U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

California Desert District

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos

Moreno Valley, CA 92553

January 2005

Final Environmental Impact Report and

Statement for the

West Mojave Plan

A Habitat Conservation Plan and

California Desert Conservation Area

Plan Amendment

Vol 2
BLM/CA/ES-2004-005 + 1790 - 1600
Appendices 

APPENDICES
Appendices 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A 1992 Memorandum of Understanding 

Appendix B Measures Applicable to Each Jurisdiction 

Appendix C Implementation Tasks 

Appendix D New and Revised ACEC Management Plans 

Appendix E Wilderness Areas 

Appendix F Mojave River Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report 

Appendix G Incidental Take Permit Background Data 

Appendix H Climate and Air Quality 

Appendix I Best Management Practices for New Construction in Tortoise 

Habitat 

Appendix J Desert Tortoise Threats Analysis 

Appendix K Kryzsik Trilogy 

Appendix L Miscellaneous Tortoise Background Data 

Appendix M Mohave Ground Squirrel Background Data 

Appendix N Economics 

Appendix O Livestock Grazing 

Appendix P Minerals 

Appendix Q Utilities: Existing Biological Opinions 

Appendix R Route Designation 

Appendix S Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy 

Appendix T Recreation 

Appendix U Cultural Resources 

Appendix V CEQA Scoping Comments 

Appendix W Caltrans Maintenance Activities 

Appendix X Biological Transition Areas Dropped from Further 

Consideration 

Appendix Y Species Addressed by the Plan 
Appendices 

APPENDIX A 

1992 MEMORANDUM OF 

UNDERSTANDING
Appendices 









Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX B 

MEASURES APPLICABLE 

TO EACH 

JURISDICTION
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX B 

MEASURES APPLICABLE 

TO EACH JURISDICTION 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A

Cities and Towns 

Adelanto

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (Rap-6)Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. 

(Rap-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. 

(Rap-9)Provide educational brochures to landowners. 

(M-15) Report incidental take and relocations annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1, 14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23, AM-22, AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. 

(RAP-3) Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Apple Valley

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. 

(RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. 

(RAP-9) Provide educational brochures to landowners. 

(M-15) Report incidental take and relocations annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. 

(M-23,AM-22,AM-105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave River Bioregion 

(10 species: Brown-crested 

flycatcher, Least Bell’s 

vireo, Lucy’s warbler, 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Summer 

tanager, Vermilion 

flycatcher, Yellow breasted 

flycatcher, Yellow warbler, 

Mojave River vole, 

Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water levels in the 

Mojave River. 
Appendices 

Southwestern pond turtle) 

Prairie Falcon (MR-1, AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground 

water levels in the Mojave River. 

Prairie Falcon 

(RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. 

(RAP-3) Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Barstow

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. 

(RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. 

(RAP-9) Provide educational brochures to landowners. 

(M-15) Report incidental take and relocations annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

California City

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Desert cymopterus (P-21) Require land disturbing projects within identified suitable habitat to perform 

botanical surveys for this species, and if the plant is located, to avoid all occurrences to 

the maximum extant practicable. (M-2) If not avoided, report incidental take. 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose 

blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Hesperia

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 
Appendices 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1, 14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23, AM-22, AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave River vole (AM-14,MR-1) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground 

water levels. 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Short-Joint beavertail Cactus Maintain the integrity of the existing drainages on the north base of the San Gabriel 

Mountains. No structural flood control improvements would be built for these 

waterways south of Highway 138. A setback of 100 feet for projects on 

undeveloped private lands along the drainage would be required, with an easement 

dedicated to the Flood Control District. The District would recognize a 

conservation easement over these lands. (P-52) Review land division and 

development proposals in the Oak Hills area to insure minimization of impacts to 

short-joint beavertail cactus habitat. 

Lancaster

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.4 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel 

Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, unless 

the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit construction or 

disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose blasting restrictions 

on new mines. 

Palmdale

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied 

nests, unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Short-Joint beavertail Cactus (M-2) Report incidental take on private lands within the Palmdale city limits. 

Southwestern pond turtle Protect water source and provide open space at Barrel Springs and Amargosa 

Creek. 
Appendices 

Ridgecrest

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel 

Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit construction 

or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose blasting 

restrictions on new mines. 

Summer tanager Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Vermilion flycatcher Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Twentynine Palms

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard (M-2) Report incidental take 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose 

blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Yucca Valley

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Parish’s daisy Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, unless 

the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit construction or 

disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose blasting 
Appendices 

restrictions on new mines. 

