alter connectivity (Ouren et.al. 2007). In 

addition, developments near park boundaries 

can disturb biota within the park, alter or block 

key migration corridors, and cause habitat 

destruction/fragmentation on lands adjacent to 

the park (Ennon et.al., 2012; Lovich and Ennon 

2011; Rudnick et al. 2012). 

Maintenance of biodiversity in the park depends 

on connectivity between habitats both within 

and outside park boundaries (Hansen et al., 

2011). Developments along high-speed 

transport corridors to the northwest and 

southwest of the park pose barriers to species 

movements, inhibiting access to habitat outside 

of the park. Furthermore, since the 1970s, 

housing densities in these areas have increased 

from generally rural to exurban. Demographic 

projections forecast that by 2050 these areas will 

be heavily suburban. This land use 

intensification will precipitate habitat loss, 

fragmentation and loss of connectivity, 

increased colonization and spread of invasive 

species, and increased disturbance to 

ecosystems and species (Monahan et al. 2012). 

Large scale development of desert lands directly 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

82 

reduces foraging habitat available to raptors. It is 

not directly understood what impact this 

development will have on raptor and eagle 

populations as a whole. The park is involved 

with and comments on these issues and will 

continue to do so (NPS 2014). 

The California desert has been the focus of large 

scale renewable energy projects. As previously 

stated, the Chuckwalla Valley in Riverside 

County has a substantial amount of existing and 

proposed utility scale renewable energy projects. 

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (3,700 acres), 

one of the largest of its kind, is located two miles 

east of the study area. Adjacent to the Desert 

Sunlight Solar Farm, another proposed solar 

energy project, Desert Harvest Solar Project 

would occupy another 1,200 acres of public 

lands. Two miles east is a focused development 

zone for renewable energy projects, the 

Riverside East Solar Energy Zone, where over 

140,000 acres of land are allocated for renewable 

energy development. As of April 2015 a total of 

seven projects were approved or pending, 

totaling approximately 30,000 acres (BLM 

2015c). 

The proposed pumped storage hydroelectric 

project, surrounded on three sides by national 

park lands, could potentially result in impacts to 

the following park resources: groundwater, air 

quality, wildlife, night skies, viewshed, natural 

soundscape, and wilderness values. Eagle Crest 

has agreed to pursue night sky minimization 

measures and air and water quality protection 

measures; to conduct groundwater analysis; and 

to prepare: 

 a monitoring well and seepage 

management plan; 

 a desert tortoise protection plan; 

 a predator control plan; 

 an avian protection plan; 

 a special status plants protection plan; 

 an invasive species monitoring and 

control plan; and 

 an historic and cultural properties 

management plan (FERC 2014). 

Eagle Crest has prepared many of these plans 

and has afforded NPS, BLM and agencies the 

opportunity to comment on these plans. The 

NPS will continue to work with Eagle Crest 

Energy Company to seek ways to mitigate the 

effects of this development. 

Effects of Climate Change 

Joshua Tree National Park has already 

experienced a significant increase in 

temperatures and projections from global 

circulation models are consistent in forecasting 

further temperature increases for the 

foreseeable future (Gonzalez 2012; Kunkel et al. 

2013). During the past century, average 

temperatures have increased by about 1o

 C and 

the 21st century projected rate of increase is 

about 4o

 C per century for moderate-emission 

scenarios. Kunkel et al. (2013) estimate about 

half this increase – about 2o

 C – will occur by 

mid-century. These projected changes will 

eventually affect virtually every natural resource 

in the park, including the iconic Joshua tree 

(Cole et al., 2011 and Barrows & MurphyMariscal 2012) and other species found 

throughout the park (Barrows 2009). 

Impacts from climate change may increase or 

extend droughts, threatening area water supply, 

including for wildlife. Rising temperatures and 

altered rainfall may cause additional stress on 

native habitat and increase air pollution. Such 

changes could cause native and endemic plants 

to move to higher elevations when possible. 

There would also be transition northward 

and/or toward the coast, following the shifts in 

their preferred climate. The first climate change 

response identified by Barrows (2009) is to 

maintain connectivity to regions outside the 

park – a goal that will be increasingly challenged 

by land uses outside park boundaries (NPS 

2014). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

83 

Conclusion – Other Factors 

Factors that could affect the feasibility of 

including study area lands in the park boundary 

include safety, hazardous materials, exotic 

species, regional development, and the effects of 

climate change. Safety threats from mined lands 

would be addressed as needed. For areas that 

have been previously surveyed (some federal 

lands and the Townsite parcels), hazardous 

materials were not found to be stored or used on 

site. These surveys are now out-of-date and the 

areas would need to be reassessed before NPS 

could consider land acquisition. The structures 

in the Townsite may require abatement of 

hazardous building materials such as asbestos 

and lead paint. However, these lands are not 

considered feasible additions to the park at this 

time. The NPS would conduct environmental 

site assessments before acquiring any lands to 

determine potential hazards. 

Exotic species are most likely to occur in 

previously disturbed areas, along roads, utility 

lines, and mining pits. However, most lands 

considered feasible for inclusion in the park at 

this time are largely undisturbed. The NPS 

would address any exotic species infestations 

which would likely entail additional costs for the 

NPS. Despite these threats, the area contains 

mostly undeveloped lands which contain 

significant resources. Including study area lands 

within the park boundary would provide the 

NPS with an opportunity to directly manage and 

protect habitat connectivity which is important 

for the mitigation of climate change effects and 

the cumulative impacts of regional growth and 

development. 

Impacts on Local Communities and 

Surrounding Jurisdictions 

Population near the study area is sparse and 

primarily concentrated in the communities of 

Desert Center and Lake Tamarisk. Named for its 

location in the middle of the Colorado Desert, 

Desert Center is a remote community. The 

nearest cities—Indio to the west and Blythe to 

the east—are both more than 50 miles away via 

Interstate 10. As stated in the Riverside County 

Desert Center Area Plan, “because of its remote 

location, Desert Center is not impacted by any 

city. In fact, it is separated even from the nearest 

area plans and therefore shares boundaries with 

none of them (Riverside County 2003).” The 

community of Lake Tamarisk is a small 

retirement community located a few miles north 

of Interstate 10, east of Kaiser Road. This 

community is comprised of single family homes, 

duplexes and mobile homes and includes a 9-

hole golf course. It was originally constructed by 

Kaiser Steel Corporation to alleviate housing 

demand at the Townsite during full-time mining 

operations. Lake Tamarisk residents must go to 

Desert Center for commercial services 

(Riverside County 2003, Riverside County and 

BLM 1996). 

The area’s population is mostly clustered near 

the I-10 freeway interchange and nearby at Lake 

Tamarisk. The 2014 population of Desert Center 

is estimated at 203. In terms of industry, the 

dominant sectors in Desert Center include: 1) 

transportation and warehousing, and utilities 

and 2) arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation, and food service. The area 

contains mostly commercial services and 

institutional land uses. Most land is open desert. 

However, agricultural lands, primarily jojoba, 

are also located in the area (Riverside County 

2003, U.S. Census 2014). More information 

about regional demographics and 

socioeconomic environment is provided in the 

Affected Environment in Chapter 4. 

Providing new visitor opportunities in the Eagle 

Mountain area could have a range of economic 

and social impacts on the surrounding 

communities. Most impacts would be beneficial 

as national park visitors typically provide an 

economic benefit to the surrounding 

community. In 2014, the National Park System 

received over 292 million recreation visits. NPS 

visitors spent $15.7 billion in local gateway 

regions (defined as communities within 60 miles 

of a park). The contribution of this spending to 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

84 

the national economy was 277 thousand jobs, 

$10.3 billion in labor income, $17.1 billion in 

value added, and $29.7 billion in output. The 

lodging sector saw the highest direct 

contributions with 48 thousand jobs and $4.8 

billion in output directly contributed to local 

gateway economies nationally. In California 

alone, national park visitors spent an estimated 

$1.7 billion in local gateway regions while 

visiting NPS lands in California. These 

expenditures supported a total of 24.2 thousand 

jobs, $935.2 million in labor income, $1.4 billion 

in value added, and $2.4 billion in economic 

output in the California economy. In 2014, 

visitors to Joshua Tree National Park spent an 

estimated $73.8 million in local gateway 

communities. These expenditures supported a 

total of 1,000 jobs, $38 million in labor income, 

$60 million in value added, and $97.2 million in 

economic output in local gateway economies 

surrounding Joshua Tree National Park 

(Cullinane, Huber, and Koontz 2015). 

The extent to which the community would see 

beneficial impacts is largely related to access and 

visitation. The lands that are currently feasible 

for inclusion in the national park boundary are 

primarily accessible from the national park along 

an unimproved road passable only using four 

wheel drive vehicles. Given the conditions of 

existing roads and the limited access to portions 

of the study area, accessing the Eagle Mountain 

area from the park entrances at Cottonwood 

Springs (west of the study area) is currently very 

difficult. Further improvement of Black Eagle 

Mine Road may encourage more visitation to the 

area. However, this would not likely have an 

effect on the communities of Desert Center or 

Lake Tamarisk as visitors would enter through 

either the Cottonwood Springs or Twentynine 

Palms park entrances. 

If KEM’s private lands within the Townsite 

reverted to the federal government and became 

available for public use, easy access from 

Interstate 10 and the wider range of visitor 

experiences that could occur in this area may 

encourage more visitors to the area, generating 

jobs and potential revenue for the local 

community. Through public-private 

partnerships, the NPS, BLM, and local agencies 

and organizations could work together to create 

research and concession opportunities that 

support recreation and conservation in the 

Townsite area. If lands remain under BLMadministration, such partnerships could be 

realized through the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act (68 Statute 173; 43 U.S.C. 869 et. 

seq.). This act authorizes the sale or lease of 

public lands for recreational or public purposes 

to State and local governments, and to qualified 

non-profit organizations. Examples of typical 

uses under the act are historic monument sites, 

campgrounds, schools, and parks. Additional 

visitation to the Townsite area and surrounding 

mine could generate some increase in traffic on 

the county-owned Kaiser Road.

A socioeconomic concern identified during the 

public scoping process was the potential effect 

of national park service management on the 

extraction of mineral resources. These 

comments expressed concerns that including 

lands in the national park would prohibit access 

to valuable mineral resources. Mining on 

national park lands is subject to NPS regulations 

at 36 CFR Part 9A where prospective operators 

hold mineral interests, unless or until these 

interests are purchased by the U.S. government. 

The purpose of the Mining in the Parks Act and 

related NPS regulations at 36 CFR Part 9A is to 

protect park resources and values that may be 

affected by the exercise of mineral interests. 

Many units of the National Park System contain 

unpatented and/or patented mining claims, 

which were either located before the park was 

established, or when the park was open to the 

location of new claims. Certain BLM regulations 

also apply to mining claims within national 

parks. 

Existing commercial mining activities at the 

Eagle Mountain Mine would not be affected by 

inclusion in the park boundary unless access to 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

85 

parklands was needed for operations. In this 

case, an operations plan and permit would be 

needed from the NPS. 

Although occurrence of recoverable precious 

metals (e.g., gold, silver, copper, silica, carbonate 

rock, roofing granules) has been documented 

for the Eagle Mountain area, the most profitable 

mineral extracted from the study area to date 

has been iron ore (BLM 2012, FERC 2010, 

Powell 1984). While iron ore reserves remain at 

the Eagle Mountain Mine, competition from 

abroad and other economic factors caused the 

mine to close in 1983 after 35 years in operation. 

While market conditions could change, creating 

future demand, with the construction of the 

pumped storage hydroelectric facility on the 

former mine site, and with the previous removal 

of on-site ore processing facilities, it is unlikely 

that full-scale operations would resume in the 

foreseeable future. The FERC environmental 

impact statement for the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project states, “Reclamation of 

existing rock and ore materials from both 

recoverable and bedrock sources present within 

the proposed central project area would not be 

possible once the project is constructed and is in 

operation. The iron ore present beneath the 

project facilities, and specifically the reservoirs, 

would only become accessible for mining 

operations in the future if the project were 

decommissioned.” Additionally, the Fontana 

Steel Mill that was supplied by the Eagle 

Mountain Mine iron ore is now closed. Above 

ground mining from existing waste rock piles 

will likely continue where feasible. 

Most of the land that would be affected by a 

park boundary adjustment is administered by 

the BLM, which contributes to the social and 

economic characteristics of the area, primarily 

by providing recreation and mineral resources 

and energy development. Public use of the lands 

considered feasible for addition to the park 

boundary would generally continue under NPS 

management. However some uses may change 

due to NPS policies. The transfer of jurisdiction 

of the federal lands form the BLM to the NPS 

would withdraw the public lands from 

settlement, sale, location, and entry under the 

public land laws, including the United States 

mining laws, and leasing or other disposition 

under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 

This would have an adverse effect on mining as 

no new claims could be established in the area. 

However, existing mineral rights would not be 

affected. 

If active unpatented mining claims were 

included within an expanded park boundary, 

extractive mining could occur on these 

unpatented mining claims if the claims are 

determined to be valid. A validity examination 

could be a lengthy and costly process. However, 

NPS could permit claimants to continue to 

maintain and access claims during the validity 

examination process. 

Recreational uses allowed on BLM lands that 

could be affected by a boundary adjustment 

would include collecting, shooting, and open 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The NPS could 

choose to establish designated OHV routes to 

continue to allow for this use in a manner that 

would not impact resources. Excluding the 

actively mined unpatented claims from the park 

boundary would minimize the impact on this use 

to some extent by allowing existing users to 

continue with these activities without the 

burden of a validity exam. However, new claims 

would not be able to be located on lands 

included in the park boundary. It should be 

noted that these uses could be affected by the 

proposed BLM ACEC and NCL designations 

identified in the DRECP LUPA. If these 

proposals were implemented, any uses of the 

designated areas would need to be compatible 

with BLM objectives to protect nationally 

significant resources and values and areas of 

critical environmental concern. As part of the 

DRECP LUPA implementation, withdrawal of 

mineral entry may be considered for national 

conservation areas (BLM 2015a). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

86 

Additional information on regulations related to 

mineral extraction and an assessment of land use 

and social and economic impacts is provided in 

the evaluation of mineral resource and land use 

impacts in Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences. 

Conclusion – Impacts on Local Communities 

and Surrounding Jurisdictions

The social and economic impacts of adding 

study area lands to Joshua Tree National Park 

would likely be beneficial and would support the 

feasibility of an addition to Joshua Tree National 

Park. A boundary expansion including lands 

determined feasible at this time based on 

configuration, ownership, and current use 

would likely result in very small impacts to the 

resident population of the area since visitor 

access would continue through the existing 

national park areas. However, at such time that 

lands associated with the Townsite and eastern 

portions of the mine were to become available, 

making the park accessible from Desert Center, 

additional visitor opportunities associated with 

new recreational and interpretive opportunities 

may arise providing economic benefits to the 

local community. 

Including BLM-administered lands in the 

national park boundary would withdraw lands 

from future mineral entry. Unpatented mine 

and millsite claims owned by KEM would 

become subject to NPS regulations, however it is 

not anticipated that large scale mining would 

occur on these claims. If existing unpatented 

mining claim areas with active mining are 

excluded from the park boundary, it could 

minimize the impact on current miners. 

However, this exclusion would also create 

challenges to federal land management creating 

a scenario where multiple agencies are managing 

lands in the same area under different, and 

sometimes conflicting, management policies. 

A boundary expansion that excludes private 

lands associated with the proposed pumped 

storage hydroelectric project and the former 

Eagle Mountain Mine would have very little 

effect on mining in the area. It is unlikely that 

full scale mining of iron ore would resume given 

incompatibility with operation of the 

hydroelectric project, and the fact that most ore 

processing facilities have been dismantled. The 

Fontana Steel Mill that was supplied by the 

Eagle Mountain Mine has also closed. If the 

former Eagle Mountain Mine lands became 

available for inclusion in the national park 

boundary, existing mineral rights would be 

upheld. Such mineral rights could also be 

acquired where there are willing sellers. 

Costs Associated with Operation, 

Acquisition, Development and 

Restoration 

Costs associated with management of a national 

park unit include annual operational costs 

(primarily for staffing) and periodic costs for 

land acquisition, facility development, and 

resource management, including restoration. 

The NPS allocates funds to its park units in two 

categories—for daily operations (annual 

operating costs), and for specific, nonrecurring 

projects. Park managers use funding for daily 

operations to pay for visitor and resource 

protection, interpretation and education, and 

facilities operations, among other things. About 

80% or more of the park units’ daily operations 

funds pay for salaries and benefits for staff to 

carry out these mission components, while the 

remainder is used for overhead expenses such as 

utilities, supplies, and training. 

Project-related funding supports non-recurring 

projects such as replacing roofs on park facilities 

or rehabilitating campgrounds. Project funding 

also supports natural resource inventory and 

monitoring programs. In addition to providing 

the funding for operations and projects, 

Congress has enacted legislation authorizing 

park units to collect visitor fees to provide 

additional funds to use for certain park 

operations related to visitor use. Visitor fees 

have been used to fund projects that address 

deferred maintenance needs, provide new 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

87 

visitor programs and services, protect resources, 

and improve and rehabilitate facilities. Fees are 

collected pursuant to the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) (16 

U.S.C. 6801-6814). Park units are also 

authorized to accept and use monetary and nonmonetary donations to meet the purposes of the 

NPS. Examples include donations from nonprofit cooperating associations or friends’ 

groups for interpretive exhibits, park literature, 

new construction, enhancement of wildlife 

programs, or habitat restoration. The Mojave 

Desert Land Trust in recent years has acquired 

over 8,000 acres of land on and within the park 

boundary and has either sold or donated them 

to the National Park Service. 

For the purposes of this study, the NPS has 

developed cost estimates based on the very 

broad needs typically associated with expanding 

a park boundary. 

Operational Costs 

Congress provides funding for the NPS through 

a number of appropriations accounts; the largest 

is the Operation of the National Park System 

(ONPS), which funds on an annual basis the 

management, operations, and maintenance of 

park areas and facilities and the general 

administration of each national park unit. 

Operational costs of national park units vary 

widely, depending on the amount and type of 

resources managed, number of visitors, level of 

programs offered, and many other factors. 

Chapter 3: Alternatives, explores potential 

operational costs in more detail for each 

management alternative considered in this 

special resource study. Staffing needs vary 

amongst the alternative boundary configurations 

presented in Chapter 3. 

Overall, the increase to total park acreage would 

be quite small relative to the existing park size. If 

the maximum amount of lands determined 

feasible for the park boundary at this time 

(~25,070 acres) were added to the park it would 

represent a 3.25% increase in total land area 

whereas if lands both feasible and potentially 

feasible were added to the park boundary it 

would represent a 3.75% (~28,600 acres) 

increase in total land area. 

The study area lands are operationally remote 

from existing park facilities and headquarters on 

the north side of the park and to the west at 

Cottonwood Springs. Driving time from park 

headquarters to the study area via Black Eagle 

Mine Road is over two hours. That distance is 

reduced to one and half hours if taking paved 

roads to the east of the park. However, 

permission to access the study area via this route 

would need to be granted from the private 

landowner, KEM. From the Cottonwood 

Springs administrative area, the Townsite area is 

an hour’s drive. If administrative access could be 

obtained through an agreement with the private 

landowner, NPS staff could be duty stationed in 

the Desert Center area or at Cottonwood 

Springs, thereby improving operational 

efficiencies. Because visitors could not access 

the study area through the eastern private lands, 

visitation would likely remain very low in the 

area until such time that the private lands 

became available for inclusion in the park 

boundary. 

Additional staffing needed would include law 

enforcement, resource management, 

maintenance, and interpretive positions. 

Existing staff for Joshua Tree National Park was 

99.25 full time equivalent (FTE) in fiscal year 

(FY) 2015. The annual operating cost of the 

park, which is primarily comprised of staffing 

costs, was $6.06 million in FY15. Annual costs 

for a boundary expansion including the lands 

considered feasible at this time could range from 

$150,000 to $340,000. This represents a 2.5-5% 

increase in park operational costs. Inclusion of 

all of the lands (both feasible and potentially 

feasible (~28,600) would increase staffing costs 

to $440,000, approximately 7% over existing 

annual operating costs 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

88 

Table 2-3: Summary of Operational Costs for a Boundary Expansion 

Area Potential 

Expansion Area 

Additional FTE 

required 

Costs for 

additional FTE 

Percent increase 

over existing 

operations

Lands currently feasible ~25,070 acres 2-5 150k-340k 2.4%-5.5%

Lands currently feasible 

plus potentially feasible 

areas 

~28,600 acres 7 440k 7% 

Development and Other Facility Costs 

For the newly added areas, the NPS would 

invest funds to inventory and document park 

resources, to develop management or treatment 

plans and educational/interpretive materials for 

these resources, and to develop or improve 

facilities for visitors and park operations. The 

lands that are determined as feasible for 

inclusion in the park boundary have few 

facilities. The primary initial facility costs for 

adding lands to the national park boundary 

would include maintenance and/or 

improvements to Black Eagle Mine Road and 

remediation of any mine features that would 

pose a safety risk to park visitors. Additional 

costs would be incurred in the event that the 

NPS were to acquire lands associated with the 

Townsite. 

Development Costs for Feasible Lands. To 

maintain the Black Eagle Mine Road to the Eagle 

Mine area in its current condition would result 

in annual operations and maintenance costs of 

approximately $1,000 per mile. An additional 

maintenance FTE may be required to maintain 

the road. 

If NPS were to improve the quality of the Black 

Eagle Mine Road over existing conditions 

(unimproved dirt road passable by passenger 

car), one-time capital costs are estimated to be 

approximately $35,000 per mile. Improvements 

could range from $157,500 to $385,000 

depending on the boundary configuration, and 

the number of road miles that would be 

managed by NPS. The lower range would be for 

improvements to the road on federal lands only. 

The higher end of the range would be to 

improve the road for its entire length within the 

study area. Annual operations and maintenance 

costs for an improved road would be 

approximately $1,200 per mile. 

Specific costs for additional visitor facilities such 

as trails, campgrounds, etc. would be dependent 

on management priorities and approaches 

identified through implementation planning. 

There would be some costs associated with 

remediating the abandoned mine lands where 

features pose threats to safety or resources. All 

such threats could be mitigated over time and 

with sufficient funding. This would be 

completed as needed and prioritized by safety 

and potential threat. At Joshua Tree National 

Park, NPS has the capabilities to mass produce 

prefabricated mine covers and gates. This 

enables a large number of sites to be mitigated 

economically and efficiently (USDI – OIG 2008). 

The NPS would not be responsible for 

reclamation of lands associated with the Eagle 

Mountain Mine. That responsibility would 

remain with Kaiser Eagle Mountain per the 

existing reclamation plan for the mine. 

Development Costs for Potentially Feasible 

Lands. The lands determined potentially feasible 

could come with greater development and 

maintenance costs to the NPS, although these 

costs could vary depending on the amount of 

remediation and reclamation that KEM, EMMR 

and Eagle Crest are required to do when their 

operations cease. The Townsite area in 

particular has many buildings in disrepair for 

which asbestos and lead paint remediation may 

be required. A Riverside County study of the 

Townsite for a potential detention facility 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

89 

reported that there are significant physical 

deficiencies in the buildings, including visible 

roof leaks, deteriorated ceilings, deteriorated 

plumbing, and potential hidden damage. Also, 

most of the buildings are not insulated and 

cannot be brought into compliance with current 

energy reduction requirements (DMJM 

Design/AECOM 2007). 

The Townsite also contains considerable 

electrical, water and sewer infrastructure that 

may need to be maintained. If such lands became 

available to NPS, the NPS would seek to engage 

in public-private partnerships to offset the costs. 

As discussed in the previous section, another 

consideration would be for BLM to retain 

administration of some of the Townsite lands 

and use of the Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act authorities (68 Statute 173; 43 U.S.C. 869 et. 

seq.) to allow for the sale or lease to State or 

local governments, or non-profit organizations 

for recreational or other public purposes to 

offset the costs. 

Land Acquisition Costs 

Land acquisition costs cannot be estimated 

without more specific proposals for land 

acquisition. The primary cost for a transfer of 

federal lands to NPS administration includes 

completion of an environmental site assessment 

(approximately $25,000) and other 

administrative costs associated with completing 

the transfer. Other lands could be acquired by 

donation. Eagle Crest Energy Company has 

indicated a willingness to donate excess lands 

not needed for the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project after construction is 

complete. NPS could also work with the Mojave 

Desert Land Trust to acquire lands or interests 

in lands with conservation value for donation to 

the NPS for inclusion in the park boundary. 

Land acquisition with federal funds would 

subject to funding availability. Joshua Tree 

National Park could update its land protection 

plan to set priorities for acquisition of future 

parcels, should they become available. NPS may 

also choose to purchase existing mineral rights 

where there are willing sellers subject to 

available funding. 

Conclusion - Costs 

The NPS finds that operational costs for a 

boundary expansion of Joshua Tree National 

Park in the Eagle Mountain area would be 

feasible. Most of the lands considered feasible at 

this time are BLM-administered federal lands 

which would be transferred to the NPS with 

little cost. Such lands contain few structures or 

facilities that the NPS would have to maintain. 

Areas both feasible and potentially feasible 

would result in a 3.25-3.75% addition to overall 

park acreage. Future land acquisition from 

private owners would only be considered where 

landowners have expressed interest in selling or 

donation. Costs for development would be 

dependent on management priorities and 

approaches identified through implementation 

planning and the location, size, and 

configuration of future land acquisition. 

Potentially feasible lands have a considerable 

amount of infrastructure and facilities and thus 

would incur higher costs for ongoing 

maintenance depending on the number, 

condition and type of facilities that are retained. 

If such lands became available, the NPS would 

seek to have reclamation and remediation 

requirements completed by responsible parties 

prior to transfer. Public-private partnerships 

could also be explored to offset costs for repair 

and maintenance. 

Conclusion - Feasibility Criteria Analysis 

The study finds that most lands within the study 

area (~25,070 acres) are feasible as an addition to 

Joshua Tree National Park (see Map 2-15: 

Feasibility Findings). These lands include: 

 The federal lands parcel group 

(~22,515 acres), except those lands 

withdrawn for the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project 

as permitted. 

 The portions of the private lands 

parcel group (~2,230 acres) west of the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

90 

proposed pumped storage hydroelectric 

project. Eagle Crest Energy Company 

has indicated that it would consider 

donation of lands not needed for 

purposes of the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project following 

construction. NPS could seek to acquire 

other private lands and mineral rights if 

and when there are willing sellers. 

 The State School Lands parcel group 

(~325 acres), except the four isolated 

parcels adjacent to the Colorado River 

Aqueduct. 

Including these resources in the park would help 

address current threats facing park resources, 

such as habitat fragmentation from regional 

development, and help mitigate the effects of 

climate change on park resources. 

Although some portions of the study area are 

not feasible for NPS management at this time, 

such areas (~3,530 acres) contain cultural 

resource values and public enjoyment 

opportunities. These lands are considered to be 

potentially feasible for addition to Joshua Tree 

National Park. NPS could consider inclusion of 

these lands in the park boundary in the event 

that current or planned uses change. Land 

acquisition would only be considered where 

landowners have expressed interest in selling or 

donating lands to the NPS. 

These lands include: 

 FERC-licensed area for Eagle Crest 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project (1,645 acres) 

 Privately-owned Commercial Mining 

Areas (~1,795 acres) 

 Eagle Mountain School (~90 acres) – 

Approximately 2,870 acres of land associated 

with the Colorado River Aqueduct are not 

considered a feasible addition to the park. 

The NPS finds that operational costs for a 

boundary expansion of Joshua Tree National 

Park in the Eagle Mountain area would be 

feasible. Most of the lands considered feasible at 

this time are federal lands which would be 

transferred to the NPS with little cost. 

Costs for development would largely be 

dependent on management priorities and 

approaches identified through implementation 

planning and the location, size, and 

configuration of future land acquisition. 

Socioeconomic impacts on local communities 

would largely be beneficial. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 2-15: Feasibility Findings

91
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

92 

Protection Alternatives 

Considered 

The final criterion to evaluate eligibility of a 

boundary adjustment is a determination of 

whether other alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not adequate. The study 

finds that other means for resource protection in 

the Eagle Mountain area are not adequate for 

long-term protection of resources related to 

Joshua Tree National Park’s purpose. Although 

the DCREP LUPA recognizes the significance of 

the resources in this area and proposes two 

separate BLM land use designations for the 

protection of those resources, the proposed 

designations apply to less than half of the 

federally managed BLM lands within the study 

area (estimated at 12,500 acres). Moreover, the 

ACEC designation would not provide for 

permanent protection of the area. Protection 

only extends to the life of the plan within which 

it was designated. In areas not identified for 

enhanced protection by the DRECP, allowable 

uses range from electrical generation plants 

(wind, solar or geothermal); gas, electric and 

transmission facilities and cables; 

communications sites; livestock grazing; mining; 

and low to moderate recreational activities. 

Conservation management actions identified for 

the unallocated BLM lands may provide some 

additional protection of these areas, as would 

the adjacency of those lands to the proposed 

NCL and ACEC. The application of 

conservation measures however would likely be 

made on a project-by-project basis by the 

Bureau of Land Management. Riverside County 

planning and zoning would continue to define 

allowable uses on private lands. 

Including lands in the Eagle Mountain area 

within the Joshua Tree National Park boundary 

would afford an opportunity to provide longterm comprehensive protection of the area and 

its resources. Without NPS management, the 

area would continue to be managed without a 

cohesive vision for protection or interpretive 

and educational opportunities, and more than 

half of the federal lands would continue to be 

available for resource intensive uses. Given the 

configuration of the area in relationship to the 

existing park boundary which surrounds it on 

three sides, incompatible uses could have 

adverse impacts on park resources such as 

wildlife, water resources, and wilderness values. 

Including the study area lands within the 

national park also gives NPS the ability to 

conduct on-the-ground monitoring, inventories, 

and research. The NPS could also expend funds 

on restoration activities and facility 

improvements that would provide better visitor 

access to the area. 

Overall Conclusion - Boundary 

Adjustment Criteria Analysis 

Study area lands west of the Colorado River 

Aqueduct and associated properties contain 

resources and public enjoyment opportunities 

related to the purpose of Joshua Tree National 

Park and are suitable for inclusion in the park 

boundary. This includes approximately 28,600 

acres of lands within the federal, private, State 

School lands, Townsite, and Eagle Mountain 

School parcel groups. Adding the study area 

lands to the Joshua Tree National Park 

boundary would also improve access to the east 

side of the park, create a more logical boundary 

delineation, and allow access to NPS staff to 

monitor and document the resources of the area. 

Of the lands determined suitable for addition to 

Joshua Tree National Park, approximately 

~25,070 acres would be considered feasible for 

NPS to administer as part of Joshua Tree 

National Park at this time. Including these 

resources in the park would help address 

current threats facing park resources, such as 

habitat fragmentation from regional 

development, and would help mitigate the 

effects of climate change on park resources. 

Although some portions of the study area are 

not feasible for NPS management at this time, 

such areas (~3,530 acres) contain resources with 

cultural resource values and public enjoyment 

opportunities. The NPS could consider 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

93 

inclusion of these lands in the park boundary in 

the event that current or planned uses change. 

Land acquisition would only be considered 

where landowners have expressed interest in 

selling or donating lands to the NPS. 

Approximately 2,870 acres of land associated 

with the Colorado River Aqueduct is not 

considered a feasible addition to the park. 

The study finds that operational costs for a 

boundary expansion of Joshua Tree National 

Park in the Eagle Mountain area would be 

feasible. Most of the lands considered feasible at 

this time are federal lands which could be 

transferred to the NPS with little cost. Such 

lands contain few structures or facilities that the 

NPS would have to maintain. Areas both feasible 

and potentially feasible would result in a 3.25-

3.75% addition to overall park acreage. Costs for 

development would be dependent on 

management priorities and approaches 

identified through implementation planning and 

the location, size, and configuration of future 

land acquisition. Socioeconomic impacts on 

local communities would largely be beneficial. 

Location of new mining claims would be 

precluded. However existing rights would be 

upheld subject to NPS policies for mining in the 

parks. 

The study finds that other means for resource 

protection in the Eagle Mountain area are not 

adequate for long-term protection of resources 

related to Joshua Tree National Park’s purpose. 

Including lands in the Eagle Mountain area 

within the Joshua Tree National Park boundary 

would provide an opportunity to provide longterm comprehensive protection of the area and 

its resources. Without NPS management, the 

area would continue to be managed without a 

cohesive vision for protection or interpretive 

and educational opportunities, and it would 

remain open to incompatible uses. Given the 

configuration of the area in relationship to the 

park boundary, incompatible uses could have 

adverse impacts on park resources such as 

wildlife, water resources, and wilderness values. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

94 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

95 

CHAPTER 3: Alternatives 

Introduction 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requires federal agencies to explore a range of 

reasonable alternatives aimed at addressing the 

purpose of and need for the proposed action. 

The alternatives under consideration must 

include the “no action alternative” as prescribed 

by CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 

CFR 1502.14). 

The alternatives analyzed in this document, in 

accordance with NEPA, are based on the 

analysis described in Chapter 2: Application of 

Boundary Adjustment Criteria as well as the 

results of internal scoping and public scoping. 

The alternatives meet the overall purpose and 

need for the proposed action. 

Also described in this section are alternatives 

that were considered but dismissed from further 

analysis. These alternatives were dismissed 

because they are not technically feasible; do not 

meet the purpose and need of the project; would 

create unnecessary or excessive adverse impacts 

on cultural or natural resources; and/or would 

conflict with the overall management of the park 

or its resources. 

The NPS explored and objectively evaluated 

four alternatives in this environmental 

assessment (EA), including the following: 

 Alternative A: Continue Current 

Management (No Action) 

 Alternative B: Federal Agency-toAgency Land Transfer (~22,135 acres) 

 Alternative C: Agency Transfer with 

Enhanced Habitat Connectivity and 

Recreation (~25,070 acres) (NPS 

Preferred Alternative and Proposed 

Action) 

 Alternative D: Restore 1936 Boundary to 

Provide Diverse Visitor and Resource 

Protection Opportunities – Phased 

Approach (~28,600 acres) 

Implementation of any of the action alternatives 

considered in the boundary study would require 

additional action. Federal lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) could be 

administratively transferred to the National Park 

Service (NPS) as authorized by provisions of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

Act and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA). Inclusion of local, 

state, or privately owned lands in a boundary 

adjustment would require Congressional action, 

unless such lands were donated to the National 

Park Service, in which case such lands could be 

included in an administrative boundary 

adjustment. 

Alternatives Considered but 

Dismissed from Further 

Consideration 

The study evaluated a variety of configurations 

associated with the proposed boundary 

expansion. Public scoping comments suggested 

two alternatives that the NPS considered but 

dismissed. The first would be the inclusion of all 

lands in the study area. The NPS has dismissed 

this alternative because all of such lands would 

not be feasible for the NPS to manage. While 

most of the lands under study are considered 

feasible or potentially feasible, the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California (MWD) 

parcels that form the eastern boundary are 

actively managed for the operation and 

maintenance of the Colorado River Aqueduct 

and are thus not compatible with park 

management. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

96 

The second alternative would include a broader 

boundary adjustment that includes lands to the 

east in the Chuckwalla Valley that contain 

important habitat for species such as the Desert 

Tortoise. Including these areas is beyond the 

scope of the study which is focused on the 

historical footprint of Joshua Tree National 

Monument in 1936. These areas were not part 

of the historical footprint of the national 

monument. Additionally, because the NPS has 

determined that the MWD parcels are not a 

feasible addition to the park boundary, including 

areas west of the Colorado River Aqueduct 

would create a boundary that is not contiguous. 

ALTERNATIVE A: Continue 

Current Management (No Action) 

Description 

Under the no action alternative, the park 

boundary of Joshua Tree National Park in the 

Eagle Mountain area would remain as it is today. 

More than half of the 31,500 acres under study 

would be open to resource intensive uses despite 

their proximity to one of the most pristine areas 

of the national park. No additional property 

would be included in the national park 

boundary, either by federal land transfer, 

donation, or through the use of appropriated 

funds. The Eagle Mountain area would continue 

to be owned and managed by a variety of public 

and private entities, without a cohesive vision for 

resource protection or public enjoyment 

opportunities. 

Federal Lands (BLM-managed) 

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)-managed federal lands within the study 

area fall within “limited” and “moderate” 

multiple use classes which allow a variety of 

allowable uses ranging from electric generation 

plants (wind, solar or geothermal); gas, electric 

and transmission facilities and cables; 

communications sites; livestock grazing; mining; 

and low to moderate recreational activities as 

defined the California Desert Conservation Area 

(CDCA) Plan, as amended. While these activities 

may be allowed, the multiple use class 

determines the manner in which the activity is 

allowed. Within the “limited” multiple use class 

the land is managed to provide for lowerintensity, carefully controlled multiple use of 

resources, while ensuring that sensitive values 

are not significantly diminished. Within the 

“moderate” multiple use class the land is 

managed to provide a controlled balance 

between higher intensity use and providing 

protection of public lands. The moderate 

classification is designed to conserve desert 

resources and to mitigate damage to those 

resources which permitted uses may cause. 

Proposed Future Designations. The Bureau of 

Land Management’s (BLM) Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use 

Plan Amendment, Phase 1 (DRECP LUPA)4

recognizes the national significance of the 

resources in this area and proposes two separate 

designations that would allow for greater 

protection of those resources. Within these 

proposed designations, BLM would place a 

special emphasis on managing resources in a 

proposed National Conservation Lands (NCL) 

area and within portions of a proposed 

Chuckwalla Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) to ensure that uses do not 

impact the nationally significant resources. 

However, these proposed protective 

designations only apply to roughly 54% of the 

BLM-managed lands within the study area. The 

NCL proposal would include approximately 

5,870 acres of BLM-managed lands in the 

western portion of the study area while the 

proposed Chuckwalla ACEC would include 

approximately 6,630 acres of BLM-managed 

land in the eastern end of the study area, north 

and south of the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite (BLM 2015a). 

State and Local Lands 

There would be no change in ownership of lands 

within the study area that are owned and 

managed by state and local agencies. The 

 

4 At the time of writing, the Record of Decision for 

the DRECP, Phase 1 was pending, so conservation 

designations in the final environmental impact 

statement for the plan are considered “proposed.” 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

97 

California State Lands Commission (CSLC) 

would continue to manage the State School 

Lands in the study area. However, the State 

School Lands could be considered for a future 

land exchange. The Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California (MWD) would maintain 

jurisdiction and ownership of lands and retain 

existing rights-of-way, according to right-of-way 

regulations, needed for maintenance and 

management of the Colorado River Aqueduct. 

Finally, the Desert Center Unified School 

District would continue to operate the Eagle 

Mountain School. 

Private Land 

Private land would continue to be either 

undeveloped or used for industrial purposes 

including above-ground mining of the existing 

stockpiles and tailings associated with the 

former iron ore mine. Riverside County 

planning and zoning would continue to define 

allowable uses on private lands. Land use 

designations include mining, open space and 

recreation, low density residential development, 

agricultural uses, and various institutional uses 

(schools, landfills, pumped storage hydroelectric 

project, etc.). 

Eagle Mountain Townsite 

The Eagle Mountain Townsite would continue 

to be in private ownership as long as Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain (KEM) meets the requirements 

of Private Law 790 and does not trigger a 

reverter of the Townsite or railroad right-ofway, in which case these properties would revert 

to BLM management. Eagle Mountain Mining 

and Railroad (EMMR) leases the Eagle 

Mountain Mine Railroad right-of-way from 

KEM and has expressed interest in repairing the 

line to transport aggregate and other materials. 

Resource Protection Opportunities 

Under current management, the area’s resources 

would be managed by a variety of landowners 

and agencies. If the DRECP LUPA proposed 

conservation designations are implemented, the 

BLM would place a special emphasis on 

managing resources identified as nationally 

significant within the proposed NCL and ACEC 

designations. Natural and cultural resource 

values of significance are identified for these two 

proposed areas including wildlife habitat and 

linkages, outstanding examples of diverse 

Sonoran Desert plant communities, and cultural 

values such as the World War II Desert Training 

Center, California-Arizona Maneuver Area 

The DRECP LUPA recommends a ground 

disturbance cap of 1% for the proposed 

conservation areas. Additionally, conservation 

management actions identified in the DRECP 

LUPA for these lands, as well as the unallocated 

BLM lands, would specify new protections for 

natural resources, including sensitive wildlife 

species. Specific management actions related to 

resource protection would likely result from 

implementation plans if the two proposed 

designated areas are adopted by the BLM in the 

pending Record of Decision for the DRECP 

LUPA. 

Impacts to natural resources would occur as a 

result of construction and operation of the 

proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project. The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for this 

project identifies protection strategies and 

mitigation measures to address impacts from the 

project (FERC 2014). 

Required mitigation efforts include: 

 Desert tortoise clearance and 

relocation/translocation plan 

 Special status plants protection plan 

 Erosion and sediment control plan 

 Invasive species monitoring and control 

plan 

 Historic properties management plan 

 Avian protection and wildlife protection 

 Predator monitoring and control plan 

 Aquifer testing and monitoring (water 

management plan) 

Mining operations at the Eagle Mountain Mine 

would continue by EMMR under the Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain Mine Interim Management Plan

(2013) and through an agreement with KEM 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

98 

which limits the nature of the mining activities 

that can occur on the site to above ground 

activities. Impacts to resources would depend on 

the scale of EMMR’s future activities. 

Reclamation of the mine’s previously disturbed 

areas outside of the proposed pumped storage 

hydroelectric project footprint would continue 

as noted in the 1978 reclamation plan which 

relies on voluntary regrowth as the method for 

vegetation reestablishment. Erosion is intended 

to be controlled by implementation of the site’s 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013). Eagle Crest Energy 

is also required to implement an erosion and 

sediment control plan for the proposed pumped 

storage hydroelectric project. 

Visitor Experience Opportunities 

On federal lands under BLM management, 

public recreation opportunities would continue 

to include rockhounding, off-highway vehicle 

use, backcountry camping, recreational 

shooting, and other allowable uses. Visitor use 

would continue to be sparse given the 

remoteness of the area and lack of public access 

points from the east. Some current recreational 

uses may change due to the new designations 

proposed by BLM. Such changes could include 

mineral withdrawal and designation of routes of 

travel for vehicle use. These determinations 

would be made by BLM during implementation 

planning associated with the DRECP. 

Implementation planning would determine 

whether such uses are compatible with 

protection of the nationally significant resources 

identified for these areas. Public access to state, 

local, and privately owned lands would generally 

remain restricted with the exception of access 

along public roads. 

Little to no interpretation of the area’s 

significant resources currently takes place in the 

study area. However, there are plaques 

commemorating the historic significance of the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Contractors General 

Hospital in nearby Desert Center. The BLM is 

working to provide interpretation regarding 

World War II Desert Training Center, 

California-Arizona Maneuver Area where camp 

locations and maneuvers occurred on BLM 

lands. However, no portions of the training 

camp near the study area are identified for 

interpretive opportunities. Such opportunities 

are focused on areas that contain the highest 

concentration of resources and artifacts related 

to the training camp. Additionally, in nearby 

Chiriaco Summit, General Patton Memorial 

Museum, Inc., a non-profit entity, in association 

with the BLM management, operates the 

General Patton Memorial Museum which 

interprets the history of the vast training center. 

Operational Management Opportunities 

Over the years the NPS has played an active role 

in reviewing and commenting on development 

proposals for the Eagle Mountain area. 

Proposed development in the study area has the 

potential to impact park resources. Under the no 

action alternative, the NPS would continue to 

monitor and comment on development 

proposals. The NPS and other entities could also 

choose to enter into agreements to protect 

resources and provide interpretive 

opportunities. Such agreements would be at the 

discretion of those entities, agencies, and 

organizations. The NPS does not have access 

rights to any of the privately owned areas within 

the study area. 

Costs 

Alternative A assumes that current authorized 

funding levels for the NPS within Joshua Tree 

National Park would continue. Some 

fluctuations would occur to account for 

inflation, new management needs, and to reflect 

national budget priorities. The NPS base budget 

for Joshua Tree National Park in fiscal year 2015 

was $6.06 million, which includes employee 

salaries and day-to-day operating expenses. 

Under the no action alternative, the costs to the 

NPS would be for staff time and involvement 

regarding development proposals in the study 

area. The costs are incurred by various staff 

within the existing number of full-time 

equivalent employees (FTE) for the park. In 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

99 

fiscal year 2015, the NPS employed 99.25 FTE at 

Joshua Tree National Park. 

Joshua Tree National Park also has a volunteer 

program that plays a key role in supporting park 

operations. In fiscal year 2015 more than 500 

volunteers contributed more than 42,000 hours 

of volunteer labor to the park. Volunteer hours 

were used for park administration and general 

management, a campground host, cultural 

resource management, interpretation, 

maintenance, natural resource management, 

operations, and visitor protection. 

The park also receives funding from fee revenue 

and other NPS programs, such as those that 

fund construction projects and biological 

monitoring. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 3 -1 : 

100
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

101 

ALTERNATIVE B: Federal 

Agency-to-Agency Land Transfer 

Description 

Under Alternative B, the Joshua Tree National 

Park boundary would be expanded to include 

existing federal lands within the study area. 

Approximately 22,135 acres of land would be 

transferred from the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to the National Park 

Service for administration as part of Joshua Tree 

National Park. All valid mineral rights would be 

retained by current claimants. Proposed transfer 

areas would not include BLM lands that have 

been previously withdrawn under the Federal 

Power Act for the proposed Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (620 

acres). This project received a 50-year license 

from the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (“FERC”) in June 2014. The NPS 

acknowledges that the footprint of the pumped 

storage hydroelectric project on the maps is 

based on preliminary design, and that this may 

change through further design and construction. 

The NPS would work with Eagle Crest Energy 

Company to ensure that if a boundary 

adjustment were implemented, that the final 

project footprint would be considered in the 

configuration. Private lands and state and 

county-owned lands would not be included in 

the boundary and would continue to be used for 

existing purposes. 

Approximately 380 acres of lands in areas with 

recently established and actively used 

unpatented mining claims would remain under 

BLM jurisdiction. However, if the claims were 

willingly relinquished or were no longer active, 

the NPS could pursue a transfer of 

administration. Such areas would need further 

survey to confirm locations and claim status. In 

the course of the study one claim was closed 

while two new claims were established. 

State, local, and privately owned lands are not 

included in this boundary adjustment 

alternative. Uses of these lands would continue 

to be determined by state agencies or local 

planning and zoning ordinances as described in 

the no action alternative. 

Resource Protection Opportunities 

Lands added to the national park in Alternative 

B are primarily undisturbed lands that contain 

habitat important for landscape-scale 

conservation of the California desert and would 

protect adjacent park wilderness values. 

Including these lands in the national park 

boundary would provide the NPS the 

opportunity to protect the transferred lands in 

tandem with NPS-managed properties within 

Joshua Tree National Park. Benefits include 

protection from development, seamless 

protection of existing habitat, and restoration 

opportunities for disturbed lands that may 

provide greater landscape connectivity for 

wildlife such as desert bighorn sheep. 

For areas included in the boundary adjustment, 

the NPS would work to ensure that future 

activities and uses do not diminish the 

wilderness values of adjacent areas. This would 

include any new visitor opportunities identified 

in future management plans for the newly added 

area. 

Additional inventories, documentation and 

mapping of cultural sites could be undertaken, 

although location data for sensitive sites would 

not be released in order to protect the sites from 

vandalism. The NPS would conduct appropriate 

consultation and coordination with native 

cultural groups that have ties to the Eagle 

Mountain area. 

The NPS would seek to work with private 

landowners on mitigation strategies to avoid or 

minimize the impacts of future industrial uses on 

park resources. 

Resource Management Planning 

Although specific implementation plans would 

be required for management actions such as 

restoration projects, the park’s recently 

completed Resource Stewardship Strategy (2014) 

would provide initial resource management 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

102 

guidance for those resources that are considered 

fundamental to the purpose of Joshua Tree 

National Park. A resource stewardship strategy 

is a long-range planning document for a national 

park unit to achieve its desired natural and 

cultural resource conditions, which are derived 

from relevant laws and NPS policies identified in 

a park’s foundation document, or other park 

plans. The resource stewardship strategy serves 

as a bridge between the park’s foundation 

document and everyday management of its 

natural and cultural resources. The resource 

stewardship strategy describes measurable 

desired conditions and possible pathways to 

achieve desired results for certain fundamental 

resources and values. Lands within Alternative B 

include resources that represent almost every 

fundamental resource and value outlined in the 

park foundation document and resource 

stewardship strategy. Those fundamental 

resources and values associated with lands 

included in Alternative B include: 

 Biological diversity and healthy 

ecosystem function 

 Interconnectivity of California desert 

lands 

 Recreational opportunities and values 

 Wilderness values and wilderness 

accessibility 

 Ever-expanding knowledge base 

 Opportunity to understand, apply, and 

share knowledge to benefit the park and 

beyond 

 Geological resources and desert 

landforms 

 Hydrological resources 

 Night sky 

 Clean and breathable air 

 Soundscape 

 Viewsheds 

 Historic structures or landscapes 

 Archeology (historic and prehistoric) 

 Cultural anthropology 

 History 

Visitor Experience Opportunities 

Under Alternative B, new visitor opportunities 

in the Eagle Mountains could be explored. 

Backcountry hiking, night sky viewing, and 

informal camping opportunities could be 

afforded without requiring extensive 

infrastructure improvements. A hiking trail 

connection to Cottonwood Springs could be 

explored. The NPS could consider improvement 

of the existing access road for safer visitor and 

staff travel. Other facilities that could be 

explored include trails, camping areas, or 

overlooks. Consideration would be given to 

areas where interpretive signage could provide 

information about the area and its history. 

Some existing opportunities may be constrained 

by NPS policies and management. Off-highway 

vehicle use would be limited to designated 

routes, pursuant to implementation planning for 

the area. Some uses such as shooting would no 

longer be permitted. Some visitors to the federal 

lands conduct mining on unpatented claims. 

Continuation of this use would be contingent 

upon validity for the claim and other 

requirements of NPS regulations for mining. 

The NPS would need to conduct further 

planning to determine the range of visitor use 

facilities that would be appropriate and 

compatible with the area’s natural and cultural 

resource values and where such facilities could 

be appropriately sited. Any new visitor 

opportunities would be dependent upon access 

to the area. Access would continue to be limited 

from adjacent private and state-owned lands to 

the east of the proposed boundary adjustment. 

However, the NPS could explore cooperative 

opportunities to provide access along public 

roads or seek permission from adjacent land 

owners through agreements. 

Although the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite would not be included in the 

boundary under Alternative B, some of these 

features would be visible from the boundary 

adjustment area, providing the NPS an 

opportunity to interpret the historic resources 

where appropriate. Additionally, the NPS could 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

103 

work cooperatively with Eagle Crest Energy 

Company to explore interpretive opportunities 

in areas that would not conflict with the 

operation of the pumped storage hydroelectric 

project. Eagle Crest has expressed interest in 

NPS interpretation of the hydroelectric pumped 

storage hydroelectric project within the context 

of climate change and the renewable energy 

story within the California desert. 

Public Access Following NPS Management 

Following transfer of the federal lands to NPS 

jurisdiction, the NPS would continue to allow 

access to the area along existing roads, such as 

Black Eagle Mine Road. Any changes to access, 

either increasing or decreasing access, would be 

explored further during implementation 

planning. 

Operational Management Opportunities 

The areas proposed for inclusion in the 

boundary in Alternative B would allow the NPS 

to access and expend funds on studies and 

projects related to natural and cultural resource 

protection for most of the lands within the study 

area. Resources within this area would be 

studied and inventoried, contingent on the 

availability of funds. The need for inventories is 

heightened with the effects of climate change on 

park resources and the impacts that will result 

from construction and operation of the 

proposed pumped storage hydroelectric project. 

Implementation Plans Needed 

Following transfer of the lands to NPS for 

management, the NPS would complete a 

comprehensive site plan for newly added lands 

to define appropriate uses and functions for the 

area and to coordinate the interrelationships 

among uses, site resources, and facilities (for 

visitors and/or park operations); and establish a 

road map to guide decisions on needed capital 

improvements, preservation, and development. 

As described above, the resource stewardship 

strategy provides guidance for protection of 

Joshua Tree National Park’s fundamental 

resources and would serve to provide guidance 

for management of the area’s resources until 

such time that a comprehensive site plan would 

be completed for the area. 

Costs 

In the current fiscal environment, it is unlikely 

that funding increases will be immediately 

available to support the new addition. In the 

short-term, existing funding for Joshua Tree 

National Park, including revenue from park 

entrance fees, would be used for management of 

the newly added lands. 

Over time, as implementation planning identifies 

specific projects and needs, additional funding 

would be sought. Aside from existing roads, the 

area under consideration in Alternative B 

contains very few facilities that would require 

NPS maintenance. Capital costs related to visitor 

services may include funding for road 

improvements, new trails, overlooks, camping 

areas, or waysides. Further implementation 

planning would determine appropriate visitor 

facilities and would identify specific costs 

associated with those facilities. Additional 

inventories, documentation and mapping of 

cultural sites would be undertaken to inform 

implementation planning where necessary. 

Additional costs may also be incurred to address 

abandoned mine sites that pose a public safety 

risk if responsible parties cannot be located. 

Operations 

Initially, existing staff at the park would manage 

and operate the expanded park area. However, 

overtime as implementation planning identifies 

specific resource management needs and visitor 

opportunities additional staffing and expertise 

needed for the expanded area would likely 

include: 

 Resource management staff to 

document and manage the expanded 

scope of natural and cultural resources 

within the newly added area 

 Interpretive staff to create and deliver 

visitor programs 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

104 

 Law enforcement staff to protect 

resources and ensure a safe visitor 

experience 

 Maintenance and facilities management 

staff, primarily for maintenance of Black 

Eagle Mine Road 

Total additional staffing identified would be 

three FTE which would require an increase of 

$240,000 over the park’s current annual 

operating budget. 

Facilities 

The federal lands are largely undeveloped with 

few facilities. The NPS would assume 

maintenance for approximately 4.5 miles of 

Black Eagle Mine Road. Annual costs to 

maintain Black Eagle Mine Road in its current 

condition (passable by four-wheel drive vehicles 

only) annual maintenance costs are estimated at 

$4,500. If the NPS chose to improve Black Eagle 

Mine Road to accommodate passenger vehicles 

(unpaved), one-time capital costs are estimated 

at $157,500. Annual maintenance for an 

improved road would be $5,400. 

Specific costs for new visitor facilities and any 

decisions regarding road improvements over 

existing conditions would be evaluated in 

subsequent, more detailed planning for the area. 

Planning would consider potential visitor use, 

facility and site design where appropriate, and 

detailed identification of resource protection 

needs. Actual costs to the NPS would vary 

depending on timing and implementation and 

contributions by partners and volunteers.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 3 -2 : 

105
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

106 

ALTERNATIVE C: Agency 

Transfer with Enhanced Habitat 

Connectivity and Recreation (NPS 

Preferred Alternative and 

Proposed Action) 

Description 

Under Alternative C, the boundary of Joshua 

Tree National Park would be expanded by 

approximately 25,070 acres. This would include 

22,515 acres of federally owned and managed 

lands that would be considered for 

administrative transfer to the National Park 

Service. Also included would be approximately 

2,230 acres of privately owned lands, and 325 

acres of State School Lands west of the FERC 

license withdrawal area that have been 

determined feasible for addition to Joshua Tree 

National Park. 

The boundary adjustment would not affect valid 

existing rights. All valid mineral rights would be 

retained by current claimants. Private land could 

be acquired when available, through donation or 

purchase by a third party from a willing seller (in 

fee) and donated to NPS. Eagle Crest Energy 

Company has indicated that it would consider 

donating lands not needed for the pumped 

storage hydroelectric project to the National 

Park Service. State School Lands could be 

acquired through a land exchange with the 

California State Lands Commission. Alternative 

C is the NPS preferred alternative and the 

proposed action. 

The proposed boundary addition would not 

include BLM-managed lands that have been 

previously withdrawn under the Federal Power 

Act for the Eagle Crest Energy Company’s Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Project. This project 

received a 50-year license from the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in June 

2014. The NPS acknowledges that the foot print 

of the pumped storage hydroelectric project on 

the maps is based on preliminary design, and 

that this may change through further design and 

construction. The NPS would work with Eagle 

Crest Energy Company to ensure that if a 

boundary adjustment were implemented, the 

final project footprint would be considered in 

the configuration. 

This option could allow for greater protection of 

existing habitat, restoration opportunities, and 

landscape connectivity for wildlife such as 

bighorn sheep. Visitor opportunities would be 

similar to Alternative B. Access would continue 

to be limited on private lands and to FERC 

energy license withdrawal lands. However, the 

NPS could explore with Eagle Crest Energy 

Company, opportunities to provide access from 

the private lands to the east. 

The long-term vision of the National Park 

Service would be to include in the park 

boundary all of the lands determined suitable for 

addition to Joshua Tree National Park. This 

would include an additional 3,530 acres that 

include the former Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite, if existing uses of those lands change 

and subsequently become available to the NPS. 

Additional feasibility analysis environmental and 

environmental site assessments for these lands 

would likely be necessary at such time that they 

become available. 

Resource Protection Opportunities 

Resource protection opportunities would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B. In 

addition, inclusion of the additional private 

parcels west of the FERC-licensed areas could 

provide additional protection of park resources. 

The private land west of the FERC-license area 

has been documented as an important migration 

corridor for populations of desert bighorn sheep 

in the Eagle and Coxcomb Mountains. The area 

was formerly used for the Eagle Mountain Mine. 

Reclamation of the disturbed areas would 

continue under the approved reclamation plan 

for the mine. NPS could pursue further 

restoration of areas where necessary for the 

specific purpose of improving habitat 

connectivity for desert bighorn sheep and other 

sensitive species. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

107 

As in Alternative B, the park’s recently 

completed Resource Stewardship Strategy (2014) 

would provide initial resource management 

guidance for those resources that are considered 

fundamental to the purpose of Joshua Tree 

National Park. 

Visitor Experience Opportunities 

Visitor experience opportunities would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B. In 

addition, the NPS could provide new 

interpretive opportunities regarding the historic 

Eagle Mountain Mine, portions of which would 

be included in the boundary addition. 

Public Access Following NPS Management 

As noted in Alternative B, the NPS would 

continue to allow access to federal lands along 

existing roads such as Black Eagle Mine Road. 

NPS could not provide public access to the 

private or state lands unless acquired by NPS. 

Access to the former mining pits may be 

restricted for safety reasons. If those lands are 

acquired by NPS, further analysis would be 

required to determine safe and appropriate 

access opportunities. 

Operational Management Opportunities 

Operational management opportunities would 

be similar to those described for Alternative B. 

Implementation Plans Needed 

Implementation plans needed would be similar 

to Alternative B. This would include a 

comprehensive site plan to define appropriate 

uses and functions for the area and guide 

decisions on needed capital improvements, 

preservation, and development. The park 

resource stewardship strategy would provide 

guidance for protection of Joshua Tree National 

Park’s fundamental resources and would serve 

to provide guidance for management of the 

area’s resources until such time that a 

comprehensive site plan would be completed for 

the area. Additional studies and planning would 

be required for any restoration efforts on the 

previously disturbed areas. 

Costs 

As in Alternative B, in the current fiscal 

environment, it is unlikely that funding increases 

would be immediately available to support the 

new addition upon transfer of the lands to NPS 

for management. In the short-term, existing 

funding for Joshua Tree National Park, 

including revenue from park entrance fees, 

would be used for management of the newly 

added lands. 

Over time, as implementation planning identifies 

specific projects and needs, additional funding 

would be sought. Aside from existing roads, the 

area under consideration in Alternative C 

contains very few facilities that would require 

NPS maintenance. Capital costs related to visitor 

services may include funding for road 

improvements, new trails, overlooks, camping 

areas, or waysides. Further implementation 

planning would determine appropriate visitor 

facilities and would identify specific costs 

associated with those facilities. Additional 

inventories, documentation and mapping of 

cultural sites would be undertaken to inform 

implementation planning where necessary. The 

NPS would also incur some costs to address any 

potential safety hazards associated with mined 

lands if reclamation activities by KEM are not 

sufficient for NPS purposes. Such costs would 

be considerably higher surrounding the former 

mining pits. 

Operations 

As in Alternative B, initially, existing staff at the 

park would manage and operate the expanded 

park area. However, over time as 

implementation planning identifies specific 

resource management needs and visitor 

opportunities additional staffing and expertise 

needed for the expanded area would likely 

include: 

 Resource management staff to 

document and manage the expanded 

scope of natural and cultural resources 

within the newly added area 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

108 

 Interpretive staff to create and deliver 

visitor programs 

 Law enforcement staff to protect 

resources and ensure a safe visitor 

experience 

 Maintenance and facilities management 

staff, primarily for maintenance of Black 

Eagle Mine Road 

Total additional staffing identified would be five 

FTE which would require an increase of 

$340,000 over the park’s current annual 

operating budget. 

Facilities 

The federal lands are largely undeveloped with 

few facilities. However, the private land would 

include two of the former mining pits (Black 

Eagle and Iron Chief) associated with the Eagle 

Mountain Mine. The NPS would assume 

maintenance for approximately eight miles of 

Black Eagle Mine Road and access roads 

associated with the mining areas. Annual 

operation and maintenance of the road in its 

current condition (unpaved four-wheel drive 

passable only) would cost approximately $8,000. 

Minimal road improvements to allow passenger 

cars access (unpaved) would be a one-time 

capital investment of $280,000. Annual 

maintenance costs for an improved road would 

be about $1,600 more annually over 

maintenance costs for the road in its existing 

condition. 

Specific costs for new visitor facilities and any 

road improvements over existing conditions 

would be evaluated in subsequent, 

implementation planning for the area. Planning 

would consider potential visitor use, facility and 

site design where appropriate, and detailed 

identification of resource protection needs. 

Actual costs to the NPS would vary depending 

on timing and implementation and 

contributions by partners and volunteers.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 3 -3 :

109
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

110 

ALTERNATIVE D: Restore 1936 

Boundary to Provide Diverse 

Visitor and Resource Protection 

Opportunities – Phased Approach 

Description 

All areas west of the Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California’s aqueduct lands would 

be considered for inclusion in the Joshua Tree 

National Park boundary (approximately 28,600 

acres), restoring lands that were removed from 

the NPS boundary in 1950. This boundary 

configuration represents a long-term vision to 

restore these lands to Joshua Tree National 

Park, providing an opportunity for 

comprehensive protection of the area’s 

resources. Some lands, such as the FERClicensed pumped storage hydroelectric project, 

may not be available for decades. Such lands 

could be acquired when they are no longer 

needed for these purposes. The boundary 

adjustment would be implemented through 

Congressional legislation. Designation would 

not affect private land ownership or valid 

existing rights such as the FERC-licensed 

proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project. Most NPS regulations 

and policies apply only to federal lands managed 

by NPS. Some regulations may apply to certain 

activities such as mining. 

This option could offer the greatest potential for 

long term protection of existing habitat and 

enhancing landscape-scale connectivity and 

restoration for area wildlife, including desert 

bighorn sheep. It would also provide an 

opportunity to fully protect cultural landscapes 

associated with historic mining, including the 

Eagle Mountain Townsite if such lands were to 

become available. A wider range of visitor 

opportunities could occur with greater access 

and more lands potentially available for park 

use. 

Phasing for Alternative D 

Because not all lands are currently feasible for 

park management, NPS would implement a 

phased approach to land acquisition. Lands 

could be acquired by purchase from willing 

sellers, by land exchange, or by donation. 

Private, state, and locally owned lands would 

continue to be regulated by state and local 

authorities. 

 Phase 1 (~25,070 acres) would include: 

the transfer of approximately 22,515 

acres of BLM-managed federal lands to 

NPS for administration as part of Joshua 

Tree National Park; approximately 

2,230 acres of private lands west of the 

FERC-licensed withdrawal area; and 

State School Lands parcels 

(approximately 325 acres). These lands 

are associated with the proposed 

boundary adjustment considered in 

Alternative C. 

 Phase 2 (~3,530 acres) would include all 

other lands determined potentially 

feasible, that could be acquired when 

current uses cease. This comprises: 

federal lands associated with the 

proposed pumped storage hydroelectric 

project if at any time it is 

decommissioned (620 acres); and the 

remaining lands (~2,910), much of which 

are associated with the pumped storage 

hydroelectric project and/or the Eagle 

Mountain Mine. These lands would be 

acquired only at such time as they 

become feasible for addition to the NPS, 

or otherwise available to the NPS 

through donation, agency transfer, or 

land exchange. Purchase of private lands 

would be from willing sellers only. 

Additional feasibility analysis for some 

lands may be necessary at such time that 

they become available to determine 

whether conditions have changed from 

the time of this study. 

Together these areas represent a long-term 

vision for including lands in the Eagle Mountain 

area within Joshua Tree National Park to protect 

resources and public enjoyment opportunities 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

111 

related to the purpose of Joshua Tree National 

Park. 

Resource Protection Opportunities 

Resource protection opportunities would be 

similar to those described for Alternative B and 

C in the short term. The private land west of the 

FERC-license area has been documented as an 

important migration corridor for populations of 

desert bighorn sheep travelling from the Eagle 

Mountains to the Coxcomb Mountains. In the 

long-term, this alternative would offer the 

greatest potential for protection of existing 

habitat and enhancing landscape-scale 

connectivity for area wildlife if additional lands 

become available for NPS management. NPS 

could pursue further restoration of areas where 

necessary for the specific purpose of improving 

habitat connectivity for desert bighorn sheep 

and other sensitive species. Ecological stress for 

desert bighorn sheep would be reduced with 

enhancement and restoration of disturbed 

migration corridors. 

In Alternative D, the NPS could have an 

opportunity to protect cultural landscapes 

associated with historic mining, including the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite. 

Preservation of any remaining contributing 

structures within the Townsite area may need to 

be undertaken as funding is made available 

Because it may be an extended period of time 

before these areas are available for addition to 

the park, additional evaluation of the resource 

conditions and feasibility factors would need to 

be undertaken before the lands could be 

considered for NPS ownership. This would 

include an environmental site assessment to 

determine whether there are any hazardous 

materials on the properties that need 

remediating. 

If historic structures with integrity are retained 

at the Townsite, public-private partnerships 

could be a mechanism to revitalize the Townsite, 

providing new opportunities such as a research 

campus or recreational concession 

opportunities. Portions of the Townsite could 

be used for a campground. Another approach 

involves BLM’s authority under the Recreation 

and Public Purposes to lease or convey BLMadministered land to state and local 

jurisdictions, or to non-profits, for recreation or 

other public purposes. Conveyances to state and 

local agencies can be at no cost, provided the 

application and proposal from the local agency 

meets the regulatory requirements. BLM would 

need to retain management authority over some 

Townsite lands in order to exercise this 

authority. 

The NPS could partner with colleges and 

universities with programs in mining and 

reclamation to conduct demonstration projects 

associated with reclamation of some of the old 

mine sites. Additionally, the NPS could conduct 

research and surveys to understand more about 

prehistoric uses of the area, providing greater 

understanding of how humans have used the 

Eagle Mountains over time. 

Alternative D could offer the greatest potential 

for protection of wilderness values in adjacent 

park wilderness areas including dark night sky, 

soundscapes, and untrammeled viewsheds. 

As outlined in Alternative B, the park’s recently 

completed Resource Stewardship Strategy (2014) 

would provide initial resource management 

guidance for those resources that are considered 

fundamental to the purpose of Joshua Tree 

National Park. 

Visitor Experience Opportunities 

Alternative D, if fully implemented, could offer 

the widest array of new visitor opportunities, 

since it would provide convenient access from 

the I-10 corridor and visitors would have a 

chance to see and learn about the history of the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite and other 

resources. In Phase1, visitor opportunities 

would be similar to Alternative C and could 

include opportunities such as backcountry 

hiking, night sky viewing, and informal camping 

opportunities. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

112 

Some existing uses may be constrained by NPS 

policies and management. Off-highway vehicle 

use would be limited to designated routes, 

pursuant to implementation planning for the 

area. Some uses such as shooting would no 

longer be permitted. Some visitors to the federal 

lands conduct mining on unpatented claims. 

Continuation of this use would be contingent 

upon validity for the claim and other 

requirements of NPS regulations for mining. 

Public access to private lands would be continue 

to be restricted in Phase 1. 

Phase 2 lands contain existing infrastructure 

such as roads and trails and would provide 

better access for visitors as the area is a short 

distance from Interstate 10. A campground 

could be considered in or around the existing 

developed area and existing paved roads could 

be used for bicycling. Visitors would have new 

opportunities to learn about the mining history 

and the World War II Desert Training Camp 

sites through a wide variety of interpretive 

programs. Mountain biking could be allowed on 

the old mining roads (mountain biking is 

currently not offered in the park). 

The cultural resources that would come into the 

park boundary if Alternative D was fully 

implemented would both expand and fill in gaps 

in interpretation of the park’s history. Joshua 

Tree National Park currently interprets early 

19th and early 20th century mining and 

homesteading. The Eagle Mountain Mine 

represents mining in the 20th century, spurred by 

both the New Deal Program and mobilization 

for World War II. New opportunities for 

interpretation surround World War II Desert 

Training Center, California-Arizona Maneuver 

Area, and the role of Desert Center in the 

development of a prepaid healthcare program 

that eventually informed the evolution of Kaiser 

Permanente healthcare. 

The NPS would need to conduct further 

planning to determine the range of visitor use 

facilities that would be appropriate and 

compatible with the area’s natural and cultural 

resource values and where such facilities could 

be appropriately sited. 

Public Access Following NPS Management 

The NPS would continue to allow access to the 

area along existing roads on federal lands that 

would transferred to NPS in Phase 1, such as 

Black Eagle Mine Road. Public access would not 

be permitted to private, state or locally owned 

lands without the permission of the owner. In 

later phases, if the private or local/state 

government lands are donated, exchanged, or 

sold to the NPS, access may be provided. At such 

time as these lands are added to the boundary, 

further analysis would be required to determine 

safe and appropriate access opportunities. 

Initially, some areas may need to be restricted 

for safety purposes. 

Operational Management Opportunities 

Over time, Alternative D would provide a logical 

boundary that could be easily identified. Full 

implementation would also eliminate the 

patchwork of ownership; reducing conflicting 

uses and providing a unified vision for 

management of the area also reduce visitor’s 

confusion regarding multi-agency regulations. 

Full implementation would also provide an 

opportunity for law enforcement and other staff 

to be located on site, which would improve 

safety, security, park operations, and visitor 

opportunities. 

Challenges to operations that would come from 

full implementation would be management of 

extensive existing infrastructure at the Townsite, 

some of which is currently deteriorating. Should 

this property become available for park 

management, additional analysis and evaluation 

of the facility conditions would be necessary. 

Further planning would identify potential uses 

of the area and its facilities. Some facilities could 

be removed, and others could be restored 

through partnerships with state and local 

governments and non-profit organizations. The 

NPS would also have to evaluate and remediate 

safety hazards associated with the former mining 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

113 

facilities on areas that are considered abandoned 

mine lands. 

Costs 

In the current fiscal environment, it is unlikely 

that funding increases will be immediately 

available to support the new addition upon 

transfer of the lands to NPS for management. In 

the short-term, existing funding for Joshua Tree 

National Park, including revenue from park 

entrance fees would be used for management of 

the newly added lands. 

Operations 

Initially, existing staff at the park would manage 

and operate the expanded park area. However, 

over time as implementation planning identifies 

specific resource management needs and visitor 

opportunities additional staffing and expertise 

needed for the expanded area would likely 

include: 

 Resource management staff to 

document and manage the expanded 

scope of natural and cultural resources 

within the newly added area 

 Interpretive staff to create and deliver 

visitor programs 

 Law enforcement staff to protect 

resources and ensure a safe visitor 

experience 

 Maintenance and facilities management 

staff, primarily for maintenance of Black 

Eagle Mine Road 

Total additional staffing proposed would be 

seven FTE which would require an increase of 

$440,000 over the park’s current annual 

operating budget. 

Facilities 

Phase 1. Over time, as implementation planning 

identifies specific projects and needs, additional 

funding would be sought. Facilities costs for 

Phases 1 would be the same as what is expected 

under Alternative C. Aside from existing roads, 

the area under consideration in Phase 1 contains 

very few facilities that would require NPS 

maintenance. Areas included in Phase 1 would 

include some of the former mining pits 

associated with the Eagle Mountain Mine. The 

NPS would need to address any hazards or 

safety issues associated with these former pits if 

KEM’s reclamation requirements are not 

sufficient for NPS purposes. 

Capital costs related to visitor services in Phase 1 

may include funding for road improvements, 

new trails, overlooks, camping areas, or 

waysides. Further implementation planning 

would determine appropriate visitor facilities 

and would identify specific costs associated with 

those facilities. Additional inventories, 

documentation and mapping of cultural sites 

would be undertaken to inform implementation 

planning where necessary. Additional costs may 

also be incurred to address former mine sites 

that pose a public safety risk. 

Phase 2. The NPS would assume maintenance 

for the full length of Black Eagle Mine Road, 

approximately 11 miles, and other access roads 

associated with the mining areas. Annual costs 

to maintain Black Eagle Mine Road in its current 

condition (passable by four-wheel drive vehicles 

only) are estimated at $11,000. If the NPS chose 

to improve Black Eagle Mine Road to 

accommodate passenger vehicles (unpaved), 

one-time capital costs are estimated at $385,000. 

Annual maintenance for an improved road 

would be $13,200. Some roads could be 

converted to trails, while others could be 

restored or used for visitor access. 

As described in the feasibility analysis, the lands 

determined potentially feasible that could come 

into the park during Phase 2 would come with 

greater development and maintenance costs to 

the NPS. Further analysis of such costs would 

need to be completed at the time that lands 

became available to accurately assess current 

conditions. The Townsite area, in particular has 

many buildings in disrepair for which asbestos 

and lead paint remediation may be required. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

114 

NPS would seek to ensure that responsible 

parties conduct any required remediation prior 

to transfer. There are significant physical 

deficiencies in some of the buildings, including 

visible roof leaks, deteriorated ceilings, 

deteriorated plumbing, and potential hidden 

damage. 

The Townsite also contains considerable 

electrical, road, water and sewer infrastructure 

that would need to be maintained. If such lands 

became available to NPS, the NPS would seek to 

engage in public-private partnerships to offset 

the costs. Another consideration would be for 

BLM to retain management over some or all of 

the Townsite and, through the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act, lease the site to State or 

local governments, or non-profit organizations, 

for recreational or other public purposes to 

offset the federal government’s costs of 

maintaining the site. 

Specific costs for new visitor facilities and any 

road improvements over existing conditions 

would be evaluated in subsequent, 

implementation planning for the area. Planning 

would consider potential visitor use, facility and 

site design where appropriate, and detailed 

identification of resource protection needs. 

Actual costs to the NPS would vary depending 

on timing and implementation and 

contributions by partners and volunteers.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 3 -4:

115
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

116

Table 3-1: Alternatives Comparison Table
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

117
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

118
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

119 

CHAPTER 4: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality 

Joshua Tree National Park is protected as a Class 

I Airshed under the Clean Air Act, which is the 

highest protection afforded by the Act (NPS 

1996). However, as a result of regional air 

pollution sources, the park has some of the 

worst air pollution in the national park system. A 

recent report completed by the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA) on air 

pollution at national parks found Joshua Tree 

National Park to be the fourth most polluted 

national park (NPCA 2015). Although the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

mandated that the skies above our national 

parks be subject to the most stringent level of 

protection, Joshua Tree National Park 

consistently exceeds the 120 ppb ozone 

concentration levels set by the EPA for human 

health at its monitoring station located in the 

northwestern part of the park (NPS 2015a, NPS 

2014, NPCA 2015). Air quality in the study area 

is expected to be similar. 

California’s geography and wind patterns cause 

pollution to blows into the park from 

surrounding urban areas. Growth in the 

Coachella Valley impacts air quality in the park, 

but the Los Angeles basin, with a population 

over 12 million, is the major contributor of 

ozone and other pollutants that reach the park 

(NPS 2014). 

The primary human cause of pollution at Joshua 

Tree National Park is nitrates, formed in the 

atmosphere from emissions of nitrogen oxides 

and sulfur dioxides. These emissions are 

released from vehicles, power plants, and other 

industrial sources. Wind speed and direction, 

seasons, and topography can affect how 

pollutants are dispersed, but generally some 

degree of air pollution is likely detectable on 

most days. It is more noticeable during summer 

months when winds blow nitrogen oxides, 

volatile organic compounds and other pollutants 

into the desert from the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area. Air quality is better in the 

winter when the prevailing air flows are not 

from the Los Angeles area (NPS 2014). Dust, 

particulates, and smog create a haze that limits 

the views in and from the park and is unhealthy 

for people, wildlife, and vegetation (NPS 1995, 

NPCA 2015). 

Polluted air contains particulate matter that 

drops out nitrates onto the soil. Desert plants 

that have adapted to survive in nitrogen-poor 

soils must now compete with non-native grasses 

and other exotic plant species that thrive with 

the added fertilizer. Ozone can burn plants and 

stunt growth. Particulate matter contributes to 

heart and lung problems, particularly for 

children. Air pollution also creates a haze 

impedes visibility. On a clear day visitors to 

Joshua Tree National Park can see the Mexican 

border from the mile-high vantage point of Keys 

View. But more often, visitors can barely see 45 

miles away (NPCA 2015). 

Small amounts of air pollution are currently 

generated in the study area and are primarily 

from automobiles and dust, which produce a 

minor amount of pollutants. Additionally, 

growing development (power plants, 

transportation, construction, etc.) and land use 

changes create dust, particulates, and smog that 

impact air quality and visibility. As urban 

encroachment continues, air quality is expected 

to worsen. 

Climate 

The Mojave and Colorado deserts intersect 

within the study area. Generally, the climate of 

the study area is typical of an arid southern low 

Californian desert: hot, dry summers (over 

110°F) and mild to cold winters (average of 

54°F). Rainfall is highly variable. It’s uniformly 

dry and rainfall averages less than six 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

120 

inches/year, over the course of two raining 

seasons in winter and late summer. 

Winter storms generally bring widespread, 

longer-duration, low-intensity rainfall, 

particularly in the western desert regions, and 

summer monsoons generate isolated, short, 

high-intensity rainfall in the eastern desert 

regions. The climate of the Mojave and 

Colorado/Sonoran deserts differs, especially 

with respect to temperature and precipitation. 

Annual precipitation ranges from approximately 

three inches in the low deserts (such as the 

Colorado) to approximately 8 inches in the high 

deserts and desert ranges (such as the Mojave) 

while annual temperature ranges from 

approximately 60 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

in the low deserts to approximately 45°F to 77°F 

in the high deserts and desert ranges (BLM 

2015a). 

Climate Change and Energy 

Conservation 

It is now well established that rising global 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emission concentrations 

are significantly affecting the earth’s climate 

(CEQ 2014). The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) established with 

certainty that the Earth’s climate is rapidly 

changing and that human influence is a 

dominant cause. The IPCC Fifth Assessment 

Report (IPCC 2013) states that warming of 

planet’s climate is unequivocal: the atmosphere 

and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow 

and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and 

the concentrations of greenhouse gases have 

increased. 

The IPCC found evidence for human influence 

continues to grow. The IPCC concludes that the 

anthropogenic (human-caused) increase in 

GHG concentrations and other human sources 

caused more than half of the observed increase 

in global average surface temperature from 1951 

to 2010. Numerous plans and strategies have 

been developed to respond to this growing crisis 

such as the President’s Climate Action Plan, 

Executive Order 13693, the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program, the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants 

Climate Adaptation Strategy, and others (BLM 

2015a). State and federal agencies have specific 

climate change plans. California’s Climate 

Change Strategy identifies several key actions to 

address the issue. One is a commitment that by 

2030, California will increase the amount of 

electricity from renewable sources from 33% to 

50%. 

The NPS has developed both a NPS Climate 

Change Response Strategy and Climate Change 

Action Plan to help parks effectively plan for and 

respond to climate change (NPS 2010a, NPS 

2010b). The NPS has a mandate and obligation 

to curb the carbon pollution that is driving 

climate change and we must improve its ability 

to prepare for existing climate impacts. Joshua 

Tree National Park is a participant in the NPS 

Climate Friendly Parks Program, which sets 

goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions. 

Joshua Tree National Park’s Climate Action Plan

describes how the park will accomplish these 

goals. The park replaced fossil-fuel generators in 

the 1990s with stand-alone photovoltaic (PV) 

systems to harness the abundant solar energy 

available in the desert. The park has continued 

to reduce its carbon footprint and our energy 

costs by installing grid-tied PV systems that 

produce clean electrical power. Joshua Tree 

National Park, located within the Pacific West 

Region of the National Park Service (NPS), is 

involved in the first regional effort in the NPS to 

become carbon neutral (NPS 2010a). The Pacific 

West Region has developed a vision of having its 

park operations be carbon neutral and 

established a goal of having all of its parks 

become a member of the Climate Friendly Parks 

Program. The park’s Climate Action Plan is 

available online at: 

www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/parks/jotr.ht

ml. 

One role of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

to address climate change allows for the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

121 

development of renewable energy projects on 

public lands in the California Desert. BLM 

manages approximately 22 million acres of land 

with high solar energy potential. BLM’s Desert 

Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) 

and Solar Energy Program provide a strategy for 

siting future renewable energy developments. 

The DRECP Preferred Alternative would 

designate 388,000 acres as Development Focus 

Areas for renewable energy, and leave an 

additional 840,000 acres open for potential 

renewable energy development. Development 

Focus Areas represent the areas which activities 

associated with solar, wind, and geothermal 

development, operation, and decommissioning 

could occur. 

Topography and Geology 

The study area is situated within the eastern part 

of California’s Transverse Ranges province and 

straddles the transition between the Mojave and 

Sonoran deserts. The westernmost portion, 

adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park is in the 

Mojave Desert, while the majority of the study 

area is within the Colorado Desert. The Mojave 

Desert is bounded on the west by the Sierra 

Nevada, Tehachapi, San Bernardino, and San 

Gabriel mountain ranges. The Colorado Desert 

is bounded on the west by the Peninsular Ranges 

and on the east by the Colorado River. The Eagle 

Mountains runs through the study area. The 

Coxcomb Mountains are to the northeast, the 

Pinto Basin is north; to the south are the 

Orocopia, Chuckwalla, Cottonwood, and 

Chocolate Mountains ranges. 

The land in and around Joshua Tree National 

Park was created at least 1.7 billion years ago 

when a mix of igneous and metamorphic rocks, 

including Pinto gneiss, developed deep under a 

massive mountain system. During the Mesozoic 

era from 250 to 75 million years ago there was 

active subduction of the Pacific Plate under the 

North American Plate leading to more upwelling 

of intrusive volcanic material that formed several 

types of granite that are found in the Eagle 

Mountains and other nearby mountain ranges 

(Dilsaver 2015, Harder 1912, Force 2001). 

Fractured, jointed and picturesque 

Monzogranite features are found throughout the 

park and as well the Pinto, Eagle, and Coxcomb 

mountains; however, these formations are not in 

the study area; instead, there are gentle slopes 

and undulating rocky slopes, outcrops and 

valleys. 

The topography of the study area is typical of 

western deserts: bare mountain ranges are 

separated by flat connecting deserts. See Map 4-

1: Topography. The mountains rise abruptly out 

of the desert to an elevation of approximately 

3,000 feet. The mountains are dissected by 

sharp gullies with high, barren, rock walls and 

canyons. Alluvial fans spill from the gullies of 

the mountains and connect toward the center of 

the desert basin (or playa). On gradual 

mountain slopes, soils are deep, sandy, loamy, 

and covered with vegetation; on steeper slopes, 

bedrock outcrops are more gravelly with less 

vegetation. Many of the flat areas have a thin 

white crust of alkali or salt. Soil conditions 

consist of desert pavement, erosive (e.g., 

carbonate, high-silt) soils, corrosive saline soils 

saline, and expansive (high-clay) soils (BLM 

2015a). 

The Chuckwalla Valley contains an active windblown, or aeolian, sand migration and 

deposition that contribute to the formation of 

sand dunes on the valley floor. The general 

direction of the aeolian-driven sand migration is 

to the southeast and east, toward the Colorado 

River. The sand migration corridor situated 

within the upper Chuckwalla Valley has been 

designated as the “Palen Dry Lake–Chuckwalla” 

corridor, which runs past the central project 

area and to the north of Desert Center toward 

Palen Dry Lake (FERC 2012). There are no 

active faults known to exist within the study 

area, but San Andreas, Garlock, Blue Cut, and 

Pinto Mountain fault zones are nearby. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

122

Map 4-1: Topography
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

123 

The U.S. Geological Survey recently worked 

with Joshua Tree National Park to complete a 

geologic database of the park. This effort 

included some mapping of the Eagle Mountains. 

However, not all of the area was mapped. Map 4-

2: Geology provides an overview of regional 

geology from the California Geological Survey, 

and Map 4-3: Geology of the Eagle Mountain Mine

features a geologic map completed for the mine 

by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001. 

Joshua Tree National Park Geologic 

Description 

The following geologic description is from the 

recent U.S. Geological Survey mapping effort at 

Joshua Tree National Park. 

The geologically diverse terrain that underlies 

Joshua Tree National Park reveals a rich and 

varied geologic evolution, one that spans nearly 

two billion years of Earth history. The park’s 

landscape is the current expression of this 

evolution, its varied landforms reflecting the 

differing origins of underlying rock types and 

their differing responses to subsequent geologic 

events. Crystalline basement in the Park consists 

of Proterozoic plutonic and metamorphic rocks 

intruded by a composite Mesozoic batholith of 

Triassic through Late Cretaceous plutons 

arrayed in northwest-trending lithodemic belts. 

The basement was exhumed during the 

Cenozoic and underwent differential deep 

weathering beneath a low-relief erosion surface, 

with the deepest weathering profiles forming on 

quartz-rich, biotite-bearing granitoid rocks. 

Disruption of the basement terrain by faults of 

the San Andreas system began circa 20 million 

years from the present (Ma) and the Joshua Tree 

National Park sinistral domain, preceded by 

basalt eruptions, began perhaps as early as circa 

seven Ma, but no later than 5 Ma. Uplift of the 

mountain blocks during this interval led to 

erosional stripping of the thick zones of 

weathered quartz-rich granitoid rocks to form 

etchplains dotted by bouldery tors—the iconic 

landscape of the park. The stripped debris filled 

basins along the fault zones. 

Mountain ranges and basins in the park exhibit 

an east-west physiographic grain controlled by 

left-lateral fault zones that form a sinistral 

domain within the broad zone of dextral shear 

along the transform boundary between the 

North American and Pacific plates. Geologic 

and geophysical evidence reveal that movement 

on the sinistral faults zones has resulted in left 

steps along the zones, resulting in the 

development of sub-basins beneath Pinto Basin 

and Shavers and Chuckwalla Valleys. The 

sinistral fault zones connect the Mojave Desert 

dextral faults of the Eastern California Shear 

Zone to the north and east with the Coachella 

Valley strands of the southern San Andreas Fault 

Zone to the west. Quaternary surficial deposits 

accumulated in alluvial washes and playas and 

lakes along the valley floors; in alluvial fans, 

washes, and sheet wash aprons along piedmonts 

flanking the mountain ranges; and in eolian 

dunes and sand sheets that span the transition 

from valley floor to piedmont slope. Sequences 

of Quaternary pediments are planed into 

piedmonts flanking valley-floor and upland 

basins, each pediment in turn overlain by 

successively younger residual and alluvial 

surficial deposits (Powell, Matti, and Cossette 

2015). 

Eagle Mountain Mine Geologic 

Description 

The U.S. Geological Survey documented the 

geology of the Eagle Mountain Mine in 1991. 

The following geologic description is from Force 

2001. See Map 4-3: Geology of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine.

Gneissic basement rocks are overlain by two 

sedimentary units, separated by unconformities. 

The lower unit contains carbonate rocks and 

quartzite; the "vitreous quartzite" of previous 

workers, however, is an alteration feature rather 

than a stratigraphic one. The upper unit contains 

thick conglomerates. This layered sequence of 

rocks is deformed into a west-plunging anticline. 

Intrusion by Jurassic quartz monzonite 

apparently followed this deformation. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

124 

Quartz monzonite forms a branching network of 

sills, some of which dilate the contact between 

the upper and lower sedimentary sequences. 

Intrusion resulted in extensive, mostlyanhydrous skarns, but stratabound iron ore is 

just as closely related to some other features: 1) 

regional alteration of quartz monzonite, with 

iron ore adjacent to little-altered rocks along the 

boundary between sodic and potassic domains, 

2) the two unconformities, which apparently 

formed stratigraphic traps for precipitation of 

stratabound iron ores, 3) a north-facing 

monoclinal plane between folds, which was 

preferentially replaced. 

Iron ore replaces a variety of host rocks along 

the two unconformities, forming massive to 

globular bodies, and its mineralogy correlates 

with deuteric alteration features, not anhydrous 

skarn. Its pyrite contains as much as 3% cobalt. 

Iron was only one of five elements that showed 

mobility in this region on a scale that suggests 

basic crustal processes. The others in probable 

order of flux magnitude are silica, magnesium, 

sodium, and potassium, to form regionally 

distributed “vitreous quartzite,” dolomite, and 

secondary feldspars, respectively. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

125

Source: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 2, Compilation and 

Interpretation by: Charles W. Jennings (1977), Updated version by: Carlos Gutierrez, 

William Bryant, George Saucedo, and Chris Wills. 

Map 4-2: Geology 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

126

Reconnaissance geologic map of the eastern and central parts of the Eagle Mountain mine area at 1:48,000, on topographic base. 

Force, Eric R. (2001). Eagle Mountain mine—Geology of the former Kaiser Steel operation in Riverside County, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 01-237, Tucson, AZ. 

Map 4-3: Geology of the Eagle Mountain Mine
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

127 

Mineral Resources 

Authorities 

The Mining Law of 1872, as amended, the major 

federal law governing locatable minerals, 

declared all valuable mineral deposits in lands 

belonging to the United States to be free and 

open to exploration and purchase. This law 

provides citizens of the United States the 

opportunity to explore for, discover, and 

purchase certain valuable mineral deposits on 

public domain lands. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 did not amend the 1872 law, but did 

affect the recordation and maintenance of 

claims. Persons holding existing claims were 

required to record their claims with the 

managing federal land agency by October 1979, 

and all new claims were required to be recorded 

with the managing agency. Its purpose was to 

provide the government with information on the 

locations and number of unpatented mining 

claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites; to determine 

the names and addresses of current owners; and 

remove the cloud of title on abandoned claims. 

History and Mineral Availability

A geologic survey and assessment has not been 

completed for this boundary study. However, a 

Mineral Potential Report to assess the mineral 

potential of the federal lands in the study area 

will be completed before any action is taken on 

the BLM segregation and withdrawal process. 

Past mining records, previous mineral reports 

for land in and adjacent to the study area and the 

Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan 

Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (DRECP 

LUPA) provide an overview and assessment of 

the potentially present minerals. 

Mining is an integral part of the region’s history, 

beginning over 130 years ago when prospectors 

roamed the west in search of gold, silver, and 

other valuable minerals. There are nearly 300 

abandoned mines in Joshua Tree National Park 

and several mining districts in and adjacent to 

the park including the Twentynine Palms, Dale, 

Rattler, Monte Negras, Eagle Mountains, 

Cottonwood Spring, Piñon, and Gold Park 

districts (Trent 1998). In the late 1880s, gold and 

silver discoveries in the Chuckwalla Mountains 

caused the greatest gold rush in Riverside 

County (BLM 2012). 

Mines in the Eagle Mountains produced gold, 

lead, silver, tungsten, copper, and limestone (see 

Table 4-1: Former Mines and Associated 

Commodities Within the Study Area and Map 4-4: 

Minerals). The mineral mined in the largest 

quantity was iron, with the richest deposit 

located in the northern Eagle Mountains at the 

Eagle Mountain Mine. The Eagle Mountain 

Mine was the largest mining operation west of 

the Mississippi River and mined 100 million tons 

of iron ore during its operation from 1948 to 

1983 (BLM 1993). Metal production from the 

Eagle Mountain mining district also included 

7,257 oz. of gold, 14,768 oz. of silver, 1.48 million 

pounds of lead, and 114,424 pounds of copper 

(Powell et. al. 1984). 

In 1984, a Mineral Resource Potential Report of 

the Eagle Mountains Wilderness Study Area was 

completed for land in the western study area 

(Powell et. al. 1984). This report states that gold, 

silver, tungsten, molybdenum, manganese, zinc, 

copper, lead minerals, scheelite, galena, pyrite, 

fluorite, hematite, limonite, copper carbonate 

minerals and dendritic manganese oxide are 

likely to occur in the Eagle and Chuckwalla 

Mountains (Powell et. al. 1984). The report also 

states that the rare earth minerals of thorium, 

lanthanum, and yttrium were detected in 

mineral samples and are likely to occur in some 

of the more common minerals identified in 

heavy mineral fractions from the Eagle 

Mountains, such as apatite, fluorite, sphene, and 

zircon (Powell et. al. 1984). 

The Powell report stated gold, silver and 

tungsten are common in the Transverse Ranges 

and Mojave Desert provinces of southern 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

128 

California, but that the deposits are generally 

small in volume and of low to medium grade, 

although some high grade pockets have been 

found. It also noted that the occurrence of 

larger subsurface gold and silver deposits are 

possible because the geologic setting of the area 

is similar to other large gold producing regions 

in the Rand, Cargo Muchacho, and Chocolate 

Mountains (Powell et. al. 1984). 

An assessment of the mineral potential for the 

lands within the 160,000 acre Riverside Solar 

Energy Zone (SEZ), which lies approximately 10 

miles from the eastern boundary of the study 

area (BLM 2012), made similar conclusions. 

This report states that deposits of locatable 

minerals exist at the base of adjacent mountain 

ranges. The area contains known deposits of 

locatable minerals, most of which occur along 

the margins where site boundaries overlap the 

base of adjacent mountain ranges. Based on 

mineral maps, the report found the area to have 

reasonable potential for iron, gold, silver, 

uranium, thorium, copper, tungsten, lead, zinc, 

gypsum, silica, and wollastonite (BLM 2012). 

The DRECP LUPA identified the Riverside SEZ 

as a high potential mineral location area (Figure 

R1.15-1)5

. 

A broad mineral analysis was completed for the 

22 million acre DRECP plan area. It concluded 

that no rare earth minerals were present in the 

study area (Figure III.15-3) and that the 

boundary study area was not an area of high 

mineral potential (Figure R1.15-7) (BLM 2015a). 

 

5

 High-potential mineral areas are lands with existing 

and/or historic mining activity and a reasonable 

probability of future mineral resource development. 

Table 4-1: Former Mines and Associated 

Commodities Within the Study Area 

Mine Commodity 

Rainbows End 

Mine

Copper

Belt Mine Copper

Mission Sweet 

Mine

Gold

Iron Chief 

Mine

Gold

Waterloo 

Mine

Gold

Iron Chief 

Mine

Gold

Cactus Group 

Mine

Gold

Black Giant 

Mine

Iron

Eagle 

Mountain 

Mine*

Iron

Eagle 

Mountain 

Mine and 

Plant

Iron, Silica, Sulfur, Magnesite, 

Phosphorus-Phosphates, Calcium, 

Aluminum 

Iron Chief 

Mine

Iron, Sulfur, PhosphorusPhosphates, Silica 

Black Eagle 

Mine

Lead, Copper, Gold, Silver

Big Henry 

Mine

Tungsten 

Source: USGS 2011 

*Mine is still active. 

Mineral Categories and Current Uses 

Minerals on Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) managed land are categorized as leasable, 

saleable, or locatable. Each classification is 

administered differently according to federal 

regulations and may have different requirements 

for acquisition, exploration, and development. 

Leasable minerals are explored-for and 

developed in accordance with the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, other leasing acts and BLM 

regulations. Leasable minerals today include oil 

and gas, oil shale, geothermal resources, potash, 

sodium, native asphalt, solid and semisolid 

bitumen, bituminous rock, phosphate, sulfur, 

and coal. The study area also does not contain 

geothermal energy resources, oil, gas or other 

leasable resources (BLM 2015a). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

129 

Locatable minerals are any minerals not leasable 

or salable, and are managed under the General 

Mining Law of 1872 and BLM regulations (43 

CFR 3700 and 3800). Mining claims are staked 

on locatable minerals on public domain lands. 

Some typical locatable minerals potentially 

available in the study area include gold, silver, 

iron, copper, cobalt, tungsten, silica, gemstones, 

lead, zinc, barite, gypsum, and certain varieties 

of high calcium limestone. 

Locatable minerals can be obtained by filing a 

mining claim. The BLM policy and guidance for 

locatable minerals includes BLM Manual 3800—

Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws 

and BLM Handbook H-3042-1—Solid Minerals 

Reclamation Handbook. The Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 recognizes the 

rights of locators to claims filed under the 

Mining Law of 1872, including the right of 

ingress and egress. A mining claim is a parcel of 

land probably containing valuable mineral in its 

soil or rock, and appropriated by an individual, 

according to established rules, by the process of 

“location.” There are 460 active unpatented 

claims held by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 

(subsidiary of Eagle Crest). There are an 

additional six active unpatented claims held by 

others, most of which are placer claims with 

mining activities that do not involve the use of 

earth-moving equipment or explosives. These 

claims are primarily prospected primarily for 

gold. Rockhounding - collecting rocks, mineral 

specimens, gemstones, or petrified wood for 

non-commercial purposes– does not require a 

permit or mining claim and is also considered a 

casual use of public lands. See Appendix D: 

Unpatented Mining Claims for a full list of claims 

and locations and Map 4-5: Mining Claims, Past 

and Present Mineral Producers for a map 

depicting mining claims and mineral producers 

in the study area. 

There are also patented claims within the study 

area associated with the former Eagle Mountain 

Mine, which are currently owned by Eagle Crest 

Energy Company (recently purchased from 

CIL&D), and one other patented claim held by 

another private owner. As stated above, millions 

of tons of iron, a locatable mineral, were 

extracted from the Eagle Mountain Mine. Open 

pit, multi-bench, drill and blast extraction, 

multi-stage separation, crushing and other 

processing operations no longer occur at the 

mine. However, extraction, processing and 

transport off-site of aggregate from stockpiles 

and related support activities do still occur. 

These activities are allowable surface mining 

operations as defined by Surface Mining and 

Reclamation Act (SMARA), Section 2735. In a 

2013 Interim Management Plan (IMP) 

completed for the Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine, 

Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC placed the mine in 

administrative “idle” status and clarified that 

surface mining operation at the mine have been 

and will remain ongoing (Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain, LLC 2013). This “idle” status means 

that surface mining operations are curtailed by 

more than 90 percent of the operation’s previous 

maximum annual production, with the intent to 

resume those surface mining operations at a 

future date. The estimated maximum production 

of the aggregate per year is 18,500 tons (Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013). It is estimated that 

there are over 165 million tons of stockpiled 

rock located in and around the Eagle Mountain 

Mine (BLM 1993). 