Summer tanager Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Vermilion flycatcher Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Victorville

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave River Bioregion (10 

species: Brown-crested 

flycatcher, Least Bell’s vireo, 

Lucy’s warbler, 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Summer tanager, 

Vermilion flycatcher, Yellow 

breasted flycatcher, Yellow 

warbler, Mojave River vole, 

Southwestern pond turtle) 

AM-14,MR-1) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground 

water levels in the Mojave River. 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Counties 

Inyo County

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned buildings or 

bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) Provide for safe exit of 

bats from non-significant roosts 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) Provide 

educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and relocations 

annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Inyo California 

Towhee 

Report incidental take if known sites change land use. 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel 

Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Ninemile Canyon 

phacelia 

Track incidental take. 

Panamint alligator (M-2) Report incidental take 
Appendices 

lizard 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, unless 

the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit construction or 

disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) Impose blasting restrictions 

on new mines. 

Kern County

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.4 

Barstow woolly sunflower (P-15) Establish the North Edwards Conservation Area. (M-5,HCA-27,29) Require 

botanical surveys, limit ground disturbance to 1% and apply 5:1 mitigation within 

Conservation Area. Adjust boundaries over time to reflect survey results 

Bats (6 species) (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned 

buildings or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) 

Provide for safe exit of bats from non-significant roosts. 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Charlotte’s phacelia (M-2) Report incidental take of suitable occupied habitat on private land. 

Desert cymopterus (HCA-3) Establish the North Edwards Conservation Area. (HCA-27,29) Require 

botanical surveys, limit new ground disturbance to 1% and apply 5:1 mitigation 

within Conservation Area. Adjust boundary over time to reflect survey results. 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Flax-like monardella (HCA-3) Require surveys and avoidance of this species within Middle Knob 

Conservation Area. 

Kelso creek monkeyflower (M-2) Report incidental take of occupied and suitable habitat. Apply mitigation 

funds to acquisition of multispecies areas in Kelso Valley where monkeyflower is 

present. 

Kern buckwheat (HCA-3) Require avoidance within Middle Knob Conservation Area. 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1,27,29) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (1% limitation 

on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave tarplant (M-2) Report incidental take (applies to new populations). 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Red Rock poppy (M-2) Report incidental take (applies to new populations) 

Red Rock tarplant (M-2) Report incidental take (applies to new populations) 

Reveal’s buckwheat (P-51) Require avoidance at known location. 

Southwestern Pond Turtle (AM-74) Require riparian protection of Kelso Creek if turtles are detected through 

new surveys and monitoring. 

Western Snowy Plover (B-16) Prohibit disturbance within 1/8 mile of nest sites on playas during nesting 

season. (Applies to newly-detected nest locations.) 

Yellow-eared pocket mouse (MAM-11) Limit incidental take to 100 acres. (MAM-9) Apply mitigation funds to 

acquisition of multispecies areas in Kelso Valley where pocket mouse is present. 
Appendices 

Los Angeles County

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.4 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned 

buildings or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) 

Provide for safe exit of bats from non-significant roosts. 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Gray Vireo Two options are proposed: 

(B-6) 1. Establish Big Rock Creek Conservation Area, (HCA-27,29) apply the 

1% cap on new ground disturbance and adopt the West Mojave Plan mitigation 

ratios. 

(B-9) 2. Adopt new boundaries for the Antelope Valley Significant Ecological 

Area. Zone the SEA for ten acre minimum parcel size and impose development 

reviews. 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1,27,29) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (1% 

limitation on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) . 

Long-eared owl (RAP-2) Require development projects to be 1⁄4 mile from occupied nests, unless 

the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit construction 

or disturbance within 1/4 mile of nest sites during the nesting season. 

(HCA-3) Establish the Big Rock Creek Conservation Area or adopt new 

boundaries for the Antelope Valley SEA. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.9.1 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied 

nests, unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

San Diego Horned Lizard Two options are proposed: 

(HCA-3,27,29) 1. Establish the Big Rock Creek Conservation Area, apply the 

1% cap on new ground disturbance and adopt the West Mojave Plan mitigation 

ratios. 

(B-9) 2. Adopt new boundaries for the Antelope Valley Significant Ecological 

Area. Zone the SEA for ten acre minimum parcel size and impose development 

reviews. 

Short-Joint beavertail Cactus Two options are proposed: 

(HCA-3,27,29) 1. Establish the Big Rock Creek Conservation Area, apply the 

1% cap on new ground disturbance and adopt the West Mojave Plan mitigation 

ratios. 

(B-9) 2. Adopt new boundaries for the Antelope Valley Significant Ecological 

Area. Zone the SEA for ten acre minimum parcel size and impose development 

reviews. 

Southwestern Pond Turtle Maintain water sources and provide adjacent open space at occupied habitat on 

Amargosa Creek and Lake Elilzabeth. 
Appendices 

San Bernardino County

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily (P-9) Review any proposals for discretionary permits and require avoidance of the 

rare plant habitat and protection of the water sources supplying the wetland habitat 

(Paradise Springs and Rabbit Springs) . 