Eagle Mountain Mining and Railroad (EMMR), 

a Kaiser subsidiary, is planning to increase the 

sale and shipment of material off-site by 2018 

and asserts the possibility that large-scale mining 

activities could also resume (Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain, LLC 2013). The IMP stated that 

several studies, including a U.S. Geological 

Survey study titled “Eagle Mountain Mine, 

Geology of the former Kaiser Steel operation in 

Riverside County, California” indicates that 

there may be as much as 550 million tons of iron 

ore reserves at the mine (USGS 2001). A mineral 

report prepared by the BLM in 1993 found that 

lands under consideration for the proposed 

Eagle Mountain Landfill did not contain 

minerals of economic value that could be 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

130 

developed under the United States mining and 

mineral leasing laws, and that the probability of 

future development of mineral resources within 

the mine is low. 

Salable minerals, or mineral materials, are 

common varieties of minerals and building 

materials such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, 

pumicite, cinders, and clay. The BLM manages 

salable minerals under the Materials Act of 1947, 

as amended, and implementing regulations (43 

CFR 3600), which authorize disposal either 

through a contract of sale or a free use permit. 

There are no salable minerals on BLM managed 

land. 

More information on mining history, mining 

claims, and current mining practices can be 

found in the Land Use and Visitor Opportunities 

and Access sections. 

Aggregate and other rock products continue to be extracted from tailing piles at the Eagle Mountain Mine 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-4:

131
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-5:

132
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

133 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are fossilized remains 

of nonhuman organisms. Most paleontological 

sites include remnants of species that are now 

extinct. These fossilized remains of ancient 

plants and animals have the potential to yield 

important scientific data. Paleontological 

resources are closely tied to the geology of an 

area; they are contained within the geologic 

deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. 

Metamorphic gneissic rocks, volcanic rocks, or 

intrusive igneous granitic rocks of the late 

Mesozoic age are not likely to contain fossils. 

However, generally, fossils are typically 

preserved in sedimentary rocks, but could also 

be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade 

metamorphic rocks. Both types of rock are 

present in the study area, and the presence of 

fossils is likely (FERC 2012). 

Water Resources 

NPS Management Policies 2006, Section 4.6, 

Water Resource Managements that the NPS will 

perpetuate surface water and groundwater as 

integral components of park aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. 

Surface Water 

The Colorado River is the major watercourse in 

the southwest, spans six states, forms a 

boundary between California and Arizona, and 

extends into Mexico. The study area is within 

the Chuckwalla watershed, which extends over 

portions of Riverside and Imperial counties and 

drains to the Colorado River. The central 

portions of the watershed include the Palen and 

Chuckwalla Valleys. The Colorado River 

Aqueduct begins near Parker Dam on the 

Colorado River and eventually emerges and 

begins flowing through 60 miles of siphons and 

open canals on the southern Mojave Desert and 

Eagle Mountains. The aqueduct forms the 

eastern border of the study area. 

Located in an arid desert region of eastern 

Riverside County, the study area has an average 

annual precipitation of approximately four 

inches/year. Perennial streams are relatively 

non-existent due to low precipitation, high 

evaporation, and permeable soils, but some 

ephemeral streams do exist. In rare large rainfall 

events, substantial runoff occurs in dry washes 

or these ephemeral streams. Springs are present 

in the Eagle Mountains south of Pinto Basin, and 

the Eagle Creek and Bald Eagle Creek flow into 

the Lower Reservoir in the Eagle Mountain 

Mine (FERC 2012). Flood waters usually 

evaporate rather quickly due to the arid climate. 

Map 4-6 depicts area watersheds and Map 4-7

shows water resources including groundwater 

basins. 

Groundwater. With the lack of surface waters, 

water in the desert is primarily obtained from 

underground aquifers. Water found in aquifers 

was trapped with sediments when they were 

deposited on the valley floor millions of year 

ago. This ancient water moves through fractures 

and joints in the bedrock and flows into springs, 

seeps, and wells. Water in the area is 

approximately 160 feet underground.

Groundwater basins are hydrogeologic units 

that contain one or more connected or 

interrelated aquifers. The study area is within 

the Pinto Valley Groundwater Basin and the 

Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin and near 

the Palen Valley, Orocopia Valley, and Hayfield 

Basins. The Pinto Valley groundwater aquifer is 

hydraulically connected to the Chuckwalla 

groundwater aquifer and the Pinto Valley basin 

is upgradient from the Chuckwalla basin 

(Woodward 1998). 

Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin. The 

surface area of the Chuckwalla Valley 

groundwater basin is 605,000 acres (940 square 

miles) and underlies the Palen and Chuckwalla 

Valleys. The basin is bounded by consolidated 

rocks of the Chuckwalla, Little Chuckwalla, and 

Mule Mountains on the south, of the Eagle 

Mountains on the west, and of the Mule and 

McCoy Mountains on the east. Rocks of the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

134 

Coxcomb, Granite, Palen, and Little Maria 

Mountains bound the valley on the north and 

extend ridges into the valley (CDWR 2004). 

Groundwater flows southeastward from the 

basin’s boundary with the Cadiz Valley and 

Pinto Valley basins through the narrows 

between the McCoy and Mule Mountains and 

into the adjacent Palo Verde Mesa Basin 

(Steinemann 1989; USGS 2013). The total 

storage capacity is estimated to be about 

9,100,000 acre-feet, but the actual quantities may 

vary substantially based on actual well depth and 

quantities. The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau 

of Land Management and other agencies are 

currently conducting studies to determine the 

actual water budget of the basin which would 

determine the amount of inflow and outflow of 

the groundwater basin. It is necessary to develop 

a water budget for any basin to estimate all 

sources of recharge and discharge. 

Pinto Valley Groundwater Basin. The Pinto 

Valley Groundwater Basin encompasses 183,000 

acres (286 square miles) and underlies the Pinto 

Valley. It is bounded by non-water bearing rocks 

of the Coxcomb Mountains on the east and 

northwest, of the Pinto Mountains on the north, 

of the Eagle Mountains on the south, and of the 

Hexie Mountains on the west. The valley is 

drained eastward by the Fried Liver, Smoketree, 

and Porcupine Washes. The total storage 

capacity is estimated at 230,000 acre feet, but the 

amount of groundwater currently stored there is 

unknown, and may vary substantially (DWR 

2004). The abovementioned water budget study 

that is currently underway will determine the 

water budget for the Pinto Valley Basin aquifer 

as well. 

Groundwater Recharge. The Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan (BLM 2015a) provides 

some general concepts on how and when 

groundwater is recharged. It states that 

groundwater recharge usually comes from 

precipitation, but the degree of recharge is 

extremely variable due to area differences such 

as precipitation rates, potential 

evapotranspiration, bedrock permeability, soil 

thickness and vegetation characteristics. 

Because annual rainfall amounts in the desert are 

low and desert plants capture most of the 

rainwater, rainfall recharge rarely occurs on the 

valley floor except, perhaps, in very wet years 

(Stonestrom et al. 2007). In the mountain ranges 

between basins, rainfall is greater and much of 

the ground surface consists of exposed rock or 

thin soils. This prevents plants from capturing all 

of the rainfall before it either infiltrates into 

underlying bedrock fractures or runs off. 

Infiltration into the mountain bedrock fractures 

can gradually percolate downward and laterally 

into the alluvial basin deposits at lower 

elevations (BLM 2015a). The issue of 

groundwater recharge is a complicated and 

controversial topic, and experts from state and 

federal agencies do not agree on the extent of 

recharge to groundwater aquifers. The debate 

over recharge for the Chuckwalla groundwater 

basin specifically will likely continue until more 

studies are complete and empirical data can be 

analyzed. 

Water Quality. Groundwater quality in the 

proposed project area is typical for desert areas 

of southern California. The pH ranges from 

about 7.4 to 8.5; total dissolved solids levels at 

425–950 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are generally 

above the California maximum containment 

level of 500 mg/L; and sulfate and chloride are 

generally both below the maximum containment 

level of 250 mg/L. Boron, fluoride, and arsenic 

are commonly higher than recommended 

concentrations for drinking water (Mathany et 

al. 2012, FERC 2012). Human caused 

groundwater pollution is low due to the 

undeveloped nature of the Chuckwalla Valley 

area, the limited infiltration of surface water and 

the extreme depth to ground water. Surface 

waters are extremely limited in the study area; 

however, intense, short-duration rain events can 

lead to high sediment loaded runoff. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-6: Watersheds

Map 4-7: Water Resources

135
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

136 

Vegetation 

Although the desert appears to be harsh and 

unchanging, it is a dynamic landscape with rich 

biological and physical diversity, particularly in 

the transition zones of the Mojave and Colorado 

deserts. Overall, the California desert flora 

includes approximately 2,267 plant taxa (species, 

subspecies, and varieties) native to California. 

About 232 taxa (10%) in the California deserts 

are nonnative. The Mojave Desert in California 

has about 1,409 native taxa and there are 

approximately 709 native taxa in the Colorado 

Desert. The Mojave Desert has a higher level of 

plant diversity compared to the Colorado Desert 

due to differences in temperature, rainfall, 

topography and elevation, and gradient (BLM 

2015a, Dilsaver 2015). 

There are two major natural vegetation types in 

the study area: Lower bajada and fan Mojavean–

Sonoran desert scrub and Sonoran–Coloradan 

semi-desert wash woodland/scrub. There are 

also bedrock cliff and outcrops and disturbed 

areas which are characterized by little or no 

vegetation, and a small amount of mid-elevation 

mixed desert scrub along the northern study 

boundary. Warm desert pavement is present in 

the eastern part of the study area (BLM 2015a). 

There could be wetlands in areas near washes, 

but their presence is unlikely. See Map 4-8: 

Vegetation for a map of vegetation types in the 

project area (BLM 2015a). 

Desert scrub occurs on lower canyon slopes, 

bajadas, sandy flats, and access roads. The 

dominant species include creosote (Larrea 

tridentata), burro bush (Ambrosia dumosa), and 

brittlebush (Encelia farinosa). Other species 

include cheesebush (Ambrosia salsola), white 

rhatany (Krameria grayi) and a variety of cacti 

such as silver cholla (Cylindropuntia 

echinocarpa), pencil cholla (Cylindropuntia 

ramosissima), beavertail cactus (Opuntia 

basilaris), and hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus 

engelmannii). 

Desert dry wash woodlands/scrub occur in welldefined washes primarily consisting of desert 

ironwood (Olneya tesota), smoke tree (Dalea 

spinose), palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeate), 

mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), desert willow 

(Chilopsis linearis), and/or cat’s claw (Acaciagreggii). Other species that are commonly found 

along wash corridors in the study area include 

desert brickellbush (Brickellia arguta), desert 

lavender (Hyptis emoryi), cheesebush, 

chuparosa (Justicia californica), Anderson 

wolfberry (Lycium andersonii), desert almond 

(Prunus fasciculate) and white-stemmed 

milkweed (Asclepias albicans). Subsurface 

moisture in desert washes supports stands of 

microphyll woodlands (See Map 4-9: Microphyll 

Woodlands) with old-growth stands of blue 

paloverde and ironwood. Desert pavements are 

closely packed rock surface substrates created 

through wind and water erosion that generally 

have very low permeability and moisture 

available to plants (Miller et al. 2009). 

The extent of invasive species is unknown. 

Invasive plant species could include red brome 

(Bromus madritensis), cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), Mediterranean split grass (Schismus

spp.), Tournefort’s Sahara mustard (Brassica 

tournefortii) or red-stem filaree (Erodium 

cicutarium) (NPS 2014). 

Special Status Plants 

There are three federally listed species that 

could potentially exist in the project area, 

although only one of them, the Coachella Valley 

milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae) has a high likelihood of occurring in 

the study area due to the presence of sand ramps 

at the base of the range and the proximity of 

known locations (<6 miles in Chuckwalla 

Valley). Triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus 

tricarinatus) and Parish's daisy (Erigeron 

parishii) may also be present. 

There are over 20 rare and/or sensitive plants 

that are likely to occur within the study area, 

with an additional species that could potentially 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

137 

occur if suitable habitat is present. Several rare 

taxa are known to occur within a few miles of 

study area and therefore are likely to be present. 

They include California ditaxis (Ditaxis serrata 

var. californica), Harwood’s milk-vetch 

(Astragalus insularis var. harwoodii), and Los 

Animas colubrine (Colubrina californica). 

Parish’s club cholla (Corynopuntia parishiorum) 

and Alverson’s foxtail cactus (Coryphantha 

alversonii) are also present. The Eagle 

Mountains are also host to a rare vegetation 

type, Hall’s Tetracoccus (Tetracoccus hallii). 

These stands generally occur on colluvial slopes 

with Yucca schidigera, Simmondsia chinensis, 

Nolina bigelovii, and Ephedra nevadenis, and are 

likely to occur within the study area. In addition, 

there are isolated stands of Teddy-bear Cholla 

(Cylindropuntia bigelovii) found on the southern 

slopes of the Eagle Mountains very near the 

study area. These stands are rare within the 

region. Three species newly described to 

science are known to occur in the Eagle 

Mountains. They include Eschscholzia 

papastillii, E. androuxii, and Cylindropuntia 

chuckwallensis; the latter two are considered rare 

(La Doux and Babich 2013). See Appendix D: 

Sensitive Species Lists for a full list of potentially 

present special status species. Map 4-10: Special 

Status Plant Species depicts sensitive plant 

species that have been documented in the study 

area as identified in the California Natural 

Diversity Database. 

Old-growth microphyll woodlands present in 

the study area provide the highest amount of 

aboveground biomass of any plant community in 

the Sonoran Desert outside of the Colorado 

River riparian zone and constitute a reservoir for 

carbon sequestration. Map 4-9: Microphyll 

Woodlands depicts the location of these 

woodlands. The complex physical structure and 

cover of the woodlands provide essential habitat 

for neotropical migratory birds crossing the 

California deserts to reach nesting sites in the 

Pacific Coast states and Alaska (BLM 2015a).
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-8: VegetaƟ on 

Map 4-9: Microphyll Woodlands

138
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

139

Map 4-11: Special Status Animal Species

Map 4-10: Special Status Plant Species
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

140 

Wildlife

Desert scrub vegetation that covers the majority 

of the study area supports many species of birds, 

mammals, and reptile. Desert washes provide 

nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. 

Rocky outcrops provide habitat for nesting 

birds, reptiles, bats, and desert bighorn sheep. 

Common invertebrates found throughout all 

habitats include spiders, beetles, true bugs, 

wasps, and ants. 

A wide variety of reptile species occupy desert 

scrub and woodlands. The desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) occurs throughout most of 

the undisturbed bajada type lands found in the 

eastern and western ends of the project area. 

Other reptile species likely include the sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), desert iguana 

(Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra tailed lizard 

(Callisaurus draconoides), desert horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma platyrhinos), desert spiny lizard 

(Sceloporus magister), long-nosed leopard lizard 

(Gambelia wislizenii), western whiptail 

(Aspidoscelis tigris), gopher snake (Pituophis 

cantifer), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), 

western groundsnake (Sonora emiannulata), 

western shovelnose snake (Chionactis 

occipitalis), and western diamond-backed 

rattlesnake ((Crotalus atrox). Amphibians are 

less common due to general lack of water, but 

the red-spotted toad (Anaxyrus punctatus) could 

be potentially present in limited areas of 

standing water within the study area (FERC 

2012, BLM 2015a). 

Large numbers and varieties of birds fly through 

or nest in the area, which is adjacent to the 

Pacific Flyway, one of the four major North 

American migration flyways. Many of the bird 

species occurring in the study area are migrants 

that use the flyway in spring and fall. More than 

250 species of birds have been recorded in 

Joshua Tree National Park and it’s likely that 

many of these species also occur in the vicinity 

of the proposed project. Bird species occurring 

in desert washes include Gila woodpecker 

(Melanerpes uropygialis), common nighthawk 

(Chordeiles minor), ash-throated flycatcher 

(Myiarchus cinerascens), LeConte’s thrasher 

(Toxostoma lecontei), orange-crowned warbler 

(Oreothlypis celata), Wilson’s warbler 

(Cardellina pusilla), mourning dove (Zenaida 

macroura), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), 

common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), verdin 

(Auriparus flaviceps), black-throated sparrow 

(Amphispiza bilineata), savannah sparrow 

(Passerculus sandwichensis), and cactus wren 

(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus ). The whitethroated swift (Aeronautes saxatalis, rock wren 

(Salpinctes obsoletus), and canyon wren 

(Catherpes mexicanus) may use rock outcrops, 

talus slopes and cliffs in the area. Raptors that 

nest or forage in the desert include golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), 

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainson), red-tailed 

hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), 

merlin (F. columbarius), burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), 

and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). 

Secluded rock outcrops and ledges provide 

nesting habitat for many of these birds of prey 

(FERC 2012, BLM 2015a). 

Most of the mammals in the study area are most 

likely represented by rodents such as: mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed antelope 

ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), 

black-tail jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), 

Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami), 

desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti), whitethroated woodrat (Neotoma albigula), little 

pocket mouse (Perognathus ongimembris), cactus 

mouse (Peromyscus eremicus), and long-tailed 

pocket mouse (Chaetodipus formosus). 

Carnivores create homes in desert scrub 

communities, although in fewer numbers. Desert 

kit fox (Vulpes macrotis arsipus), gray fox 

((Urocyon cinereoargenteus californicus), bobcat 

(Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans) are likely to 

occur (BLM 2015a). Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis nelsoni) reside and move through the 

steep and rugged mountains. Several bat species 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

141 

use rock outcrops and crevices for day roosting 

sites. The disturbed Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite created habitats for wildlife species 

that do not typically occur in undisturbed desert 

areas. These species include the common raven 

(Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer 

domesticus), and European starling Sturnus 

vulgaris) (FERC 2012). Several bat species may 

also roost in the mine structures. 

Special Status Wildlife 

Numerous threatened and sensitive animal 

species are known and suspected to occur in the 

study area. The NPS has not completed natural 

resources surveys specifically for this boundary 

study. However, species information is available 

from other area planning projects and Joshua 

Tree National Park. The park has extensive data 

on the resources present on adjacent desert 

lands within the park and it is highly likely that 

many of these wildlife species also occur within 

the boundary study area. 

Special status species include plants and wildlife 

that have been designated or proposed as rare, 

sensitive, threatened, or endangered by U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the California 

Fish and Wildlife Service (CFWS) and protected 

under either the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). A 

list of these species can be found in Appendix E: 

Special Status Species Lists and Map 4-8 Special 

Status Animals. 

Populations of several species known to occur 

within the study area are in decline and are 

particularly vulnerable due to loss of habitat, 

compromised migration corridors, limited 

range, or disease. The study contains important 

habitat for the desert tortoise, desert bighorn 

sheep and many other special-status animals. 

Old-growth microphyll woodlands, described in 

the previous section, Vegetation, provide 

essential habitat for neo-tropical migratory birds 

crossing the California deserts to reach nesting 

sites in the Pacific Coast states and Alaska (BLM 

2015a). Vulnerable species are discussed below. 

Desert Tortoise

California's state reptile, the federally and state 

listed, threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii), lives in the Mojave, Sonoran, and 

Colorado deserts in a variety of habitats at 

elevations ranging from below sea level to 7,300 

feet. These slow-moving herbivores spend 95% 

of their lives underground, in burrows dug in 

firm desert soils. Desert tortoises are well 

adapted to the harsh desert environment; they 

rest during winter and summer to regulate body 

temperature and can survive for more than a 

year without access to water. In late winter or 

early spring, they emerge from their winter 

burrows. During the hot summer, they retreat 

back to their burrows but often emerge after 

summer rain storms to drink. In southern 

California deserts, desert tortoises most 

commonly occur in creosote bush scrub on 

gently sloping terrain with sandy-gravel soils and 

lush vegetation such as bunch grasses, cacti, and 

trees. Although desert tortoises don’t migrate 

per se, continuous large areas of occupied 

habitat link populations together genetically, 

allowing for the movement of genes and ensures 

genetic diversity (Edwards 2004).

Known and modelled habitat for the desert 

tortoise exists within and surrounding the study 

area, especially on the eastern and western ends. 

There is important habitat for the desert tortoise 

along the eastern end of the project area and is 

pinched between the project area and the Desert 

Sunlight Solar Farm (Nussear 2009). This area is 

one of the only connections of desert tortoise 

habitats found within Joshua Tree National Park 

(Pinto Basin) and the Upper Chuckwalla Valley, 

Upper Pinto Wash, Pinto Mountain and 

Chemehuevi Critical Habitat Units and Desert 

Wildlife Management Areas. The protection and 

restoration of this corridor is necessary to the 

conservation of the desert tortoise. Map 4-12: 

Desert Tortoise Habitat - Study Area shows a 

narrow corridor of occupancy between the mine 

area and low potential habitat to the southeast. 

This area is of great interest in the regional 

conservation of desert tortoise as it is the main 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

142 

link between highly protected habitats in Joshua 

Tree National Park and habitats south of I-10. 

This area was described in detail by the 

biological opinion written by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for the Desert Sunlight Solar 

Farm Project (Desert Sunlight) depicted in Map 

4-12: Desert Tortoise Habitat - Study Area. 

Surveys completed for the Desert Sunlight 

project found high densities of desert tortoises 

in the western portion nearest to the Eagle 

Mountain site. The study area also contains the 

important, regional north/south habitat 

connection that links the desert tortoise habitat 

corridor in Joshua Tree National Park to 

valuable habitat south in the Orocopia and 

Chuckwalla Mountains. This habitat corridor is 

one of the last remaining in the area and is vital 

to the population’s genetic diversity as well as to 

the ability of desert tortoises to move between 

large blocks of suitable habitat. 

Major threats to desert tortoises and their 

habitats include human development and 

urbanization; unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

use and vehicular activity; illegal collecting; 

ravens; mortality on paved roads; livestock 

grazing; feral burros; drought; nonnative plants 

and changes to natural fire regimes; 

environmental contaminants; and climate 

change (USFWS 2011a and 2011b). 

Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) 

are an iconic species of special management 

concern for the National Park Service (NPS) and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These 

impressive, stocky sheep have large curled horns 

that continue to grow throughout their lives. 

Bighorn are well adapted to a desert life; they 

can go for extended periods of time without 

drinking water and are agile and expert climbers 

of steep, rocky desert mountain terrain. They 

live in a large number of desert mountain ranges 

and in canyons and rocky areas. These 

gregarious sheep form herds and rams travel 

between the herds during breeding season. In 

summer, they move to better grazing sites and 

cooler conditions in the mountains. Throughout 

the rest of the year, herds are dispersed and 

move between water sources. 

Research provides evidence of desert bighorn 

sheep movement within the study area. There 

are two distinct herds that live in and move 

through the study area: the Eagle Mountain 

herd and the Coxcomb Mountain herd. Genetic 

testing has identified the corridor from the Eagle 

Mountains across the study area to the 

Coxcomb Mountains to be extremely important 

for maintaining connectivity among desert 

bighorn herds within Joshua Tree National Park, 

the bighorn population in the Coxcomb 

Mountains is considered most important to 

maintaining population connectivity, while 

those in the Eagle Mountains are considered 

second most important. Among all existing 

bighorn herds in the greater Mojave Desert (37 

populations), both of these populations rank in 

the top third in terms of importance to bighorn 

meta-population connectivity (Epps et. al. 2005). 

Desert bighorn sheep have been known to use 

both undisturbed land as well as areas of 

previous human activity associated with the 

mining operations. Studies have shown that 

sheep move through the private land that is 

proposed for the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project (Divine and 

Douglas 1996, Divine 1998, Epps et al. 2007, 

Epps et al. 2010). During a biological survey 

conducted for the Eagle Crest Energy Pumped 

Storage project, 51 desert bighorn sheep were 

seen in six different locations (Wildlife Research 

Institute 2010). The corridor from the Eagle 

Mountains to the Coxcomb Mountains, through 

the study area, is extremely important for 

maintaining connectivity among desert bighorn 

herds and maintaining genetic diversity of the 

population (Epps et. al. 2005). See Map 4-13: 

Bighorn Sheep Habitat – Study Area. 

Many factors contribute to low population 

numbers and the increased sensitivity of the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

143 

species. These risks include increased habitat 

fragmentation, inbreeding, changes in 

vegetation, predation, human development, 

disease from livestock, and diminishing water 

sources (BLM 2015a). 

Burrowing Owl

The burrowing owl is a bird species of special 

concern in California that may be present in the 

study area. These small, long-legged owls occur 

across most of the Mojave and Colorado deserts 

and have been described the species as quite 

scarce from Inyo County south through the 

eastern Mojave Desert. Burrowing owls live in 

colonies and nest in burrows dug by other 

animals in open, arid, treeless space with low 

vegetation. They may dig their own nest or 

utilize the abandoned burrows of ground 

squirrels, foxes or pocket gophers or use 

human-made structures, such as culverts or 

debris piles. Owls are active during the day, but 

revert to their burrows in the mid-day heat. 

They generally remain close to their burrows 

during their lifespan but can forage up to a mile 

away. Direct causes of mortality in burrowing 

owls include predation by hawks, owls, badgers, 

coyotes foxes, domestic dogs and cats, and 

others; vehicular collisions; wind turbines; 

barbed wire fences; shooting; road maintenance; 

tilling, pesticide application and other 

agricultural practices; and disease and parasites 

(Gervais et al. 2008). Eradication programs that 

have decimated rodent populations have, in 

turn, decreased the abundance of key prey 

available for burrowing owls (BLM 2015a). 

Golden Eagle and Other Raptors 

Several special-status raptor species, including 

golden eagle and prairie falcon occur in the 

study area. This species was once a common 

resident throughout the open areas of California 

but numbers are now reduced near developed 

areas. Golden eagles nest on open cliff areas, 

and mountain cliff sites are important to 

maintaining robust golden eagle populations. 

Prairie falcons nest on vertical cliff faces. 

Foraging habitat for both species includes wide 

open areas where small and mid-sized animals 

are present for food. Nesting season for golden 

eagles in the southern part of their range 

(including the project area) can begin as early as 

January and can last through August. Nesting 

season for the prairie falcon lasts from midFebruary through mid-September with peak 

season from April to early August. Other raptor 

species potentially present include the American 

kestrel, barn owl, Cooper’s hawk, great horned 

owl, long-eared owl, northern harrier, osprey, 

peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, red-tailed hawk 

and Swainson’s hawk (FERC 2012). 

Golden eagle surveys were conducted for the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project in a 10 mile vicinity of the proposed 

project boundary. Thirteen mountain ranges 

were surveyed by biologists via helicopter and a 

total of fourteen territories of golden eagles were 

found containing a combined 34 nests. In 

addition to golden eagles, 12 other species were 

seen (i.e., barn owls, desert bighorn sheep, 

Cooper’s hawks, common ravens, great horned 

owls, a long-eared owl, an osprey, prairie 

falcons, red-tailed hawks, Swainson’s hawks, 

and turkey vultures) for a total of 340 wildlife 

documentations (FERC 2012). The chain of 

wilderness areas linking the Colorado River with 

the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan

Land Use Plan Amendment proposed National 

Conservation Lands provide habitat continuity 

for eagle foraging (BLM 2015a, Wildlife 

Institute, Inc. 2011). 

These species are protected under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Act of 1940, but their populations are still 

at risk. Birds suffer losses of native foraging and 

nesting grounds to development, are poisoned 

by pesticides or lead, or have fatal encounter 

with man-made structures (BLM 2015a). 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-12: Desert Tortoise Habitat - Study Area

Map 4-13: Bighorn Sheep Habitat - Study Area

144
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

145 

Bats

The Lower Colorado River corridor has the 

highest biological diversity of bat species in the 

western United States and numerous sensitive 

bat species are known to occur in the study area. 

These species all prefer roosting areas associated 

with caves, cliffs, or rocky outcrop habitat. 

Foraging habitat for these species exists in desert 

scrub and desert riparian areas. Bats were found 

to roost in adits at the Eagle Mountain Mine and 

were observed near the mill site at the mine. 

Joshua Tree National Park has a history of 

installing bat-friendly gates that provide habitat 

to bats while preventing human access. The bat 

species potentially present in the study are 

include: Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), 

California myotis (Myotis californicus), longlegged myotis (Myotis volans), western 

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum), pocketed free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops femorosaccus), fringed myotis 

(Myotis thysanodes), western small-footed 

myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), pallid bat 

(Antrozous pallidus), and California leaf-nosed 

bat (Macrotus californicus) (BLM 2015a, FERC 

2012). 

Cultural Resources 

The study area contains a diverse set of cultural 

properties that include prehistoric and historic 

archeological resources, historic structures, 

cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources and 

potential traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites. Cultural resources within and near 

the proposed withdrawal area were identified 

from Joshua Tree National Park resource 

information, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) studies and previous planning 

documents for the area. 

Prehistoric Resources 

Prehistoric cultural resources are associated 

with human occupation prior to European 

contact in the 18th century. These resources may 

include sites, structures, rock art, trails, or other 

artifacts of Native American life. The first 

indigenous Americans arrived in California 

approximately 13,000-15,000 years ago (late 

Pleistocene era). Archaeological evidence in and 

around the region of Joshua Tree National Park 

confirms that people lived and hunted in a 

cooler and more moist grassland environment 

between 10,000 and 4,000 years ago (Dilsaver 

2015). These people, and those who followed 

after them (such as the Pinto Culture), learned to 

adapt and thrive in harsh environment by 

making careful use of local plants and living in 

oases and along water courses (NPS 1996, ASM 

Affiliates 2011a, BLM 2011). These people 

hunted both large and small game, gathered 

seasonal wild plants, and likely manipulated land 

to their benefit by practicing various forms of 

gardening. They also likely used fire to revitalize 

the land and prevent catastrophic fires (NPS 

1996, BLM 2015a). They generally lived in small, 

mobile bands with a highly developed network 

of trails and connections with other groups. 

There was considerable cross cultural 

connection despite occasional aggression and 

warfare. Segments of two east-west trails are still 

present in vicinity of the study area. The trails 

were major transportation corridors used for 

hunting, trading and ceremonial purposes. The 

routes are marked by votive stone piles (cairns) 

and ceramic scatters (pot drops) (Johnson and 

Johnson 1957, ASM Affiliates 2011a). The trails 

could be eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and considered a 

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). 

Prehistoric archeological resources reflect the 

lifestyle of mobile hunter-gatherers and include 

shell beads, remnants of stone tool making, 

hammers, mortars, pestles, millstones, 

handstones, scrapers, stone pendants, pots, 

seasonal camps, rock-shelters, milling sites, lithic 

and ceramic scatters, and rock art sites (ASM 

Affiliates 2009a). Surveys conducted for past 

projects in Eagle Mountain area documented 

over 130 small, isolated finds (FERC 2012). 

Resources include prehistoric lithics, milling 

stones, ceramics, pot drops, cairns, rock rings, 

cleared circles, bedrock milling and trash 

scatters. Some of these finds have the potential 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

146 

to be eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic resources represent the heritage 

of a particular ethnic or cultural group and may 

include traditional resource collecting areas, 

ceremonial sites, landscape features, cemeteries, 

shrines, etc. Because of native people’s long 

history within the study area, there is potential 

for the land to contain ethnographic landscapes, 

objects, plants and animals, or sites and 

structures. There is potential for sacred sites to 

occur near current or past eagle nesting sites. 

For Native American tribes, eagles are 

spiritually, culturally, and ecologically 

significant. Eagle Mountain was aptly named 

due to the presence of golden eagles, and these 

sites could exist throughout the study area. A 

survey completed for the landfill project 

included ethnographic interviews and field visits 

with one Cahuilla, one Chemehuevi and two 

Mohave consultants, as well as phone interviews 

with other groups and an ethnohistoric 

literature review. Both the Chemehuevi and 

Cahuilla elders recounted knowledge recounted 

knowledge of hunting activities in the Eagle 

Mountains but no groups attributed sacred sites 

or special spiritual or cultural significance to the 

area (ASM Affiliates 2009a). 

Today, within Joshua Tree National Park, tribes 

wish to gather traditional plants for food, 

medicine and religious practices, meditate, pray 

in a sacred area, or study the artifacts in the park 

collection to confirm more of their heritage and 

pass it onto younger generations (NPS 1996). 

Joshua Tree National Park consults with 

numerous federally recognized tribes that have 

associations with park. They maintain a strong 

interest in the region as it contains sites and 

resources that are traditionally significant to 

their living traditions and cultures (NPS 1996). 

They include: the Agua Caliente Band of 

Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla 

Indians, Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River 

Indian Tribe, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Los 

Coyotes Band of Mission Indians, Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians, Ramona Band of 

Cahuilla Indians, San Manuel Band of Serrano 

Mission Indians, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 

Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, 

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the 

Twenty-nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. 

Other groups also have interests in the study 

area. In particular, at scoping, the 

representatives from the Azteca/Mexica culture 

expressed interest and concern about access to 

and preservation of sacred sites. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Trust resources are those natural resources 

reserved by or for Indian tribes through treaties, 

statutes, judicial decisions, and executive orders, 

which are protected by a fiduciary obligation on 

the part of the United States. None are expected 

to exist within the study area. 

Historic Period

The historic period occurred after initial contact 

between Native American groups and European 

explorers. Europeans landed in California in the 

18th century, and by the mid 1700’s, the Spanish 

had set up missions along the coast and 

dispatched priests to explore the area and 

connect Alta California with Sonora, Mexico. 

By the 1700’s, three Indian groups lived in the 

vicinity of the study area: the Cahuilla, the 

Chemehuevi and Serrano. These native peoples 

hunted, gathered, and farmed the area, and the 

Eagle Mountains may have been traditional 

locations for the tribes to hunt sheep and deer. 

They traveled seasonally and some tribes 

maintained contact with others in the region. A 

fourth group, the Mojave, did not live in the 

area, but regularly traveled across it from their 

homelands along the Colorado River. Among 

the earliest “roads” passing through the 

Coachella Valley was an Indian trade route 

known as the Cocomaricopa Trail (it was later 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

147 

“re-discovered” and renamed the Bradshaw 

Trail) (FERC 2012, Recon 1991). 

A wide range of cultural resources could be 

present from this time period including 

habitation sites, temporary camps, rock shelters, 

caves, milling stations, lithic scatters, chipping 

circles, lithic quarries, ceramic scatters, 

cemeteries, cremation features, rock alignments, 

geoglyphs, petroglyphs, pictographs, trails, 

roasting pits, cairns, isolated artifacts, mines, 

homesteads, historic-era campsites, and 

historic-era debris concentrations (BLM 2015a). 

The North Chuckwalla Mountains Petroglyph 

District is located east of the study area and is 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). It contains thirty-six cultural loci, 

including petroglyph concentrations, rock rings, 

cleared circles, trail fragments, flaked stone lithic 

deposits, bedrock milling features, deposited 

ceramics, and a rock cairn with an associated 

wooden cross. The NRHP-listed North 

Chuckwalla Mountains Quarry Archaeological 

District is also east of the study area (BLM 2011). 

For Euro-Americans, the two initial means of 

making a living in California's deserts were 

ranching and mining. The first Americans to use 

the Joshua Tree area consistently were cattlemen 

during the 1870s. Grazing continued beyond the 

designation of Joshua Tree National Monument 

in 1936 and did not officially end until the 

conclusion of World War II. The impact of the 

grazing business on the future park primarily 

affected the water resources. Ranchers and 

settlers built small dams to amass water in low 

places among the many rocks and boulders. 

People also came to the desert for land and 

recreation. Available land always generated 

enthusiasm for a new region, even one as 

forbidding as the deserts of California (Dilsaver 

2015). In 1872, the Homestead Act encouraged 

people to move to the deserts east of San 

Bernardino and Riverside counties. A trail 

known as Frink’s Route or Brown’s wagon road 

was developed in search of a railroad route. In 

1862, the Bradshaw Trail became a more 

popular route through the area (BLM 2011). 

Two petroglyphs were found to be associated 

with the Frink’s and Bradshaw Trail; they have 

not been evaluated for eligibility for listing in the 

NRHP (BLM 2011). In 1873, the Southern 

Pacific railroad began constructing a line 

through the Colorado Desert. By May 1877, the 

railroad connected Los Angeles with the west 

bank of the Colorado River opposite Yuma, 

Arizona (Dilsaver 2015). 

The discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada 

foothills in 1848 had a tremendous impact on 

the economy for several decades. Although it 

came much later to the deserts than other parts 

of California, mining dominated the region prior 

to World War I. Access to mines from major 

settlements and suppliers of industrial 

machinery and tools required transportation 

over land that only a few Native American trails 

crossed. Miners had to scrape out wagon roads 

to and from every mine and mill to connect with 

the railroads and rudimentary highways that 

passed by to the north and southwest. 

Extensive mineral exploration in the study area 

began in the 1860’s when the miners looked for 

new areas to mine. Gold and silver attracted 

miners initially, but interest grew in other 

minerals such as lead, zinc, and iron. In the early 

California gold camps, miners invented a legal 

system whereby an individual or group could lay 

claim to an area for mining purposes. The land 

technically was federal property, but a miner 

could hold his claim as long as he (or she) 

continued working it. Mining districts formed to 

hammer out the rules and enforce them. This 

home-grown system became law with the federal 

Mining Acts of 1866 and 1872 (Dilsaver 2015). 

The greatest period of mining occurred between 

the 1870s and 1890s and was facilitated by the 

Southern Pacific Railroad. In 1881–1882, four 

men founded the Eagle Mountain Mining 

District to mine for iron, gold, and silver and 

staked various mining claims in the area, one of 

which was called Iron Chief Mine. The Iron 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

148 

Chief Mine produced moderate quantities of 

gold-bearing ore from 1892-1902, and water for 

the operations was supplied by an 18-mile long 

pipeline originating at Cottonwood Spring 

(Dilsaver 2015). In 1909, the Southern Pacific 

Railroad purchased the mining claims of the 

Iron Chief Mine including 187 patented claims. 

Operations at the Iron Chief Mine ceased 

sometime around 1908 and lay dormant until the 

1940’s when sold to Kaiser Steel Corporation 

(Dilsaver 2015, ASM Affiliates 2011a). Remnants 

of the mining period could include mine claim 

cairns, mining equipment or associated trash 

(ASK Affiliates 2009a). 

Homesteading continued during the early 20th

century. In 1921, Stephen (“Desert Steve”) 

Ragsdale and his wife purchased a 160 acre 

homestead patent from another family, and then 

eventually patented up to 700 acres on either 

side of the newly constructed U.S. Route 60 

(now Interstate 10). In 1925, they founded the 

town of Desert Center. There are some ruins 

remaining from the original homestead (FERC 

2012) in area; their eligibility to the NRHP has 

not been determined. 

The Colorado River Aqueduct was constructed 

between 1931 and 1941 by the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California. It was one 

of the major Colorado River water delivery 

public works projects. It was constructed to 

provide the growing Los Angeles area with more 

drinking water. The first water deliveries began 

in January 1939 (Hundley 1992). This feature 

has been recommended as eligible for listing in 

the NRHP (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2009b). 

In 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

established Joshua Tree National Monument as 

a unit of the national park system. The area 

included 825,340 acres of land, some of which 

remained in private ownership or encumbered 

by patented and unpatented mining claims. Even 

before Joshua Tree National Monument was 

created, many people opposed the idea of an 

environmental preserve in California's deserts, 

particularly from mining interests. 

At this time miners started to direct their 

attention on the substantial iron ore in the Eagle 

Mountain area. World War II started in 1939 

and created an enormous demand for steel, 

particularly for shipbuilding. Industrialist Henry 

J. Kaiser and Dr. Sidney Garfield were in the 

area for the construction of the Colorado River 

Aqueduct and later worked together on an 

insurance program for employees (see Boundary 

Adjustment Criteria Evaluation in Chapter 2 for 

additional details). In 1942, Kaiser opened the 

West Coast’s first steel mill in Fontana, 

California with iron ore supplied by the Vulcan 

Mine in Kelso, California. This steel went to 

Kaiser’s west coast shipyards, where Liberty and 

Victory ships were built at record speeds. Kaiser 

then looked to Eagle Mountain for additional 

iron ore and existing mining patents from the 

Southern Pacific Railroad, now protected under 

the national monument. In 1943, Kaiser started 

work on a 55 mile rail spur from Eagle Mountain 

to Southern Pacific’s main line to access the 

mills. Upon completion of Kaiser Industrial 

Railroad (Eagle Mountain Industrial Railroad) in 

1948, active mining began and materials were 

transported to the steel mill in Fontana, 

California. Eagle Mountain Road was the first 

paved road in the area and constructed around 

1943 (BLM 2011). Mining equipment, structures 

and railroad yard remnants could still be found 

onsite (Dilsaver 2015, ASM Affiliates 2011a). 

The southern California deserts were also used 

for military training during World War II. The 

Desert Training Center opened in 1942 under 

the command of George S. Patton. It was 

renamed the California-Arizona Maneuver Area 

(C-AMA) in 1943 after the fighting in North 

Africa ended and troops destined for other 

theaters of operations trained at the facility 

(Lynch et al. 1982). This was the largest military 

training installation ever created, with 11 camps, 

consisting mostly of temporary buildings and 

tents, spread across the desert of southern 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

149 

California. The camp closest to the study area 

was Camp Desert Center, extending 

immediately east of Eagle Mountain Road and 

north of the old former Interstate 10. Two 

historic refuse scatters associated with the 

Desert Training Center have been evaluated as 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (Bischoff, Allen, and Baxter 

2012). 

In 1950, recognizing that almost a quarter of the 

land within Joshua Tree National Monument 

was being actively mined, Congress removed 

265,000 acres of land from the monument’s 

boundaries. This occurred after years of 

discussion and debate about the national 

monument given the complexity of ownership 

patterns and mineral interests within the 

boundary upon its establishment in 1936 

(Dilsaver 2015). 

Kaiser Steel Corporation (KSC) purchased 

patented mining claims within the monument 

from Southern Pacific Railroad in 1944. 

Production in the Eagle Mountain Mine began 

in 1948 under a special use permit from the 

National Park Service (Powell et. al. 1984, 

Dilsaver 2015). In 1955, the Department of the 

Interior issued a land patent to KSC for 

approximately 460 acres of land at Eagle 

Mountain for a mining camp and mill site. This 

patent included a provision that the property 

would revert in fee back to the United States if it 

was not used for a continuous period of seven 

years as a camp, mill, or other related mining 

operations. In 1956, pursuant to the Act of July 

8, 1952, the Department issued KSC a patent for 

a railroad. Over the years, KSC obtained patents 

for additional property. Kaiser Road was 

constructed by Kaiser Steel Corporation 

between 1957 and 1963 to provide access to the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite (BLM 

2011). 

Ultimately, four large open pits of between 1-2 

miles in length were excavated. The mine 

expanded and the camp turned into a bustling 

company town with a population of almost 4,000 

at its peak with housing, community and 

recreation facilities, churches, schools, and 

emergency services. The Townsite had wide, 

landscaped streets lined with over four hundred 

homes, hundreds of trailer spaces, boarding 

houses and dormitories. Kaiser Road was 

constructed between 1957 and 1969 to provide 

access to Eagle Mountain Mine and the Town of 

Eagle Mountain. KSC’s patented lands, together 

with approximately 2,000 acres of adjacent 

public lands encumbered by Kaiser’s mining and 

mill site claims, comprised the Eagle Mountain 

Mine. The road exists in the study area and is in 

good condition, although heavily graded. 

Surveys completed for the Desert Sunlight Solar 

Farm Project found one archeological site (a 

historic age refuse deposit) and one isolated find 

(historic can) within 150 feet of the road (BLM 

2011). 

Competition from overseas steel markets, as well 

as environmental concerns, forced the mine to 

close full scale operations in 1983. Kaiser Steel 

Corporation entered bankruptcy in 1987 and 

emerged as Kaiser Ventures and a wholly-owned 

subsidiary called Kaiser Eagle Mountain, Inc. 

When full-scale mining operations at Eagle 

Mountain Mine ceased, the Townsite was 

mostly vacated. Many of the structures were 

removed, left vacant, or vandalized after fullscale mining operations ceased. The Townsite 

was used as a Youth Correctional Facility from 

1986 to 2003 (DMJM Design/AECOM 2007). A 

large number of buildings remain in the 

Townsite unoccupied. 

The Eagle Mountain Mine, Townsite, and 

features associated with the Eagle Mountain 

Railroad may be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 

1996, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and California State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) found the properties ineligible 

for the NRHP because they were less than 50 

years of age and lacked exceptional significance 

under the NRHP criteria (BLM 1996). However, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

150 

the California SHPO has requested re-evaluation 

of the properties (FERC 2012). The mine 

contains a number of other historic era 

resources such as a wooden post associated with 

a mining claim, rock cairns and refuse scatters 

(FERC 2012). 

In 1989, Kaiser issued a 100 year lease to Mine 

Reclamation Corporation to develop a landfill at 

the mine site. At full operation, the landfill 

would have received approximately 20,000 tons 

of garbage per day from the Los Angeles area via 

the Eagle Mountain Mine railroad line. More 

acreage was needed for the project, and Kaiser 

proposed a land exchange to BLM so they could 

acquire additional land needed for the landfill. 

BLM agreed and issued patents to Kaiser for 

3,481 acres of federal land surrounding the mine 

pits. BLM received 10 separate parcels totaling 

2,846 acres. In 2013, after years of controversy 

and litigation, the landfill project was 

abandoned. 

In 2014, the issue was settled in the form of a 

Stipulated Judgment. The Stipulated Judgment 

voided the patents issued to Kaiser for the 3,481 

of exchange lands around the mining pits and 

restored those lands to public land status. Kaiser 

also agreed to donate to the United States the 

lands it had previously conveyed as part of the 

voided land exchange (1,083 acres). In return, 

the Stipulated Judgment restored Kaiser’s 

mining and mill site claims to over 

approximately 2,400 acres of the former 

exchange lands around the mine pits. This land 

is now owned by Eagle Crest Energy Company, 

which has a FERC license to construct the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project. 

In 2014, the litigation was settled by the entry of 

a Stipulated Judgment by the U.S. District Court. 

The Stipulated Judgment voided the patents 

issued to Kaiser for the 3,481 of exchange lands 

around the mining pits and restored those lands 

to public land status. Kaiser also agreed to 

donate to the United States the lands it had 

previously conveyed as part of the voided land 

exchange (1,083 acres). In return, the Stipulated 

Judgment restored Kaiser’s mining and mill site 

claims to over approximately 2,400 acres of the 

former exchange lands around the mine pits 

In 2015, Kaiser and Eagle Crest Energy 

Company entered into an agreement under 

which Kaiser sold all of its private land and its 

interests in unpatented mining claims in the 

Eagle Mountain area to Eagle Crest Energy 

Company (Eagle Crest holds title to this land 

under the corporate name Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain). Eagle Crest Energy Company has a 

FERC license allowing it to construct the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project. 

Visitor Opportunities and Access 

Activities within the region include hiking, 

camping, backpacking, wildlife watching, 

bicycling, bird watching, photography, 

stargazing, rock climbing, wildflower viewing, 

mountain biking, horseback riding, camping, 

off-highway vehicle use, and mining. The 

majority of visitor use activity is in the vicinity 

adjacent to Joshua Tree National Park, which 

reached a high of two million visitors in 2015. 

Most of the study area lands are federal lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). Permitted uses differ by land 

management agency. For example, gold 

panning, rockhounding, hunting, target 

shooting, off-highway vehicle riding are typically 

allowed on land managed by BLM, but not the 

National Park Service (NPS) (although there are 

some exceptions, depending on the park). 

Camping is free on BLM-managed land and 

dogs are permitted off established roads. 

The privately owned former Eagle Mountain 

Mine bisects the study area. Public access has 

been restricted to this site since the mine began 

operation. Both Kaiser Road and Eagle 

Mountain Road lead to the mine, but the entire 

area is fenced and guarded. The west side of the 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

151 

study area can be accessed through Joshua Tree 

National Park on Black Eagle Mine Road, a fourwheel drive unmaintained dirt road. This road, 

used by both locals and tourists, traverses a nonwilderness corridor in the eastern section of 

Joshua Tree National Park and continues 

beyond the park boundary into the study area. 

The road has a large boulder in the middle of the 

road about three miles east of the Joshua Tree 

National Park boundary to block access to the 

Eagle Mountain Mine. Neither NPS nor BLM 

have records of the use of this road, but it is 

estimated that the road may see about 1,000 dayuse visits in a season (FERC 2012). 

Although there are no established public trails 

within the boundary study area, a network of 

dirt roads lead to backcountry camp sites, 

unpatented mining claims, and other popular 

mining locations. The area is largely used by 

members of a local mining club, but other 

visitors also sometimes venture into this rugged 

backcountry. Some users have been visiting this 

portion of the study area for almost 50 years. 

Visitors to the area have multi-generation 

gatherings and picnics, and participate in 

primitive camping, mining and teaching mining 

techniques, shooting, hunting, using off road 

vehicles, and enjoying solitude, quiet, and the 

dark night skies. Miners actively conduct placer 

mining on four active unpatented mining claims 

in the western section of the study area. Two 

other unpatented mining claims are lode claims. 

Use of four-wheel drive vehicles also provides 

access for disabled or younger visitors who 

would be unable to hike into remote areas. 

Soundscape 

Sound is caused by pressure variations in the air 

that are sensed by the human ear. Noise is 

defined as any undesirable sound that interferes 

with normal activities for both humans and 

wildlife. The soundscape in the boundary study 

area is generally quiet with limited noise sources. 

And as one moves away from roads and 

highways, modern noise fades away and 

soundscape becomes quieter, with natural 

sounds dominating. 

Joshua Tree National Park’s natural 

soundscapes are impacted by modern 

developments that are decreasing areas of 

natural quiet. Military activities, commercial 

airlines, and excessive mechanical noise 

produced within and adjacent to the park 

degrade the natural soundscape. The majority of 

the study area is undeveloped and abuts 

wilderness in Joshua Tree National Park, which 

is free from vehicular roads or other sources of 

noise where natural sounds largely dominate. 

The sound of whistling wind or wind flowing 

through vegetation is often heard, as are calls 

from the numerous bird species or a howl from a 

coyote. 

The Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite are 

largely unused. Kaiser Road and Eagle Mountain 

Road have only occasional use by heavy 

machinery or vehicles. Other sources of noise in 

the area include off-highway vehicle engines, a 

local race track approximately 10 miles to the 

east, traffic from Interstate 10 (about 10 miles 

south-southeast from the study area) and local 

roads, and both commercial and military aircraft 

overflights. There is a private landing strip 

associated with the closed Eagle Mountain Mine 

on the eastern edge of the study area. This 

private airstrip is minimally used to access the 

Eagle Mountain Mine, but any flights have the 

potential to produce noise. Construction of the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project will likely increase noise in and around 

the mine area. 

Visual Resources 

The study area is a unique juxtaposition of a 

pristine desert landscape, a highly disturbed iron 

mine and former mining town. Approximately 

80% of the area is wild, undisturbed natural 

desert managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) that connects seamlessly, 

on three sides, with wilderness in Joshua Tree 

National Park. Mountains have both gentle 

slopes and rocky outcrops that rise from broad, 

flat desert valleys. The desert is covered with 

low-lying sparse vegetation that comes alive with 

blooming cactus and spring wildflowers after 

winter rains. Portions of the study area adjacent 

to the national park have little sign of human 

development or disturbance and have dramatic 

views of untrammeled wilderness. Here, the 

night sky provides another excellent viewshed: 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

152 

the lack of artificial light provides an inspiring 

view of starry nights. 

The eastern and central portion of the study area 

consists of the Eagle Mountain Mine. The large 

terraced mine with its extensive open pits, 

benched side walls and high exposed waste rock 

piles remain as a reminder of the past. The gray 

rock piles and excavated terraces create a stark 

contrast to the undisturbed, natural purple-hued 

backdrop of the Eagle Mountains. The greater 

mine footprint is approximately 1,000 feet from 

the park boundary at its closest point on the 

north side of the mine. 

Adjacent to the mine, the Townsite is largely 

composed of deserted homes and vacant 

buildings, and other facilities related to the 

mining operations. Some buildings and houses 

have already been removed but their 

foundations remain. Other human-made 

disturbances that visibly stand out from the 

natural landscape include: roads, a railroad, 

transmission lines for the Colorado River 

Aqueduct, and wood distribution poles 

supplying electricity to the Townsite. 

From Interstate 10, south of the study area, the 

view consists of a vast desert landscape, and the 

mine is barely noticeable. As one approaches 

the study area from the south or east, via Eagle 

Mountain Road or Kaiser Road, the waste rock 

piles, benched walls, and fenced Townsite are 

visible in the foreground, with undisturbed 

desert mountains in the background. The mine 

can be seen from some of the higher elevations 

in the western section of the study area, on both 

BLM land and from within Joshua Tree National 

Park. However, much of the western section of 

the study area, accessed from Black Eagle Mine 

Road has beautiful views of an expansive and 

preserved desert landscape. 

Wilderness 

Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, the wildness 

and naturalness of wilderness areas are to be 

preserved and the lands managed for their 

“wilderness character.” They also have greater 

protection from development. As defined by the 

Act, “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas 

where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape is hereby recognized as an area where 

the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain.” 

No wilderness areas exist in the study area, but it 

is bordered by wilderness in Joshua Tree 

National Park on the north, west, and south 

sides, and these lands are some of the most 

pristine wilderness lands in the park. 

Approximately 80% of Joshua Tree National 

Park is wilderness and another nine percent is 

potential, designated, or proposed wilderness. 

Given the large amount of wilderness area in the 

park, ample opportunities exist for visitors to 

enjoy the solitude and untrammeled landscape 

that are characteristic of a high quality 

wilderness experience. Rock climbers, hikers, 

and overnight backpackers are regular visitors to 

wilderness areas, which provide opportunities 

for primitive recreation and solitude in wild 

settings. Wilderness access is limited; off road 

vehicles and mountain biking are not permitted. 

In 1979, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) conducted a Wilderness Inventory of the 

California Desert Conservation Area to 

determine the natural, roadless areas with 

enough solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation to be considered for a wilderness 

designation. The inventory evaluated the Eagle 

Mountain Wilderness Study Area, portions of 

which fall within the area evaluated in this study 

(334-Eagle Mountain Study Area). The 

wilderness study area was bordered by Joshua 

Tree National Park to the west, Black Eagle 

Mine Road to the north, and the Eagle 

Mountain Mine (maintained dirt roads, portion 

of the railroad, transmission line, and access 

road) to the east. In 1991, the BLM completed 

its California Statewide Wilderness Study 

Report. The study found that the ruggedness 

and diversity of this terrain screens visitors from 

one another, and the proximity to wilderness in 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

153 

Joshua Tree National Park would create 

outstanding opportunities to experience 

primitive and unconfined. Ultimately, over 

50,000 acres of the 60,000 acre inventory area 

was recommended as wilderness, much of which 

is protected wilderness in Joshua Tree National 

Park today. Most of the areas under the purview 

of this study were determined unsuitable at the 

time, due in part, to mineral resource presence 

and mining activity apparent on the landscape 

(BLM 1979). Most of the Eagle Mountain 

Wilderness Study Area that was recommended 

as wilderness by BLM in 1991 was designated 

wilderness by Congress in 1994 when the 

California Desert Protection Act added the lands 

to Joshua Tree National Park. 

Human Health and Safety 

Former mining areas often contain safety issues 

and resource impacts, depending on the extent 

and type of the mining activities. Hazardous 

substances could be present in the soil and/or 

mining tailings that pose a threat to water 

quality, public safety, and/or the environment. 

There are physical hazards posed by open mine 

shafts due to open vertical shafts or mill sites 

with deteriorating buildings and equipment.

Many abandoned mine sites could have deadly 

gases and risk of asphyxiation, collapsing mine 

walls, explosive and toxic chemicals, and rotting 

structures. The Eagle Mountain Mine site has a 

number of physical safety hazards such as open 

pits and trenches, pits with steep drop offs, high 

waste rock piles, and deteriorating 

infrastructure. Buildings in the town site are 

over 50 years old, deteriorating and likely 

contain asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls. 

The Townsite is owned by Eagle Crest Energy 

Company, which may choose to reuse some of 

the buildings, after remediation, and demolish 

the ones that are deteriorating those that are 

beyond repair. 

Access for emergency vehicles in the majority of 

the study area is currently limited since access is 

blocked on Kaiser Road and Eagle Mountain 

Road is blocked at the entrance to the mine. 

Black Eagle Mine Road is unmaintained and is 

accessible only with a high clearance 4-wheel 

drive vehicle. 

Land Use and Ownership 

Study area land is an assemblage of different 

uses and ownership and was so even before the 

park was established (Dilsaver 2015). Over two 

hundred parcels are owned by seven different 

public and private entities. The study area is 

comprised of approximately 31,500 acres of land 

within the Eagle Mountain area in Townships 3S 

and 4S in Riverside County, California. It is 

surrounded by Joshua Tree National Park to the 

north, west and south and bordered by the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California’s (MWD) Colorado River Aqueduct 

on its eastern edge. Table 4-2: Land Ownership in 

the Study Area depicts the acreages of land 

owned in fee by the different parties within the 

study area. Map 4-11 shows area landownership 

and management. More information on land use 

and ownership can be found in the Feasibility 

Criteria Evaluation in Chapter 2. 

Table 4-2: Land Ownership in the Study Area 

Owner Acreage (Approximate) 

Federal Lands (BLM-administered) 23,140 

Private Land 5,050 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2,850 

State School Lands (California State Lands Commission) 340 

Desert Center Unified School District 90 

GTE/ General Telephone Co. of California <1 

Total 31,470 

Sources: Riverside County Parcel Assessor Data, October 2015, NPS 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Map 4-14: Ownership and Management

154
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

155 

Public Lands

Land Use Policies

There are numerous laws and authorities that 

regulate uses on BLM managed land. The 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA) established the California Desert 

Conservation Area (CDCA). The study area is 

within the CDCA and is subject to management 

guidelines the 1980 California Desert 

Conservation Plan and its subsequent 

amendments as described in the Feasibility 

Criteria Evaluation in Chapter 2. 

The Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert 

Coordinated Management Plan, approved in 

2002, provides another set of rules for a subset of 

the larger CDCA, and also applies to the study 

area (BLM and CDFG 2002). This plan 

designates the land within the study area as 

moderate and limited use. Public lands west of 

the Kaiser property but east of the park 

boundary are managed as Multiple Use Class-L, 

and public lands east of the Eagle Mountain 

Mine are managed according to Multiple Use 

Class-M guidelines. Class “L” (limited use) lands 

are managed to provide lower intensity, carefully 

controlled multiple uses while ensuring that 

sensitive resource values are not significantly 

diminished. Allowable uses in Class L areas 

include electric generation plants (wind, solar or 

geothermal); gas, electric and transmission 

facilities and cables; communications sites; 

livestock grazing; mining; and low to moderate 

recreational activities. Class “M” (moderate use) 

lands are managed to provide for a wider variety 

of uses such as mining; livestock grazing, 

moderate to high density recreational uses; 

utilities, and all types of electrical general plants. 

Much of the BLM lands within the study area 

would remain under these existing designations. 

However, the Desert Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan 

Amendment Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (DRECP LUPA), currently pending 

approval, will serve as the most recent land use 

plan amendment to the CDCA. The DRECP 

LUPA proposes to apply two BLM protective 

land use designations to the study area - 

National Conservation Land (NCL) and Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These 

designations apply to less than half of the lands 

within the study area (12,500 acres). Further, the 

DRECP LUPA proposes conservation 

management actions that provide additional 

protection of the undesignated lands (or 

unallocated lands per the DRECP). See Map 2-7:

BLM Proposed Land Use Designations. 

The DRECP LUPA would set rules for land use 

on NCA and ACEC that alter the land use 

designations as defined by the NECO plan (BLM 

2015a). These lands would be managed to 

protect nationally or regionally significant 

ecological, cultural and scientific values. Certain 

activities and uses would be limited. In each 

unit, disturbance in each area would be capped 

at 1% to prevent unnecessary ground 

disturbance that could impact important 

resources. The BLM could consider mineral 

extraction from these areas. Within the 

proposed ACEC, renewable energy 

development would not be permitted, minerals - 

material sales would be allowed only in areas 

where impact to vegetation and wildlife would 

be negligible, no"surface occupancy leasable 

minerals would be permitted, and off-highway 

vehicle use would be limited to designated 

routes. BLM would develop implementation 

plans with more guidance and rules for each 

unit. More specific information on these 

proposed conservation areas and the proposed 

disturbance cap can be found in the DRECP 

LUPA, Section II.3.2.1. 

The other BLM-managed lands in the study area 

would be categorized as “unallocated lands.” 

Allowable uses could range from electric 

generation plants (wind, solar or geothermal); 

gas, electric and transmission facilities and 

cables; communications sites; livestock grazing; 

mining; and low to moderate recreational 

activities as defined the BLM CDCA plan as 

amended. However, the BLM could reject a 

renewable energy application in these areas if 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

156 

inconsistent with allowable uses and 

management actions (conservation management 

actions or CMAs) as defined in the DRECP. The 

CMAs would have a variety of goals and 

standards. Some would be designed to protect 

individual species such as desert tortoise or 

golden eagles, while others define resource 

setbacks to avoid and minimize adverse effects 

to specific biological species (BLM 2015a). 

Given the configuration of the unallocated lands 

in relationship to the park boundary, 

incompatible uses could have adverse impacts 

on park resources such as wildlife, water 

resources, and wilderness values, particularly 

when combined with anticipated impacts from 

proposed development projects such as the 

proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project. 

Use and Ownership

The majority of the land, approximately 23,000 

acres (73%), is currently federal land managed 

by BLM. The vast majority of the federal land is 

undisturbed and lacks facilities or other 

development. It is used by visitors for mining, 

rockhounding, camping, and off-highway 

vehicle use. There are 460 unpatented mining 

claims on BLM land owned by Kaiser Eagle 

Mountain, LLC and another six claims are 

owned by mining clubs or individuals. 

Approximately 620acres of BLM-managed 

federal land within the study area has been 

withdrawn under the Federal Power Act for the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project. Southern California Edison has 

electrical infrastructure and telecommunications 

infrastructure located within the study area. This 

infrastructure requires periodic inspection and 

maintenance. An existing right-of-way from the 

BLM covers approximately 28.6 miles of the 52-

mile railroad; the remainder of the rail line 

traverses the private lands, and other federal 

agencies and private landowners have issued 

easements or other permits for the rail line 

(Riverside County and BLM 1996). 

State and Local Lands

Approximately 340 acres are owned and 

managed by the California State Lands 

Commission in the western portion of the study 

area and along the Colorado River Aqueduct. 

These properties are referred to as State School 

Lands. The California State Lands Commission 

is the trustee and land manager for sovereign 

and school lands. School lands are what remains 

of the nearly 5.5 million acres throughout the 

state originally granted to California by the 

Congress in 1853 to benefit public education. 

California retains surface and mineral ownership 

of approximately 430,000 acres of these school 

lands and retains the mineral rights in an 

additional 790,000 acres. In management of 

these lands, the Commission must balance longterm preservation of the resources with 

responsible economic development and 

determine what is in the state’s best interest. 

Any projects undertaken or approved by the 

Commission must be consistent not only with 

the Commission’s statutes and regulations, but 

with common law Public Trust Doctrine.

The Desert Center Union School District 

operates the Eagle Mountain School. After the 

mine ceased full-scale operations, four of the 

District’s schools closed. The high school was 

converted to become the kindergarten through 

eighth grade Eagle Mountain School for the 

area's few remaining students. Today, 

enrollment is at approximately 20 students. The 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (MWD) owns and manages 

approximately 2,850 acres (9%) of the land 

within the study area to operate, manage, and 

maintain the Colorado River Aqueduct. The 

aqueduct itself forms the eastern edge of the 

study area, but no MWD lands are within any of 

the study alternatives. A small county road also 

exists in the study area (Kaiser Road). 

Private 

Land Use Policies 

All private property in the study area is subject 

to the land use policies of Riverside County, and 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

157 

specifically those identified in the County of 

Riverside Desert Center Area Plan (Riverside 

County 2003). The plan generally reflects the 

very limited development potential in the study 

area. The vast majority of acreage within the area 

plan is designated open space-rural. The plan 

recognizes that the lands are generally remote, 

inaccessible, subject to natural hazards, or 

unable to support more intense development 

due to the lack of public facilities and services. 

The Desert Center Area Plan implements 

policies around how the land can be used, such 

as types of development, density, agriculture, 

mining, renewable energy uses, recreation, etc. 

It also creates policies for protection of the land 

such as the preservation of desert tortoise 

critical habitat, prevention of light pollution, and 

protection against wildland fire. 

The Desert Center Area Plan applies to three 

areas: the former Eagle Mountain Mine and 

Townsite, Desert Center, and Lake Tamarisk 

(not in the study area). In the plan, the 5,500-

acre former Eagle Mountain Mine is zoned for a 

Class III nonhazardous solid waste landfill 

operation and is referred to as the Eagle 

Mountain Landfill. The Eagle Mountain 

Landfill and Eagle Mountain Townsite each 

have their own specific plans that provide a 

bridge between the General Plan and individual 

projects, in a more area-specific manner than is 

possible with community-wide zoning 

ordinances. 

The Specific Plan for the Townsite, Plan 306, 

states that general uses will be consist with past 

use and include residential, recreational, general 

commercial, commercial manufacturing, 

correctional facilities, storage, and public 

facilities and services (Riverside County 1997b). 

Specific Plan No. 305 for the Eagle Mountain 

Landfill states that as an approved landfill site, 

the property is designated for public facility use 

(Riverside County 1997a). Any alternative land 

use on this site, other than for public facilities, 

would be in accordance with the Open Space 

foundation component designation. The Open 

Space General Plan Foundation component is 

intended to preserve habitat, water, and other 

natural resources, protection from natural 

hazards, provision of recreational area, and the 

protection of scenic resources (County of 

Riverside 2003). 

Use and Ownership

There are a number of privately owned parcels 

in the study area. The largest private landowner 

in the study area is the Eagle Crest Energy 

Company (Eagle Crest). In June 2015, Eagle 

Crest purchased the real property, mining and 

mill site claims, personal property, and the right 

and interests related to the Eagle Mountain 

Mine and Townsite. This property was sold by 

subsidiaries and limited liability companies of 

Eagle Mountain Acquisition LLC. Within the 

study area, there are over 5,000 acres of patented 

fee lands owned by Eagle Crest, in addition to 

many holdings of unpatented mining claims on 

the federal lands (See Appendix D: Unpatented 

Mining Claims). 

The heavily disturbed mine site consists of 

inactive open pits, waste rock piles, and tailings 

ponds. Remnants of the structures associated 

with the previous mining facilities remain onsite, 

although most of the ore processing and refining 

facilities have been removed. As stated 

previously, the Eagle Crest Energy Company 

received a 50-year license from the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the 

construction and operation of the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project on the site of the largely inactive Eagle 

Mountain Mine. 

As discussed in the Feasibility Criteria 

Evaluation in Chapter 2, EMMR has a lease to 

conduct above-ground mining activities in the 

formerly mined areas. These operations include: 

1) extraction and processing of in situ materials; 

2) recovery and reprocessing of waste, 

overburden and stockpiled materials to recover 

additional iron ore; and 3) recovery and 

processing of waste overburden and stockpiled 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

158 

materials to recover aggregate materials (Kaiser 

Eagle Mountain, LLC 2013).The initial term of 

the lease is 40 years which can be extended three 

times, each for an additional 20 years for a total 

term of 100 years. 

Remnants of the Kaiser Industrial Railroad 

(Eagle Mountain Industrial Railroad) are also 

within the study area; the railroad spur begins at 

the mine, heads northeast to outside the study 

area boundary. The railroad real property, the 

railroad spur, rights-of-way, easements, fixtures, 

vehicles, and equipment remain under 

ownership of Eagle Mountain Mining and 

Railroad Company, LLC (EMMR). 

Today, the Eagle Mountain Townsite is largely 

vacant. Some Kaiser Eagle Mountain employees 

maintain residences there for security purposes, 

and the school is still in operation. The 

Townsite would continue to be in private 

ownership as long as mining continues per the 

agreement between Eagle Mountain Mining and 

Railroad (EMMR) and Kaiser Eagle Mountain 

to continue to conduct surface mining 

operations at Eagle Mountain Mine. At such 

time that use of the land for mining ceases, the 

lands associated with the Eagle Mountain 

Townsite would revert to the United States, as 

per Public Law 790. The BLM would then have 

some discretion for management of the 

property; the Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act allows the leasing or conveyance of BLM 

land to state and local jurisdictions, or to nonprofits, for recreation or other public purposes. 

Conveyances to state and local agencies can be 

at no cost, provided the application and 

proposal from the local agency meets the 

regulatory requirements. 

A 31-acre parcel in the northwest corner of the 

study area contains patented mineral rights and 

is owned by a separate entity. Less than one acre 

of land in the Townsite is listed as owned by the 

General Telephone Company of California c/o 

GTE Telephone. 

Park Operations 

Park management and operations refers to the 

current management structure of the park to 

provide policy direction for the protection, 

public use, and appreciation of the park, and the 

ability of park staff to adequately protect and 

preserve vital resources and provide for park 

visitors. In fiscal year 2015 Joshua Tree National 

Park employed almost 100 full-time equivalent 

positions and had an operating budget of 

$6,059,700. 

Park operations fulfilled by the park employees 

include a variety of administrative activities, 

maintenance activities (roads, trails, historic 

structures, buildings, utilities, and housing), 

resource management activities (native and nonnative plant and wildlife management, fire/fuels 

management, research, inventory, monitoring, 

and restoration), law enforcement, and visitor 

services activities (search and rescue and other 

emergency services, interpretation, 

campground, and visitor center operations). 

Refer to the Feasibility Criteria Evaluation in 

Chapter 2 for more information on park 

operations. Additionally, the park expends 

considerable effort, time and funds monitoring 

and reviewing proposals by other agencies that 

may affect National Park Service resources or 

programs. Some park staff worked for at least 10 

years on issues related to development of the 

Eagle Mountain area. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

159 

Socioeconomics 

Joshua Tree National Park lies within both San 

Bernardino and Riverside counties, 

approximately 100 miles from the Los Angeles 

metropolitan area. More than 18 million people 

live within a three-hour drive of the park. The 

boundary study area falls completely within 

Riverside County, in the vast Colorado Desert 

which is characterized by undisturbed 

wilderness, distinctive flora such as the Joshua 

tree, sand dunes, mountainous terrain. 

The study area is adjacent to Desert Center, an 

unincorporated community bisected by 

Interstate 10. It is approximately 55 miles east of 

the City of Coachella and 55 miles west of the 

City of Blythe. Joshua Tree National Park lies to 

the northwest, the Coachella Valley lies to the 

west and the Palo Verde Valley lies to the east. 

Desert Center is located in the middle of the 

Colorado Desert, in the Chuckwalla Valley, far 

removed from urbanized areas. It contains the 

community of Lake Tamarisk, a retirement 

community features single family homes, 

duplexes and mobile homes, situated around the 

lake and includes a 9-hole golf course. 

This section describes the existing demographic, 

employment and income conditions of Desert 

Center, and Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. The Feasibility Criteria Evaluation in 

Chapter 2 describes the more immediate 

demographics and socioeconomic factors 

associated with Desert Center. 

Population 

Riverside and San Bernardino counties comprise 

what is commonly known as the Inland Empire, 

one of the fastest growing areas in the nation. As 

the 4th most populous county among the 58 

counties in California, Riverside County has 

more than 2.1 million residents. San Bernardino 

County, with just over 2 million people, is the 5th

most populous county in state and the largest 

county in the contiguous United States (with an 

area of 20,105 square miles). From 2000 to 2010, 

population growth for Riverside and San 

Bernardino counties increased 42% and 19% 

respectively, considerably higher than the 

overall 12.3% growth rate for the Southern 

California Association of Governments Region. 

This region includes Imperial, Los Angeles, 

Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura 

counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 

2015c, 2015d; Southern California Association 

of Governments 2015a). 

No population projections are available for 

Desert Center. However, U.S. Census Bureau 

data from 2010-2014 shows the population 

remains relatively constant. The population 

decreased from 188 in 2010 to 150 in 2011; 

increased to 177 in 2012; then fell to 172 in 2013. 

Table 4-3: Current and Future Population

provides a comparison among population 

projections for Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties and the state. 

Race 

Racial and ethnic diversity is higher in Riverside 

and San Bernardino counties when compared to 

scatate figures. Nearly 60% of the total 

population in Riverside County reported that 

they belong to a minority race group and nearly 

half the population reported being of Hispanic 

origin (46%). Hispanic or Latino represents the 

largest minority in San Bernardino County with 

half the population identifying themselves as 

part of this group (50.5%) (U.S. Census Bureau 

2015a and 2015b). Approximately 39% of 

Desert Center residents identify themselves as 

Hispanic or Latino and 61% as non-Hispanic 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015c, 2015c, 

2015d). Table 4-4: 2014 Race and Ethnicity 

provides ethnicity statistics for California, San 

Bernardino County, Riverside County, and 

Desert Center. 

Education 

According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 

about 25% of the population in Riverside 

County 25 years and older graduated from high 

school. Approximately 21% earned a bachelor’s 

degree. In San Bernardino County, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

160 

approximately 26% of the population over the 

age of 25 graduated from high school and almost 

19% received a bachelor’s degree. 

Approximately 10% of the Desert Center 

population earned a bachelor’s degree, and 33% 

earned a high school diploma or equivalent. 

Table 4-5: 2014 Education Attainment shows the 

comparison. 

Employment and Income 

The median household income in Riverside 

County is approximately $56,529 per year. A 

little more than 16% of the population lives in a 

household with income below the federallydetermined poverty threshold. Nine percent of 

the county’s labor force was unemployed in 

2014. The median household income in San 

Bernardino County is approximately $54,100 per 

year. Nearly 19% of the population lives in a 

household below the poverty threshold. More 

than 8% of the county’s labor force was 

unemployed in 2014. The median household 

income in Desert Center is approximately 

$55,750 per year. Less than 1% pf the Desert 

Center workforce was unemployed in 2014, but 

the U.S Census Bureau estimated that about 33% 

of the population of Desert Center lives in a 

household whose income in 2014 was below the 

federal poverty level6

 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). 

Job growth in the Inland Empire outperformed 

the state and the rest of Southern California for 

the third year in 2014. The region is seen as 

increasingly attractive to companies that are 

leaving the coastal counties in search of more 

affordable and larger areas of land for 

commerce, manufacturing and distribution 

operations (Runyan 2015). Strong job gains were 

recorded over the past few years for the region 

as 46,500 jobs were added in 2012, 58,800 jobs in 

 

6

 The overall U.S. Census Bureau data for Center CDP 

is highly variable. Poverty level data for this area has a 

+/-25.9% margin of error. The value shown is the 

90% margin of error and the estimate plus the margin 

(the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains 

the true value. 

2013 and 49,600 jobs in 2014. The annual 

growth rate for the area was more than 4%, the 

highest rate since mid-2000 when economic 

growth was supported by the housing boom 

(Farka and Fleissing 2015). 

Employment in the Professional and Business 

Services sector showed the strongest gains in 

2014, adding 10,900 jobs. This increase creates a 

positive outlook for future income growth since 

these jobs are relatively well paid. The Leisure & 

Hospitality sector added 8,200 jobs while the 

Health Care sector added 5,300 jobs (Farka 

2015). 

Although the Construction and Manufacturing 

sector had previously suffered job losses, 

employment in Construction grew by 2,300 

while Manufacturing added 2,500 jobs. The 

Construction sector had suffered significant 

losses during the recession with employment 

falling from 130,000 jobs to a low of 57,000 jobs 

in 2010 (Farka 2015). 

According to the Governor’s Office of Business 

Development and Visit California, travel-related 

employment continues to grow annually 

between 1.7% and 1.9% in Riverside and San 

Bernardino counties. Travel-related spending in 

2014 generated 72,610 jobs and $190 million in 

local tax revenue in Riverside County and 50,140 

jobs and $104 million in local tax revenue in San 

Bernardino County (Runyan 2015). Visitors to 

Joshua Tree National Park spent an estimated 

$73.8 million in local gateway communities in 

2014. These expenditures supported a total of 

1,000 jobs, $38 million in labor income, $60 

million in value added, and $97.2 million n in 

economic output in local gateway economies 

surrounding Joshua Tree National Park 

(Cullinane et al. 2015). 

The U.S. Census Bureau employment data by 

industry for Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties shows that the largest job sectors in 

Riverside and San Bernardino counties are 

education-health (20.6% and 22.7% 

respectively), retail trade (13% and 31.1% 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

161 

respectively), professional services and 

manufacturing (9.3% and 10.2% respectively). 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 

mining represent a combined total of less than 

2% of the total employment for the region. 

The unemployment rate in the Inland Empire 

fell to 8.5% in 2014, down from the 14.3% 

recession peak in 2010. Among the communities 

surrounding the Study Area, Chuckwalla Valley 

has the lowest unemployment rate at 2.3%, and 

Coachella Valley has the highest rate at 11.3%. 

The declining rate is attributed mainly to job 

creation, primarily in the health care and social 

assistance sectors that account for 20% of the 

jobs created during this period. Remaining job 

gains were concentrated in leisure and 

hospitality, retail trade, administrative, support 

and waste services, and transportation, 

warehousing and utilities. Job losses occurred in 

nondurable goods manufacturing, financial 

services, management of companies and 

enterprises, and other personal services (Kyser 

2015). 

The California Employment Development 

Department estimates that by 2020 employment 

in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario 

Metropolitan Statistical Area is expected to 

reach more than 1.5 million, a 19.4% increase in 

job growth over a ten year period. Sectors 

expected to show the strongest job gains in 2020 

are Educational Services/Healthcare and Social 

Assistance (212,000 jobs, 26.8% increase), 

Leisure and Hospitality (164,700 jobs, 27.4% 

increase) and Accommodation and Food 

Services (146,000 jobs, 28.6% increase). While 

employment gains in the Mining and Logging 

sector will be minimal with 1,600 jobs, this 

sector is expected to grow 33%. Job losses are 

expected. Manufacturing jobs are expected to 

decline by 3.3% (83,800 jobs) (California 2014a, 

2014b, 2014c). Table 4-7: Employment and 

Unemployment, provides U.S. Census Bureau 

employment and unemployment data. 

Poverty 

Although the Inland Empire has begun to 

generate jobs in higher-paying sectors, a large 

portion of jobs remain in low paying sectors. 

Poverty remains a major concern especially with 

the slow recovery in the construction and 

manufacturing sectors which often provide high 

paying jobs for low education and low-skilled 

workers who were the hardest hit during the 

recession and the slow recovery (Farka 2015). 

Poverty levels identified by the U.S. Census 

Bureau for Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties are slightly higher than the poverty 

level for the state of California. More than 16% 

of Riverside County’s and 18% of San 

Bernardino County’s population lives below the 

poverty level7

, compared to the state of 

California figure of 15.9%. Poverty levels for 

Desert Center are higher than Riverside County. 

Table 4-8: Poverty Rates, summarizes U.S. 

Census Bureau poverty data.

 

7 The Census Bureau uses a set of money income 

thresholds that vary by family size and composition to 

determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income 

is less than the family's threshold, then that family and 

every individual in it is considered in poverty. The 

official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, 

but they are updated for inflation using Consumer 

Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition 

uses money income before taxes and does not include 

capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public 

housing, Medicaid, and food stamps” – U.S. Census.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

162 

Table 4-3: Current and Future Population

Geographic 

Area 

2010 

Census 

2014 

Estimate 

2020 

Projection

2035 

Projection

Percent Change (2010-2035) 

California 37,253,956 38,802,500 40,817,839 42,721,958 15%

San 

Bernardino 

County 

2,035,210 2,112,619 2,233,441 2,633,363 29%

Riverside 

County 

2,189,641 2,329,271 2,545,665 3,239,196 47%

Desert 

Center 

188 208 unavailable Unavailable -

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015c, 2015c, 2015d; CA Department of Transportation 2015

Table 4-4: 2014 Race and Ethnicity 

Race California San Bernardino County

Riverside 

County 

Desert 

Center

White 62 62.9% 65 % 76%

Black or African American 6 8.7% 6.2% .5%

American Indian and Alaska 

Native .8 0.9% 1.0% 0% 

Asian 13.5 6.6% 6.1% 0%

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander .4 0.3% 0.3% 0% 

Some Other Race 12.8 16.3% 16.8% 16.8%

Two or More Races 4.5 4.4% 4.3% 6.7%

Hispanic or Latino 38.2 50.5% 46.5% 39.4%

Non-Hispanic 61.8 49.5% 53.5% 60.6%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d

Table 4-5: 2014 Education Attainment

Level of Education California San Bernardino 

County

Riverside County Desert Center

High School Diploma 21 26 25 33 

Bachelor’s Degree 20 19 21 10 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d

Table 4-6: 2014 Median Household and Per Capita Income 

Geographic Location Median Household Income Per Capita Income

California $61, 489 $29,527 

Riverside County $56,529 $23,591 

San Bernardino County $54,411 $21,384 

Desert Center $55,750 $19,180 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d

Table 4-7: 2014 Employment and Unemployment

Geographic Location Civilian Labor 

Force 

Employed Un-employed Percent 

Unemployed

California 18,804,519 16,635,854 2,168,665 7.3% 

Riverside County 1,030,145 877,030 153,115 9.1% 

San Bernardino County 938,164 801,850 136,314 8.8% 

Desert Center 78 77 1 1.3% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

163 

Table 4-8: 2014 Poverty Rates 

Geographic Location Population for Whom 

Poverty is Determined 

Population Below 

Poverty Level 

% Below Poverty 

Level 

California 36,913,404 5,885,417 15.9% 

San Bernardino County 2,010,188 375,280 18.7% 

Riverside County 2,193,762 355,511 16.2% 

Desert Center 172 (x) no data given 33% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

164 

Environmental Justice 

Presidential Executive Order 12898, General 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires all federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice into their 

missions by identifying and addressing the 

disproportionately high and/or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities. 

According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, environmental justice is the “...fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income, with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies 

(EPA 1998).“ 

The Council on Environmental Quality provided 

Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act in December 

1997 to assist federal agencies in addressing 

environmental justice in their NEPA procedures. 

This guidance defines low-income population, 

minority, and minority population as follows: 

 Low-income population: Low-income 

populations in an affected area should 

be identified with the annual statistical 

poverty thresholds from the Bureau of 

the Census’ Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and 

Poverty. In identifying low-income 

populations, agencies may consider as a 

community either a group of individuals 

living in geographic proximity to one 

another, or a set of individuals (such as 

migrant workers or Native Americans), 

where either type of group experiences 

common conditions of environmental 

exposure or effect. 

 Minority: Individual(s) who are 

members of the following population 

groups: American Indian or Alaskan 

Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; black, 

not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. 

 Minority Population: Minority 

populations should be identified where 

either: (a) the minority population of the 

affected area exceeds 50% or (b) the 

minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater 

than the minority population percentage 

in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

In identifying minority communities, 

agencies may consider as a community 

either a group of individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another, or 

a geographically dispersed/transient set 

of individuals (such as migrant workers 

or Native American), where either type 

of group experiences common 

conditions of environmental exposure 

or effect. The selection of the 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis 

may be a governing body’s jurisdiction, a 

neighborhood, census tract, or other 

similar unit that is to be chosen so as to 

not artificially dilute or inflate the 

affected minority population. A 

minority population also exists if there is 

more than one minority group present 

and the minority percentage, as 

calculated by aggregating all minority 

persons, meets one of the above-stated 

thresholds (CEQ 1997). 

As stated above in the Socioeconomic

description, approximately 16% of the 

population of Riverside County and 19% in San 

Bernardino County fell below the federallydetermined poverty threshold. The U.S Census 

Bureau estimated that in the small town of 

Desert Center, approximately 33% fell beneath 

the federal poverty line. Table 4-4: 2014 Race 

and Ethnicity shows the percentages of 

minorities in each geographic location. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

165 

CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requires that environmental documents disclose 

the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and its reasonable alternatives. In 

addition to various boundary adjustment 

options, the alternatives describe a range of 

possible activities that could be undertaken by 

Joshua Tree National Park under the different 

scenarios. This information is provided to give 

the reviewer an idea of possible future 

management of the area. However, specific 

plans for the areas, such as type and extent of 

use, recreational facilities, access, educational 

opportunities, etc. would be developed in future, 

site-specific planning and public involvement. 

In most environmental documents, proposed 

actions are activities whose physical impacts can 

be estimated, modeled or projected. For a 

boundary study, the proposed actions are often 

policy changes and plans with no immediate 

physical impact on land or resources. As a result, 

this analysis is broad, rather than based on 

specific information about the type and location 

of facilities. The Council for Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) and National Park Service (NPS) 

Director’s Order 12 state that for actions that 

broad in nature, the NEPA review and data on 

which it is based may also be broad. As such, the 

analysis is based on qualitative rather than 

quantitative assessment of impacts, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Methods and Assumptions 

NEPA analysis. 

In accordance with NEPA, environmental 

consequences are determined by describing how 

the existing condition of a resource would 

change, either negatively or positively, as a result 

of implementing any of the alternatives under 

consideration. Analysis of the environmental 

consequences is based on literature reviews, 

information provided by experts in the NPS, as 

well as outside organizations, and the 

professional judgement of the study team 

members, as well as the status of the resource or 

the Affected Environment as presented in 

Chapter 4. 

The environmental analysis includes a factual 

description of both adverse and beneficial 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, as well 

as a discussion of the importance of the impacts. 

This discussion is guided by consideration of 

context and intensity (40 CFR 1508.27). 

Context is the setting, situation, or 

circumstances surrounding a particular resource 

(40 CFR 1508.27(a)). Context provides a 

backdrop against which the intensity of impacts 

can be applied to understand their importance. 

A park unit’s purpose and significance can 

provide important overall context for assessing 

the importance of many impacts. Intensity is the 

severity or magnitude of an impact (40 CFR 

1508.27(b)). Assessing the intensity of impacts to 

a specific resource is linked to the context in 

which that resource is found. 

The impact assessment in this chapter 

incorporates, where appropriate, analysis and 

information from the Bureau of Land 

Management’s recent Desert Renewable Energy 

Conservation Plan (DRECP) Proposed Land 

Use Amendment (LUPA) and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (October 

2015) and the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commissions’ Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hydropower License, Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project (January 2012). These documents 

primarily informed the analysis for Alternative 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

166 

A, No Action and the cumulative impact 

analysis. Both documents include a long list of 

mitigations and conservation measures that 

apply to the actions authorized by those plans. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

methodology and impact thresholds for 

assessing effects to species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act differ from NEPA. 

Section 7 of the ESA has several effect 

determinations that include: no effect; may 

affect; not likely to adversely affect; and may 

affect, likely to adversely affect. Definitions of 

these terms may be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/sectio

n7/s7process/s7glossary.html. Consultation 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife is underway, and the 

results of consultation and effect determinations 

will be disclosed in this EA’s decision document. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

The National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), as amended, is the principal legislative 

authority for managing cultural resources 

associated with NPS projects. Generally, Section 

106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their actions on cultural 

resources listed and/or determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register and to give the 

Advisory Council of Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) the opportunity to comment. Such 

resources are termed “historic properties.” 

Agreement on mitigation of adverse effects on 

historic properties is reached through 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO); Tribal Historic Preservation 

Office, if applicable; and, as required, the ACHP 

and others. In addition, Section 110 of the 

NHPA requires federal agencies to take actions 

to minimize harm to historic properties that 

would be adversely affected by a federal 

undertaking. That section also charges federal 

agencies with establishing preservation 

programs for the identification, evaluation, and 

nomination of historic properties under their 

jurisdiction to the National Register. 

The NHPA assessment of effect determinations 

also differ from NEPA effect descriptions. 

Federal actions have the potential to have no 

effect, no adverse effect or an adverse effect. 

Consultation with the California State Historic 

Preservation Office is underway, and the effects 

determination will be disclosed in this EA’s 

decision document. 

Cumulative Impact Scenario 

CEQ regulations require assessment of 

cumulative impacts in the decision-making 

process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts 

are defined as "the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or non-federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for 

all alternatives, including the No Action 

alternative. The past, present, or future projects 

or plans that could have a cumulative effect are 

listed in Table 5-1 below. Other past actions such 

as mining of iron from the Eagle Mountain mine, 

mining on unpatented claims, and use of the 

Townsite are discussed in the Chapter 4: Affected 

Environment.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

167 

Table 5-1: Projects in the Cumulative Impact Scenario 

Project Description 

Past 

Desert Sunlight 

Solar Farm 

A 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant completed in 2015, on Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM)-managed land east of the study area. It has three main components 

1) the Solar Farm site, 2) a transmission line, and 3) a Southern California Edison (SCE) owned 

and operated substation, Red Bluff Substation. More information is available at: 

http://blm.gov/5sjd

Desert Harvest 

Solar Project 

A 150 megawatt renewable energy project, adjacent to the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm. More 

information can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/palmsprings/Solar_Projects/Desert_Harvest_Solar_Project.html

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Solar Energy 

Program 

BLM plan to address utility-scale solar energy development on BLM administered lands in 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. The BLM has categorized 

lands that are excluded from utility-scale solar energy development (about 79 million acres 

[319,702 km2]) and has identified specific locations that are well suited for utility-scale 

production of solar energy (solar energy zones, or SEZs) where the BLM proposes to prioritize 

development. One of these areas, the Riverside East Solar Energy Zone (SEZ), is east of the 

study area. More information is available at: http://solareis.anl.gov/index.cfm

Present 

Designation of 

Mojave Trails 

National 

Monument, Sand 

to Snow National 

Monument, and 

Castle Mountains 

National 

Monument 

On February 12, 2016, President Obama designated three new national monuments in 

southern California. The Mojave Trails NM spans 1.6 million acres of federal lands 

connecting the Mojave National Preserve with Joshua Tree National Park. It enhances 

biological landscape connectivity while preserving traditional uses such hunting and offhighway vehicle recreation. Sand to Snow NM is comprised 154,000-acres in the San 

Gorgonio Wilderness and the San Bernardino National Forest. It abuts the western boundary 

of Joshua Tree National Park. Castle Mountains NM consists of approximately 21,000 acres 

of federal land surrounded by the existing Mojave National Preserve and will be managed by 

the National Park Service. More information is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/proclamations

Future 

Desert Renewable 

Energy 

Conservation Plan 

(DRECP) 

BLM landscape-scale renewable energy and conservation planning effort covering more than 

22 million acres in the California desert. The Final DRECP was released to the public in 

September 2015, and the Record of Decision is expected in the spring. The DRECP identifies 

Development Focus Areas (DFA) that may accommodate up to 20,000 megawatts of power 

from renewable energy projects and associated transmission over the next 25 years. This 

plan changed the footprint of the Riverside SEZ so it has different boundaries and is slightly 

smaller. The DFA will be referred to as SEZ for this analysis. It also identified areas for 

inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) (including National 

Conservation Lands, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic and Historic Trails), Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); Wildlife Allocations; Recreation Management 

Areas; Variance Process Lands; and Unallocated Lands. The National Conservation Lands will 

be managed using Conservation Management Actions (CMAs), a 1% disturbance cap, and 

the ACEC disturbance caps as a conservation delivery mechanism. The targeted disturbance 

levels were established as surrogates for thresholds of sensitivity for desert ecosystems, 

species, and cultural resources. The disturbance caps in the NCLS areas are 1.0%. In the 

ACECs, which through much of the LUPA are subunits of the larger NCLS, the disturbance 

caps range from 0.1% to 1.0%. More information is available at: http://drecp.org/

Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric 

Project 

The project, located within the study area, would pump water to and from the inactive 

mining pits during periods of low energy demand to generate and store electricity during 

periods of high demand. It consists of: 1) filling the 191 and 163 acre reservoirs with water 

2) construction of an underground powerhouse with four reversible pump-turbine units each 

rated at 325 MW for a total generating capacity of 1,300 MW 3) construction of a 500kv 

transmission line, and 4) construction of underground water supply facilities. This project 

received a license for operation from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 

2014. Eagle Crest Energy Company is currently fundraising and anticipates starting 

construction in 2018. More information is available at: http://eaglemountainenergy.net/
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

168 

Project Description 

Right of Way for 

Eagle Mountain 

Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric 

Project (and 

Environmental 

Assessment) 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing a resource plan amendment with an 

associated EA for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project transmission 

lines (located within the study area) and water supply lines. Public scoping occurred in 

November/December 2015. The environmental assessment will focus on the right-of-way for 

generator-tie [i.e., electrical lines connecting energy facilities to the larger electric grid]and 

water supply lines, and the Plan Amendment for the sections of the generator-tie line that 

do not fall within designated utility corridors. More information is available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsroom/2015/december/eaglecreststorageproject.html

Wind farm project, 

LH Renewables 

wind farm project 

An inactive application pending before BLM for a wind farm in the southern portion of the 

study area. 

 

Impact Topics 

A list of issues and concerns related to the 

proposed action were identified during National 

Park Service (NPS) internal scoping, the public 

scoping process and agency consultation. A 

wide range of issues and concerns for numerous 

resources were identified during the scoping 

process and are considered in this EA. 

The Handbook for NPS Director’s Order 12, 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision Making (revised 2015) 

guides the NPS to create concise and focused 

EAs. NEPA documents are to identify pivotal, 

significant issues and focus discussions and 

analysis on those issues. The Director’s Order 

clarifies that it is not necessary to carry an issue 

or impact topic forward for detailed analysis 

simply because a resource is affected. As a 

general rule, issues should be retained for 

consideration and discussed in detail if: 

 The environmental impacts associated 

with the issue are central to the proposal 

or of critical importance; 

 A detailed analysis of environmental 

impacts related to the issue is necessary 

to make a reasoned choice between 

alternatives; 

 The environmental impacts associated 

with the issue are a big point of 

contention among the public or other 

agencies; or 

 There are potentially significant impacts 

to resources associated with the issue. 

The following topics are not critical to a decision 

on whether to adjust the Joshua Tree National 

Park boundary and therefore have been 

dismissed from a detailed analysis. A short 

analysis for each topic follows below. 

Topics Not Carried Forward for 

Full Analysis 

Air Quality 

None of the boundary study alternatives would 

have an appreciable effect on air quality in the 

park or region. The primary sources of serious 

air pollution and haze problems at Joshua Tree 

National Park are outside of the park and 

generally unrelated to a park boundary 

adjustment. Air quality at Joshua Tree National 

Park is compromised by population growth and 

development (power plants, transportation, 

construction, etc.) of surrounding urban areas. 

These sources release dust, particulates, and 

smog that blow into the park and impact 

visibility. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, 

with a population of over 18 million, is the major 

contributor of ozone that reaches the park. This 

area is also a major contributor to elevated levels 

of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds 

and other pollutants. These pollutants adversely 

impact both human health and sensitive 

vegetation and wildlife. The Environmental 

Protection Agency sets stringent levels of 

protection for air quality, but Joshua Tree 

National Park consistently exceeds the ozone 

concentration levels (NPS 2014). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

169 

On a local level, the action alternatives could 

potentially reduce the amount of particulates 

that contribute to larger air quality and haze 

issues because the land would be protected from 

larger developments under NPS management. 

Emissions from heavy equipment or dust from 

construction would not be released and degrade 

air quality. If the mine was acquired and added 

to the boundary under Alternative D, polluting 

activities that occur in that area could cease, in 

the long term. Future management of the land 

and new uses would be determined by 

additional planning and NEPA processes, but 

future NPS projects or new uses in the area 

would consider and reduce any contributions to 

air pollution. Additional vehicles visiting the 

park would not have a noticeable effect on 

greenhouse gas emissions. This topic is not a 

point of contention among the public or other 

agencies, nor are there potentially significant 

impacts to resources associated with the issue. 

As such, it has been dismissed from further 

analysis. 

Climate Change 

The Council of Environmental Quality’s 2014 

draft guidance on climate change states that 

agencies should consider the following when 

addressing climate change: 1) potential effects 

from greenhouse gas (GHG emissions) and 2) 

implications of climate change for the 

environmental effects of a proposed action. 

Government actions occur incrementally and 

climate impacts are not attributable to any single 

action but are exacerbated by a series of smaller 

decisions. Diverse individual emission sources 

each make relatively small additions to global 

atmospheric GHG concentrations that 

collectively have a huge impact (CEQ 2014). 

The action of moving the park boundary would 

not result in a noticeable change in the release of 

emissions or endanger public health or welfare. 

Any increase in visitation and vehicles could add 

additional cars and emissions to the Eagle 

Mountain area. However, this increase would 

be small for Alternatives B and C since access 

would continue to be limited. In Alternative D, if 

the Townsite became available to NPS, visitors 

could more easily access the study area from 

Desert Center and Interstate 10 which could 

result in additional cars and emissions. This is 

part of the long-term vision for the area and 

additional planning would be conducted in the 

future to determine the types of NPS and visitor 

activities, as well as the level of emissions. 

Joshua Tree National Park is a participant in the 

NPS Climate Friendly Parks Program, which sets 

goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions. If 

the Eagle Mountain area was included within the 

boundary of the park, staff could assess the 

effects of climate change on the resources 

contained within the area, and the land would 

become subject to the park’s climate action plan 

(NPS 2010b). 

A boundary adjustment has the potential to 

benefit to atmospheric conditions. The land 

would be protected and preserved, and 

development would be limited. This would 

result in less ground disturbance and loss of 

vegetation resulting in less carbon release into 

the atmosphere. Researchers at Washington 

State University have found that desert soils take 

up an unexpectedly large amount of carbon as 

levels of carbon dioxide increase in the 

atmosphere. One 10-year experiment found 

that some areas of the Mojave Desert have 

elevated carbon-dioxide levels similar to those 

expected in 2050 (Evans et.al. 2014). 

Increasing temperatures and changing 

precipitation patterns alter ecosystems, changing 

vegetation communities and habitats available 

for species. For example, global climate change 

and drought are potentially important long-term 

considerations with respect to recovery of the 

desert tortoise (USFWS 2011a). The 

conservation associated with the action 

alternatives would protect habitat for wildlife 

species that are threatened and already stressed 

by climate change, and increase resiliency. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

170 

Energy Conservation 

Although none of the action alternatives would 

affect the FERC licensed hydroelectric facility, 

the alternatives would remove approximately 

11,000 acres or 11% of BLM land from possible 

use for renewable energy projects. This is a 

small area compared to the other land available 

in California for renewable energy projects and 

would result in only minimal effects on 

renewable energy production in California and 

the nation’s ability to produce renewable energy. 

If the DRECP Preferred Alternative is adopted, 

more than 84,000 acres of BLM managed desert 

land would be available for potential renewable 

energy projects within California. The BLM has 

approved nearly 20 solar, wind, and geothermal 

projects involving public lands in California 

between 2010 and 2014 (BLM 2015d). The BLM 

Solar Plan also designated a Riverside East Solar 

Energy Zone (SEZ) east of the study area and the 

eastern boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. 

This zone contains almost 150,000 acres of land 

that could be developed for solar energy 

projects; a solar project is authorized on almost 

16,000 acres in this area as well (BLM 2012). The 

DRECP LUPA Preferred Alternative may alter 

Riverside East SEZ by establishing new ACEC 

designations on a small portion of the SEZ. 

Environmental Justice 

According to Presidential Executive Order 

12898, General Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, fair treatment means that no group 

of people, including any racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic group, should bear a 

disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, 

local, and tribal programs and policies. The goal 

of this “fair treatment” is not to shift risks among 

populations, but to identify potentially 

disproportionately high and adverse effects and 

identify alternatives that may mitigate these 

impacts (EPA 1995). Low-income populations 

are identified by comparing incomes with 

Bureau of the Census annual statistical poverty 

thresholds. For 2014, the poverty threshold for 

a family of four is approximately $25,000/year 

(US Census Bureau 2015b). The median income 

Riverside County, while lower than the median 

income in California, is not near the poverty 

threshold. Minority populations are also in 

Riverside County, totaling more than half of the 

county residents (Southern California 

Association of Governments 2015a, 2015b). 

Desert Center has a lower minority population 

than the broader county, but higher poverty 

levels (U.S Census Bureau 2015c). 

A boundary adjustment would not create 

disproportionately high and/or adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minorities or 

low-income populations and communities. 

Joshua Tree National Park currently charges an 

entrance fee and collects fees for camping and 

these fees would automatically apply to new 

park areas. The park entrance fee is $20 for 

vehicles, or $10 for visitors arriving by 

motorcycle, bicycle or on foot. Currently, there 

is no entrance fee to access BLM-managed land. 

However, without access to the study area from 

Desert Center or Interstate 10, visitors would 

access the study area via Black Eagle Mine Road, 

as they do currently. This unimproved fourwheel drive road begins in Joshua Tree National 

Park, and users of this road already purchase a 

yearly pass or pay the daily park entrance fee. 

Further, if entrance and camping fees were to be 

charge in newly added areas, these expenses 

would apply to all visitors and would not 

disproportionately affect minorities or low 

income populations or communities. 

The park staff and planning team actively 

solicited public participation as part of the 

planning process and gave equal consideration 

to input from all people regardless of age, race, 

income status, or other socioeconomic or 

demographic factors. Adverse socioeconomic 

impacts from the action alternatives are not 

expected to be particularly noticeable because 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

171 

the action alternatives would not require the 

closure of any commercial operations in the 

study area. Moreover, there may be some 

financial benefits to adjacent communities 

associated with increased potential for 

additional recreational and educational 

opportunities in the areas (see the Visitor 

Opportunities and Access analysis below). 

Expansion of the park boundary in particular 

could result in economic benefits to Desert 

Center and the surrounding area. 

Human Health and Safety 

As stated in the Feasibility analysis in Chapter 2, 

and the Affected Environment in Chapter 4, a 

number of safety hazards and hazardous 

substances could be present within the study 

area, but the extent of any such hazards has not 

been fully documented. Risks to human health 

and safety associated with private property at the 

Eagle Mountain Mine are currently low because 

public access is prohibited and there is no 

known contamination emanating from the mine. 

Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC (KEM) is also 

required to comply with the reclamation plan for 

the Eagle Mountain Mine, which addresses 

hazardous conditions. In general, the 

reclamation plan would allow KEM to leave 

tailings piles and mining pits at their natural 

angle of repose and require the placement of 

safety berms around the pits. Most of the BLM 

land within the study area is undisturbed and 

unlikely to contain hazardous materials due to 

its remote location. The Department of Interior 

policy requires the assessment of real property 

for environmental liabilities prior to acquisition. 

Prior to accepting a transfer of lands, the NPS 

would conduct a Level 1 environmental site 

assessment that identifies potential or existing 

environmental liabilities associated with the 

underlying land and any physical improvements 

to the property. A Phase 2 “Focused Site 

Assessment” and additional studies would be 

completed if deemed necessary. If areas are 

contaminated, NPS would work to ensure that 

responsible parties undertake all necessary and 

appropriate removal and remedial actions. 

The alternatives differ in terms of the amount of 

disturbed land and the extent of man-made 

hazards that could be added to the park. 

Alternatives B and C could bring abandoned 

mine lands into the park boundary, while 

Alternative D could also add private lands 

previously used for open pit mining to the park 

(if acquired through purchase or donation). 

Buildings in the Townsite, which could also be 

included in the park boundary under Alternative 

D, could contain hazardous materials that 

require remediation. 

None of the alternatives would create any new 

hazards. Any health and safety requirements 

associated with NPS management of properties 

added to the park that are above and beyond 

those required of responsible parties would be a 

component of any future project or planning 

that the NPS may undertake for the area. 

Further, this topic is not a point of contention 

among the public or other agencies, nor are 

there potentially significant impacts to resources 

associated with the issue. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Activities carried out on park lands may 

sometimes affect tribal trust resources. Trust 

resources are those natural resources reserved 

by or for Indian tribes through treaties, statutes, 

judicial decisions, and executive orders, which 

are protected by a fiduciary obligation on the 

part of the United States. In accordance with the 

government-to-government relationship and 

mutually established protocols, the NPS will 

interact directly with tribal governments 

regarding the potential impacts of proposed 

NPS activities on Indian tribes and trust 

resources. The NPS has determined that there 

are no Indian Trust Resources in the study area, 

so this subject is not discussed further. 

However, Native American tribes have 

numerous deep associations with land within the 

study area; these are addressed in the Cultural 

Resources Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences sections. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

172 

Geology 

Geology of the study area contributes to 

impressive desert viewsheds and is an important 

part of the significance of Joshua Tree National 

Park. Unique geological features (such as 

monzogranite boulder formations) found in 

Joshua Tree National Park are not expected to 

be as prevalent in the study area. 

Implementation of any action alternative would 

be beneficial to geology. The action alternatives 

would all provide protection for important 

geological resources and regulate activities that 

cause adverse effects. Protection and 

preservation of geologic resources would be a 

component of any future projects or planning 

that the NPS may undertake for the area. 

Research could be completed to determine 

presence of special geologic features, and 

resources would be protected. 

Paleontology 

The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, 

signed into law as part of the Omnibus Public 

Lands Management Act of 2009, requires federal 

agencies to inventory, monitor, and protect 

paleontological resources on federal land. A 

change in the park boundary itself would not 

result in any subsurface disturbance, and as 

such, paleontological resources would not be 

affected by any of the action alternatives under 

consideration. Under NPS management, each of 

the alternatives would lead to enhanced 

protection of the fossil resources on federal 

land. NPS management would preserve and 

protect these resources to a greater degree than 

they are currently since rock/fossil collection 

and minor ground disturbances are permitted 

under BLM management. Further, protection of 

fossil resources would be considered and 

addressed as part of any future planning for 

projects on NPS managed land. The effects of a 

boundary adjustment on fossils are not 

controversial and there is little variation across 

the alternatives. A detailed analysis is not 

necessary to determine the effects of the 

different alternatives or to make a reasoned 

choice among alternatives. This topic has 

therefore been dismissed from further analysis. 

Soundscapes 

In Alternatives B and C, the park boundary 

would be closer to the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project, a potential noise 

source. Mining could occur where there are 

existing valid rights, which could generate some 

noise. Noise from potential renewable energy 

developments or large scale mining on BLM 

land would not be permitted if BLM lands are 

transferred to the NPS. If private lands in the 

study area are donated to or purchased with 

donated funds for the NPS, the soundscape 

would be better protected because noiseproducing activities related to industrial and 

private uses at the mine site would be reduced. 

Future management of the land and new uses 

would be determined by additional planning and 

NEPA processes, so additional noise impacts 

association with future park activities cannot be 

fully assessed at this time. Any project 

undertaken by the NPS would contain 

mitigation to reduce noise sources and preserve 

the natural soundscape. 

Vegetation and Special Status Vegetation 

Species 

Vegetation, including species status species, 

could be preserved and protected under all of 

the action alternatives, with the degree of 

protection increased as more land is added to 

the park boundary. Under NPS management, 

research, monitoring, and restoration of plant 

communities could occur. Larger areas of 

protected land could help improve resilience of 

vegetation communities and as communities are 

impacted by the effects of climate change. There 

is a possibility that changes in visitor use could 

result in the spread of non-native, invasive 

plants, but overall, the NPS would be better able 

to control invasive species through inventory 

and monitoring programs, confining visitor use 

to certain areas, and improved resilience. Any 

future projects on new NPS managed land (e.g., 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

173 

campgrounds) would consider effects to 

vegetation, and avoid, reduce or mitigate any 

adverse effects to the greatest extent possible. 

Assessment of effects to vegetation is therefore 

not critical to making a choice among 

alternatives, and not discussed further. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires 

federal agencies to avoid, minimize and mitigate 

impacts to wetlands. Executive Order 11990, 

NPS Management Policies 2006, and Director’s 

Order 77-1 (Wetland Protection), all direct the 

NPS to protect and preserve wetlands and 

wetland functions and values. These directives 

further state that impacts to wetlands will be 

avoided whenever there are practicable 

alternatives. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management, requires an examination of 

impacts to floodplains and potential risk 

involved in placing facilities within floodplains. 

NPS Management Policies 2006, and Director’s 

Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management Guideline) 

provides guidelines for proposals that occur in 

floodplains (NPS 2006, NPS 2003). None of the 

action alternatives call for the construction of 

facilities. 

No wetlands are known to be present on the 

public lands in the study area. Some may exist 

near the settling ponds on private land, east of 

the Townsite which are depicted on the 

National Wetlands Inventory (see Map 5-1, 

Wetlands and Floodplains). Floodplains most 

likely exist adjacent to desert washes. The 

action alternatives would not have an effect on 

either wetlands or floodplains because the 

action alternatives do not propose site-specific 

development actions. The NPS would 

undertake additional planning for use of the area 

following a decision on the boundary study. If 

future site-specific development projects could 

impact wetlands or floodplains, an evaluation of 

impacts would be completed at that time. 

Map 5-1: Wetlands and Floodplains 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

174 

Wilderness 

As stated in the Resource Description, there is 

no Congressionally-designated wilderness 

within the study area. Each action alternative has 

the potential to ensure that future uses do not 

impact adjacent wilderness. The NPS could 

work to protect values such as dark night skies, 

soundscape, and natural undeveloped land. 

NPS Management Policies 2006, Chapter 6, 

Wilderness Preservation and Management, 

states that “all NPS lands will be evaluated for 

their eligibility for inclusion within the national 

wilderness preservation system.” Additionally, 

lands that were originally assessed as ineligible 

for wilderness because of nonconforming or 

incompatible uses must be reevaluated if the 

nonconforming uses have been terminated or 

removed. For those lands that possess 

wilderness characteristics, no action would be 

permitted that could diminish their wilderness 

eligibility until a determination on eligibility has 

been made. NPS lands will be considered eligible 

for wilderness if there are at least 5,000 roadless 

acres or are of sufficient size to make practicable 

their preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition, and if they possess the following 

characteristics (as identified in the Wilderness 

Act): 

 The earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by humans, where humans 

are visitors and do not remain. 

 The area is undeveloped and retains its 

primeval character and influence without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation. 

 The area generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of humans’ work 

substantially unnoticeable. 

 The area is protected and managed so as 

to preserve its natural conditions. 

 The area offers outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. 

If areas are added to the national park, 

consideration of any new wilderness areas 

would require a separate wilderness planning 

effort with public involvement that would 

evaluate the area according to the characteristics 

described above. If areas were determined 

eligible for wilderness through further study, 

Congressional designation would be required to 

establish any new wilderness areas. More 

information on NPS wilderness planning can be 

found at http://www.National 

Parks.gov/policy/mp/chapter6.htm or 

www.wilderness.net. See Map 2-4: Wilderness 

and Roadless Areas. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

175 

Impact Topic Analysis 

During the course of public scoping and early 

internal NPS planning, it became apparent that a 

number of issues were critical to the analysis of 

the boundary alternatives. They include: 

cultural resources, land use, mineral resources, 

park operations, recreational opportunities and 

access, socioeconomics, visual resources, water, 

and wildlife and special status wildlife species. 

The analysis for each subject follows below. 

Mineral Resources 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

Alternative A would have no impacts on mineral 

resources in the study area because there would 

be no changes to the NPS/BLM boundary or in 

land management. Extractive mineral activities 

on BLM-managed lands would continue as they 

exist today except to the extent modified by 

BLM through the DRECP (See cumulative 

effects below). All active existing mining claims 

would be retained by current owners. There 

would be no change to the availability or 

opportunity for mineral extraction on state, 

local, or private land because there would be no 

changes to management or ownership of that 

land. The No Action alternative would also have 

no effect on future mining operations at the 

Eagle Mountain Mine because the private lands 

over which the Eagle Mountain Mining and 

Railroad company (EMMR) holds above ground 

mining rights (as per the mine’s Interim 

Management Plan and agreement with KEM) on 

lands that would remain in private ownership. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A 

If the NPS boundary was not moved, mineral 

extraction would be permitted according to the 

proposed land use designations in the DRECP. 

The DRECP proposes to designate 

approximately 12,500 acres as national 

conservation lands (NCL). If these designations 

are adopted, there could be some new 

restrictions to mineral extraction. The DRECP’s 

1% disturbance cap in the western section of the 

study area could affect mineral extraction 

activities on existing unpatented mining claims. 

The disturbance cap is a limitation on grounddisturbing activities in NCLs and ACECs and is 

expressed as a percentage of the total BLM 

managed NCL and/or ACEC acreage, and 

cumulatively considers past, present, and future 

(proposed activity) disturbance. The DRECP 

states that much of the LUPA Decision Area is 

below target levels (i.e., caps) of ground 

disturbance, so the limitations are possible, but 

expected to be small. Development of new 

access roads to private parcels could also be 

limited due to the disturbance cap. 

The DRECP, Chapter IV.15, states that “existing 

mineral rights and mining activities could be 

moderately to severely restricted by disturbance 

caps and other restrictions imposed within 

conservation lands.” At this time, the degree of 

impact to mineral activities within the study area 

can only be assessed at the programmatic level 

because the DRECP did not provide details on 

where mineral exploration would be restricted. 

Further, the DRECP’s adverse impacts analysis 

relates to the DRECP’s 22 million acre planning 

area. It does not specifically address the 

boundary study area in detail. Site specific 

information would only become available when 

the BLM creates implementation plans for each 

NCL designation. The DRECP states that BLM 

would consider mining on NCL lands on a caseby-case, geographic specific area basis, in 

coordination with tribes, county(s) or other 

partners. It also states that active mining claims, 

including placer claims, lode claims, and mill 

sites, and existing authorized mineral and energy 

operations would be allowable within 

conservation areas, and unpatented mining 

claims would be maintained as existing rights. 

On 11,000 acres of DRECP land proposed as 

unallocated, minerals would still be available for 

mining according to applicable governing laws 

and regulations. According to the DRECP, 

unallocated Lands are BLM-administered lands 

that do not have an existing or proposed land 

allocation or designation. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

176 

The limitations resulting from the DRECP 

disturbance cap, possible development on 

unallocated land, and other renewable energy 

projects listed in Table 5-1: Projects in the 

Cumulative Impact Scenario could cumulatively 

reduce the amount of land available for mineral 

extraction. 

All federal land in the three new national 

monuments is withdrawn from mineral entry 

(extraction) and patent under the mining laws, 

and from disposition under all laws relating to 

mineral and geothermal leasing. This would 

result in the inability to stake new mining claims 

on the 1.6 million acres of federal land 

designated as national monuments. There would 

be no cumulative impacts to valid existing rights. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

Impacts to new mining activities on federal 

land 

Alternative B would have adverse impacts on the 

availability and opportunity for both large and 

small scale locatable mineral extraction from 

BLM lands in the study area because the transfer 

to NPS management would withdraw the lands 

from new mining. This withdrawal applies to 

casual use mining (rockhounding), exploration 

requiring claims and extraction of minerals for 

commercial use or sale. During public scoping, 

the NPS heard from visitors and members of 

mining clubs about the importance of mining in 

the Eagle Mountain area. This withdrawal would 

be negative for people wishing to stake new 

mining claims in the study area. For others, the 

withdrawal from new mining may be perceived 

as a benefit because the land, which is important 

habitat for plant and animal species, would be 

preserved and protected from the ground 

disturbance associated with larger scale mining. 

The loss of the study area to new mining claims 

is somewhat tempered by the fact that existing 

unpatented mining rights would be retained (see 

Impacts to existing claims on federal land below) 

and the fact that there are extensive minerals in 

other areas of California (BLM 2015a). There 

are many areas are available for small scale 

mining on BLM or U.S. Forest Service land, 

within a one to three hour drive of the study 

area. 

The withdrawal is not expected to significantly 

affect new commercial mining because there are 

many other high potential mineral areas within 

California (BLM 2015a). Further, no large scale 

mining operations have been proposed in the 

study area since Eagle Mountain Mine ceased 

full scale operations in 1983. And although 

pockets of high grade minerals could exist, 

metallic minerals in the study area are likely 

present in small volumes and low to medium 

grade (Powell et. al. 1984). A mineral potential 

report is underway. 

Further, the economic viability of any future 

commercial mining in the area is dependent on 

the global supply and demand for minerals as 

well as the cost to transport extracted materials 

off-site (BLM 1993, Sonoran Institute 2015). 

There are existing barriers to transportation in 

the Eagle Mountain area, as the railroad is in 

need of extensive repairs. In addition, there are 

several other active sources of iron in the U.S. 

Over 15 million metric tons of iron ore was 

produced in 2014 from mines in Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Utah (worth $5.1 billion) 

(Sonoran Institute 2015). 

The presence of rare earth minerals in the study 

area is expected to be very limited (Powell et. al. 

1984). Since the process of extracting rare earth 

minerals is labor and resource-intensive, mining 

them in the study area would likely be financially 

infeasible. The U.S.’s only rare earth mine in the 

Mojave Desert ceased mining in 2002 because of 

global economic factors; today, at least 96% of 

rare earth minerals are produced in China (DOE 

2011). The availability of public lands for 

mineral exploration and mining has a much 

smaller influence on mining activity than these 

regional and global economic forces (Sonoran 

Institute 2015). 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

177 

Impacts to existing claims on federal land 

There would minimal impacts to the six active 

unpatented mining claims because they would 

remain under BLM jurisdiction in Alternative B. 

Mining would continue in accordance with 

BLM regulations and the General Mining Law of 

1872, as amended. Access to those unpatented 

claims across NPS-managed lands would require 

the claimants to obtain a permit from the NPS 

under 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A (because access 

to mining claims is governed by those 

regulations). Prior to issuing an access permit, 

the NPS would assess the environmental impacts 

of the type and frequency of the requested 

access across park land. This is not a change 

from the existing situation, because claimants 

should currently be obtaining an NPS permit to 

cross the lands already managed by NPS. 

There are another 460 unpatented mining and 

millsite claims owned by Kaiser Eagle Mountain, 

LLC in the study area (KEM is a subsidiary of 

the Eagle Crest Energy Company). Many of 

these claims are outside the footprint of the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project and would therefore be transferred to 

NPS under this Alternative B. Eagle Crest has 

stated that it does not intend to conduct mining 

operations on its unpatented mining claims. 

Eagle Crest has also discussed donating 

unpatented mining and millsite claims outside 

the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project area footprint to the NPS. 

Eagle Crest has entered into a Mining Lease 

Agreement with EMMR under which EMMR is 

allowed to conduct above-ground mining for 

rock and aggregate on patented and unpatented 

claims within the study area. Most of the rock 

and aggregate is located on KEM’s patented 

lands which are unaffected by Alternative B. In 

the unlikely event that Eagle Crest or EMMR 

wishes to conduct mining activities on 

unpatented claims outside the pump storage 

area footprint, they would need to comply with 

the regulations in 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, 

which require a plan of operations, similar to the 

plans of operation required by BLM. This 

would not constitute a substantial change 

because BLM has already approved a plan of 

operations for the Eagle Mountain Mine. 

Transfer of the lands underlying these claims 

would also trigger the requirement for a validity 

examination under the Mining in the Parks Act. 

The validity determination process could delay 

mining activities on these claims, and any claims 

that were invalid could not be mined. 

Impacts to mining on private and state land 

Similar to Alternative A, there would be no effect 

on current mining operations on patented 

mining claims at the Eagle Mountain Mine 

because patented lands would not be included in 

the expanded boundary under Alternative B. 

Therefore, EMMR could continue to conduct 

above ground mining activities (as per the mine’s 

Interim Management Plan (2013) and agreement 

with KEM) on all patented claims. Most of the 

above ground rock material that EMMR is 

allowed to process under its lease with Eagle 

Crest is located on patented mining claims. 

There would be no effect to the availability or 

opportunity for mineral extraction on state, 

local, or other private land because there would 

be no changes to management or ownership of 

this land. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

The DRECP, combined with Alternative B, 

could result in an additional loss of areas 

available for mineral extraction due to 

disturbance caps, the application of the Mining 

in the Parks Act, and other restrictions in nearby 

and adjacent conservation areas. The degree of 

cumulative impact in the study area is small from 

a state-wide perspective because there are many 

other areas available for mining in California and 

the BLM lands in the study area outside of the 

Eagle Mountain Mine are expected to contain 

relatively small volumes of low to medium grade 

minerals (Powell et. al. 1984). 

Past and future renewable energy projects, 

described in Table 5-1: Projects in the Cumulative 

Impact Scenario create more access restrictions, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

178 

which result in fewer areas that are available for 

mining. The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project would further remove 

minerals from future extraction. The Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

states the potential economic value of 

recoverable iron ore at Eagle Mountain Mine 

that would become inaccessible in the east and 

central pits once the project is constructed and 

operational would be between $8 and $13 

billion. Private land would not be in the park 

boundary and therefore not subject to NPS 

regulations or restrictions. 

Alternative B, combined with the restrictions in 

the three newly designed national monuments 

would have adverse cumulative impacts on the 

opportunity for both large and small scale 

locatable mineral extraction from federal land 

because the national monument land is 

withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Impacts to new mining activities on federal 

land 

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative C would 

withdraw the lands from new mining claims. 

This is an adverse impact to mineral extraction, 

but considered insignificant for same reasons 

listed above for Alternative B. As described in 

the analysis for Alternative B, Alternative C is 

not expected to affect the overall supply of 

minerals available in the United States. 

Impacts on active claims on federal land

Compared to Alternative B, Alternative C would 

also result in additional adverse impacts to 

mineral extraction because the six unpatented 

mining claims that would remain under BLM 

management under Alternative B would be 

transferred to NPS management under 

Alternative C. A transfer of the lands containing 

these unpatented mining claims to NPS 

management would negatively impact mineral 

extraction activities on these unpatented mining 

claims because these claims have never 

undergone a validity determination. The Mining 

in the Parks Act requires unpatented mining 

claims to undergo a validity determination 

before mining activities can occur. This process 

might deter, or be too onerous or financially 

infeasible, for miners. If the claims were found 

valid, claimants would also need to comply with 

the regulations in 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, 

which includes submission and NPS approval of 

a plan of operations. The impact of the Mining 

in the Parks Act may be slightly lessened due to 

the NPS regulatory provision that would allow 

the claimants to receive temporary NPS 

approval to continue developing the minerals on 

their claims during the validity exam and plan 

review/decision process. Alternatively, miners 

could seek to sell their claims to a third party for 

fair market value that would then donate the 

property to the NPS. Other nearby areas, such 

as the Dale District north of the park, could 

continue to be available for mining, dependent 

on the site-specific DRECP implementation 

plans. Alternative C would have the same 

impacts on the 460 unpatented mining claims 

owned by KEM that are outside the pump 

storage project footprint as discussed for 

Alternative B. 

Impacts to mining on private and state land

Similar to Alternative A, there would be no effect 

on current mining operations on patented 

mining claims at the Eagle Mountain Mine 

because patented lands would not be included in 

the expanded boundary under Alternative C. 

There would be no effect to the availability or 

opportunity for mineral development on local 

land or private lands within Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project footprint 

because there would be no changes to 

management or ownership of these areas. 

Mineral extraction could also be affected on 

approximately 2,230 acres of privately-owned 

lands and approximately 325 acres of state lands 

west of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project footprint, once these 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

179 

lands are transferred to NPS management. A 

future transfer of KEM’s privately owned lands 

west of the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project footprint area would only 

occur following KEM’s donation of those lands 

to the NPS. A transfer of state lands could result 

from a voluntary exchange of lands between the 

State and the U.S. The impact from a cessation 

of mining on these 2,555 acres is expected to be 

small because no large scale commercial mining 

activity occurs now and there are no plans to 

conduct future large scale mining activities. 

As in Alternative B, there would be no effect to 

the availability or opportunity for mineral 

extraction on other state, local, or other private 

land because there would be no changes to 

management or ownership of this land. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative effects of Alternative C are 

similar to Alternative B. The degree of adverse 

cumulative impact would be slightly greater for 

Alternative C because of the additional impacts 

to the owners of the six unpatented mining 

claims and the impacts to mineral extraction on 

patented and unpatented claims outside the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project area footprint owned by KEM. 

Alternative B, combined with the restrictions in 

the three newly designed national monuments 

would have adverse cumulative impacts on the 

opportunity for both large and small scale 

locatable mineral extraction from federal land 

because the national monument land is 

withdrawn from mineral entry. The national 

monuments are subject to valid existing rights. 

Since Castle Mountains National Monument 

would be managed by the National Park Service, 

owners of unpatented claims would be required 

to undergo a validity determination and plan of 

operations in accordance with the Mining in the 

Parks Act. Mining could only occur if the claims 

were found valid. The impact of the Mining in 

the Parks Act may be slightly lessened due to the 

NPS regulatory provision that would allow 

claimants to receive temporary NPS approval to 

continue developing the minerals on their claims 

during the validity exam and plan 

review/decision process. Application of the 

Mining in the Parks Act to these claims would 

constitute an adverse cumulative impact, further 

deterring the mining of these unpatented claims. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

The impacts from Alternative D would be similar 

to Alternative C in the short-term and 

potentially for many years. Mining conducted 

by EMMR or Eagle Crest on patented and 

unpatented claims within the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project footprint 

could continue for decades if either company 

deems such activities to be worthwhile. Mining 

activities would only cease on lands within the 

FERC licensed area following donation to, or a 

third party sale and donation to, the NPS. 

However, if Eagle Crest deemed these lands 

more valuable for mineral development, Eagle 

Crest could seek to retain them for that use. 

The effects of this alternative on the 

development of mineral resources on lands 

within the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project footprint will depend on 

factors within Eagle Crest/KEM’s business 

discretion and on FERC’s future licensing 

decisions. This alternative however presents a 

long term vision for Joshua Tree National Park. 

Over time and assuming that mining activities on 

these lands are no longer economical, more land 

would eventually become unavailable for 

mineral development as state, local or other 

private lands are transferred to NPS either 

through donation or purchase and donation 

from third parties. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

The adverse cumulative effects of Alternative D 

are similar to Alternative C, except that there 

would be even less land available for mineral 

extraction over the long term. This would result 

in fewer areas available for mineral extraction, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

180 

but would preserve remaining minerals in-place 

within the study area in perpetuity. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

There could be a negative effect on groundwater 

supply with the No Action alternative. If BLM 

were to continue as the land management 

agency, renewable energy projects that require 

water could be approved for the study area 

under current land management classifications. 

These projects could require water from the 

Chuckwalla Valley aquifer. The drawdown of 

the Chuckwalla Valley aquifer has the potential 

to affect the water resources of the Pinto aquifer 

because the two aquifers are hydraulically 

connected (Woodward 1998). The extent of the 

impact would depend on the water needs of the 

particular project(s). The location of the 

groundwater basins is shown on Map 4-4: Water 

Resources. 

If renewable energy projects were approved in 

the future, they could potentially impact both 

the quantity and timing of groundwater 

recharge. Impacts from operations and 

maintenance include potential groundwater 

contamination, interference with recharge, 

depletion of groundwater levels and storage, and 

other water quality impacts. Improper handling 

or containment of hazardous materials could 

disperse contaminants to soil and impact 

groundwater quality. Installation of water supply 

wells can adversely affect groundwater levels 

and storage volumes. Improperly abandoned 

wells could also create adverse impacts. 

Surface waters are limited to occasional flow in 

ephemeral streams/creeks. Impacts to other 

perennial rivers and stream would be small due 

to the absence of a hydrological connection. 

However, construction activities such as 

grading, vegetation clearing for equipment and 

operations, and temporary or permanent 

changes to the landscape could increase the 

likelihood of flooding or adverse drainage 

effects. 

Water use associated with the Townsite would 

continue more or less at current levels. Most 

current uses are nominal and include the school 

(with 20 students and a small faculty) and a few 

private homes. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

All development projects listed in Table 5-1: 

Projects in Cumulative Impact Scenario have the 

potential to create additional adverse cumulative 

impacts to regional water resources. For 

example, the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project could create 

adverse cumulative impacts, particularly if other 

water-intensive projects within the same 

area/groundwater basin were to be constructed 

while it was in operation. The Riverside East 

Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) and Development 

Focus Areas proposed in the DRECP LUPA are 

within the Chuckwalla Valley water basin (see 

Map 4-4: Water Resources). Existing and 

proposed development in the SEZ, together with 

the water requirements for the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, the 

existing Desert Sunlight solar farm, nearby 

agriculture, and other future renewable energy 

projects could all further deplete groundwater 

supplies in the Chuckwalla basin and potentially 

the Pinto Valley Groundwater Basin. Excessive 

use of groundwater in one water basin could 

have adverse effects on adjacent areas. 

Once in operation, the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project would be the 

largest water user in the study area. Water to 

initially fill the reservoirs would total 24,200 

acre-feet [AF] (almost eight billion gallons) and 

annual water to replace the water lost through 

evaporation or seepage would be 2,300 acre feet 

(750 million gallons) (FERC 2012). The Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

states that this water would either be pumped 

from groundwater within the Chuckwalla Valley 

basin or will be purchased from outside the 

basin and transferred to the project through the 

Colorado River Aqueduct. The NPS has 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

181 

encouraged the Eagle Crest Energy Company to 

line the reservoirs to reduce the amount of water 

lost through seepage. Use of the Eagle 

Mountain Mine for the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project has the potential 

to have adverse effects associated with acid mine 

drainage, resulting in impacts to water quality, 

particularly if the reservoirs are not lined. The 

potential for acid mine drainage at the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project has not yet been determined and lining 

of the reservoirs is not a requirement of the 

FERC license. The FEIS contains 21 mitigation 

measures aimed at protecting water, and 

protecting the supply of groundwater, such as 

groundwater monitoring. For full list of 

mitigations and analysis, see the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project FEIS, 

Section 3.3.2.2. 

The State Water Resources Control Board 

issued a Final Water Quality Certification 

(WQC) for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project, and was the lead state 

agency on an Environmental Impact Report for 

the project (required for a WQC). The Final 

WQC estimated that the Chuckwalla Valley 

Groundwater Basin contains between 9 and 15 

million acre-feet AF of recoverable water and 

determined that the Chuckwalla aquifer was not 

at risk. The WQC concluded that the project 

“would extract approximately 110,000 acre feet 

of groundwater over the 50-year FERC license, 

which is estimated to be less than one percent of 

the total amount of recoverable groundwater in 

storage in the Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater 

Basin (SWQCB 2013).” 

If the DRECP LUPA’s NCL and ACEC 

designations are approved, there would be a 

beneficial effect on water resources since 

renewable energy development would be 

prohibited in conservation areas. All other 

allowable land uses in these areas must also be 

compatible with protecting resources, 

particularly water. Renewable energy projects 

could still be approved for the unallocated land, 

and those projects could also negatively affect 

the supply and recharge of groundwater. 

Designation of conservation areas in the DRECP 

and from the establishment of the new national 

monuments would offset some of these adverse 

cumulative impacts to water resources. This is 

due to the fact that water intensive development 

would be curtailed or prohibited in these areas. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, groundwater resources 

would be preserved to a greater degree than the 

No Action alternative. In this scenario, the 

majority of the study area would be protected 

from uses that could draw down the 

groundwater in the Pinto Valley and Chuckwalla 

Valley aquifers. Future NPS management of 

over 22,000 acres of former BLM land would 

prioritize water conservation. Impacts to water 

resources from the Townsite would remain the 

same as under Alternative A, but overall, 

Alternative B would result in increased benefits 

to water resources due to the conservation of 

additional land. Implementation of Alternative 

B would also protect the surface water quality of 

ephemeral streams on land transferred from 

BLM to NPS, since there would be less ground 

disturbance and construction following transfer. 

Water use on private, state, and local land would 

continue as it does currently. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those 

described under No Action. However, the 

degree of adverse impact would be slightly less 

under Alternative B, because there would be no 

other large scale water consumptive 

development projects allowed on the 22,000 

acres of BLM that would be transferred to NPS 

under this alternative. As such, Alternative B 

would benefit water resources associated with 

22,000 acres of BLM land more than the No 

Action alternative. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

182 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Effects from Alternative C would be the similar 

to Alternative B, except that the benefits would 

be slighter greater. This increased benefit is due 

to the additional 2,230 acres of privately owned 

lands and 325 acres of State lands west of the 

FERC license that would be transferred to NPS. 

Under NPS management, water use would be 

reduced and overall, water resources would be 

protected. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

Cumulative impacts would be similar those 

described under No Action. However, the 

degree of adverse impact would be slightly less 

than Alternative B, because additional land 

would be protected under NPS management and 

intensive water use would not be permitted in on 

an additional 3,000 acres.

Impacts from Alternative D 

If fully implemented, Alternative D would result 

in the greatest benefits to water resources over 

time because the entire study area would be 

managed by the NPS and large scale industrial 

uses would have ceased. Eventually, as private 

land is brought into the boundary, industrial 

water uses would be eliminated which would 

ultimately reduce withdrawals from the 

underlying aquifers. Of particular importance, if 

the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project area is donated or 

purchased for the NPS, it could be 

decommissioned and the associated yearly water 

withdrawals from the aquifers would cease. Any 

future NPS development of land in the study 

area would seek to reduce or avoid adverse 

impacts to water resources. The NPS would 

ensure that water conservation is included in all 

future facility and park planning. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

Over the long-term, implementation of 

Alternative D could offset the impacts to 

regional groundwater resources. If at some 

point in the future the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project is 

decommissioned, NPS could seek to acquire the 

property. If these areas are acquired, the 

potential for water usage would be greatly 

reduced throughout the entire study area. Water 

would still be withdrawn for projects outside of 

the NPS boundary (such as nearby 

developments in the SEZ and Development 

Focus Area; Desert Sunlight solar farm; or 

nearby agriculture), but the highest withdrawal 

from the Chuckwalla Valley aquifer, associated 

with the pump storage project, would end. 

Additional cumulative benefits would occur to 

water resources due to the increased areas 

protected for resource conservation associated 

with the three new national monuments. 

Overall, Alternative D would result in beneficial 

cumulative effects to water resources. 

Wildlife and Special Status Wildlife 

Species 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, management 

of wildlife species would continue as it does 

today. BLM provides protection of special 

status species in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act and other federal laws 

and regulations. However, adverse impacts to 

wildlife and special status wildlife species are still 

possible. Under BLM management, large scale 

mining or alternative energy projects, including 

the Eagle Crest Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project, could be approved and 

constructed within the study area. Any 

construction or ongoing industrial operations 

has the potential for numerous, long term, 

severe, adverse impacts to individual animals, 

health of wildlife populations and the possibility 

for landscape-scale conservation. General 

impacts from this type of development and 

activity follow below. 

Construction, operation, and access to 

renewable energy projects could remove and/or 

alter vegetation and result in the direct mortality 

of wildlife species and/or their habitat. Ground 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

183 

disturbance could also impact burrows for 

burrowing owls, badger and/or fox. Removal of 

vegetation would degrade habitat. Construction 

undermines soil stability, creating erosion and 

affecting the rate that water reaches plants; this 

could affect the ability of an area to support 

native plant and wildlife species (BLM 2015a). 

The construction of paved and unpaved roads 

associated with development can be particularly 

harmful to wildlife. Roads contribute both to 

direct morality of wildlife species from road kill 

and more indirect effects from the presence of 

traffic and introduction of invasive species 

(Brooks et. al. 2005, Lovich and Ennen 2011). 

Direct impacts by vehicles are a known cause of 

mortality for desert tortoise (Boarman and 

Sazaki 2006). Roads and the presence of 

renewable energy operations fragment habitat. 

Habitat fragmentation would adversely impact 

the species through limiting dispersal and 

genetic exchange, limiting movement within a 

population for wide-ranging species, and 

limiting or impairing the ability of the species to 

respond to the effects of climate change (Groom 

et al. 2006). 

Structures associated with renewable energy 

projects could be hazardous to wildlife, 

particularly birds. Collisions with wind turbines, 

power towers, or other such structures cause 

death of bird and bat species when individuals 

strike the equipment. Several sensitive raptor 

species, including prairie falcon and golden 

eagle, could be harmed if there are active nests 

near construction sites; loud staccato noises and 

vehicle noise could disrupt nesting and/or cause 

nest abandonment. Transmission lines 

associated with development pose another set of 

detrimental, adverse, and long-term impacts to 

wildlife. Birds could collide with the lines and 

become injured or electrocuted. Lines and poles 

create perches from which ravens prey on other 

birds’ eggs and nestlings, small and medium size 

mammals, amphibians, and reptiles (BLM 

2015a). 

These developments also contribute to 

population isolation, edge effects, species 

invasions, and alteration or degradation of 

ecological processes Noise, night lighting and 

glare could disorient nocturnal wildlife or may 

attract or repel certain species (Longcore and 

Rich 2004). The noise may deter bighorn sheep 

from using the area. Increased road traffic 

through desert tortoise habitat will increase 

chances of road mortalities from vehicles. 

Predator avoidance behavior may cause wildlife 

to suffer stress and reduced feeding as they 

attempt to avoid humans and manmade objects. 

The presence of humans and pets serve as a 

vector for the spread of disease. Use of 

rodenticides and other pesticides could result in 

direct adverse effects to wildlife species (BLM 

2015a). 

In addition to injury and death of individual 

species, development or mining through the 

middle of the boundary study area could have 

potentially significant adverse impacts to wildlife 

movement across the landscape and result in 

habitat fragmentation effects, population 

isolation, inbreeding, genetic drift, and increase 

the likelihood of local extinctions. This is 

especially applicable to bighorn sheep and 

desert tortoise, two species with habitat 

corridors located in the study area (see Map 2-2: 

Desert Tortoise Habitat Connectivity). More 

effects to bighorn sheep and tortoises, which are 

vulnerable to habitat fragmentation, are 

discussed below. 

Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). Any 

construction, ongoing energy operation or 

mining through the study area has the potential 

to create serious impacts to this iconic species. 

There are two groups of bighorn that inhabit the 

park and use the study area, particularly near the 

privately owned parcels associated with the 

Eagle Mountain Mine; this area serves as a 

biological corridor for the two groups (see Map 

2-3: Bighorn Sheep Habitat Connectivity). Several 

recent and important peer reviewed studies 

found that the two groups of bighorn do indeed 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

184 

mix and that there is a movement corridor that 

traverses the private lands (Bleich et al. 2009, 

Creech et al. in press, Divine 1998, Epps et al. 

2007, Epps et al. 2010). These populations are 

relatively unique because there is not only 

genetic evidence of successful and important 

dispersal between the herds (Epps et al. 2007; 

Creech et al. in press) but there is also additional 

radio-telemetry data that supports movement 

through that area (Divine and Douglas 1996; 

Divine 1998). Connectivity based on the least 

resistance models of Epps et al. (2007) and 

telemetry data (Divine and Douglas 1996, Divine 

1998) show that the primary route of movement 

between these areas is located through the areas 

where the reservoirs would be located for the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project. In addition, research has shown that 

desert bighorn will avoid a wide range of roads 

in this region, from freeways to off-road vehicle 

trails (Bleich et al. 2009). Barriers (i.e., 

development projects, mines, highways) can 

eliminate gene flow between populations, which 

can have devastating harmful effects and 

potentially contribute to extinction of these 

local populations. 

Bighorn sheep currently move through the study 

area, and appear to have adapted to the heavily 

disturbed mined landscape. This landscape has 

been mostly inactive with very little human 

presence, noise, vehicles or other humaninduced disturbances for over 30 years. It is 

unknown how bighorn sheep would adapt to 

new roads, operations, construction or mining 

in the area; they could acclimate to the noise, 

alter foraging and/or breeding behavior, or 

abandon the area altogether, which would have 

the serious impacts noted above. 

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The vast 

majority of threats to the desert tortoise or its 

habitat are associated with human land uses 

(USFWS 2011a). Alternative A would allow the 

greatest potential for future development 

projects or other disturbances in the study area, 

compared to the action alternatives. 

Construction in the area would most likely 

involve the use of heavy machinery, road 

grading, vegetation removal, and vehicle traffic. 

These activities have the potential to destroy 

desert tortoise burrows, increasing stress to 

individuals or potentially causing death if 

burrows are occupied at the time of collapse. 

Tortoises often seek shelter under vegetation or 

other structures that provide shade from the 

desert sun. Clearing vegetation, where tortoises 

shelter from the sun, could harm them. 

Tortoises lying under construction equipment 

could also be killed. 

There could also be substantial permanent 

impacts to tortoises on a local and regional level. 

These impacts are due to the fact that some of 

the unallocated land contains valuable and 

important tortoise habitat (Nussear 2009). This 

habitat provides one of the only connections of 

desert tortoise habitat between the highly 

protected habitats in Joshua Tree National Park 

and Chuckwalla Bench ACEC found to the 

southeast. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery 

Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population 

of the Desert Tortoise lists five threats to the 

desert tortoise, the majority of which would be 

relevant in Alternative A (USFWS 2011a). The 

construction and operation of renewable energy 

projects could destroy or modify tortoises’ 

habitat and range. Large areas of development 

could result in permanent habitat loss, roads and 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use fragment and 

degrade habitat. Toxins that pollute the 

environment from these developments or 

mining may compromise the immune system of 

desert tortoises or otherwise detrimentally affect 

physiological function, rendering them more 

susceptible to disease (USFWS 2011a). 

Predation is another threat, and the common 

raven is the most highly visible predator of small 

tortoises. Raven distribution is associated with 

human encroachment into the desert and may 

be partially responsible for the current 

threatened status (Tracy et al. 2004). Tortoises 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

185 

may also be preyed upon by gulls. Raven, gulls, 

and other predators would be attracted to the 

reservoirs at the pumped storage facility, and 

increased human presence results in more 

garbage, an attractant to those birds. Energy and 

mineral development and extraction also pose a 

significant threat to desert tortoises through 

habitat loss and fragmentation (USFWS 2011a). 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

When combined with Alternative A, the DRECP 

could result in both beneficial and adverse 

effects to wildlife and special status wildlife. If 

the NPS did not move the boundary, land use 

designations prescribed in the DRECP would 

apply to the study area (when approved). In this 

scenario, approximately 5,870 acres of NCL and 

ACEC land would be managed for preservation 

and conservation and provide benefits to 

wildlife habitat. Disturbance caps and other 

measures would help to protect the desert 

tortoise and other wildlife from long and shortterm adverse impacts. Beneficial effects would 

occur from the expanded Chuckwalla Valley 

ACEC, which protects other high quality 

tortoise habitat (Nussear 2009) and portions of 

bighorn sheep biological movement corridors. 

However, the DRECP designates approximately 

11,000 acres of land in the study area as 

unallocated where alternative energy or large 

scale mining could be approved. This could 

result in the direct serious adverse impacts 

described above. Additionally, development or 

mining on this block of unallocated land could 

create further damage to high quality tortoise 

habitat (see Map 2-2: Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Connectivity) and barriers for desert bighorn 

sheep that travel between the Eagle Mountains 

and Coxcomb Mountains. General impacts are 

summarized below. Specifics impacts to wildlife, 

as well as conservation measures, can be found 

in the DRECP, IV.07, Biological Resources. 

The cumulative effects to bighorn sheep from 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project, when combined with the DRECP and 

Alternative A could be substantial, long-term 

and adverse impacts because the project site 

intersects the species’ biological movement 

corridor. The presence of reservoirs and brine 

ponds at the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project could be harmful or fatal 

to birds and other wildlife. Open water could 

also attract ravens who prey on young desert 

tortoise and other small wildlife. These 

reservoirs have steep edges, and could be 

tempting sources of water for local wildlife. 

Most wildlife that use this habitat in the Eagle 

Mountains are adapted to traversing similar 

steep and rugged areas; however, attempts to 

access the waterline could prove hazardous and 

may cause injury or mortality to some 

individuals. Eagle Crest’s proposed construction 

of exclusionary fencing is intended to mitigate 

this impact. 

All of the renewable energy projects in Table 5-1: 

Projects in the Cumulative Impact Scenario, when 

combined with Alternative A, could result in 

regional adverse effects to wildlife. Wildlife 

habitat is lost as more of the desert is developed 

for renewable energy projects. These projects 

further fragment habitat which reduces 

biodiversity and creates additional barriers to 

wildlife movement. If core habitat areas become 

islands with no connecting landscape to allow 

movement of species, they will not be able to 

continue to support the animals that currently 

reside within them. Any new construction has 

the potential to harm or kill wildlife, but when 

too many animals in a local area are harmed, 

entire populations could be extirpated. Human 

development and garbage encroaching into 

undisturbed desert would cause an increase in 

ravens, resulting in increased predation and 

death to desert tortoise and other wildlife. 

Wildlife become less resilient against climate 

change and other encroachments when their 

populations are consistently compromised by 

continued stress and loss of habitat. Wildlife 

populations would become weaker due to lack 

of high quality, connected habitat. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

186 

There are no cumulative impacts associated with 

the designation of the three new national 

monuments since they would preserve habitat 

for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep and other 

wildlife. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

By removing the opportunities for future 

renewable energy development (other than the 

pump storage project) or large scale mining, 

Alternative B protects wildlife species, their 

habitat, and the landscape-scale values of much 

of the Eagle Mountain region. Protecting large 

areas of land and precluding future development 

on 22,135 acres of BLM land in the study area 

ensures that a greater area of contiguous habitat 

and existing wildlife movement corridors 

outside the pump storage project footprint 

would be preserved compared to Alternative A. 

This applies not only to the desert tortoise but 

also to bighorn sheep, golden eagles, bats, and 

other wildlife. No new barriers to bighorn sheep 

movement would occur since additional 

development would be prohibited. Bighorn 

sheep corridors would still be impeded by the 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project, and all of the impacts associated with 

the pumped storage facility described under 

Alternative A would still persist. However, all of 

the land surrounding that project would be 

protected and preserved under NPS 

management. The connectivity and genetic 

diversity of bighorn sheep herds would start to 

improve since the NPS could undertake actions 

to improve the health of bighorn sheep 

populations. 

Alternative B protects more areas of desert 

tortoise habitat from potential development 

projects. As a result, population declines from 

effects related to development may be reduced. 

Additional protected land would contribute to 

more extensive, contiguous home ranges that are 

essential for the survival of the species. Habitat 

connectivity would be maintained, providing 

frequent contact between tortoises to maintain 

genetic diversity. This, along with maintaining 

sufficient ecological heterogeneity within and 

among populations, is an integral factor to the 

viability of tortoise populations and better 

allows them to adapt to changes in the 

environment over time (USFWS 2011). 

Specifically, strengthening tortoise populations 

helps to create resilience against climate change. 

Global climate change is likely to affect the 

prospects for the long-term conservation of the 

desert tortoise and presents a serious risk; 

frequent and/or prolonged droughts with an 

increase in temperature could reduce forage. 

Intact wildlife habitat improves biodiversity, 

reduces vectors of invasive species, protects 

genetic exchange in populations, and 

contributes to healthier wildlife populations. 

With fewer potential construction projects or 

mining on the 22,135 acres of land that would be 

transferred to NPS under this alternative, there 

would be fewer individual and population level 

adverse effects to animals. Less ground 

disturbance would result in less mortality to 

individuals. More natural quiet would allow 

natural wildlife behaviors to continue without 

interruption. Fewer roads would improve 

habitat connectivity and reduce mortality of 

animals on roads. Less infrastructure overall 

would protect birds, bats, and other wildlife. 

More protected open space would be preserved 

for golden eagles that require large areas of land 

for nesting and foraging. Eagle nesting is largely 

dependent on the amount of prey that can be 

found, and a more protected, healthier 

ecosystem would create healthier populations of 

prey species as well (Wildlife Research Institute 

2011). All of these protections and reduction in 

development would result in substantial benefits 

to all wildlife. 

Landscape-scale conservation of the area could 

begin to take shape. This additional protection 

and conservation in this alternative would result 

in beneficial effects to wildlife and special status 

species. Future uses for the area that are 

consistent with national park policies would be 

determined through subsequent planning, and 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

187 

activities would be evaluated for their impacts to 

wildlife. Visitor use would be accommodated 

within the context of protecting important 

wildlife resources. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

With Alternative B, 22,135 acres of BLM land in 

the study area would transfer to NPS 

management. BLM land use designations 

proposed in the DRECP LUPA would not apply 

to these lands. Outside the study area, to the 

east, the expanded Chuckwalla Valley ACEC 

would provide additional habitat protection. 

This protected land, combined with the resource 

protection associated with NPS management 

under Alternative B, would result in beneficial 

cumulative effects to wildlife, specifically desert 

tortoise and bighorn sheep. DRECP NCL and 

ACEC designations outside the study area would 

further benefit regional wildlife populations by 

protecting habitat across the region. The land 

protection in Alternative B would help to offset 

adverse wildlife impacts that could result from 

construction in the nearby Development Focus 

Area or SEZ. 

Impacts from the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project, even with the 

additional land protection in Alternative B, 

could have substantial, long-term and adverse 

impacts because the project site intersects the 

biological movement corridor for bighorn 

sheep. Cumulative impacts to other wildlife 

would be similar to Alternative A cumulative 

effects. More information on wildlife impacts 

can be found in the Eagle Crest FEIS, Section 

3.3.3 and 3.3.4. Mitigation and monitoring 

plans, particularly for proposed Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, are 

intended to reduce the level of effects to wildlife 

species. 

The other renewable energy projects listed in 

Table 5-1: Projects in Cumulative Impact 

Scenario, when combined with the DRECP and 

the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project could result in regional 

adverse effects to wildlife. These cumulative 

impacts are the same as listed above for 

Alternative A. 

Designation of the new national monuments 

would offset some of these adverse cumulative 

impacts to wildlife because additional habitat 

and individual species would be protected from 

development. The combination of Alternative B 

and the designation of The Mojave Trails 

National Monument would greatly improve 

biological landscape connectivity in the desert. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The environmental effect of Alternative C would 

be the similar to Alternative B, except that there 

would be an even greater level of landscapescale habitat protection due to the additional 

3,000 acres of land that would be protected. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative impacts of Alternative C are 

similar to Alternative B, except that the degree of 

impact would be reduced since additional 

habitat would be protected. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

If fully implemented, Alternative D would 

accomplish the highest level of landscape-scale 

habitat conservation in the study area. The 

effects would generally be the same as 

Alternative B, but the advantages to wildlife 

would be far greater and more beneficial over 

the long term. Once private property is willingly 

sold or donated to the park, some barriers, 

structures and incompatible uses that impede 

wildlife movement may be considered for 

removal. Lands once used for mining could be 

reclaimed and restored for conservation value. 

The current external threats to wildlife would be 

removed. There would be a contiguous NPS 

ownership and consistent management of the 

land, which would allow for maximum 

protection of wildlife and habitat. Movement 

corridors that are essential to wildlife survival 

would be restored. Biological diversity of the 

area would be improved and maintained. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

188 

Because there would be less disruption to 

essential ecosystem functions, and wildlife 

would have open access to move among and 

within natural habitat, wildlife species would 

become stronger and more sustainable. They 

would become more resilient against climate 

change, flood, disease and other environmental 

disturbances. Iconic species such as bighorn 

sheep and desert tortoise would benefit directly 

from the protection of this area and their 

populations could flourish in the long term. 

With the ability to migrate and move freely, 

bighorn sheep and desert tortoise would have 

greater genetic diversity; as such, the likelihood 

of local extinctions would be greatly reduced. 

Wildlife populations would be healthy and selfsustaining, and ecological connectivity would be 

restored on a large scale. Significant benefits to 

wildlife would result from the protection of the 

land and full restoration of the park boundary. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D 

Cumulative effects from the DRECP would be 

similar to that of Alternative B and C. However, 

Alternative D provides the greatest opportunity 

for landscape-scale conservation, which is 

consistent with the overall goal of the DRECP. 

The positive effects of land conservation and 

habitat protection associated with both 

Alternative D and the DRECP would ameliorate 

some of the adverse impacts to park wildlife 

created by the surrounding development and 

fragmentation (See Alternative A cumulative 

effects). Designation of new national 

monuments increases the area for wildlife 

protection. The existence of contiguous, 

protected habitat would have long-term 

beneficial cumulative effects to wildlife. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, protection 

and management of cultural resources would 

continue as it does today. BLM would protect 

cultural resources and mitigate adverse effects in 

accordance with laws and regulations such as 

the National Historic Preservation Act and 

Archeological Resources Protection Act. 

However, adverse effects are still possible. 

Under BLM management, a variety of activities 

and potential projects could result in long-term, 

adverse impacts to the many cultural resources 

in the study area. 

Prehistoric and historic archeological resources 

(lithics, ceramics, rock piles, etc.) could be 

disturbed, removed or destroyed by OHV use, 

mining, or rockhounding. Some of these 

resources may have potential for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Artifacts 

could be lost forever or lose their significance 

due to damage; once damaged, they cannot be 

recovered. 

Renewable energy projects or larger scale 

mining operations may not be able to avoid 

unearthing or destruction to all or some of a 

buried artifact, prehistoric or historic trail, 

petroglyph, or resource associated with the 

Desert Training Center. Ground-disturbing 

activities (e.g., grading and digging) have the 

highest potential for disturbing cultural 

resources; however, pedestrian and vehicular 

traffic and the indirect impacts of earth-moving 

activities (e.g., soil erosion) may also have an 

adverse effect. Visual, olfactory, and auditory 

changes can affect the integrity of setting and 

feeling associated with cultural resources. 

Activities could also isolate the resource or alter 

of the character of its setting, introduce visual, 

auditory, olfactory, or atmospheric elements 

that are out of character with the resource, or 

alter its setting completely; this would be a major 

impact, especially if the resource’s setting is 

important to its significance for the National 

Register of Historic Places. There is potential 

that recreational use, mining, or construction 

projects could limit access or permanently 

destroy traditional resource collecting areas, 

ceremonial sites, landscape features, cemeteries, 

shrines or trails (BLM 2015a). Impacts to 

buried resources could still occur, if present, on 

privately owned land. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

189 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A 

Alternative A has the potential to combine with 

numerous adverse cumulative impacts, both 

locally and regionally. Archeological resources 

in the study area and surrounding areas have 

likely been adversely impacted from past mining 

and construction-related disturbance, visitor 

use, vandalism, erosion, or natural processes. 

The combination of impacts from the Desert 

Sunlight Solar Farm, the No Action Alternative, 

and future renewable energy projects identified 

in Table 5-1: Projects in the Cumulative Impact 

Scenario could result in a cumulative regional 

loss of important cultural resources. Resources 

can lose their historic context as more areas are 

disturbed and developed. Also, damage or 

destruction of an incremental number of 

resources may also have long-term cumulative 

effects on the regional availability of cultural 

resources. 

If the NPS boundary was not adjusted, 

designations in the DRECP would apply once 

approved. This could result in both beneficial 

and adverse cumulative effects. This plan would 

create additional protection for cultural 

resources in within approximately 12,500 acres 

of federal lands since NLC and ACEC areas 

would be managed for preservation and 

conservation. The proposed 1% disturbance 

cap for ground disturbing activities on NLC and 

ACEC land would assist with this conservation 

goal. More information on implementation of 

the disturbance cap can be found in the DRECP, 

Chapter II, pages 3.19 through 23). The overall 

conservation strategy, which defines specific 

actions to reduce impacts, is outlined in Chapter 

II, Section II.3.4. No adverse impacts would 

occur from construction projects within these 

designated areas, but some damage could still 

occur from recreational use. Actions on 

unallocated land, such as permitted large energy 

projects or large scale mining, must comply with 

the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 

but may still result in serious adverse impacts to 

cultural resources, similar to the effects stated 

above. 

The Eagle Crest Energy Company owns the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite and would 

repurpose the area as needed for their 

operations. They could reuse, rehabilitate and 

stabilize some of the Townsite structures and 

remove those that are deteriorating and beyond 

repair. The Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) for the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project contains 

a number of measures to protect cultural 

resources. Eagle Crest would prepare a work 

plan to document the Eagle Mountain Mine, 

Townsite and associated railroad, and other 

cultural resources on their property, including 

the potential for a historic district. The FERC 

license for the Eagle Mountain Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project states 

that, “the licensee shall implement the 

Programmatic Agreement Between the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission and the State of 

California Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

for Managing Historic Properties that May be 

Affected by issuing of a License to Eagle Crest 

Energy, for the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project in Riverside County.” As 

part of this agreement, Eagle Crest would 

consult with the California State Historic SHPO, 

BLM, and FERC to evaluate National Register of 

Historic Places eligibility, and eligible resources 

would be avoided or impacts mitigated in 

consultation with the California SHPO. Eagle 

Crest would work with any interested tribes to 

identify potential traditional cultural property 

(TCP) within their project site, document and 

evaluate such properties and to resolve adverse 

effects on TCPs that are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Further details of 

the cultural resource analysis and mitigations 

can be found in the FEIS, 3.3.6.2 Environmental 

Effects, Effects of Project Operations on Cultural 

Resources. 

The designation of three new national 

monuments and the DRECP NLC and ACEC 

land use designations would increase protection 

of cultural resources in the desert, and may 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

190 

offset the loss of cultural resources associated 

with mining activities and renewable energy 

projects. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

In Alternative B, cultural resources would be 

preserved to a greater extent than Alternative A 

because 22,135 acres of BLM land would be 

transferred to NPS and protected from 

construction impacts. Once these lands are 

transferred, new mining claims would be 

prohibited under the Mining in the Parks Act. 

Six unpatented mining claims would remain in 

BLM management; as such there could be 

impacts to cultural resources as described above 

for Alternative A. There are no mining claims on 

the BLM land proposed for transfer to NPS 

under this alternative. 

Any effects on cultural resources from future 

NPS projects to enhance visitor use of the area 

would be assessed, avoided, or mitigated in 

accordance with federal laws and regulations 

and NPS cultural resource management policies. 

On all NPS managed land, visitor use would be 

more controlled. For example, hiking, OHV 

use, camping or other activities could be 

confined to designated routes, established trails 

or previously disturbed areas. This would be 

advantageous to cultural resources because 

there would be less ground disturbance and NPS 

would most likely assign these uses to areas of 

low cultural sensitivity. NPS would work with 

tribes to identify, document, and evaluate 

potential TCPs and would work with Native 

Americans who have interests and associations 

with the land to allow them to use the land for 

desired traditional uses. 

Under NPS administration, there is an 

opportunity to provide interpretation and 

education of the numerous layers of history of 

the area, such as from traditional uses, mining, 

the Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite, World 

War II desert training activities, settlement of the 

desert, the rebuilding of America post World 

War II and others. 

Alternative B would not result in any changes to 

the management of cultural resources on private 

or local land. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

Because 22,135 acres of BLM land would be 

transferred to the NPS under this alternative, the 

DRECP’s land use designations would not apply 

to the study area, but DRECP NCL and ACEC 

designations adjacent to the expanded park 

boundary would go into effect if that plan is 

approved. This would result in a cumulative 

benefit to the protection of cultural resources 

because NCL and ACEC designations limit 

ground disturbance. 

The potential projects in the adjacent Riverside 

SEZ, combined with the projects listed in Table 

5-1: Projects in Cumulative Impact Scenario, are 

similar to the cumulative effects for Alternative 

A. However, the degree of adverse cumulative 

impact would be slightly less because more land 

would be protected under NPS management. 

The designation of the new national monuments 

and other DRECP NCL and ACEC land 

designations in the desert region would increase 

protection of cultural resources in desert areas, 

and may offset the loss of cultural resources due 

to development and mining in areas open to 

these uses. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The impacts from Alternative C are the similar to 

Alternative B, except that the beneficial effects 

would be greater due to the additional land that 

would be transferred to NPS and managed for 

preservation of cultural resources values. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative impacts of Alternative C are 

similar to Alternative B, except that the degree of 

impact would be reduced since additional land 

would be protected. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

The effects of Alternative D would be similar to 

Alternative C, but could result in a wider range 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

191 

of benefits for cultural resources over the long 

term. As more land is added to the park 

boundary and managed under NPS cultural 

resource management policies, the degree of 

resource preservation and interpretation 

increases. If the Townsite is added to the 

boundary, numerous possibilities exist to restore 

historic structures and the cultural landscape. 

Beneficial effects would result from the possible 

adaptive re-use of structures associated with the 

Eagle Mountain Mine and Townsite, many of 

which are now vacant and have experienced 

some level of deterioration. NPS could also 

provide opportunities for the public to access 

and learn about cultural resources, including the 

history of the Eagle Mountain Mine. 

Public access and recreation is currently not 

permitted on private land. The alternative 

presents a long-term vision whereby private land 

in the study area would eventually be transferred 

to NPS by donation or purchased with private 

funds and donated. As land is included in the 

NPS boundary, these formerly inaccessible areas 

would become more available for visitor use and 

to Native American groups with traditional ties 

to the area and its resources. With increasing 

visitor use opportunities, there is a possibility 

that impacts to cultural resources could increase. 

However, this effect is expected to be small, 

especially since the visitor use would be carefully 

managed to avoid adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

The cumulative effect of Alternative D would be 

the same as Alternative C. 

Visitor Opportunities and Access 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

In Alternative A, visitor use within the study area 

would continue as is does today under BLM 

management. This would result in a range of 

beneficial and adverse impacts, depending on 

the perspective of the current or future user. 

Activities such as gold panning, rockhounding, 

mining, hunting, target shooting, off highway 

vehicle use, and backcountry camping and 

events (with pets) could continue. This would 

be a benefit to current users of the study area, 

particularly local mining clubs. The area’s 

significant resources would remain largely uninterpreted, and no additional visitor programs 

or opportunities would be offered. This would 

be an adverse effect to those who expressed 

desires for expanded recreation and 

interpretation of the study area. 

Visitor use would continue to be sparse given 

the remoteness of the area and there would be a 

lack of public access points from the east. Public 

access to state, local, and privately owned lands 

would generally remain restricted with the 

exception of access along public roads. For 

visitors who currently recreate in the remote 

western portion of the study area, maintaining 

this status quo would be perceived as a positive 

outcome. This same lack of access could also be 

perceived by others as an adverse effect to 

recreation because the Eagle Mountain area has 

been generally inaccessible to most visitors for 

decades. 

Under BLM management, the possibility 

remains that development projects or large scale 

mining could occur within the study area. This 

has the potential for numerous short-term and 

long-term adverse impacts to recreation. Longterm impacts could be attributed to the visibility 

of the structures (such as turbines, solar fields, 

or active mining in open pits or otherwise), 

operational impacts (noise, odors, night lighting 

etc.) and direct loss of land for recreational 

activities. Short-term adverse impacts could be 

generated during construction activities. These 

developments would degrade the scenic 

resources associated with remote recreational 

experiences, including hunting, mining, and 

backcountry exploration. Some long-term 

beneficial effects could also result from these 

developments as the construction of associated 

access and service roads could provide 

improved access opportunities for those 

recreating in the remote backcountry. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

192 

Cumulative Effects from Alternative A 

Because the park boundary would not be 

expanded under this alternative, land use 

designations prescribed in the DRECP would 

apply to the study area if that DRECP is adopted. 

The NCL and ACEC areas proposed in the 

DRECP would be managed to protect 

ecological, historic, cultural, scenic, scientific, 

and recreation resources and values, so 

recreational activities that are consistent with 

the conservation designations would generally 

not be affected. Allowable recreational uses 

would be identified in future BLM 

implementation plans for each NCL and ACEC, 

so extent of impacts to the status quo cannot be 

determined at this time. Future implementation 

planning would determine which uses are 

compatible with protection of the nationally 

significant values identified for these areas. It is 

possible that some current uses, such as mining 

operations, routes and methods of travel, may be 

curtailed due to conservation goals and/or 

disturbance caps. Special recreation permits 

may no longer be issued in certain sensitive 

areas. Some types of recreation, such as hiking, 

stargazing, and other solitary or primitive 

recreation could be enhanced. Similar to the 

discussion above, these changes could be 

adverse or beneficial, depending on the user. 

The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project, when combined with the 

no action alternative, would not change the level 

of visitor access to the area because access to 

Eagle Crest’s private lands would continue to be 

restricted in and around the project site. 

However, additional noise and new visual 

intrusions associated with the construction and 

operation of the pump storage project would 

adversely impact recreational experiences 

compared to existing conditions. 

The cumulative effects of the designation of the 

three new national monuments to visitor use 

would vary according to users’ preferences. For 

example, visitors who enjoy OHV use would 

perceive the designation of the NPS-managed 

Castle Monument National Monument as an 

adverse impact because all off road vehicle use is 

prohibited (except for emergency or authorized 

administrative purposes). The Mojave Trails 

National Monument limits motorized vehicle 

use to existing trails/roads. Visitors who enjoy 

mining would be impacted because the new 

monuments prohibit mining (except for existing 

valid rights). Visitors who enjoy hiking, 

photography, birding, etc. would perceive the 

additional protection afforded by the national 

monument designations as a benefit. 

The creation of new renewable energy 

developments in the Riverside East Solar Energy 

Zone or Development Focus Area have the 

potential to degrade the night sky or release dust 

or other particulate matter which could create 

haze and negatively affect scenic views. These 

plans and projects, when combined with the No 

Action alternative, have the potential for a range 

of adverse cumulative impacts. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

In Alternative B, the lands added to the park 

would continue be available for a range of visitor 

use opportunities, however, the types of uses 

and extent of access would change because of 

the differing NPS and BLM regulations and 

policies. All recreational uses on NPS lands 

must be compatible with conservation values; 

uses that result in unacceptable impacts on park 

resources would not be allowed. The extent of 

allowable recreational opportunities would be 

determined in future NPS implementation 

planning. This environmental assessment 

provides readers with a range of potential 

changes to the area. 

Visitor uses that would be prohibited by law or 

policy on lands added to the park under this 

alternative include: 

 new mining claims (as per Mining in the 

Parks Act of 1976) 

 off-leash dogs and dogs in areas outside 

of existing paved or unpaved roads 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

193 

 hunting and/or shooting (permitted in 

some parks, but is not permitted in 

Joshua Tree National Park) 

 rockhounding in any area except on 

unpatented mining claims determined to 

be valid (Note: this alternative would 

not include six unpatented mining 

claims owned by casual use miners in 

the expanded boundary) 

 collecting plants, rocks, fossils or 

artifacts without a special use or 

research permit 

 nighttime wildlife spotlighting 

 feeding of wildlife 

 Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, except 

in designated areas 

 use of metal detectors 

 use of drones 

The prohibition on new mining claims and OHV 

use would create adverse impacts to those users 

that currently conduct mining activities in the 

Eagle Mountain area. The impact is lessened by 

the numerous other nearby areas to mine on 

BLM and U.S Forest Service land such that are 

within a one to three drive from Eagle Mountain 

area. 

During public scoping, the NPS heard from 

many of visitors about the importance of mining 

for personal enjoyment, family tradition, and 

enjoyment of desert solitude. To accommodate 

this visitor use, Alternative B excludes six 

unpatented placer claims from the park 

boundary and retains them under BLM 

management. The NPS would allow access to 

these claims in accordance with NPS 

regulations. Mining would be permitted only 

within the boundaries of the claim and no new 

areas could be mined. The ability to continue 

mining on these claims in accordance with the 

General Mining Law of 1872 and BLM 

regulations would lessen the degree of adverse 

impact on casual use miners. A validity exam 

under the Mining in the Parks Act would not be 

required under this Alternative (in contrast to 

Alternatives C and D). However, to obtain 

access to claims over land that would be 

included in the expanded park boundary, miners 

would need to obtain a permit from the NPS to 

cross park property (in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 1.6, Permits and 36 CFR Part 5, Commercial 

and Private Operations). 

The NPS also heard from visitors who enjoy 

bringing their dogs into the backcountry, and 

using OHVs to camp in remote areas free of 

charge. Visitors could still camp with dogs 

provided that their dogs remain on-leash dogs in 

accordance with NPS regulations at 36 CFR 

2.15(a)(2) and the Superintendent’s 

Compendium8

. Backcountry camping could 

continue and designated OHV corridors could 

be established through a park-led rulemaking 

process. Special events and large group 

gatherings would be subject to NPS special event 

permitting requirements which may place some 

constraints on large group events in order to 

protect resource values. Within the mining claim 

areas, mining clubs and other visitors would 

most likely be able to hold events, camp 

overnight or have pets off-leash, since the area 

would remain under BLM management. 

If added to the national park, the area could be 

subject to an entrance fee. The park also has the 

authority to collect fees for camping. Access to 

the study area is via Black Eagle Mine Road, 

which is accessible only through existing Joshua 

Tree National Park entrance stations. Visitors 

entering the national park for recreational 

purposes now pay a $20 entrance fee per vehicle 

for a 7-day permit or purchase an annual pass 

for $80 (or a $10 pass for seniors; passes are free 

for military and disabled U.S. residents). The 

possible addition of an entrance fee would be 

 

8

The Superintendent's Compendium is a compilation 

of designations, closures, permit requirements, and 

other restrictions made by the superintendent, in 

addition to what is contained in Title 36 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations and other applicable federal 

statutes and regulations. If new land is included 

within the park boundary, the compendium would 

likely be updated to include new park lands. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

194 

noticeable, but not a major deterrent to access. 

Most Eagle Mountain visitors access the area 

through the existing Joshua Tree National Park 

entrance station and currently either purchase a 

yearly pass or pay the $20 entrance fee. The 

majority of visitor access would continue along 

this route via Black Eagle Mine Road. 

These adverse effects are tempered by the 

numerous benefits to recreation and access that 

could be achieved on NPS managed land. The 

larger protected area provides even more areas 

that are preserved for recreation. As previously 

mentioned, future recreational opportunities 

would be determined through future NPS 

planning, but many opportunities exist to 

expand uses beyond rock climbing, viewing 

Joshua trees and hiking. Backcountry camping 

may be permitted, as well as OHV use in more 

confined areas. There are larger, undeveloped, 

wild areas that are available for solitude and 

primitive recreation. Large conserved areas 

would improve wildlife habitat connectivity and 

could increase wildlife viewing opportunities. 

There could be opportunities for new and 

existing activities such as hiking, photography, 

camping, a trail network with scenic overlooks, 

or access to dark night skies and astronomy 

programs. NPS policies that prohibit collecting 

plants, rocks, fossils or artifacts (without a 

permit) allow the resources to remain for others 

to enjoy. The park could provide trail 

connections to the Cottonwood area of the park. 

Communities south of the park would have 

improved access to the recreational 

opportunities in the park and overall access to 

the eastern part of the park could be improved. 

The educational opportunities with Alternative 

B are considerable. The history of the Eagle 

Mountain area has many stories to be 

interpreted, such as mining, the pre- and 

modern history, industrialist Henry J. Kaiser, 

natural history, and native wildlife. All of these 

opportunities have the potential to create 

greater benefits to local, regional, and 

international visitors than Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B 

The nearby Desert Sunlight Solar Farm and 

potential renewable energy projects in the 

DRECP Development Focus Area and SEZ have 

very little potential to affect recreation and 

access in the study area. These developments 

would be at least 10 miles from the study area. It 

is unlikely they would be visible although it is 

possible that construction could cause shortterm impacts from dust or noise. 

The DRECP NLCS designations could create 

limitations on certain types of recreational use 

on BLM land in the California desert. These 

restrictions, combined with Alternative B, could 

reduce some types of recreation (i.e., mining or 

OHV use). This could have long-term adverse 

cumulative impacts on these recreational 

pursuits. 

The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project and associated right-ofway would adversely affect the visitor 

experience. Although access to this private land 

is currently restricted, the visibility, noise and 

activity associated with this industrial facility 

would affect the experiences of visitors who 

prefer to recreate in remote and quiet areas of 

the desert. 

In the Mojave Trails National Monument 

motorized vehicle use is permitted only on 

existing trails/roads. In the NPS-managed 

Castle Monument National Monument, all off 

road vehicle use is prohibited, except for 

emergency or authorized administrative 

purposes. The new OHV restrictions associated 

with these national monuments would result in 

adverse cumulative impacts since OHV would 

be restricted on lands added to the park 

boundary under this alternative. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The environmental effects from Alternative C 

would be similar to Alternative B, although there 

are some differences. Adding an additional 

3,000 acres to the boundary would create more a 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

195 

contiguous area for recreation and 

interpretation, which would benefit visitors and 

recreational opportunities. 

However, there would be adverse impacts to 

members of local mining clubs because six 

unpatented mining claims would be included 

within the park boundary. Claim owners would 

need to complete a validity exam and plan of 

operation to work their claim, and receive a 

permit from NPS for access. See Mineral 

Resources section above for additional 

information. 

Mining clubs and other visitors would be unable 

to recreate with off-leash pets on mining claim 

areas and the other lands added to the park 

under this alternative. Visitors could still camp 

with dogs provided that their dogs remain onleash dogs in accordance with NPS regulations 

at 36 CFR 2.15(a)(2) and the Superintendent’s 

Compendium. Special events and large group 

gatherings would be subject to NPS special event 

permitting requirements which may place some 

constraints on large group events in order to 

protect resource values. (Backcountry camping 

could continue and designated OHV corridors 

could be established through a park-led 

rulemaking process. In the short-term, before 

any rulemaking process occurs, there would 

result in a negative visitor experience. The 

visitor experience could improve in the longterm if the park undergoes rulemaking to 

expand visitor opportunities. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C 

Cumulative effects of Alternative C are the 

similar to Alternative B. The projects listed in 

Table 5-1: Projects in Cumulative Impact Scenario

would have no impacts on recreation in the 

study area, but the regional impacts described 

for Alternative B could occur. The DRECP 

restrictions could limit some types of recreation, 

which could further reduce visitor opportunities 

in the vicinity of the study area. Alternative C 

would have more recreational restrictions than 

Alternative B because the six unpatented mining 

claims would be included in the park boundary 

and certain activities could be limited under NPS 

management (see above). Further, restrictions 

in visitor use would be greater than Alternative C 

because they apply to an additional 3,000 acres 

of land. Therefore the cumulative effects of 

Alternative C would be greater Alternative B 

The DRECP NLCS designations could create 

limitations on recreational use on BLM land in 

the California desert. These restrictions, 

combined with Alternative C, could reduce 

some types of visitor uses (i.e., mining or OHV 

use). This could result in long-term adverse 

cumulative impacts on these recreational 

pursuits. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

The effects of Alternative D are very similar to 

Alternative C, but over the long term, Alternative 

D would provide a much greater area for 

recreational activities if fully implemented. This 

alternative presents a long term vision for the 

park under which all private lands within the 

study area would be transferred to NPS 

following the cessation of industrial uses. If this 

were to occur, there would be a reduction of 

uses that are incompatible with public 

enjoyment of the area’s recreational and 

interpretive values. If the Townsite is included 

in the park boundary, or co-managed through 

partnerships, and the park could be accessed 

from Desert Center, recreational and 

educational opportunities could be even greater 

than Alternatives B and C. The Townsite could 

be used for visitor education and potential 

recreational concession services. More 

interpretive opportunities would become 

accessible, and could include topics such as 

renewable energy and climate change, and 

interpretation of the mine and Townsite through 

general public access and guided tours where 

safe. No adverse effects, other than those 

disclosed for Alternative C, would occur.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

196 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D 

Long-term, regional, adverse cumulative impacts 

would be similar as described for Alternative C. 

The combination of a full boundary restoration, 

DRECP conservation designations and the 

addition of three national monuments would 

cumulatively increase the areas in the California 

desert that are available for recreation. This 

would be a beneficial effect for local, regional, 

national, and international visitors. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

Under current BLM management, 80% of the 

study area is undeveloped, but new renewable 

energy projects or other large scale development 

projects could be constructed under this No 

Action alternative. Construction would 

adversely affect views from park wilderness 

areas as well as views from within the study area. 

Mining could result in additional ground 

disturbance, tailings piles, open pits or 

infrastructure. If permitted by the BLM, solar, 

wind, and geothermal energy development, and 

transmission requirements (rights-of-way, major 

transmission lines, generator tie-lines [i.e., 

electrical lines connecting energy facilities to the 

larger electric grid], and substations) could 

result in adverse visual impacts. The impact of a 

given project would depend upon the individual 

project, including energy type, technologies 

used, site layout, scale, location, impact 

minimization strategies employed, timing and 

degree of disturbance or complexity of the 

facilities (BLM 2015a). There would be shortterm adverse impacts from construction, and 

long-term impacts from removal of vegetation, 

new roads, new transmission lines, additional 

night lighting, glare, visible windblown dust 

clouds, visible exhaust plumes and the physical 

presence of project elements (solar energy 

collectors, wind turbines, geothermal generating 

plants, and support facilities). The BLM would 

work to mitigate adverse visual impacts from any 

permitted renewable energy developments. 

These impacts could negatively affect views 

from inside and outside the study area.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A 

Renewable energy projects listed in Table 5-1: 

Projects in Cumulative Impact Scenario have the 

potential to create adverse cumulative effects to 

visual resources particularly when combined 

with the No Action alternative. There could be 

short-term impacts visual impacts if 

construction were to occur at the same time, and 

long-term adverse effects if multiple projects 

were constructed in the DRECP LUPA’s 

unallocated areas. Renewable energy projects in 

the Riverside SEZ or DRECP LUPA 

Development Focus Area could contribute 

cumulative adverse effects to the dark night sky 

due to the addition of night lighting, or to skies 

in general due to dust or other airborne 

particulates. 

Effects to scenic resources on private land 

would occur, and views of the private lands from 

nearby park and BLM lands would change. The 

FERC license for the pumped storage facility 

requires a visual resource management plan. 

Eagle Crest Energy Company may reuse some 

portions of the Townsite. Although not 

discussed in the FEIS, the rehabilitation of some 

structures, and demolition of the deteriorating 

ones may improve the scenic character of the 

Townsite, and transform the uninhabited town 

into a more active area. The buildings, 

infrastructure, open pits, tailing piles and other 

physical aspects of the former Eagle Mountain 

Mine would continue to impact the scenic 

character of the study area. Vegetation is slowly 

returning to the large tailings piles on site; over 

time, some of the disturbed areas may become 

revegetated through natural succession. 

However, EMMR’s above ground mining rights 

could result in disturbance to tailings piles and 

the vegetation that has started to regrow. The 

Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project would reuse portions of the Eagle 

Mountain mine site, but would also add new, 

large-scale visual elements to the viewshed, such 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

197 

as reservoirs, dams, power lines, water 

conveyances, fences, brine ponds, graded and 

revegetated landscapes, and buildings. Since this 

project is not yet in place, both adverse shortterm construction impacts and adverse longterm impacts would result from the addition of 

the above-mentioned elements. 

Only new facilities that are consistent with the 

care and management any existing flood control, 

utility, pipeline, or telecommunications facilities 

may be constructed within the new national 

monuments. The restriction on the development 

of large industrial developments could offset 

some adverse effects of Alternative A and 

provide some cumulative benefits to the visual 

resources of the regional area. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

Scenic viewsheds would be preserved and 

protected to a much greater degree than 

Alternative A since renewable energy projects 

and new mining activity would not occur on 

lands added to the park boundary under this 

alternative. Approximately 80% of the study 

area would be managed in accordance with NPS 

Management Policies, which prioritizes natural, 

cultural, and visitor resource protection. Uses 

incompatible with park preservation and public 

enjoyment would not be permitted, which 

would preserve the scenic character of the lands 

added to the park. This would result in positive 

effects to scenic views from both within and 

outside of the study area. This alternative 

would also result in beneficial impacts on night 

sky values, and it would reduce dust and the 

introduction of particulates that interfere with 

daytime views of the desert. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B 

Cumulative impacts could result from the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project and any future projects constructed in 

the DRECP Development Focus Area or 

Riverside SEZ. The adverse effects of industrial 

projects such as these on visual resources in the 

study area and nearby region would detract from 

the beneficial effects of Alternative B. Refer to 

the cumulative effect analysis for Alternative A 

for a description of effects. 

Only new facilities that are consistent with the 

care and management any existing flood control, 

utility, pipeline, or telecommunications facilities 

may be constructed within the new national 

monuments. The restriction on the development 

of large industrial developments in these areas, 

combined with the development restrictions in 

Alternative B would result in a cumulative 

regional benefit to visual resources. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Impacts from Alternative C would be similar to 

Alternative B, except that with the benefits 

would be somewhat greater given that 

Alternative C would preserve the viewshed on 

an additional 3,000 acres of land. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C 

Cumulative effects are similar to Alternative B, 

but there would be some additional benefits to 

the scenic viewshed because additional land 

would be protected from uses that are 

incompatible with resource preservation. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

The effects of Alternative D would generally be 

the same as for Alternatives B and C for many 

years. However, over the long term, as private 

lands are donated to or acquired with donated 

funds for the park, the entire study area could 

begin to be managed for the preservation of 

scenic resources. The NPS could choose to 

actively restore some disturbed areas or allow 

restoration to occur through natural ecological 

succession. Some potential actions could 

include the removal of transmission lines or 

other unneeded infrastructure, installation of 

night sky friendly lighting, and habitat 

restoration. As such, there is the potential for 

substantial benefits to the viewshed of the entire 

study area and as well as views of the area land 

currently within the Joshua Tree National Park 

boundary. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

198 

It is expected that the acquisition of the 

Townsite and the other private properties 

included in this alternative would not occur for 

quite some time. There is a wide range of 

possibilities for eventual use of the Townsite. 

The range of effects to the scenic character of 

the area would vary, depending on the future 

plans for the Townsite. Stabilization of vacant 

and unused structures within the Townsite 

would have different effects on visual resources 

than restoration of structures and landscape 

features to accommodate new uses. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D 

Alternative D represents a long term vision for 

the area. In the short-term, the cumulative 

effects of Alternative D would be similar to those 

for Alternative C. 

If the Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project is decommissioned in the 

future and the lands are transferred to NPS, any 

actions to remove associated infrastructure from 

these lands would result in beneficial cumulative 

impacts to the area’s scenic values. The extent 

and timing of infrastructure removal and 

associated site restoration would largely depend 

on the requirements of the FERC 

decommissioning process. 

Land Use and Ownership 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

In Alternative A, existing land use policies and 

regulations would remain in effect. There would 

be no change in land management or ownership. 

BLM-administered land within the study area 

would continue to be managed by BLM 

according to existing land use plans and policies 

as described in Chapter 4: Affected Environment, 

which would be amended by the DRECP LUPA 

if that plan is adopted. Efforts by the NPS to 

protect existing adjacent park lands and 

resources would continue. There would be no 

effect to private, state, or county lands in the 

study area; activities on these lands would 

remain subject to local land use regulations and 

policies. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A 

If the NPS takes no action to adjust the Joshua 

Tree National Park boundary, land designations 

proposed in the DRECP would apply (if 

approved). On approximately half of the study 

area, BLM would place a special emphasis on 

managing resources included in the proposed 

NCL and ACEC areas to ensure that future land 

uses do not impact the nationally significant 

resources in these designated areas. The other 

half of the study area is considered as 

unallocated lands under the DRECP which are 

BLM-administered lands that do not have an 

existing or proposed land allocation or 

designation and are open to renewable energy 

applications. BLM would have discretion to 

authorize new renewable energy projects and 

mining activities in unallocated areas. The 

DRECP would also change in land management 

in the surrounding desert region. 

The designation of the new national monuments 

has resulted in changes to land use, 

management, ownership. At Castle Mountain 

National Monument, ownership transferred 

from BLM to NPS. The management and use at 

all three national monuments have changed. 

The primary purposes of the national 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

199 

monuments are to protect their outstanding 

natural, cultural, and historical values. Other 

land uses that conflict with this purpose have 

been limited or prohibited in the Presidential 

proclamations for each national monument. For 

example, limits have been placed on some types 

of visitor use (such as off-road vehicle use), land 

development or new extraction of minerals or 

geothermal leases. The DRECP NCL and ACEC 

designations also alter land use throughout 

California. Together, these result in a 

cumulative shift of land management, in newly 

protected areas, from new mineral exploration 

and land development to resource preservation 

and passive forms of recreation (such as hiking). 

There would be no cumulative impacts from the 

combination of Alternative A and other projects 

listed in Table 5-1: Projects in Cumulative Impact 

Scenario. 

Impacts from Alternative B 

In Alternative B, future land uses on 22,135 acres 

of land in the study area would change as a result 

of the transfer of management responsibility for 

these lands from BLM to NPS. Once transferred, 

these lands would be managed by the NPS under 

the National Park Service Organic Act and NPS 

regulations and policies. Renewable energy 

projects and new mining claims would not be 

permitted. Nationally significant resources 

would receive comprehensive and permanent 

protection under NPS administration. These 

changes in land use and management would 

result in long term beneficial effects to the lands 

and their significant natural, cultural, scenic and 

scientific values. There would also be 

substantial long-term benefits to the adjacent 

park resources, since the additional lands would 

be preserved, and possibly restored, instead of 

being open for development or other potentially 

incompatible uses. Comprehensive resource 

management of the area could dramatically 

improve the health of the surrounding 

ecosystem by reducing invasive species vectors, 

and reducing light, air, and noise pollution 

adjacent to the park. Large areas of open space 

would be protected for wildlife habitat and 

migration corridors. 

In Alternatives B, six unpatented mining claims 

would be excluded from boundary adjustment 

and remain under the administration of BLM. 

See the Mineral Resources section above for 

Alternative B for a discussion of how these 

claims would be managed. Management of 

these isolated claims within an expanded park 

boundary could be burdensome for the BLM. 

Visitor opportunities differ on NPS and BLM 

land; see Visitor Opportunities and Access 

analysis above. Development and uses that are 

inconsistent with NPS Management Policies 

would not be permitted. The change of 

administration of this area could cause some 

adverse impacts to those visitors who currently 

use the area for the activities that would no 

longer be permitted. This adverse impact is 

dependent on the degree of use by members of 

the public. 

There would be no changes to land use or 

ownership of private, state, or other local land 

under this alternative. These areas would be 

surrounded by NPS-managed land instead of 

BLM-managed land. Existing access to private 

property would not be impeded. Privately held 

lands would continue to be regulated by local 

land use authorities (i.e., Riverside County). 

These lands would remain outside of the 

boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. If 

adjacent private landowners wished to sell or 

donate their property to the NPS, it could be 

added to the park as per the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF has an 

authority that allows for boundary revisions to 

include adjacent real property acquired by 

donation, purchase with donated funds, 

transfers from any other Federal agencies, or 

exchange. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B 

The DRECP’s Preferred Alternative, or Land 

Use Plan Amendment (LUPA), integrates 

renewable energy and resource conservation 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

200 

with other existing uses on BLM-managed land 

within in the surrounding desert region. It 

designates Development Focus Areas (DFAs), 

Variance Process Lands (VPLs), Unallocated 

Lands, and BLM Conservation Areas (see 

DRECP, Section II.3.1). Conservation areas and 

unallocated lands are in the study area. The land 

use and management of the conservation areas 

generally parallels the management priorities of 

the NPS. There are some differences in the 

management of BLM’s unallocated lands and 

NPS policies, specifically regarding the ability to 

approve and allow mineral extraction, 

geothermal leasing laws and renewable energy 

projects. As such, Alternative B would remove 

long-standing land uses in unallocated areas (see 

the Mineral Resources and Visitor 

Opportunities and Access analyses above). 

When combined with restrictions in the rest of 

the DRECP plan area, there is a noticeable 

difference in the type and extent of allowable 

land use in the California desert. Designation of 

DFAs, especially the adjacent Riverside Solar 

Energy Zone, offset the loss of renewable energy 

development on the unallocated land in the 

study area. 

The designation of the new national monuments 

has resulted in changes to land use, 

management, ownership. At Castle Mountain 

National Monument, ownership transferred 

from BLM to NPS. The management and use at 

all three national monuments have changed. 

The primary purposes of the national 

monuments are to protect their outstanding 

natural, cultural, and historical values. Other 

land uses that conflict with this purpose have 

been limited or prohibited in the Presidential 

proclamations for each national monument. For 

example, limits have been placed on some types 

of visitor use (such as off-road vehicle use), land 

development or new extraction of minerals or 

geothermal leases. Combined with the DRECP 

and Alternative B, the national monuments 

increase the amount of land in the southern 

California desert that is managed for 

conservation and resource protection. This 

would result in cumulative benefits for the 

historic, natural, and scientific values on the 

land, but have some cumulative adverse effects 

to some types of visitor use and recreation in the 

region. 

In Alternatives B, six unpatented mining claims 

would be excluded from boundary adjustment. 

As such, they would remain under the 

administration of BLM and subject to the land 

use designations approved for the DRECP. The 

effect of this change is described above under 

Mineral Resources. 

The Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage 

Hydroelectric Project would be constructed on 

private land, and a right-of-way would be 

obtained from BLM for transmission and water 

supply lines. These actions are consistent with 

the land use policies for both Riverside County 

and BLM, but differ from management policies 

for adjacent NPS land. Operation of the 

industrial facility adjacent to the park would 

affect land uses on NPS land and result in 

impacts to the visitor experience and wildlife 

(See Wildlife analysis and Visitor Opportunities 

and Access analysis above). 

None of the other projects listed in Table 5-1: 

Projects in Cumulative Impact Scenario are 

expected to result in cumulative land use 

impacts because those projects are outside of the 

study area and do create any land use conflicts. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

In Alternative C, an additional 3,000 acres of 

federal, state and private land could be added to 

the boundary. Most of this land is currently 

owned by Eagle Crest Energy Company which 

has expressed interest in donating the land to 

NPS. EMMR has a lease from Eagle Crest 

allowing it to conduct above-ground mining for 

rock and aggregate in this area. Although local 

zoning allows for mining in these areas, 

protection of the area for open space is 

consistent with the Riverside County General 

Plan land use designations for the private lands. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

201 

Six additional unpatented mining claims and 

State School Land properties would be included 

in the boundary and subject to the Mining in the 

Parks Act and related NPS regulations. The 

unpatented claimants would need to comply 

with the regulations in 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, 

which includes submission and NPS approval of 

a plan of operations. The claims would also 

need to undergo a validity examination. This 

could be perceived as an adverse impact. 

The beneficial land use impacts described for 

Alternative B also apply to Alternative C. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative impacts for Alternative C are 

similar to Alternative B. However, the changes 

to land use are greater in Alternative C because 

more land with mineral interests would be 

included within the boundary and subject to 

NPS regulations and policies such as the Mining 

in the Parks Act. This is a noticeable change 

from BLM and state regulations and may be 

perceived as an adverse impact to land use (see 

Mineral Resources analysis above). This would 

result in adverse cumulative impacts to land use 

when combined with other mining restrictions 

in the DRECP and new national monuments. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

In Alternative D, 28,600 acres would be included 

in the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, 

however the lands would be acquired by NPS in 

stages and the park boundary would expand 

accordingly. The first phase would involve a 

transfer of all BLM lands outside the pump 

storage project footprint to NPS, including the 

six unpatented mining claims. This first phase 

would happen in the near term if the Secretary 

of the Interior approves the transfer of BLM 

lands to the NPS. Subsequent boundary 

expansions and changes in land management 

would occur when private, state and/or local 

lands are donated to or acquired by outside 

parties and donated to the NPS. Lands within 

the footprint of the pump storage project would 

only be transferred to the NPS and included in 

the park boundary when that project is 

decommissioned. These later phases may not 

occur for many, many years. 

If the land use transfers envisioned under 

Alternative D are fully realized, Alternative D 

would allow the study area to be 

comprehensively managed, reducing potential 

conflicting land uses. Lands would be added to 

the national park in phases over time as land 

become feasible and available to acquire should 

there be willing sellers; this would generally be 

beneficial for both the NPS and private 

landowners. Sales or donation agreements 

would mutually benefit both parties. The 

advantages of comprehensive land and resource 

management by NPS would be similar, but much 

greater, than described under Alternatives B and 

C. Alternative D would protect large areas of 

open space and facilitate protection of key 

wildlife corridors and other landscape-scale 

values. The NPS would prioritize habitat and 

resource conservation on these lands which 

would likely result on limitations on new access 

roads. Public access to and use of lands added to 

the park boundary under this alternative would 

be determined through further implementation 

planning, which would evaluate various options 

for management of the area. Over time, visitor 

access to this new area of the park would be 

greatly improved as compared to Alternative A. 

Alternative D is the only alternative that allows 

for the Townsite to be acquired by NPS. It is 

currently in private ownership and would 

remain so until Eagle Crest is willing to 

relinquish it. At that time, the Townsite could be 

returned to BLM, BLM could transfer it to the 

NPS, or BLM could lease it to state and local 

jurisdictions or non-profit organizations. BLM is 

permitted to lease or convey land to such 

agencies for recreation or other public purposes 

per the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 

Future land uses and activities within the 

Townsite would be dependent on which agency 

eventually administers it. Whether managed by 

NPS, a local entity, or a non-profit, future land 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

202 

use of the Townsite would transition from 

private oriented uses to uses that support 

recreation and other public purposes. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

Cumulative impacts of Alternative D are similar 

to Alternative B and C, but land use conflicts 

would lessen as land is acquired in stages and 

added to the boundary. In addition, as more 

land is added to the boundary, visitor 

opportunities and resource protection are likely 

to increase. Combined with the DRECP 

conservation designations and three national 

monuments, cumulative benefits to land use 

would be realized. 

Park Operations 

Impacts from Alternative A (No Action) 

With Alternative A, BLM-managed land would 

not be transferred to the NPS. There would be 

no changes to current park operations. The NPS 

would continue to use existing staff to review 

and comment on development proposals for the 

Eagle Mountain area. There would be no change 

in management complexity for Joshua Tree 

National Park and no increase to park staffing 

levels. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

If land did not transfer to NPS, land use 

designations prescribed in the DRECP would 

apply to the study area if implemented. NCL 

and ACEC designations, managed resource 

protection, would be compatible with NPS 

policies for adjacent land. This could have some 

benefit to NPS conservation efforts. Renewable 

energy or other projects could still be approved 

on BLM unallocated land. As such, NPS would 

continue to review and comment on those 

proposals. These efforts, combined with 

ongoing collaboration with the Eagle Crest 

Energy Company on the Eagle Mountain 

Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, and 

review of renewable energy projects adjacent to 

the park boundary, could further strain park 

staff and impact operations. Creation of 

additional national monuments or protected 

areas would be beneficial to the park by creating 

additional areas for collaboration and research. 

Impacts from Alternative B

Joshua Tree National Park would require more 

operational funding to manage additional park 

land. Park management responsibilities would 

increase related to natural and cultural resource 

management, fire management, planning, law 

enforcement, interpretation/education, public 

safety, and providing/maintaining infrastructure 

and amenities for visitors and staff. There would 

be additional costs for the park to survey and 

assess wildlife, vegetation, and cultural 

resources. However such surveys could happen 

over time as funding becomes available. 

Abandoned mind lands would also need to be 

inventoried, assessed for safety and immediate 

hazards remediated. Additional operational 

responsibilities would include the development 

of management and implementation plans for 

the new park areas. The park estimates that 

management of the area proposed in Alternative 

B could be accomplished with an additional 

three FTE, which would require an increase of 

$240,000 over the park’s current operating 

budget.

Although more staff would be necessary to 

manage the land, the overall effect to park 

operations from Alternative B is positive and 

could reduce the complexity of current park 

operations. Alternative B would not only protect 

important resources associated with the purpose 

of the park, but also address management issues 

such as access or encroachment. Park staff 

would be able to access areas that are currently 

not accessible to the NPS, and this opens up 

opportunities for additional law enforcement 

and safety patrols and research related to desert 

succession, bighorn sheep, tortoises, etc. The 

ability to survey and study natural and cultural 

resources could help the park expand 

knowledge of the resources, especially when 

assessing future impacts of climate change. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

203 

Under Alternative B, there would be private 

landowners adjacent to NPS-managed land and 

some unpatented mining claims would remain 

under BLM management. The existence of 

inholdings under other management authorities 

within national park boundaries can create 

management challenges and increase the 

complexity of management for both agencies. 

These uses may conflict with the NPS mission to 

preserve and protect park resources, and could 

create some external threats to these resources. 

The park would monitor these activities and 

respond to those that threaten park resources. 

However, this effort is expected to take less park 

staff time than time spent over the past 10+ years 

addressing proposed developments at Eagle 

Mountain. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

The expanded Chuckwalla ACEC designations 

proposed in the DRECP, would protect 

additional listed species habitat adjacent to NPS 

land; this could have some benefit to NPS 

conservation efforts. Efforts by park staff to 

collaborate with the Eagle Crest Energy 

Company on the hydroelectric pumped storage 

facility, combined with the review of renewable 

energy projects adjacent to the park boundary, 

could strain park staff and impact operations. 

The three new national monuments would be 

beneficial to the park by creating additional 

areas for landscape-scale conservation, 

collaboration and research.

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The effects of Alternative C would be similar to 

Alternative B. However, management of 

additional land would require additional 

personnel. The park estimates that another five 

FTE would be required to effectively manage the 

area, increasing the park operating budget by 

$340,000/year. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

Cumulative effects of Alternative C would be the 

same as Alternative B. 

Impacts from Alternative D

Alternative D would result in similar impacts to 

park management as described for Alternatives 

B and C. However, Alternative D would create 

the greatest potential change to park 

management and operations in the long-term by 

adding to the park lands with considerable 

infrastructure and the most opportunities for 

expanded recreation and visitor use. 

Alternative D is expected to require an 

additional seven FTE to manage the land, 

requiring an increase of $440,000 per year to the 

annual park operating budget.

This alternative could make park operations and 

management more complex in some ways, and 

simpler in others. Over time, as more private 

land is either sold or donated the NPS, 

management becomes less complex. With the 

potential for management of entire by the NPS 

in the long-term, contiguous lands would 

generally share the same designation, land use, 

and goals, and the entire area would be managed 

under the regulations of the NPS. But these 

acquisitions would occur in phases, and in the 

meantime, there could be management 

challenges related to the inholdings within the 

boundary of the national park. If the Townsite 

reverts from private ownership to the United 

States (under BLM administration), a 

partnership approach to management of the area 

with BLM and other local and state agencies 

could add to management complexity, but 

would be beneficial, overall. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

Cumulative effects of Alternative D would be the 

same as Alternative B and C.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

204 

Socioeconomics 

Impacts from Alternative A

Current social and economic trends as described 

in the Chapter 4, Affected Environment would 

continue under Alternative A. Trends in 

economic activity, income, population, 

employment, and tourism would remain 

unchanged. There would continue to be longterm beneficial, albeit slightly detectable impacts 

on socioeconomics from continued operation of 

Joshua Tree National Park, including from its 

employment opportunities, and local revenue 

generated from employees and park visitors. 

There could be a slight increase in employment 

or tax revenue associated with the construction 

and operation of the Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project. These effects are 

unlikely to be noticeable in the diversified 

economic base of Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

Any additional development in the area, when 

combined with the action alternatives, has the 

potential for slight cumulative economic 

benefits to Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. The construction and operation of 

renewable energy projects have the potential to 

add jobs and tax revenue to the existing 

economy. Designation of the three national 

monuments could increase visitation to the area, 

which would also be beneficial to the regional 

economy.

Impacts from Alternative B 

Additional land for new visitor opportunities in 

the Eagle Mountain area could have range of 

economic and social impacts on the surrounding 

communities. Most impacts would be beneficial 

as national park visitors typically provide an 

economic benefit to the surrounding 

community. The feasibility analysis in Chapter 2

provides data on NPS visitor spending. 

However, in Alternative B, visitors would 

primarily access the area via four wheel drive 

vehicle along the unimproved Black Mountain 

Mine Road in Joshua Tree National Park. 

Without new roads or access from Desert 

Center, visitation would likely remain low in 

Alternatives B and C. The study area is a 

substantial distance from park entrances at 

Cottonwood Springs (west of the study area) 

and Twentynine Palms, northwest of the study 

area. Therefore economic benefits would be 

small. 

No new mining claims would be permitted, but 

this is not expected to affect the existing 

socioeconomic condition, because other than 

the unpatented mines, the area is not heavily 

used for mining. Since Eagle Mountain Mine 

ceased full scale operations in 1983, no new 

commercial mining operations have been 

proposed in the study area. The economic 

viability of future large-scale mining is limited, 

so adverse socioeconomic impacts are also 

limited. See the Mineral Resources analysis for 

additional details. Existing private and 

commercial lands uses such as mining by 

EMMR or the operation of the umped storage 

facility would be uninterrupted. Alternative B 

would have little effect on commercial 

operations or mineral extraction. 

A socioeconomic concern identified during the 

public scoping process was the potential effect 

of national park service management on the 

extraction of mineral resources. In Alternative 

B, six unpatented mining claims would be 

excluded from the park boundary which reduces 

the economic impacts of validity determination 

to the claim owners that undertake small scale 

mining. 

Cumulative Impacts of Alternative B

Any additional development in the area, when 

combined with the action alternatives, has the 

potential for modest cumulative economic 

benefits to Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. The construction and operation of 

renewable energy projects have the potential to 

add jobs and tax revenue to the existing, diverse 

economy. Designation of the new national 

monuments could increase visitation to the area, 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

205 

resulting in additional benefits to the regional 

economy. 

Impacts from Alternative C (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The socioeconomic effects from Alternative C 

would be the similar as Alternative B, 

particularly regarding the extent of visitation 

and overall impact on mineral extraction. This 

alternative differs because six unpatented 

mining claims would be included in the NPS 

boundary. This would require the claimants to 

complete a validity examination and complete a 

plan of operations. This process might deter, or 

be too onerous or financially infeasible for the 

owners of these claims. However, the NPS has a 

regulatory provision that would allow the 

claimants to receive temporary NPS approval to 

continue developing the minerals on their claims 

during the validity exam and plan 

review/decision process; this could lessen the 

adverse economic impact of the action. 

Cumulative Impacts of Alternative C

Any additional development in the area, when 

combined with the action alternatives, has the 

potential for modest cumulative economic 

benefits to Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. The construction and operation of 

renewable energy projects have the potential to 

add jobs and tax revenue to the existing, diverse 

economy. Designation of the national 

monuments could increase visitation to the area, 

resulting in additional benefits to the regional 

economy. 

Future DRECP implementation plans for land 

designated as NCL, ACEC land and Wildlife 

Allocation, could contribute a small loss of areas 

available for mineral extraction due to 

disturbance caps and other restrictions imposed 

within conservation lands. Combined with 

Alternative C, these limitations could increase 

that adverse impact. However, the degree of 

impact is hard to measure, since future BLM 

implementation plans would provide details on 

the use of the conservation lands. 

Impacts from Alternative D 

A wider range of visitor opportunities could 

occur under Alternative D in the long-term, 

particularly if the eastern private lands became 

available for park use. The larger boundary 

adjustment creates the greatest potential for new 

recreational opportunities and visitor services, 

and thus the greatest increase in employment 

opportunities for tourism and support services. 

This could offset any loss in employment 

associated with closure of the Eagle Mountain 

Mine or decommissioning of the Eagle 

Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric 

Project, in the event that the facility would no 

longer be needed. This alternative would also 

provide for a broad array of cultural 

interpretation. If KEM’s private lands within the 

Townsite reverted to the federal government 

and became available for public use, easy access 

from Interstate 10 and the wider range of visitor 

experiences that could occur in this area may 

encourage more visitors to the area, generating 

jobs and potential revenue for the local 

communities. 

Because the proposed addition to Joshua Tree 

National Park would be greater in Alternative D, 

beneficial effects to the Desert Center and 

Riverside County could also be greater. An 

increase in visitation over time could have 

modest beneficial economic effects. There could 

be more jobs and associated economic benefits 

related to managing, restoring, and interpreting 

parklands. Beneficial effects could occur from 

providing supplies and services to visitors, 

especially associated with special events or 

activities (such as mine tours) or visits by 

educational groups. 

Cumulative Impacts of Alternative D

The numerous socioeconomic benefits of 

Alternative D, when combined with the 

economic benefits from renewable energy or 

other development in the area, has the potential 

for great socioeconomic advantages for Desert 

Center and Riverside County. These benefits 

would offset the impacts that would result from 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

206 

a reduction in mining. Designation of national 

monuments or other recreational areas could 

increase visitation to the area, resulting in 

additional benefits to the regional economy. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

207 

CHAPTER 6: Consultation and Coordination 

The National Park Service (NPS) places a high 

priority on public involvement in National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

processes and on giving the public an 

opportunity to comment on proposed actions. 

As part of the NPS NEPA process, issues 

associated with the proposed action were 

identified during the internal scoping meeting 

held with the NPS and have been communicated 

to other affected agencies and stakeholders. 

Public Scoping 

The NEPA regulations require an “early and 

open process for determining the scope of issues 

to be addressed and for identifying the 

significant issues related to a proposed action.” 

To determine the scope of issues to be analyzed 

in depth within this boundary study / EA, 

meetings were conducted with NPS staff, 

interested stakeholders, and members of the 

public. An internal scoping meeting was held 

with the NPS in February 2015 at Joshua Tree 

National Park Headquarters. The study team 

conducted four public meetings during the 

scoping period, including one online meeting 

(July 29, 2015) and three meetings in the vicinity 

of Joshua Tree National Park August 4-6, 2015 

(Desert Center, Joshua Tree, and Palm Desert). 

Public scoping began July 13, 2015, and ended 

on August 21, 2015. Details on the areas of 

concern expressed during public scoping can be 

found in Chapter 1: Purpose and Need. 

Tribal Consultation 

The NPS sent a letter describing the boundary 

study and preliminary options to tribal 

representatives of 15 Tribes: 

 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

 Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

 Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission 

Indians 

 Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians 

 Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes 

 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

 Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians 

 Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

 Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

 San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission 

Indians 

 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

 Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 

 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

 Twenty-nine Palms Band of Mission 

Indians 

The Colorado River Indian Tribes requested a 

meeting with NPS to discuss the effects of a 

potential boundary adjustment. The La Cuna de 

Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle and the 

Chemeheuvi Indian Tribe also expressed an 

interest in the study area. However, to date, no 

potential traditional cultural properties have 

been identified within the study area. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

208 

Table 6-1: Organizations, Agencies, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments 

Tribal Organizations 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle

Energy Companies and Utilities 

Eagle Crest Energy Company 

Southern California Edison 

Organizations 

Amargosa Conservancy 

California Desert Coalition 

California Wilderness Coalition 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Protection Society 

Desert Protective Council 

Desert Tortoise Council 

First Class Miners, Inc. 

Harrison House Arts, Music and Ecology 

Joshua Tree Community Association 

Joshua Tree National Park Association 

MMAC (Minerals and Mining Advisory Council) 

Mojave Desert Land Trust 

Morongo Basin Conservation Association 

Myth in the Mojave 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Public Lands for the People 

San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society 

Sierra Club 

Summertree Institute 

The Wilderness Society 

Transition Habitat Conservancy 

Businesses

American Birdlife Note Cards, Presentations Exhibits 

Benchmark Studios 

Bonita Domes 

Broadview 

Crossroads Café 

Dan O'Dowd Productions 

Decal Depot 

Distance to Be Traveled 

Grow with Lauren Ell 

Hi Desert Water Transport, Inc. 

Holmes Ecological Design and Construction 

Holmes Health 

Hot Purple Energy 

Integratron 

Jonathan Stone, CPA 

Joshua Tree Art Gallery 

Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce 

Joshua Tree Excursions 

Joshua Tree Health Foods 

Joshua Tree Inn 

Joshua Tree International Film Festival 

Joshua Tree Music Festival 

Joshua Tree Realty 

JT Lilypad, LLC 

Living Space Developers 

Moonlight Mesa Retreats and Vacation Rentals 

Oasis Office Supply 

Outmywindows.com 

Pappy and Harriet's Pioneertown Palace 

Quail Crossing 

Rustic Modern Rentals 

Sacred Sands Bed and Breakfast 

Spin and Margie's Desert Hideaway 

STARLITE 

Twentynine Palms Inn 

Vera Photography

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

209 

Agency Consultation 

Coordination with local and federal agencies 

and various interest groups was conducted 

during the NEPA process to identify issues 

and/or concerns related to the proposed actions. 

An agency scoping meeting was held on July 16, 

2015. One representative from Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California (MWD) 

and three from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

attended (via phone and WebEx). The agencies 

supported completion of a boundary study. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife suggested that the NPS 

consider the effects of more visitors on the 

desert tortoise. MWD had no concerns. 

BLM was invited to the agency briefing in July 

2015 but did not attend the agency briefing. 

However, NPS has invited BLM to become a 

cooperating agency on the boundary study EA. 

In early 2016, the NPS and BLM developed a 

Joint Action and Communication Plan to 

explore a possible boundary expansion of 

Joshua Tree National Park in the Eagle 

Mountain Area. A component of the action plan 

was the agreement of the BLM, California State 

Office to serve as a cooperating agency with 

NPS, Pacific West Regional Office as the lead 

agency in conducting the required NEPA 

analysis and other reports and legal processes 

necessary for completion of this withdrawal and 

temporary segregation. The BLM reviewed and 

provided input on the draft boundary study / 

EA. 

Section 7 Consultation 

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, consultation letters were sent from 

the NPS to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife in July 2015. No written comments 

have been received to date. Consultation is 

ongoing and the agency will be invited to review 

the draft boundary study and environmental 

assessment. 

Section 106 Consultation 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal 

agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. In 

accordance with the regulations implementing 

Section 106, letters initiating the process were 

sent to the California SHPO and to the Tribes as 

described in the previous section. The Colorado 

River Indian Tribes requested a consultation 

meeting with the NPS. Streamlined procedures 

for Section 106 consultation have been used in 

this EA. Consultation is ongoing. 

List of Agencies and Organizations and 

Stakeholders Public Who Will Be Notified 

of the Publication of the Boundary Study 

/ EA 

U.S. Government 

Members of Congress 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Congressman Pete Aguilar 

Congressman Paul Cook 

Congressman Raul Ruiz 

Federal Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources 

Division 

State of California 

State Senators 

State Senator Jean Fuller 

State Senator Ben Hueso 

State Senator Mike Morrell 

State Senator Tony Mendoza 

State Senator Sharon Runner 

State Senator Jeff Stone 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

210 

State Representatives 

Representative Eduardo Garcia, California State 

Assembly 

Representative Chris Holden, California State 

Assembly 

Representative Chad Mayes, California State 

Assembly 

Representative Jay Obernolte, California State 

Assembly 

Representative Brian Jones, California State 

Assembly 

Representative Cheryl R. Brown, California 

State Assembly 

Representative Marc Steinorth, California State 

Assembly 

State Agencies 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

California State Historic Preservation Office 

California State Lands Commission 

State Water Resources Control Board 

Local and County Governments 

City of Banning 

City of Beaumont 

City of Big Bear Lake 

City of Cathedral City 

City of Desert Hot Springs 

City of Fontana 

City of Hesperia 

City of Highland 

City of Indio 

City of Palm Desert 

City of Palm Springs 

City of Redlands 

City of San Bernardino 

City of Twenty Nine Palms 

City of Upland 

City of Yucaipa 

City of Rancho Cucamonga 

Riverside County 

Riverside County Board of Supervisors 

Riverside County Planning Department 

School Districts 

Morongo Unified School District 

Desert Center Unified School District 

Tribal Organizations and Groups 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle 

Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 

Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

Twenty-nine Palms Band of Mission Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians 

San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Businesses, Institutions, and Organizations 

Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center 

California Desert Coalition 

Cathedral City Chamber of Commerce 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley 

Coachella Chamber of Commerce 

Coachella Valley Mexican American Chamber 

of Commerce 

Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce 

Desert Protection Society 

Desert Protective Council 

Desert Tortoise Council 

Eagle Crest Energy Company 

Eagle Mountain Mining and Railroad Company, 

LLC 

First Class Miners, Inc. 

Indio Chamber of Commerce 

Joshua Tree Chamber of Commerce 

Joshua Tree National Park Association 

La Ronna Jojoba Co. 

Minerals and Mining Advisory Council 

Mojave Desert Land Trust 

Morongo Basin Conservation Association 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

211 

Morongo Basin Conservation Association 

National Park Foundation 

National Parks Conservation Association 

Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce 

Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce 

Public Lands for the People 

Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Club -Tahquitz Group 

Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wildlands Conservancy 

Thousand Palms Chamber of Commerce 

Twentynine Palms Inn 

Welborn, Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C. 

Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce 

Water Districts and Agencies 

Coachella Valley Water District 

Lahontan Regional Water Resources Control 

Board 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California 

Mission Springs Water District 

San Diego Regional Water Resources Control 

Board 

Utility Companies 

Southern California Edison 

Comment Period 

To comment on this boundary study / EA, you 

may mail comments or submit them online at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/eaglemountain and 

follow the appropriate links. Please submit 

comments by May 27, 2016. 

Before including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you should be 

aware that the NPS practice is to make 

comments, including the names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public review. 

Individual respondents may request that their 

address be withheld from the planning record, 

which will be honored to the extent allowable by 

law. There also may be circumstances in which a 

respondent’s identity would be withheld from 

the record, as allowable by law. To have your 

name and/or address withheld state this 

prominently at the beginning of the comment. 

Please mail comments to: 

Eagle Mountain Boundary Study 

Joshua Tree National Park 

74485 National Park Drive 

Twentynine Palms, California 92277-3597 

E-mail: jotr_study@nps.gov 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

212 

APPENDIXES
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

213 

APPENDIX A: Presidential Proclamation and Legislative Acts for Joshua 

Tree National Park 

Proclamation (No. 2193) of August 10, 1936 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

WHEREAS certain public lands in the State of California contain historic and prehistoric structures, and 

have situated thereon various objects of historic and scientific interest; and 

WHEREAS it appears that it would be in the public interest to reserve such lands as a national monument, 

to be known as the Joshua Tree National Monument: 

Now, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, under and by 

virtue of the authority vested in me by section 2 of the act of June 8, 1906, ch. 3060, 34 Stat. 225 (U. S. C., 

title 16, sec. 431), do proclaim that, subject to existing rights and prior withdrawals, the followingdescribed lands in California are hereby reserved from all forms of appropriation under the public-land 

laws and set apart as the Joshua Tree National Monument: 

SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN 

T. I S., R. 5 E., sees. 19 to 36, inclusive. T. 2 S., R. 5 E., sees. I to 6, 11 to 13, inclusive, and those parts of 

secs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 24 lying north of the north boundary of the Colorado River Aqueduct right-ofway. T. I S., R. 6 E., sees. 19 to 36, inclusive; T. 2 S., R. 6 E., sees. I to 18, 21 to 26, inclusive, and those parts 

of secs.19, 20, 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way; T. 3 S., R. 6 E., that part of sec. 1 

lying north if aqueduct right-of-way. Ts. 1 and 2 S., R. 7 E. (Partly unsurveyed); T. 3 S., R. 7 E., sees. 1 to 6, 

8 to 16, 23 to 24, inclusive, and those parts of secs. 7, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25 and 26 lying north of aqueduct 

right-of-way; Ts. I and 2 S., R. 8 E. (partly unsurveyed); T. 3 S., R. 8 E., sees. 1 to 30, 33 to 36, inclusive, and 

those parts of secs. 31 and 32 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way; T. 4 S., R. 8 E., those parts of secs. 4 

and 5 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way; T. 1 S., R. 9 E., secs. 5 to 9 and 16 to 36, inclusive; Ts. 2 and 3 

S., R. 9 E. (partly unsurveyed); Ts. I to 3 S., R. 10 E. (partly unsurveyed); T. 5 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1 to 30, 

inclusive, and those parts of secs. 31 to 36 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way; Ts. I to 4 S., R. 11 E. 

(partly unsurveyed); T. 5 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1 to 30 and 32 to 36, inclusive, and that part of sec. 31 lying 

north of aqueduct right-of-way; T. 6 S., R 11 E., those parts of secs. I to 6 lying north of aqueduct right-ofway; Ts. 1 to 5 S., R. 12 E. (partly unsurveyed); T. 6 S., R. 12 E., those parts of secs. 1 to 6 lying north of 

aqueduct right- of- way; Ts. 1 to 4 S., R. 13 E. (partly unsurveyed); T. 5 S., R. 13 E., secs. I to 24, inclusive, 

and those parts of secs. 28, 29, 30 and 31 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way (partly unsurveyed); Ts. 1 to 

3 S., R. 14 E. (partly unsurveyed); T. 4 S., R. 14 E., secs. 1 to 11, 14 to 23, 27 to 34, inclusive, and those parts 

of secs. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 and 35 lying west of aqueduct right-of-way (unsurveyed), Ss. I and 2 S., R. 15 E. 

(partly unsurveyed); T. 3 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1 to 19, inclusive, and sec. 24; those parts of secs. 20, 21, 22, 23, 

25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 lying north of aqueduct right-of-way (partly unsurveyed).; T. 4 S., R. 15 E., those parts 

of secs. 6 and 7 lying west of aqueduct right-of-way; containing approximately 825,340 acres. 

Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or 

remove any feature of this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

214 

The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall have 

the supervision, management, and control of the monument as provided in the act of Congress entitled 

“An Act To establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes,” approved August 25, 1916 (ch. 408, 

39 Stat. 535, U. S. C., title 16, secs. 1 and 2), and acts supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be 

affixed. 

DONE at the City of Washington this 10th day of August, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and 

thirty-six and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and sixty-first. 

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT. 

By the President: WILLIAM PHILLIPS, 

Acting Secretary of State 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

215 

Boundary Revision of 1950 (Public Law 81-837) 

An Act to reduce and revise the boundaries of the Joshua Tree National Monument in the State of 

California, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 

assembled, That Joshua Tree National Monument, in the State of California, established by Proclamation 

Numbered 2193, of August 10. 1936 (50 Stat. 1760), hereafter shall comprise the following -described 

area: 

SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN 

Township 1 south, range 5 east, sections 22 to 27, inclusive, and sections 34 to 36, inclusive; township 2 

south, range 5 east, portion of east half lying north of the north right-of-way line of the Colorado River 

aqueduct but excluding therefrom that portion of the Long Canyon Camp and dump area in section 27 ; 

township 1 south, range 6 east, sections 19 to 36, inclusive ; township 2 south, range 6 east, sections 1 to 

30, inclusive, that portion of section 31 lying north of the north right-of-way line of the Colorado River 

aqueduct, and sections 32 to 36, inclusive; township 3 south, range 6 east, portion lying north of the north 

right-of-way line of the Colorado River aqueduct but excluding therefrom that portion of the Deception 

Camp and dump area in section 14, that portion of the West Deception Camp and dump area in section 

10, and the portions of the East Wide Canyon Camps and dump areas in sections 5 and 6 ; township 1 

south, range 7 east, sections 1 to 4, inclusive, and 9 to 15, inclusive, unsurveyed, section 16, sections 19 to 

23, inclusive, section 24, unsurveyed, and sections 25 to 36, inclusive; township 2 south, range 7 east; 

township 3 south, range 7 east, portion lying north of the north right-of-way line of the Colorado River 

aqueduct but excluding therefrom that portion of the Fan Hill Camp and dump area in section 20 ; 

township 1 south, range 8 east, partly unsurveyed; townships 2 and 3 south, range 8 east; township 1 

south, range 9 east, sections 5 to 9, inclusive, sections 16 to 23, inclusive, and sections 26 to 35, inclusive; 

township 2 south, range 9 east, sections 2 to 11, inclusive, and sections 14 to 36, inclusive, partly 

unsurveyed ; township 3 south, range 9 east; township 4 south, range 9 east, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, and 

sections 11 to 14, inclusive ; township 2 south, range 10 east, sections 25 to 36, inclusive, unsurveyed; 

township 3 south, range 10 east, partly unsurveyed; township 4 south, range 10 east, sections 1 to 18, 

inclusive, sections 22 to 26, inclusive, and sections 35 and 36 ; township 5 south, range 10 east, section 1; 

township 2 south, range 11 east, sections 25 to 36, inclusive, unsurveyed; townships 3 and 4 south, range 

11 east, partly unsurveyed; township 5 south, range 11 east, sections 1 to 18, inclusive, sections 22 to 27, 

inclusive, and sections 34, 35, and 36; township 6 south, range 11 east, portion of sections 1, 2, and 3 lying 

north or north transmission line right-of-way which is adjacent to the north right-of-way line of the 

Colorado River aqueduct but excluding therefrom the Aggregate Deposit in section 3; township 2 south, 

range 12 east, section 13 and sections 23 to 36, inclusive, partly unsurveyed; townships 3 and 4 south, 

range 12 east, partly unsurveyed; township 5 south, range 12 east, sections 1 to 24, inclusive, and sections 

26 to 34, inclusive, partly unsurveyed, and portions of sections 25 and 35 lying north of north transmission 

line right-of-way which is adjacent to the north right-of-way line of the Colorado River aqueduct; 

township 6 south, range 12 east, portions of sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10, lying north of north transmission 

line right-of-way which is adjacent to the north right-of-way line of the Colorado River aqueduct, but 

excluding therefrom the Bumpani's Aggregate Deposit in section 4; township 2 south, range 13 east, 

sections 1 and 2 and sections 7 to 36, inclusive, partly unsurveyed ; township 3 south, range 13 east, 

sections 1 to 18, inclusive, partly unsurveyed; township 5 south, range 13 east, sections 6, 7, 18, and 19, 

unsurveyed; township 1 south, range 14 east, sections 33 to 36, inclusive, partly unsurveyed; township 2 

south, range 14 east, partly unsurveyed; township 3 south, range 14 east, sections 1 to 18, inclusive, partly 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

216 

unsurveyed; township 1 south, range 15 east, sections 31 to 35, inclusive, partly unsurveyed ; township 2 

south, range 15 east, sections 2 to 36 inclusive, partly unsurveyed; township 3 south, range 15 east, 

sections 1 to 12, inclusive, partly unsurveyed, and section 18, unsurveyed; township 2 south, range 16 east, 

sections 18, 19, 30, and 31, unsurveyed; and township 3 south, range 16 east, sections 6 and 7 unsurveyed. 

Sec. 2. All public-domain lands heretofore included within the Joshua Tree National Monument which 

are eliminated from the National Monument by this Act are hereby opened to location, entry, and 

patenting under the United States mining laws: Provided, That such public-domain lands or portions 

thereof shall be restored to application and entry under other applicable public land laws, including the 

mineral leasing laws. 

Sec. 3. All leases, permits, and licenses issued or authorized by any department, establishment, or agency 

of the United States, with respect to the Federal lands excluded from the Joshua Tree National 

Monument by this Act, which are in effect on the date of the approval of this Act shall continue in effect, 

subject to compliance with the terms and conditions therein set forth, until terminated in accordance with 

the provisions thereof. 

Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed, through the Bureau of Mines, the 

Geological Survey, and the National Park Service, to cause a survey to be made of the area within the 

revised boundaries of the Joshua Tree National Monument with a view to determining to what extent the 

said area is more valuable for minerals than for the National Monument purposes for which it was 

created. Report of said survey shall be filed with the President of the United States Senate and the Speaker 

of the House of Representatives on or before February 1, 1951. 

Approved September 25, 1950. 

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

217 

Designation of Joshua Tree National Park (Public Law 103-433) California Desert 

Protection Act (Joshua Tree Portion) 

TITLE IV - JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK. 

SEC. 401. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds that a proclamation by President Franklin Roosevelt in1936 established Joshua Tree 

National Monument to protect various objects of historical and scientific interest; 

Joshua Tree National Monument today is recognized as a major unit of the National Park System, having 

extraordinary values enjoyed by millions of visitors; the monument boundaries as modified in 1950 and 

1961 exclude and thereby expose to incompatible development and inconsistent management, 

contiguous Federal lands of essential and superlative natural, ecological, archeological, paleontological, 

cultural, historical, and wilderness values; Joshua Tree National Monument should be enlarged by the 

addition of contiguous Federal lands of national park caliber, and afforded full recognition and statutory 

protection as a National Park; and the non-designated wilderness within Joshua Tree should receive 

statutory protection by designation pursuant to the Wilderness Act. 

SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK. 

There is hereby established the Joshua Tree National Park, (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 

“park”), as generally depicted on a map entitled “Joshua Tree National Park Boundary – Proposed”, dated 

May 1991, and four maps entitled “Joshua Tree National Park Boundary and wilderness”, numbered in 

the title one through four, and dated October 1991 or prior, which shall be on file and available for public 

inspection in the offices of the Superintendent of the park and the Director of the National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. The Joshua Tree National Monument is hereby abolished as such, the lands 

and interests therein are hereby incorporated within and made part of the new Joshua Tree National Park, 

and any funds available for purposes of the monument shall be available for purposes of the park. 

SEC. 403. TRANSFER AND ADMINISTRATION OF LANDS. 

Upon enactment of this title, the Secretary shall transfer the lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management depicted on the maps described in section 402 of this title, without consideration, to 

the administrative jurisdiction of the National Park Service for administration as part of the National Park 

System. The boundaries of the park shall be adjusted accordingly. 

The Secretary shall administer the areas added to the park by this title in accordance with the provisions 

of law generally applicable to units of the National Park System, including the Act entitled “An Act to 

establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes”, approved August 25, 1916 (39 9 Stat. 535; 16 

U.S.C. 1, 2-4). 

SEC. 404. MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 

Within six months after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall file maps and legal 

description of the park with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United States Senate 

and the Committee on Natural Resources of the United States House of Representatives. Such maps and 

legal description shall have the same force and effect as if included in this title, except that the Secretary 

may correct clerical and typographical errors in such legal description and maps. The maps and legal 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

218 

description shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the National 

Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

SEC. 405. WITHDRAWAL. 

Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal lands within the park are hereby withdrawn from all forms of 

entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; from location, entry, and patent under the 

United States mining laws; and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal 

leasing, and mineral materials, and all amendments thereto. 

SEC. 406. UTILITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 

Nothing in this title shall have the effect of terminating any validly issued right-of-way or customary 

operation maintenance, repair, and replacement activities in such right-of-way, issued, granted, or 

permitted to the Metropolitan Water District pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617-

619b), which is located on lands included in the Joshua Tree National Park, but outside lands designated 

as wilderness under section 601(a)(2). Such activities shall be con- ducted in a manner which will 

minimize the impact on park resources. Nothing in this title shall have the effect of terminating the fee 

title to lands or customary operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement activities on or under such 

lands granted to the Metropolitan Water District pursuant to the Act on June 18, 1932 (47 Stat. 324), 

which are located on lands included in the Joshua Tree National Park, but outside lands designated as 

wilderness under section 601(a)(2). Such activities shall be conducted in a manner which will minimize 

the impact on park resources. The Secretary shall prepare within one hundred and eighty days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, in consultation with the Metropolitan Water District, plans for emergency 

access by the metropolitan Water District to its lands and rights-of-way. 

Approved October 31, 1994. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

219 

APPENDIX B: Studies and Reports Required by 43 CFR 2310.3.2 

(Segregation and Withdrawal Application) 

As authorized by provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act9 and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act10 (FLPMA), the National Park Service (NPS) has requested the withdrawal of 

federal lands within the study area evaluated in the proposed action (Alternative C) including the transfer 

of administrative jurisdiction over approximately 22,515 acres of land from the BLM to the NPS. General 

requirements for the withdrawal process are outlined in 3 CFR Part 2300, Subpart 2310. 

The boundary study / EA satisfies requirements for information, studies, analyses and reports outlined in 

43 CFR 2310.3-2 including: 

General Requirements of 43 CFR 2310.3-2

Requirement Related Boundary Study Components

(b)(1): effects of proposal on present users of land, resource uses, 

and economic impacts. 

A report identifying the present users of the lands involved, explaining 

how the users will be affected by the proposed use and analyzing the 

manner in which existing and potential resource uses are incompatible 

with or conflict with the proposed use of the lands and resources that 

would be affected by the requested action. The report shall also specify 

the provisions that are to be made for, and an economic analysis of, the 

continuation, alteration or termination of existing uses. If the provisions 

of § 2310.3-5 of this title are applicable to the proposed withdrawal, the 

applicant shall also furnish a certification that the requirements of that 

section shall be satisfied promptly if the withdrawal is allowed or 

authorized. 

The study boundary adjustment criteria 

analysis in Chapter 2 provides an in 

depth discussion of existing land uses. 

Chapter 4: Affected Environment also 

contains a description of land use and 

existing visitor uses and opportunities. 

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 

evaluates the potential effects of the 

withdrawal on existing resources, present 

users of the land, and economic impacts. 

(b)(2) Water Use 

(2) If the application states that the use of water in any State will be 

necessary to fulfill the purposes of the requested withdrawal, extension 

or modification, a report specifying that the applicant or using agency 

has acquired, or proposes to acquire, rights to the use of the water in 

conformity with applicable State laws and procedures relating to the 

control, appropriation, use and distribution of water, or whether the 

withdrawal is intended to reserve, pursuant to Federal law, sufficient 

unappropriated water to fulfill the purposes of the withdrawal. Water 

shall be reserved pursuant to Federal law for use in carrying out the 

purposes of the withdrawal only if specifically so stated in the relevant 

withdrawal order, as provided in § 2310.3-3(b) of this title and only to 

the extent needed for the purpose or purposes of the withdrawal as 

expressed in the withdrawal order. The applicant shall also provide proof 

of notification of the involved State's department of water resources 

when a land use needed to carry out the purposes of the requested 

withdrawal will involve utilization of the water resources in a State. As a 

condition to the allowance of an order reserving water, the applicant 

shall certify to the Secretary that it shall quantify the amount of water to 

be reserved by the order. 

Water rights have not been identified as 

necessary for NPS management of the 

withdrawal area, so this area is not 

analyzed. 

(b)(3) Environmental Assessment 

An environmental assessment, an environmental impact statement or 

The study environmental assessment 

meets the requirements of the National 

 

9

 The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act authorizes NPS to accept an administrative transfer of 

lands from another federal agency for inclusion with an adjacent national park unit. See 54 U.S.C. § 

100506(c)(1)(B) (formerly found at 16 U.S.C. § 460l-9(c)(1)(ii)). 

10 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer jurisdiction over 

federal lands. See 43 U.S.C. §§ 1702(j), 1714 and 43 C.F.R. § 2310.1-2. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

220 

General Requirements of 43 CFR 2310.3-2

Requirement Related Boundary Study Components

any other documents as are needed to meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), and 

the regulations applicable thereto. The authorized officer shall 

participate in the development of environmental assessments or impact 

statements. The applicant shall designate the Bureau of Land 

Management as a cooperating agency and shall comply with the 

requirements of the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality. 

The Bureau of Land Management shall, at a minimum, independently 

evaluate and review the final product. 

The following items shall either be included in the assessment or impact 

statement, or they may be submitted separately, with appropriate cross 

references. 

(i) A report on the identification of cultural resources prepared in 

accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR part 800, and other 

applicable regulations. 

(ii) An identification of the roadless areas or roadless islands having 

wilderness characteristics, as described in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 

U.S.C. 1131, et seq.), which exist within the area covered by the 

requested withdrawal action. 

(iii) A mineral resource analysis prepared by a qualified mining engineer, 

engineering geologist or geologist which shall include, but shall not be 

limited to, information on: General geology, known mineral deposits, 

past and present mineral production, mining claims, mineral leases, 

evaluation of future mineral potential and present and potential market 

demands. 

(iv) A biological assessment of any listed or proposed endangered or 

threatened species, and their critical habitat, which may occur on or in 

the vicinity of the involved lands, prepared in accordance with the 

provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1536), and regulations applicable thereto, if the 

Secretary determines that assessment is required by law. 

(v) An analysis of the economic impact of the proposed uses and 

changes in use associated with the requested action on individuals, local 

communities, State and local government interests, the regional 

economy and the Nation as a whole. 

(vi) A statement as to the extent and manner in which the public 

participated in the environmental review process. 

Environmental Policy Act and includes 

evaluation of the items outlined under 

(b)(3): 

i. Potential effects on cultural resources 

are documented in Chapter 5: 

Environmental Consequences.

ii. Roadless areas are described in 

Chapter 2: Application of Boundary 

Adjustment Criteria and on Map: 2-4 

Wilderness and Roadless Areas.

iii. Completion of a mineral potential 

report is being prepared separately 

from this boundary study / EA. 

However, a description of mineral 

resources and potential effects on 

such resources has been included in 

the EA. 

iv. Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences includes an assessment 

of proposed endangered or 

threatened species within the study 

area. 

v. Chapter 5: Environmental 

Consequences (Land Use and 

Ownership, Socioeconomics) includes 

an assessment of potential effects on 

individuals, local communities, state 

and local governments, and the 

regional economy. 

vi. Chapter 1: Purpose and Need (Study 

Process) and Chapter 6: Consultation 

and Coordination describes 

stakeholder and public involvement 

associated with the boundary study / 

EA. 

(b)(4) A statement with specific supporting data, as to:

(i) Whether the lands involved are floodplains or are considered 

wetlands; and 

(ii) Whether the existing and proposed uses would affect or be affected 

by such floodplains or wetlands and, if so, to what degree and in what 

manner. The statement shall indicate whether, if the requested action is 

allowed, it will comply with the provisions of Executive Orders 11988 

and 11990 of May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951; 26961). 

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences

documents wetlands and floodplains in 

the area (Map 5-1: Wetlands and 

Floodplains) and finds that the 

withdrawal as identified in the action 

alternatives would not have an effect on 

wetlands and floodplains. 

(b)(5) 

A statement of the consultation which has been or will be conducted 

with other Federal departments or agencies; with regional, State and 

local Government bodies; and with individuals and nongovernmental 

groups regarding the requested action. 

The BLM is a cooperating agency for the 

environmental assessment. 

Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences

documents consultation with other 

Federal, State and local government 

bodies; and with individual groups and 

nongovernmental groups. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

221 

General Requirements of 43 CFR 2310.3-2

Requirement Related Boundary Study Components

(c) Resource Management Plan 

Prior to final action being taken in connection with an application, the 

applicant shall prepare, with the guidance and participation of the 

authorized officer, and subject to the approval of the authorized officer, 

the Secretary and other affected departments, agencies or offices, a 

resource management plan and implementation program regarding the 

use and management of any public lands with their related resources 

uses. 

Consideration shall be given to the impact of the proposed reservation 

on access to and the use of the land areas that are located in the vicinity 

of the lands proposed to be withdrawn. Where appropriate, the plan 

and program will be implemented by means of a memorandum of 

understanding between the affected agencies. Any allocation of 

jurisdiction between the agencies shall be effected in the public land 

order or legislation. In those cases where the Secretary, acting through 

the Bureau of Land Management, would continue to exercise partial 

jurisdiction, resource management of withdrawn areas may be governed 

by the issuance of management decisions by the Bureau of Land 

Management to implement land use plans developed or revised under 

the land use planning requirements of section 202 of the Act (43 U.S.C. 

1712). 

The preferred alternative and proposed 

action includes provisions for a resource 

management implementation program 

guided by the park resource stewardship 

strategy if land is transferred to NPS. 

The alternatives also identify access to 

the area following a withdrawal and land 

transfer. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

222 

APPENDIX C: Parcel Information 

Parcel Group APN* 

Federal Lands 

Parcel Group 

701290017 

701300003 

701300006 

701300009 

701310009 

701310010 

701310011 

701310012 

701310013 

701310014 

701310015 

701310016 

701320013 

701320014 

701320015 

701320016 

701320017 

701320018 

701320019 

701320020 

701350009 

701350010 

701350011 

701350012 

701350013 

701360002 

701360003 

701360004 

701370020 

701370021 

701370022 

701370023 

701370024 

701370026 

701370027 

701370028 

701370032 

701370033 

701370034 

701370035 

701370036

701380019 

701380020 

701380021 

701380026 

701380027 

701380028 

701350014 

701360005 

701360006 

701360007 

701370029 

701380029 

701380030 

701380031 

701380034 

705150004 

705150005 

705150006 

705150007 

705150012 

705150013 

800070018 

800070019 

800070023 

800070030 

800070031 

800070033 

800090002 

800090008 

800090011 

800090023 

800090055 

800090059 

800090062 

800090063 

800090065 

800090070 

807090004 

807110001 

807110003 

800101009 

800101016 

807020002 

807020003

807020004 

807020005 

807020006 

807020007 

807020008 

807020014 

807020015 

807020016 

807020017 

807020018 

807020019 

807020020 

807020021 

807030003 

807050007 

807070012 

807070013 

807070014 

807070015 

807070016 

807070017 

807070018 

807070019 

807090003 

807090005 

807090006 

807100005 

807100006 

807100012 

807110002 

807110005 

807110018 

807120001 

807120002 

807120004 

807120014 

807120017 

807120020 

807120021 

807150008 

807020001 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

223 

Parcel Group APN* 

Private Lands 

Parcel Group 

701310004 

701310005 

701310006 

701320001 

701320002 

701320003 

701320004 

701320005 

701320006 

701320007 

701350001 

701350002 

701370001 

701370002 

701370003 

701370004

701370005 

701370006 

701370007 

701370008 

701370009 

701370010 

701380006 

701380008 

701380010 

701380011 

701380022 

701380023 

701380024 

701380025 

701380032 

701380033 

705150001 

807050006 

807070008 

807070009 

807070011 

807070019 

807070020 

807080007 

807090001 

807110004 

State School Land 

Parcel Group 

701320023 

701320021 

701320022

800370005 

800370004 

800370006 

800280007 

Townsite Parcels 701380007 

701380009 

701380012 

807030005 

807030007 

807030008 

807030010 

807030011 

807040006

807040007 

807040008 

807040009 

807040010 

807050004 

807060002 

807060008 

807-060-007 

807060009 

807070002 

807070004 

807070005 

807080004 

807080005 

807080008 

807080009 

Eagle Mountain 

School Parcel 

807090002 

Metropolitan 

Water District of 

Southern 

California Parcel 

Group 

800070028 

800070029 

800070032 

800070034 

800090029 

800090045 

800090049 

800090054 

800090056 

800090060 

800090061

800090064 

800090066 

800090069 

800090071 

800280005 

800280006 

800300001 

800310001 

800360001

800370001 

800370003 

800380001 

800380003 

807110020 

807060007 

807120016 

807120019 

807120023 

807120024 

*Note: In some cases only a portion of the parcel lies within the study area or proposed boundary adjustment.

 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

224 

APPENDIX D: Unpatented Mining Claims 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43501 27 0030S 0150E 031 SE ASH # 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43502 27 0030S 0150E 031 SE ASH # 3

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43503 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW,SE ASH # 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC29208 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE # 102

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29209 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE # 103

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29216 

27 0030S 0140E 019 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 110

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29217 

27 0030S 0140E 019 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 111

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29218 27 0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 112

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29219 27 0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 113

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29224 27 0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 118

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29225 27 0030S 0140E 020 NW BLACK EAGLE # 119

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29226 

27 0030S 0140E 020 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE # 120

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC29206 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE # 96

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC14517 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE #100

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78619 27 0030S 0130E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE #123

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78620 27 0030S 0130E 024 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE #124

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78621 

27 0030S 0130E 024 

NE,SW,SE BLACK EAGLE #125

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC14515 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE #98

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC14516 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE #99

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43579 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 10

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43580 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NW,SW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 11

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43581 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NE,SE; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 12

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43572 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 032 NE,NW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43573 

27 0030S 0140E 032

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 3

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43574 

27 0030S 0140E 032 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43575 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE EXT # 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43577 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NW BLACK EAGLE EXT # 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43578 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW BLACK EAGLE EXT #9

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43552 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SW, 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NW BLACK EAGLE EXTENSIO

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43619 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 10

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43620 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 11

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

225 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43621 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 12

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43622 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 13

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43623 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 14

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43624 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 15

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43625 27 0030S 0140E 019 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 16

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43626 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW,SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 17

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43627 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 18

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43628 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 19

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43611 27 0030S 0140E 030 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43629 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 20

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43630 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 21

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43631 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 22

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43632 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 23

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43633 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 24

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43634 

27 0030S 0130E 024 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 019 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 25

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43635 

27 0030S 0130E 024 NE,SE; 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 26

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43636 

27 0030S 0130E 024 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 27

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43637 

27 0030S 0130E 024 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 28

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43638 

27 0030S 0130E 024 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 29

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43640 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 31

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43641 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 32

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43642 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 33

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43643 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 34

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43644 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 35

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43645 27 0030S 0140E 024 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 36

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43613 27 0030S 0140E 030 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43649 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 40

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43650 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 41

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43651 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 42

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43652 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 43

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43653 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 44

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43654 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 45

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

226 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43655 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 46

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43656 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 47

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43657 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 48

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43658 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 49

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43614 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43659 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 50

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43660 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 51

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43661 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 52

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43662 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 53

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43663 27 0030S 0140E 019 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 54

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43664 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 55

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43665 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 56

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43666 27 0030S 0140E 019 NE BLACK EAGLE NO 57

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43668 

27 0030S 0140E 019 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 59

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43615 

27 0030S 0140E 019 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 6

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43669 

27 0030S 0140E 019 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 60

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43670 

27 0030S 0140E 019 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 61

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43671 

27 0030S 0140E 019 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 62

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43672 

27 0030S 0140E 019 SE, 27 

0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 63

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43673 

27 0030S 0140E 019 NE,SE; 

27 0030S 0140E 020 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 64

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43674 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 65

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43675 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 66

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43676 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 67

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43677 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 68

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43678 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 69

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43616 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43679 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 70

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43680 

27 0030S 0140E 020 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 71

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43681 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 72

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43682 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 73

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43683 27 0030S 0140E 030 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 74

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43684 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 75

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

227 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43685 

27 0030S 0140E 020 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 029 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 76

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43686 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 77

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43687 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 78

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43688 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 79

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43617 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43689 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 80

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43690 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 81

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43691 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 82

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43692 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 83

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43693 27 0030S 0140E 020 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 84

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43694 

27 0030S 0140E 020 

NW,SW BLACK EAGLE NO 85

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43695 27 0030S 0140E 029 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 86

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43696 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW BLACK EAGLE NO 87

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43698 27 0030S 0140E 020 SE BLACK EAGLE NO 89

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43618 27 0030S 0140E 019 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 9

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43699 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 90

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43700 27 0030S 0140E 020 SW,SE BLACK EAGLE NO 91

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43701 

27 0030S 0140E 020 

SW,SE; 27 0030S 0140E 

029 NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 92

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43702 

27 0030S 0140E 029 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 93

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43703 

27 0030S 0140E 025 

NE,NW BLACK EAGLE NO 94

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43704 27 0030S 0140E 030 NW BLACK EAGLE NO 95

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43898 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43907 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #10

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43908 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #11

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43909 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #12

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43910 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #13

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43911 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #14

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43912 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #15

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43913 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #16

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43914 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #17

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43915 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #18

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43916 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #19

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

228 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43899 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43917 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #20

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43918 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #21

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43919 27 0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #22

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43920 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #23

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43921 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #24

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43922 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #25

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43923 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #26

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43924 

27 0030S 0140E 028 

SW,SE; 27 0030S 0140E 

033 NE,NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #27

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43925 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #28

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43926 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #29

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43900 27 0030S 0140E 032 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #3

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43927 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #30

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43928 

27 0030S 0140E 028 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #31

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43929 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #32

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43931 27 0030S 0140E 028 SW,SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #34

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43932 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #35

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43933 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #36

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43934 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #37

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43935 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #38

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43936 

27 0030S 0140E 033 

NE,NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #39

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43901 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW; 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 028 SW; 27 

0030S 0140E 029 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43937 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #40

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43938 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #41

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43939 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #42

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43940 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #43

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43941 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #44

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43942 

27 0030S 0140E 033 

NE,NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #45

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43943 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #46

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43944 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #47

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43945 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE,SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #48

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

229 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43946 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #49

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43902 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43947 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #50

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43948 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #51

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43949 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #52

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43950 

27 0030S 0140E 028 NW; 

27 0030S 0140E 029 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #53

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43951 

27 0030S 0140E 028 NW; 

27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #54

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43952 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #55

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43953 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #56

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43954 

27 0030S 0140E 033

NW,SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #57

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43955 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #58

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43956 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #59

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43957 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #60

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43958 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #61

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43959 

27 0030S 0140E 032 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #62

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43961 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 034 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #64

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43962 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #65

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43963 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #66

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43964 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #67

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43965 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #68

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43966 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #69

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43904 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43967 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #70

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43970 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #73

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43971 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #74

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43972 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #75

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43973 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #76

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43974 

27 0030S 0140E 033 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 034 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #77

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43975 

27 0030S 0140E 033 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 034 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #78

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43976 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #79

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43905 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43977 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #80

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

230 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43978 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #81

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43979 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #82

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43980 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #83

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43981 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #84

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43982 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #85

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43983 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW,SE CEN DEPOSIT MILL #86

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43984 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #87

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43985 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #88

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43986 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #89

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43987 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #90

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43988 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CEN DEPOSIT MILL #91

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78611 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #100

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78613 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #102

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78614 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #103

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78615 27 0030S 0140E 033 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #104

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78616 

27 0030S 0140E 033 

NE,NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #105

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78617 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #106

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78618 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #107

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC119658 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #108

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC119660 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #110

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC338 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #92

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC339 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #93

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC119657 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT #94

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC60471 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #95

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC60472 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #96

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC60473 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #97

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC60474 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #98

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC60475 27 0030S 0140E 033 NE CENTRAL DEPOSIT #99

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236168 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 119

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236169 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 120

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236180 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 131

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236181 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 132

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

231 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC236182 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 133

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236183 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 134

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236184 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 135

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236185 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 136

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236186 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 137

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC236187 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW CENTRAL DEPOSIT 138

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43582 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CENTRAL PLACER NO 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43583 27 0030S 0140E 033 SE CENTRAL PLACER NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43530 27 0030S 0150E 031 SE CHUCKLE #10

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC PLACER

CAMC43847 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 100

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43848 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 101

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43849 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 102

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43850 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 103

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43851 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE E PIT MILL NO 104

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43852 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE E PIT MILL NO 105

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43853 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 106

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43854 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 107

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43855 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 108

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43856 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 109

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43857 27 0030S 0140E 034 NW E PIT MILL NO 110

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43859 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 112

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43860 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 113

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43861 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 114

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43862 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 115

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43864 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 117

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43865 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 118

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43866 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 119

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43867 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 120

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43868 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 121

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43869 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 122

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43870 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 123

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43871 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILL NO 124

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

232 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43872 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 125

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43874 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 127

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43875 27 0030S 0140E 034 SW E PIT MILL NO 128

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43876 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 140

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43877 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 141

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43878 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 142

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43879 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 143

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43880 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 144

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43884 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 156

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43885 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 157

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43886 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 158

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43887 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 159

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43890 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 170

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43891 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 171

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43892 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 172

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43893 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILL NO 173

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43748 27 0030S 0140E 036 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43758 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 11

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43759 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 12

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43760 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 13

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43761 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 14

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43764 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 17

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43765 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 18

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43766 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 19

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43749 27 0030S 0140E 036 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43767 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 20

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43768 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 21

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43771 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 24

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43772 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 25

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43773 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 26

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43774 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 27

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43775 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 28

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

233 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43776 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 29

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43750 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 3

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43778 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 31

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43779 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 32

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43780 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 33

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43781 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 34

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43782 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 35

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43783 27 0030S 0140E 025 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 36

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43785 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 38

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43786 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 39

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43751 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43787 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 40

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43788 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 41

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43789 27 0030S 0140E 026 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 42

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43790 27 0030S 0140E 026 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 43

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43791 27 0030S 0140E 026 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 44

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43795 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 48

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43796 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 49

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43752 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43797 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 50

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43798 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 51

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43799 27 0030S 0140E 026 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 52

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43800 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 53

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43802 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 55

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43803 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 56

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43804 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 57

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43805 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 58

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43753 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 6

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43807 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 60

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43808 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 61

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43810 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 63

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43811 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 64

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

234 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43812 27 0030S 0140E 026 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 65

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43813 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 66

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43814 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 67

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43815 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 68

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43816 27 0030S 0140E 026 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 69

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43754 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43818 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 71

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43819 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW E PIT MILLSITE NO 72

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43820 27 0030S 0140E 026 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 73

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43821 27 0030S 0140E 026 SW E PIT MILLSITE NO 74

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43825 27 0030S 0140E 027 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 78

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43826 27 0030S 0140E 027 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 79

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43755 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43828 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 81

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43829 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 82

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43830 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 83

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43831 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 84

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43832 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 85

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43833 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 86

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43836 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 89

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43756 27 0030S 0140E 025 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 9

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43837 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 90

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43838 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 91

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43839 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 92

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43840 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 93

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43841 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 94

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43842 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 95

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43843 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 96

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43844 27 0030S 0140E 034 SE E PIT MILLSITE NO 97

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43845 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 98

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43846 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE E PIT MILLSITE NO 99

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC78607 27 0030S 0140E 026 SW EAST PIT #207

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

235 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC78608 27 0030S 0140E 034 NE EAST PIT #208

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90153 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #217

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90154 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #218

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90157 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #221

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90158 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #222

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90162 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #226

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC90166 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW EAST PIT #230

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43544 

27 0030S 0140E 036 SW, 

27 0040S 0140E 001 NW FLAT #1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC PLACER

CAMC144076 27 0030S 0140E 031 NW ICL 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144077 27 0030S 0130E 036 NW ICL 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144078 27 0030S 0130E 036 SW ICL 3

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144079 27 0030S 0130E 036 SW,SE ICL 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144080 27 0030S 0130E 036 SE ICL 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144081 

27 0030S 0130E 036 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 031 SW ICL 6

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144082 27 0030S 0140E 031 SW ICL 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144083 

27 0030S 0140E 031 

NW,SW ICL 8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC144084 27 0030S 0140E 031 NW ICL 9

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43587 27 0030S 0140E 033 NW IRON NO 42

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43554 

27 0030S 0140E 029 

NW,SW; 27 0030S 0140E 

030 NW,SE LUCKY BOY

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43556 

27 0030S 0140E 029 

NW,SW; 27 0030S 0140E 

030 NE LUCKY BOY FRACT #2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43555 27 0030S 0140E 030 NE LUCKY BOY FRACTION

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC291168 

27 0030S 0130E 021 SE; 27 

0030S 0130E 028 NE MIDDLE CAMP

FIRST CLASS MINERS 

INC PLACER

CAMC311287 27 0030S 0130E 027 NE MIDDLE CAMP EAST

SIMMONS SUSAN, 

DRAKE CRAIG, 

DRAKE DIANA, 

HERRING GREG PLACER

CAMC298397 

27 0030S 0130E 021 SE, 27 

0030S 0130E 028 NE MIDDLE CAMP WEST

FIRST CLASS MINERS 

INC PLACER

CAMC43545 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE NORTH #4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43546 

27 0030S 0140E 035 

NE,NW NORTH #5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43547 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW NORTH #6

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43548 

27 0030S 0140E 034 NE, 27 

0030S 0140E 035 NW NORTH #7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43550 

27 0030S 0140E 035 

NE,NW NORTH DUMP NO 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43551 27 0030S 0140E 035 NW NORTH DUMP NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43585 27 0030S 0140E 019 SW NORTH FRACTION KAISER EAGLE MTN LODE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

236 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

INC

CAMC43549 27 0030S 0140E 035 NE NORTH NO 10

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43588 

27 0030S 0140E 027 

SW,SE; 27 0030S 0140E 

028 SW NORTH NO 14

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43589 

27 0030S 0140E 027 

SW,SE; 27 0030S 0140E 

034 NE,NW NORTH NO 15

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43590 27 0030S 0140E 027 SW,SE NORTH NO 16

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43591 27 0030S 0140E 027 SW NORTH NO 17

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43592 27 0030S 0140E 027 SW NORTH NO 18

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43594 

27 0030S 0140E 027 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE NORTH NO 20

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43595 

27 0030S 0140E 027 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE NORTH NO 21

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43596 

27 0030S 0140E 027 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 028 SE NORTH NO 22

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43597 27 0030S 0140E 028 SE NORTH NO 23

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43598 27 0030S 0140E 028 NE,SE NORTH NO 24

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43599 27 0030S 0140E 028 NE,SE NORTH NO 25

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43600 

27 0030S 0140E 028 

NW,SW,SE NORTH NO 26

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43601 

27 0030S 0140E 028 

NE,NW,SW,SE NORTH NO 27

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43603 

27 0030S 0140E 028 

NW,SW NORTH NO 29

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43604 27 0030S 0140E 028 NW NORTH NO 31

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43605 

27 0030S 0140E 028 

NW,SW; 27 0030S 0140E 

029 NE,SE NORTH NO 32

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43606 27 0030S 0140E 029 NE NORTH NO 35

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43607 

27 0030S 0140E 027 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 034 NE NORTH NO 38

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43608 

27 0030S 0140E 027 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 034 NE NORTH NO 39

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43609 27 0030S 0140E 027 SE NORTH NO 40

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC306519 

27 0030S 0130E 034 SE, 27 

0030S 0130E 035 NW,SW PERMENES #1 ANTHONY STEVE LODE

CAMC306520 

27 0030S 0130E 035 SW, 

27 0040S 0130E 002 SW PERMENES #2 ANTHONY STEVE LODE

CAMC43535 

27 0030S 0150E 031 

NW,SW PRICE NO 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43536 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW PRICE NO 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43713 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 110

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43714 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 111

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43715 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 112

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43716 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 113

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43717 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 115

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

237 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43718 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 116

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43719 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 118

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43720 27 0040S 0150E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 119

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43721 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 153

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43722 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 154

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43723 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 156

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43724 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 157

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43725 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 158

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43726 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 159

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43727 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 161

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43728 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 162

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43729 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 163

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43730 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 164

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43731 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 166

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43732 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 167

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43733 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 168

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43734 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 169

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43735 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 170

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43736 27 0040S 0150E 006 SE S E MILLSITE NO 171

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43737 27 0040S 0140E 001 SE S E MILLSITE NO 172

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43738 27 0040S 0140E 001 SE S E MILLSITE NO 173

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43739 27 0040S 0140E 001 SE S E MILLSITE NO 174

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILLSITE

CAMC43740 27 0040S 0140E 006 SW S E MILLSITE NO 175

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43741 27 0040S 0140E 006 SW S E MILLSITE NO 176

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43742 27 0040S 0140E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 177

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43743 27 0040S 0140E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 178

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43744 27 0040S 0140E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 179

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43745 27 0040S 0140E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 180

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43746 27 0040S 0140E 006 NE S E MILLSITE NO 181

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43586 27 0030S 0140E 028 SW SANDWICH NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43537 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 4

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43538 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 5

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

238 

Serial Number Mer Twn Rng Sec Quad Claim Name Claimant(s) Casetype

CAMC43539 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 6

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43540 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43541 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43542 27 0030S 0150E 031 SW SCOTT NO 9

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43708 27 0040S 0140E 012 NW SOUTH MILLSITE NO 26

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43709 27 0040S 0140E 012 NW SOUTH MILLSITE NO 27

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43710 27 0040S 0140E 012 NW SOUTH MILLSITE NO 28

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43711 27 0040S 0140E 012 NW SOUTH MILLSITE NO 29

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC43712 27 0040S 0140E 012 NW SOUTH MILLSITE NO 30

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC MILL-NP

CAMC311995 27 0030S 0130E 027 NE TWO BIRDS

KLIEWER JOSHUA 

KLIEWER RONALD L 

JR 

KLIEWER SILAS PLACER

CAMC43557 

27 0030S 0140E 030 

NW,SW WINFIELD

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43558 27 0030S 0140E 030 SW WINFIELD NO 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43567 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NW; 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 031 NE WINFIELD NO 11

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43568 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NW; 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 030 SE WINFIELD NO 12

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43569 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 030 SE WINFIELD NO 13

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43570 27 0030S 0140E 029 SW,SE WINFIELD NO 14

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43571 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SW; 

27 0030S 0140E 032 NW WINFIELD NO 15

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43584 

27 0030S 0140E 029 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 032 NE WINFIELD NO 19

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43559 

27 0030S 0130E 025 NE; 27 

0030S 0140E 030 NW WINFIELD NO 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43563 27 0030S 0140E 030 SE WINFIELD NO 7

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43564 

27 0030S 0140E 030 SE; 27 

0030S 0140E 031 NE WINFIELD NO 8

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43526 

27 0030S 0150E 031 

SW,SE; 27 0040S 0150E 

006 NE YUCCA # 1

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

CAMC43527 

27 0030S 0150E 031 SE, 27 

0040S 0150E 006 NE YUCCA # 2

KAISER EAGLE MTN 

INC LODE

Source: BLM 2015b 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

239 

APPENDIX E: Sensitive Species Lists 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

Insects 

Cheeseweed owlfly 

(Oliarces clara) 

BLM 

sensitive

- Possible 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Couch’s spadefoot 

(Scaphiopus couchii) 

BLM 

sensitive

SSC - Possible 

Coachella Valley fringe-toed 

lizard (Uma inornata) 

FT SE - Possible. Lizard observed but 

exact species is unverified.

Mojave fringe-toed 

Lizard (Uma scoparia) 

BLM 

Sensitive

SSC - Possible. Lizard observed but 

exact species is unverified.

Common Chuckwalla 

(Sauromalus ater) 

BLM 

sensitive 

- Present and observed

Desert rosy boa 

(Charina trivirgata 

gracia) 

BLM 

sensitive 

SCC - Possible 

Desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) 

FT ST - Present and observed

Birds 

Bendire’s thrasher 

(Toxostoma bendirei) 

BCC, BLM

Sensitive

- Possible 

Crissal thrasher 

(Toxostoma crissale) 

BCC SSC - Unlikely, but possible. Not

observed. 

Gila woodpecker 

(Melanerpes uropygialis) 

BCC E - Possible, not observed.

LeConte’s thrasher 

(Toxostoma lecontei) 

- SSC - Possible, not observed.

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

BCC SSC - Common, observed

Mountain plover 

(Charadrius montanus) 

BCC, BLM

Sensitive

SCC ABC:WLBCC Unlikely, but possible

winter visitor. 

Sonoran yellow warbler 

(Dendroica petechia 

sonorana) 

BCC SSC - Possible throughout but limited 

habitat. Observed. 

Vermilion flycatcher 

(Pyrocephalus rubinus) 

- SCC - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Yellow-breasted chat 

(Icteria virens) 

- SSC - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus) 

FT SE - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii) 

FE SE - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica) 

FT SCC - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Yuma clapper rail 

(Rallus obsoletus yumanensis (R. 

longirostris y.) 

FE ST - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

California least tern 

(Sternula antillarum browni) 

FE SE - Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat,
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

240 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

not observed 

Least Bell's vireo 

Vireo (Bellii pusillus) 

FE SE - Hi Highly unlikely except

as transient, limited habitat, 

not observed 

Raptors 

Short-eared owl 

(Asio flammeus) 

 SSC ABC:WLBC Possible winter visitor

Burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia) 

BCC, BLM

Sensitive 

SSC - Observed 

American peregrine 

Falcon (Falco peregrinus 

anatum) 

BCC SE, Fully 

protected 

- Possible, not observed

Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) BCC WL - Likely, not observed

Ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis) 

BCC, BLM

Sensitive

WL - Possible winter resident only

Northern Harrier 

(Circus cyaneus) 

- SSC - Possible, not observed

Golden eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 

BCC, BLM

Sensitive

WL, Fully

Protected

- Possible foraging and nesting 

habitat 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Delisted Delisted - Highly unlikely except

as transient 

Mammals 

Big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis) 

 SCC WBWG:MH Possible forager on site

California leaf-nosed bat 

(Macrotus californicus) 

BLM 

Sensitive

SCC WBWG:H Possible 

Pocketed free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops 

femorosaccus) 

 SSC WBWG:M Possible 

Spotted Bat 

(Euderma maculatum) 

BLM 

Sensitive

SSC WBWG:H Possible 

Townsend’s big-eared 

Bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii) 

BLM 

Sensitive 

SSC WBWG:H Possible 

Western mastiff bat 

(Eumops perotis 

californicus) 

BLM 

Sensitive 

SCC WBWG:H Highly likely 

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) BLM/FS CSC - Possible 

Colorado valley woodrat 

(Neotoma albigula 

venusta) 

- - - Possible 

American badger 

(Taxidea taxus) 

- SCC - Present, observed 

Burro deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus 

eremicus) 

- Game 

species 

- Present, observed 

Nelson’s bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis 

nelsoni) 

BLM 

Sensitive, 

NPS SMC 

Game

species 

- Present, observed 

Vegetation 

Ammoselinum giganteum - - - Possible 

Las Animas columbrina 

(Colubrina californica) 

- S2,

S3 

CNPS 2B.3,

G4 

Highly likely 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

241 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

Alverson’s foxtail cactus 

(Coryphantha alversonii) 

- S3 CNPS 4.3,

G3 

Highly likely 

Alkali mariposa-lily (Calochortus 

striatus) 

BLM CNPS 1B.2 Possible but not likely

Allium parishii Wats. JOTR rare S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G3 

Possible 

Aloysia wrightii Abrams JOTR rare S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G5 

Possible 

Alverson’s foxtail cactus 

(Coryphantha alversonii) 

- - - Highly likely 

Androstephium breviflorum 

Wats. 

JOTR rare S2,

S3 

CNPS 2.2, G5 Possible 

Astragalus aridus A. Gray JOTR 

Watchlist, 

JOTR rare 

- - Highly likely, occurs nearby

Astragalus nutans M.E. Jones JOTR rare S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G3 

Possible 

Astragalus tricarinatus Gray FE, 

JOTR rare 

S1.2 CNPS 1B.2, 

G1 

Possible 

Ayenia compacta Rose JOTR rare S3 CNPS 2.3, 

G4 

Highly likely, occurs nearby

Castela emoryi (Gray) Moran & 

Felger 

JOTR rare S2S3 CNPS 2.3, 

G3 

Highly likely, occurs nearby

Chamaesyce abramsiana 

(Wheeler) Koutnik 

 - S1.2 CNPS 2.2, 

G4 

Possible 

Coachella Valley milk-vetch

(Astragalus lentiginosus var.

coachellae)

FE - - Possible 

Colubrina californica Jtn. JOTR rare S2,

S3.3 

CNPS 2.3, 

G4 

Highly likely, occurs nearby
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

242 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

Coryphantha alversonii (Coult.) 

Orcutt 

JOTR rare S3.2 CNPS 4.3, 

G3 

Highly likely, occurs nearby

Condalia globosa var. pubescens - - CNPS 4.2 Possible 

Cryptantha costata Brandegee JOTR rare S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G4, G5 

Highly likely, occurs nearby

Cylindropuntia chuckwallensis JOTR rare 

JOTR 

watchlist 

- - Highly likely, occurs nearby

Cryptantha holoptera - - CNPS 4.3 Possible 

Ditaxis serrata var. californica 

(Brandegee) V.W. Steinm. & 

Felger 

JOTR rare S2 CNPS 3.2,

G5 

Possible 

Emory's crucifixion-thorn 

(Castela emoryi) 

- S2S3 CNPS 2B.2, 

G3, G4 

Possible 

Eriastrum harwoodii (T.T. Craig) 

D. Gowen 

JOTR rare S2 CNPS 1B.2,

G2 

Highly likely, occurs nearby

Eschscholzia androuxii JOTR rare - - Highly likely, occurs nearby 

Funastrum utahense (Engelm.) 

Liede & Meve

JOTR rare S3.2 CNPS 4.2,

G4 

Highly likely 

Galium munzii Hilend. & Howell JOTR rare S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G4, G5 

Possible 

Grusonia parishii (Orcutt)

Pinkava 

JOTR rare S2 CNPS 2.2, 

G3, G4 

Possible 

Harwood’s milk vetch 

(Astragalus insularis var. harw) 

- - CNPS 2B.2 Possible 

Mentzelia puberula J. Darl. JOTR rare S2 CNPS 2.2, 

G4 

Possible 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

243 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

Nemacaulis denudata var.

gracilis Goodman & L.D. Benson 

JOTR rare S2 CNPS 2.2, 

G3, G4 

Highly likely 

Parish’s club cholla (Grusonia 

parishii)

- - CNPS 2B.2 Present 

Parish's daisy 

(Erigeron parishii)

FT - - Possible, potential habitat

Polygala acanthoclada A. Gray JOTR rare S1 CNPS 2.3, 

G4 

Highly likely 

Proboscidea althaeifolia - - CNPS 4.3 Possible 

Selaginella eremophila JOTR rare S2S3 CNPS 2B.2,

G4 

Highly likely, occurs nearby 

Salvia greatae - - CNPS 1B.3 Possible 

Spearleaf Matelea parvifolia 

(Torr.) Woodson 

JOTR rare S2.2 CNPS 2.3, 

G5 

Highly likely 

Tetracoccus hallii Bdg. JOTR rare State S3.3 CNPS 4.3, 

G4 

Highly likely 

Teucrium cubense ssp. 

depressum 

- - CNPS 2B.2 Possible 

Triple-ribbed milk-vetch

(Astragalus tricarinatus)

FE - - Possible, potential habitat

Status Code Listing 

FE Federally Endangered

FT Federally Threatened

SE State Endangered 

ST State Threatened 

Federal BCC FWS Bird of Conservation Concern

State SSC California DFG Species of Special Concern (be vulnerable to extinction) 

State Fully Protected Species that cannot be taken without authorization from Fish and Game Commission

State WL Watchlist species: species that are not SSC, state-listed, or fully protected 

BLM Sensitive Species under review, rare, with limited geographic range or habitat associations, or declining

NPS SMC NPS species of special management concern (SMC) 

JOTR rare Species of management concern for Joshua Tree National Park and also on CNPS list

JOTR watchlist Species of management concern for Joshua Tree National Park but not on rare plant lists

ABC:WLBCC American Bird Conservancy United States Watchlist of Birds of Conservation Concern
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

244 

Existing or Potential Special Status Animal and Plant Species in Study Area 

Species Federal 

Status 

State 

Status Other Status Likelihood of Occurrence 

WBWG WBWG – Western Bat Working Group

H – High Priority – These species should be considered the highest priority for funding, planning, 

and conservation actions 

M – Medium Priority – These species warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation 

actions of both the species and the threats 

L- Low Priority – Most of the existing data support stable populations of the species and that the 

potential for major changes in status is unlikely.

CNPS 1A California Rare Plant Rank 1A (formerly List 1A): Plants Presumed Extinct in California

CNPS 1B California Rare Plant Rank 1B (formerly List 1B): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 

California and Elsewhere

CNPS 2 California Rare Plant Rank 2 (formerly List 2): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in 

California, But More Common Elsewhere

CNPS 3 California Rare Plant Rank 3 (formerly List 3): Plants About Which We Need More Information - A 

Review List 

CNPS 4 California Rare Plant Rank 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List

California Rare Plant Threat Ranks: 

0.1-Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 

0.2-Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 

0.3-Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat) 

G1 Global Rank, Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or 

fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors

G2 Global Rank, Imperiled—At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few 

populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 Global Rank, Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few 

populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. 

G4 Global Rank, Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern 

due to declines or other factors.

G5 Global Rank, Demonstrably Secure—Common; widespread and abundant. 

S1 State Rank, Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 

or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially 

vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province.

S2 State Rank, Imperiled—Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very 

few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the nation or state/province.

S3 State Rank, Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few 

populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it 

vulnerable to extirpation.

S4 State Rank, Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due 

to declines or other factors.

S5 State Rank, Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the state. 

CNDDB ELEMENT RANKING. Global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global 

range. Both Global and State ranking (S-rank) represent a letter+number score that reflects a combination of Rarity, Threat 

and Trend factors, with weighting being heavier on Rarity than the other two. State Ranking is assigned much the same way 

as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California’s state boundaries. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

245 

REFERENCES 

Anicic, John Charles, Jr. 

2006 Kaiser Steel Fontana. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, South Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; 

Portsmouth, New Hampshire; San Francisco, California. 

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) 

2015 Colorado River Aqueduct web page. Available at: 

 http://www.asce.org/project/colorado-river-aqueduct/, accessed April 21, 2015. 

American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Arroyo, M., Marticorena, C., Matthei, O. & Cavieres, L. 

2000 “Plant Invasions in Chile: Present Patterns and Future Predictions.” In H. A. Mooney & R. J. 

Hobbs (Eds.), Invasive Species in a Changing World. (pp. 385-421). Washington, DC: Island Press. 

ASM Affiliates 

2011a Final Historic Properties Management Plan California Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project 

FERC Project Number 13123-002. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company. Carlsbad, 

California. 

2011b Addendum to a class III field inventory for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, 

Riverside County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. 

Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. 

2009a A Class I cultural resources investigation for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, 

Riverside County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. 

Prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. 

2009b A Class III field inventory for the proposed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Riverside 

County, California. Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company, Palm Desert, CA. Prepared by 

ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, CA. 

Barrows, C. 

2009 Niche modeling and implications of climate change on desert tortoises and other selected reptiles 

within Joshua Tree National Park. (Unpublished report). University of California Riverside, 

Riverside, California. 

Barrows, C., & Murphy-Mariscal, M. L. 

2012 “Modeling impacts of climate change on Joshua trees at their southern boundary: How scale 

impacts predictions.” Biological Conservation, 152, 29-36. 

Bischoff, M. 

2009 The Desert Training Center/California-Arizona Maneuver Area, 1942-1944, Volume 1: Historical 

and Archaeological Contexts for the California Desert, Technical Series 75. Prepared under contract 

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles District. Los Angeles, California. 

Bischoff, M., R. Allen, and R. S. Baxter. 

2012 Documentation for Multiple Property National Register Nomination: Desert Training Center, 

California-Arizona Maneuver Area. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates, Sacramento, 

for the Bureau of Land Management and the California Energy Commission.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

246 

Bleich, V.C. J.H. Davis, J.P. Marshal, S.G. Torres, and B.J. Gonzales. 

2009 Mining activity and habitat use by mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis). European Journal of 

Wildlife Research 55:183-193 

Boarman, William I. 

2003 "Managing a subsidized predator population: reducing common raven predation on desert 

tortoises." Environmental Management 32.2 (2003): 205-217. 

Boarman, W. I., et al. 

2006 "Ecology of a population of subsidized predators: Common ravens in the central Mojave Desert, 

California." Journal of Arid Environments 67 (2006): 248-261 

Boarman, William I. and Sazaki, Marc 

2006 “A highway's road-effect zone for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii).” Journal of Arid 

Environments, 65: 94 – 101 

Brooks M.L., Lair B. 

2005 “Ecological effects of vehicular routes in a desert ecosystem.” The Mojave Desert: Ecosystem 

Processes and Sustainability. R. H Webb, L Fenstermaker, J Heaton, D Hughson, editors.The 

University of Nevada Press, Reno, NV. 

Brooks, M. L., & Pyke, D. A.

2001 “Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America.” In K. E. Galley, & T. P. Wilson (Eds.), 

Proceedings of the invasive species workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive 

species. Fire Conference 2000: The first national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and 

management. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. 

[BLM] U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

2015a Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. BLM/CA/PL-2016/03+1793+8321 

2015b Land and Mineral Legacy Rehost 2000 System (LR 2000), Mining Claim Geographic Report. 

Available at http://blm.gov/lr2000/. Accessed October 17, 2015 and updated February 26, 2016. 

2015c Authorized and First-In Line Pending Solar ROW Applications on BLM-Administered Lands of 

April 1, 2015. Available at: http://blmsolar.anl.gov/program/pending/. Accessed December 10, 

2015. 

2015d Renewable Energy Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/energy/frequently_asked_questions.print.html, accessed 

November 2015 

2015e World War II Desert Training Center, California-Arizona Maneuver Area. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/needles/patton.html. Accessed November 24, 2015. 

2012 Assessment of the Mineral Potential of Public Lands Located within Proposed Solar Energy Zones in 

California. Terri Patton, Geologist. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

247 

2011 Desert Sunlight Solar Farm Project California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. South Coast Field Office, Palm Springs, California. CACA 

#48649. 

1999 California Desert Conservation Area Plan, 1980 as amended. Desert District, Riverside, 

California. 

1996 Correspondence between BLM California District Office and the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer regarding the Eagle Mountain Landfill Project, BLM910826B, 

1993 Mineral Report, Amendment to Mineral Potential Report, P.K. Morton for the Exchange of Public 

and Private lands, Eagle Mountain Landfill Project. 

1991 California Statewide Wilderness Study Report: Record of Decision. Washington, D.C. 

1990 California Statewide Wilderness Study Report: Part 4, Volume 6. Washington, D.C. 

1985 Desert Training Center: California-Arizona Maneuver Area: Interpretive Plan. California Desert 

District, Riverside, California. 

1979 California Desert Conservation Area Wilderness Inventory, Final Descriptove Narratives, March 

31, 1979 

BLM and [DOE] U.S. Department of Energy 

2012 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six 

Southwestern States (Final Programmatic EIS). Available at: 

http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm. DOE/EIS–0403 

BLM and [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game 

2002 Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/cdd/neco.html. U.S.Bureau of 

Land Management, California Desert District, and California Department of Fish and Game, 

Inland, Desert and Eastern Sierra Region. July 2002. 

Burghardt, J. E., E. S. Norby, and H. S. Pranger, II 

2014 Abandoned mineral lands in the National Park System—comprehensive inventory and assessment.

Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR—2014/906. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

California, State of 

2014a 2012-2022 Projection Highlights (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) Employment 

Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 

2014 b 2012-2022 Fastest Growing Occupations (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) Employment 

Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 

2014c 2012-2022 Industry Employment Projects (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) Employment 

Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. 

[CA DOT] California Department of Transportation 

2015 Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County. Accessed January 22, 2016 at: 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

248 

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

2015a Threatened and Endangered Mammals List, accessed on 3/18/2015 from www.dfg.ca.gov 

2015b California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), State and Federally Listed Endangered, 

Threatened, and Rare Plants of California, Updated January 2015. 

2015c Threatened and Endangered Reptiles, accessed on 3/18/2015 from www.dfg.ca.gov 

[CDWR] California Department of Water Resources 

2004 Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 

1979 Sources of power plant cooling water in the desert area of Southern California – Reconnaissance 

Study. Bulletin 91–24. 

1975 California’s groundwater: Bulletin 118. Available at: 

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_ground_water__bulletin_1

18-75_/b118-1975.pdf, accessed May 19, 2011. California Department of Water Resources, 

Sacramento, CA. 

[CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality 

2014 Draft Guidance on Climate Change, available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance.pdf 

1997 Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National Environmental Quality Act. Accessible at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf 

[CSLC] California State Land Commission 

2015 Annual Staff Report on the Management of State School Lands Fiscal Year 2014-15. Available on the 

Internet at: http://www.slc.ca.gov/Info/Reports/School_Lands/FY2014-15.pdf. Access December 

6, 2015.

Cole, K. L., Ironside, K., Eischeid, J., Garfin, G., Duffy, P. B., & Toney, C. 

2011 “Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree distribution support future modeled range contraction.” 

Ecological Applications, 21, 137-149. 

Cox, James B. 

1996 An Assessment of the Potential National Register Eligibility of the Eagle Mountain Mine, Appendix K, 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Eagle Mountain 

Landfill and Recycling Project. Prepared by CH2MHILL. State Clearinghouse No. 95052023 

Creech, T.G., C.W. Epps, R. Monello, and J.D. Wehausen 

2014 “Using Network Theory to Prioritize Management in a Desert Bighorn Sheep Metapopulation”. 

Landscape Ecology: 29:605-619.

Cullinane Thomas, C., C. Huber, and L. Koontz. 

2015 2014 National Park visitor spending effects: Economic contributions to local communities, states, and 

the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2015/947. National Park Service, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. Available on the Internet at: 

https://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/VSE2014_Final.pdf 

Dean Runyan Associates 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

249 

2015 California Travel Impacts 1992-2014. Prepared for Visit California and the Governor’s Office of 

Business Development. Available on the Internet at 

http://industry.visitcalifornia.com/media/uploads/files/editor/California_Travel_Impacts_April_2

015.pdf 

DeFries, Ruth, et al. 

2007 "Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological 

function." Ecological Applications, 17.4 (2007): 1031-1038. 

Dias, Ric Anthony 

1995 Together we build: the rise and fall of the Kaiser Steel Corporation in the New Deal West. Ph. D. 

Dissertation. University of California, Riverside. 

Dilsaver, Lary M. 

2015 Joshua Tree National Park: A History of Preserving the Desert. Administrative History. Prepared for 

the National Park Service. Joshua Tree National Park. Twentynine Palms, California. 

Divine, D. D., Ebert, D. W., and Douglas, C. L. 

1996 The effect of scale on defining topographically suitable desert bighorn sheep habitat: Desert 

Bighorn Council Transactions, v. 40, p. 13-18.

Divine, D.d. 

1998 Habitat patch dynamics of desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni in the eastern Mojave Desert. 

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada-Las Vegas

DMJM Design/AECOM 

2007 County of Riverside Department of Facilities Management, Eagle Mountain Community 

Correctional Facility Adaptive Reuse Review & Assessment. DMJM Design/AECOM. July 24, 

2007. 

[DOE] Department of Energy 

2011 Critical Materials Strategy. Published December 2011. Available at: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf 

Eagle Crest Energy Company 

2015 Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project No. 13123, Exhibit A Project Description. Submitted to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, December 2015. Santa Monica, California 

Edwards, T., Schwalbe, C. R., Swann, D. E., & Goldberg, C. S. 

2004 “Implications of anthropogenic landscape change on inter-population movements of the desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).” Conservation Genetics, 5(4), 485-499. 

Ennon, J. R., Lovich, J. E., Meyer, K., Bjurlin, C., & Arundel, T. R. 

2012 “Nesting ecology of a population of Gopherus agassizii at a utility-scale wind energy facility in 

Southern California.” Copeia, 2, 222-228. 

[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency 

1998 Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance 

Analyses. Available on the Internet at:

http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf

Epps, Clinton W., John D. Wehausen, Per J. Palsbøll, and Dale R. McCullough 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

250 

2010 “Using Genetic Tools to Track Desert Bighorn Sheep Colonizations.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 74 (3), 522-531. 

Epps, Clinton W., John D. Wehausen, Vernon C. Bleich, Steven G. Torres, and Justin S. Brashares 

2007 "Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics." Journal of Applied Ecology. 

44.4 (2007): 714-724. 

Epps, Clinton W., J. Palsbøll, John D. Wehausen, George K. Roderick, Rob R. Ramey II, and Dale 

R. McCullough 

2005 “Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn 

sheep.” Ecology Letters, (2005) 8: 1029–1038 

Epps, Clinton W., Dale R. Mccullough, John D. Wehausen, Vernon C. Bleich, and Jennifer L. 

Rechel

2004 "Effects of Climate Change on Population Persistence of Desert"Dwelling Mountain Sheep in 

California." Conservation Biology. 18.1 (2004): 102-113. 

Evans, R. D., A. Koyama, D. L. Sonderegger, T. N. Charlet,B. A. Newingham, L. F. Fenstermaker, B. 

Harlow, V. L. Jin, K. Ogle, S. D. Smith & R. S. Nowak 

2014 “Greater ecosystem carbon in the Mojave Desert after ten years exposure to elevated CO2.” 

Nature Climate Change:4, 394–397 (2014). Published online 06 April 2014 

Farka, Mira and Adrian Fleissig 

2015 County of Riverside Economic Outlook and Forecasts 2015. California State University, Fullerton: 

Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasts. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.countyofriverside.us/Portals/0/Government/Budget%20Information/2013-

2014%20Recommended%20Docs/2014_Q3_Report_2014-04-30-FINAL_for_printingN.pdf> 

[FERC] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

2014 Order No. 13123-002, Issuing Original License: Eagle Crest Energy Company Project, 47 FERC 

61,220 (June 19, 2014). 

2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License─Eagle Mountain Pumped 

Storage Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 13123-002, California, FERC/FEIS-F-0238. 

Washington, D.C. 

Force, Eric R. 

2001 Eagle Mountain mine—Geology of the former Kaiser Steel operation in Riverside County, California. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-237, Tucson, AZ. 

Gervais, J, Rosenberg, D., Comrack, L 

2008 Studies of Western Birds 1:218–226, 2008, BURROWING OWL (Athene cunicularia). 

Gilford, Steve. 

2006 “The Rediscovery of Contractors General Hospital – Birthplace of Kaiser Permanente.” The 

Permanente Journal. Summer 2006, Vol. 10, No. 2. 

Goin, Peter and C. Elizabeth Raymond 

2004 Changing Mines in America. Santa Fe, NM: The Center for American Places, University of Chicago Press. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

251 

Gonzalez, P. 

2012 Climate change trends and ecological vulnerabilities for planning at Joshua Tree National Park.

(Unpublished report). National Park Service, Denver, CO. 

Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll 

2006 Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. 

Gruen, Philip J. 

1998 Colorado River Aqueduct, California. CAL. I- HAER. No. CA-226. Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER). Washington, DC 20240 

2007 "Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands." Ecological Applications

17.4 (2007): 974-988. 

Hansen, Andrew J., and Ruth DeFries. 

2007 "Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands." Ecological Applications 

17.4 (2007): 974-988. 

Hansen, A. J., Davis, C., Piekielek, N. B., Gross, J. E., Theobald, D. M., Goetz, S. J and Ruth DeFries 

2011 “Delineating the ecosystems containing protected areas for monitoring and management.” 

Bioscience, 61, 263-273. 

Hansen, Andrew J., Nathan B. Piekielek, Cory Davis, Jessica R. Haas, David M. Theobald, John E. 

Gross, William B. Monahan, Tom Olliff, and Steven W. Running 

2014 “Exposure of US National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change.” 1900-2100. Ecological 

Applications 2014 24:3, 484-502.

Harder, Cecil Harder 

1912 Iron-Ore Deposits Of The Eagle Mountains, California. Bulletin 503. Department of the Interior 

United States Geological Survey. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Hardesty, Donald and Jessica Smith 

2009 New Lands, Old Lands: A History of the Lands Added to Joshua Tree National Park, California. 

Report prepared for the National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park, Twentynine Palms, 

California. 

Hendricks, Rickey Lynn. 

1993 A Model for National Health Care: The History of Kaiser Permanente. New Brunswick, N.J.: 

Rutgers University Press. 

Hughson, Debra L. and Darby, Neal 

2013 Desert tortoise mortality in Mojave National Preserve, California. California Fish and Game 99(4) 

pg. 222-232 

Hundley, Norris, Jr.

1992 The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s-1990s. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

2013 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

252 

Johnson, Francis, J. and Patricia H. Johnson 

1957 “An Indian Trail Complex of the Central Colorado Desert: A Preliminary Survey.” University of 

California Archaeological Survey Reports 37:22-34. 

Kaiser Eagle Mountain, LLC 

2013 Interim Management Plan, Kaiser Eagle Mountain Mine (CA Mine ID # 91-33-0600). Prepared by Sespe 

Consulting, Inc. Ventura, California. 

Kaiser Steel Corporation 

1978 Surface mining reclamation plan, Eagle Mountain mine. Kaiser Steel Corporation, Riverside, 

California. 

Kunkel, K. E., Stevens L. E., Stevens, S. E., Sun, L., Janssen, E., Wuebbles, D., Redmond K. T., & 

Dobson, J. G. 

2013 Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Asheville, NC: 

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. 

The Kyser Center for Economic Research 

2015 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook 2015-201. Prepared for Los Angeles Economic 

Development Corporation. Available on the Internet at <http://laedc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/02/LAEDC-February-2015-Forecast-Report.pdf> 

La Doux, T., C. Lea, E. Babich 

2013 A Summary of the Joshua Tree National Park Vegetation Mapping Project NPS Vegetation Inventory 

Program. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/JOTR/NRTR—2013/723 

Langenheim V.E. et. al. 

2007 “Isostatic gravity map of Joshua Tree National Park and Vicinity in Southern California”. 2007. 

Open file report 2007-1218. 

Longcore, T. and C. Rich 

2004 “Ecological light pollution.” Front Ecol Environ 2004; 2(4): 191–198 

Lovich, J. E., & Ennen, J. R 

2011 “Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States.” 

BioScience, 61(12), 982-992. 

Lovich, J.E., C.B. Yackulic, J. Freilich, M. Agha, M. Meulblok, K.P. Meyer, T.R. Arundel, J. Hansen, 

M.S. Vamstad and S.A. Root. 

2014 “Climatic variation and tortoise survival: has a desert species met its match?” Biological 

Conservation 169:214-224. 

Lynch, John S., John W. Kennedy, and Robert L. Wooley 

1982. Patton’s Desert Training Center. Council on America’s Military Past, Post Office Box 1151, Fort 

Meyer, Virginia. 

Mathany, T.M., Wright, M.T., Beuttel, B.S., and Belitz, Kenneth 

2012 Groundwater-quality data in the Borrego Valley, Central Desert, and Low-Use Basins of the 

Mojave and Sonoran Deserts study unit, 2008-2010: Results from the California GAMA Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 659, 100 p. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

253 

Miller, D.H., D.R. Bedford, D.L. Hughson, E.V. McDonald, S.E. Robinson, and K.M. Schmidt 

2009 “Mapping Mojave Desert Ecosystem Properties with Surficial Geology.” In The 

Mojave Desert, Ecosystem Processes and Sustainability, eds. Webb, R.H., L.F., 

Fenstermaker, J.S. Heaton, D.L. Hughson, E.V. McDonald, and D.H. Miller. 225-251. 

University of Nevada Press, Reno & Las Vegas, NV. 

Monahan, W. B., Gross, J. E., Svancara, L. K., & Philippi, T. 

2012 A guide to interpreting NPScape data and analyses (Natural Resource Technical Report 

NPS/NRSS/NRTR—2012/578). Fort Collins, CO: National Park Service. 

[MWD] Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

2014 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Annual Report for The Fiscal Year July 1, 

2013 to June 30, 2014. Available at: 

http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_Who_We_Are/1.5.1_annual_report_2014.pdf, access December 

7, 2015. 

[NPCA] National Parks Conservation Association 

2015 Polluted Parks: How Dirty Air is Harming America’s National Parks. August 2015. Available at: 

https://www.npca.org/resources/3137-polluted-parks-how-dirty-air-is-harming-america-snational-parks 

[NPS] United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

2015a Joshua Tree National Park Foundation Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service 

2015b NPS Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decisionmaking. Available at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder12.html. 

2014 Resource Stewardship Strategy. Joshua Tree National Park, California: National Park Service, 

Pacific West Region. 

2012 Director’s Order 25, Land Protection, Land Protection, Reference Manual 25, Draft.

2010a National Park Service Climate Change Response Strategy. National Park Service Climate Change 

Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado 

2010b Joshua Tree National Park Climate Action. Accessible at: 

http://www.nps.gov/subjects/climatechange/upload/JOTR_Climate-Action-Plan_Final.pdf 

2006 NPS Management Policies 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

2003 Director’s Order #77-2: Floodplain Management. 

2000 Joshua Tree National Park and Wilderness Area, Backcountry and Wilderness Plan, Amendment to 

the 1995 General Management Plan, Record of Decision, January 2000. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Joshua Tree National Park. 

1998 NPS Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resources Management Guideline. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder28.html. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

254 

1995 General Management Plan, Development Concept Plans and Environmental Impact Statement.

Denver, CO: National Park Service, Denver Service Center. 

1992 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/. 

Nussear, K. E., Todd C. Esque, Richard D. Inman, Leila Gass, Kathryn A. Thomas, Cynthia S. A. 

Wallace, Joan B. Blainey, David M. Miller, and Robert H. Webb. 

2009 "Modeling habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave and parts of the 

Sonoran deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona." US Geological Survey open-file 

report 1102. 

Ouren, D. S., Hass, C., Melcher, C. P., Stewart, S. C., Ponds, P. D., Sexton, N. R and Zachary H. 

Bowen 

2007 Environmental effects of off-highway vehicles on Bureau of Land Management Lands. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. 

Overpeck, J., G. Garfin, A. Jardine, D. E. Busch, D. Cayan, M. Dettinger, E. Fleish-man, A. 

Gershunov, G. MacDonald, K. T. Redmond, W. R. Travis, and B. Udall 

2013 “Summary for Decision Makers.” In Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A 

Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment, edited by G. Garfin, A. Jardine, R. Merideth, 

M. Black, and S. LeRoy, 1–20. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 

Penrod, K., C. Cabañero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, E. Rubin, and C. Paulman 

2008 A Linkage Design for the Joshua Tree-Twentynine Palms Connection. South Coast Wildlands, Fair 

Oaks, California. www.scwildlands.org 

Powell, R.E., Matti, J.C., Cossette, P.M. 

2015 Geology of the Joshua Tree National Park geodatabase: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2015–1175, GIS database, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151175. 

Powell, R. E., Whittington, C. L., Grauch, V. J. S., and McColly, R. A. 

1984 Mineral Resource Potential of the Eagle Mountains Wilderness Study Area (CDCA-334), Riverside 

County, California. Open File Report: 84-631. Riverside County, California. 

Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON) 

1991 Cultural Resources Survey of the Eagle Mountain Mine and the Kaiser Mountain Mine and the 

Kaiser Industrial Railroad. Prepared by Charles S. Bull, Sue A. Wade, and McMillen Davis. 

Cultural Resource Permit #881916, prepared for Mine Reclamation Corporation 

Riverside County 

2015a Riverside County GIS. http://gis.rivcoit.org/GISData.aspx. Accessed on 10/29/2015. 

2015b Riverside County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 348), Amended through Ordinance No. 

348.4802, Effective 06/18/15. Internet Web site: 

http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/zoning/ordnance/Ord_348_clean_version.pdf?ver=2015-09-

22-111042-933. Accessed December 8, 2015. 

2003 County of Riverside General Plan and Desert Center Area Plan, October 2003, as amended. 

GPA01120. Effective 12/9/14.Available on the internet at: 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

255 

http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_plan_2013/3%20Area%20Plan%20Volume

%202/DCAP_clean_112414.pdf. Accessed on November 3 2015. 

1997a Specific Plan 305—Eagle Mountain Landfill Approved Land Use Map, adopted September 8, 1997. 

Available at: 

http://planning.rctlma.org/SpecificPlans/ApprovedSpecificPlansDocuments.aspx.html, accessed 

May 18, 2010. Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside, California. 

1997b Specific Plan 306—Eagle Mountain Townsite Approved Land Use Map, adopted September 8, 

1997. Available at: 

http://planning.rctlma.org/SpecificPlans/ApprovedSpecificPlansDocuments.aspx.html, accessed 

May 18, 2010. Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside, California. 

Riverside County and [BLM] Bureau of Land Management 

1996 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Eagle Mountain 

Landfill and Recycling Project. Prepared by CH2MHILL. State Clearinghouse No. 95052023 

Rudnick, D. A., Ryan, S. J., Beier, P., Cushman, S. A., Dieffenbach, F., Epps, C...Trombulak, S.C. 

2012 “The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration 

priorities.” Issues in Ecology, Report Number 16. Retrieved from 

http://www.esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issuesinecology16.pdf

San Bernardino County Economic Development Agency 

2015 City Profiles. Available on the Internet at <http://www.sbcountyadvantage.com/DataCenter/Cities-Unincorporated.aspx> 

Schmidt, James J. 

1996 Cultural Resource Investigation: Eagle Mountain Townsite (1995). Appendix K, Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Eagle Mountain Landfill and Recycling 

Project. Prepared by Greenwood and Associates for CH2MHILL. State Clearinghouse No. 

95052023 

Sonoran Institute 

2015 The California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act of 2015: Impacts on Mining and the Regional 

Economy. Available on the Internet at: 

http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/images/stories/Mining_Report_Final_10-22-2015.pdf 

Southern California Association of Governments 

2015a Profile of Riverside County LOCAL PROFILES REPORT 2015

2015b Profile of the Unincorporated Area of Riverside County LOCAL PROFILES REPORT 2015 

2012 Regional Transportation Plan 2012-2035. Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a 

Sustainable Future. Available on the Internet at 

<http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/pfinal/SR/2012pfRTP_GrowthForecast.pdf> 

[SWQCB] State Water Resources Control Board 

2013 Final Water Quality Certification, issued July 15, 2013. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) Project No. 13123. Project Name: Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project (Eagle 

Mountain Project). Available at: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/eaglemtn

13123_certification071513.shtml 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

256 

Steinemann, A. 

1989 "Nonpotable Ground Water in the Desert Area of Southeast California for Powerplant Cooling." 

U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper no. 2343, 1989. 

Stromberg, J.C. 

1993 “Fremont cottonwood-Goodding willow riparian forest: a review of their ecology, threats, and 

recovery potential.” Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science: 27:97–110. 

Stonestrom, D. A., J. Constantz, T.P.A. Ferre & S.A. Leake (Eds.) 

2007 Groundwater Recharge in the Arid and Semiarid Southwestern United States. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1703. 

Tracy, C.R., R. Averill-Murray, W.I. Boarman, D. Delehanty, J. Heaton, E. McCoy, D. Morafka, K. 

Nussear, B. Hagerty, and P. Medica 

2004 Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Assessment. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, 

Nevada 

Trent, D. D. 

1998 “Mines in Joshua Tree National Monument, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.” California 

Geology: September/October 1998, p. 17. 

[U.S. Census Bureau]United States Census Bureau 

2015 Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014. Current Population Reports, DeNavas-Walt, 

Carmen and Proctor. Bernadette D. 

2014 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Desert Center, California CDP. US 

Census Bureau 

2010a Demographic and Housing Estimates, American Community, Survey 3-Year Estimates 

2010b Demographic and Housing Estimates, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 

2010c Poverty Status in The Past 12 Months, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 

2010d Economic Characteristics, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 

[USDI - OIG] United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General 

2008 Abandoned Mine Lands in the Department of the Interior. United States Department of the Interior. 

Washington, D.C.(C-IN-MOA-0004-2007) 

[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

2015 IPaC Trust Resource Report for Riverside County, Generated February 2015. 

2011a “Revised Recovery Plan for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).” 

Region 8, Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California. 

2011b “Biological Opinion on the Desert Sunlight SolarRiverside County, California.” Carlsbad Fish and 

Wildlife Office. Carlsbad, California. 

2000 “Desert Tortoise.” 63 Federal Register 13136; USFWS 2000. 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

257 

[USGS] United States Geological Survey 

2013 Chuckwalla Valley Multiple-well Monitoring Site, Chuckwalla Valley, Riverside County, 

California, Open-File Report 2013–122. October 2013. Accessed October 2015. 

2011 Mineral Resource Data System: Conterminous U.S., Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. 

Available at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineral-resources/ mrds-us.html. Accessed October 14, 2015. 

Wehausen, J.D. 

2006 “Nelson Bighorn Sheep.” West Mojave Plan Species Accounts. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. January 2006. Accessed April 2, 2015. 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/forms/wildlife/details.php?detaillabelc=Desert%20Bighorn%20Sheep&d

etaillabels=Ovis%20canadensis%20nelsoni&metode=serial_number&search=2555 

Wildlife Research Institute, Inc. 

2011 “Golden Eagle Survey Report for the Joshua Tree National Park in Riverside County, California.” 

Report submitted to park. 

2010 “Golden Eagle Aerial Surveys for Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project in the Mojave Desert 

Region, California.” Prepared for Eagle Crest Energy Company. Romona, California. 

Woodward, Clyde 

1998 “Phase I Technical Feasibility Report for Offstream Storage on the Colorado River Aqueduct.” 

prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

.
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

258 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Pacific West Region Core Study 

Team 

The core study team included NPS planning 

staff in the NPS Pacific West Regional Office 

Planning and Environmental Compliance 

Division. Core study team members were 

responsible for public involvement and outreach 

materials, research, writing and analysis related 

to study area resources, development of the 

alternatives, environmental compliance, and 

production of the draft study report. 

 Barbara Butler Baunsgard, Project 

Manager, Park Planning and 

Environmental Compliance Division 

 Karen Cantwell, Environmental 

Protection Specialist 

 Martha Crusius, Chief of Planning and 

Environmental Compliances 

Pacific West Region Extended 

Study Team 

The Pacific West Region extended planning 

team provided overall guidance on study 

analysis and alternatives development and 

information pertinent to study background and 

resource information. 

 Suzanne Brinkley, Outdoor Recreation 

Planner 

 Jay Goldsmith, Chief of Natural 

Resources 

 Barbara Goodyear, Department of the 

Interior, Field Solicitor 

 Gregory Gress, Chief, Pacific Land 

Resources Program Center 

 Martha J. Lee, Deputy Regional 

Director / Acting Regional Director 

 Patricia Neubacher, Deputy Regional 

Director 

Joshua Tree National Park Study 

Team 

Joshua Tree National Park staff provided 

subject-matter expertise for study analysis and 

alternatives, coordinated public outreach 

efforts, and contributed data and other 

information. 

 Andrea Compton, Chief, Resource 

Management 

 Neil Frakes, Vegetation Branch Chief 

 Karin Messaros, Management Assistant 

 Luke Sabala, Physical Sciences Branch 

Chief 

 David Smith, Superintendent 

 Jason Theuer, Cultural Resource Branch 

Chief 

 Michael Vamstad, Wildlife Ecologist 

Other NPS Contributors 

The study team would like to thank the 

following contributors for their guidance and 

technical expertise. 

 Julia Brunner, Energy and Minerals 

Branch, Geologic Resources Division 

 Lara Rozzell, Pacific West Region 

Renewable Energy Coordinator 

BLM Team Members and 

Specialists 

As a cooperating agency, BLM staff in the 

California State Office and California Desert 

District Office provided guidance and expertise 

towards various aspects of the study and 

environmental assessment. 

 Mark R. Chatterton, Branch Chief 

Energy and Minerals 

 Lynnette Elser, Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator 

 Liz Easley, California Withdrawals Lead 

 John Kalish, Palm Springs Field 

Manager 
Eagle Mountain Boundary Study Including Possible Land Withdrawal Environmental Assessment 

259 

 Martha Maciel, Deputy State Director, 

Communications 

 Sandra McGinnis, Environmental 

Protection Specialist 

 Elizabeth Meyer-Shields, 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

 Karen Montgomery, California Realty 

Program Lead 

 Teri Raml, California Desert District 

Manager 

 Michael Smith, Geologist