Review proposals for development, mining, or water extraction near the springs 

along the Helendale Fault (Box S Springs, Cushenbury Springs and Rabbit Springs) 

 for compatibility with protection of the mariposa lilies and the surface water 

supply. Require botanical surveys in these areas. 

Barstow Woolly Sunflower Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.5 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned 

buildings or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) 

Provide for safe exit of bats from non-significant roosts. 

Big horn Sheep (MAM-1) Protect natural water sources in permanent habitat and prohibit 

diversions at bighorn springs. (MAM-2) Minimize helicopter overflights near 

lambing areas, at least seasonally (January 1 to June 30) . (MAM-6) Provide 

methods for crossing new freeways, aqueducts and canals that otherwise would 

impede movement of bighorn between seasonal and permanent occupied habitat. 

(MAM-7) Require fencing of proposed heap leach pads if in occupied bighorn 

habitat or proven linkages. (MAM-5) Include funds to monitor potentially 

impacted sheep herds or to provide additional water sources as mitigation measures 

for mining proposals within occupied bighorn habitat in the San Bernardino 

Mountains. 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-8) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Carbonate endemics Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 

2.2.4.10.2 

Crucifixion thorn (M-2) Report incidental take. 

Desert cymopterus (P-21) Require botanical surveys, and if the plant is located, avoid all occurrences 

to the maximum extent practicable within the Fremont–Kramer and Superior–

Cronese DWMAs (regions of windblown sand on the east side of larger playas, 

including Harper Dry Lake, Superior Lake, and Cuddeback Lake) . (M-2) Report 

incidental take 

Desert Tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Gray Vireo Maintain the integrity of the existing drainages on the north base of the San Gabriel 

Mountains. No structural flood control improvements would be built for these 

waterways south of Highway 138. Require a setback of 100 feet for projects on 

undeveloped private lands along the drainage, with an easement dedicated to the 

Flood Control District. The District would recognize a conservation easement over 

these lands. 

(B-8) Review land division and development proposals in the Oak Hills area to 

insure minimization of impacts to gray vireo habitat. 

Lane Mountain Milk Vetch (P-29) Acquire all private lands within the Lane Mountain Milkvetch Conservation 

Area, to the extent feasible and from willing sellers only. 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (HCA-27,29) (1% 

limitation on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) . 

Little San Bernardino (P-33) Require development within 100' of existing stream channels to protect the 
Appendices 

Mountains Gilia integrity of the stream channels. Maintain the existing hydrology within 1/4 mile of 

Highway 62. Road crossings of washes should be at grade (Arizona crossings) 

instead of fill and culverts. Require setbacks of 100' from the outer banks of washes 

within the species habitat and seek to avoid take of existing known populations. 

Establish flood control and conservation easements on private lands containing this 

species. Utilize floodplain management rather than structural alternatives for flood 

control in washes supporting this species. 

Report incidental take, which would generally be limited to areas greater than 100' 

from washes occupied by the species and not exceeding 10% of the acreage now 

supporting known occurrences on private land. 

(P-34) Channelization of upper Big Morongo Creek, Little Morongo Creek, and 

Dry Morongo Creek northwest of Highway 62 would be prohibited in order to 

maintain fluvial processes supporting occurrences in the Coachella Valley. 

Improvements (e.g. culverts) within 1/4 mile of Highway 62 in these washes would 

be allowed. 

Lucy’s warbler Remove tamarisk from several areas of the Mojave River between Helendale and 

Hinkley 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave River Bioregion 

(Brown-crested flycatcher, 

Least Bell’s vireo, 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Summer tanager, 

Vermilion flycatcher, 

Yellow breasted flycatcher, 

Yellow warbler, Mojave 

River vole) 

(MR-1,AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground 

water levels in the Mojave River. 

Mojave Monkeyflower (M-48) Require botanical survey within eastern Conservation Area. Conform to 

provisions of the Plan in the Brisbane Valley (Section 3.5.10.13) 

Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.9.1 

Parish’s Alkali Grass (P-9) Review any proposals for discretionary permits and require avoidance of the 

rare plant habitat and protection of the water sources supplying the wetland habitat 

Rabbit Springs) . (M-3) Require botanical surveys at specified alkali springs and 

avoid populations to the maximum extent practicable if Parish’s alkali grass is 

found. 

Parish’s Phacelia (P-48) Require that projects proposed on the dry lakes with occupied habitat for this 

species avoid and minimize take of this species to the maximum extent practicable. 

Parish’s popcorn flower (P-9) Review any proposals for discretionary permits and require avoidance of the 

rare plant habitat and protection of the water sources supplying the wetland habitat 

(Rabbit Springs) . (M-3) Require botanical surveys at specified alkali springs and 

avoid populations to the maximum extent practicable if popcorn flower is found. 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. (RAP-3) 

Impose blasting restrictions on new mines. 

Salt Springs checkerbloom (P-9) Review any proposals for discretionary permits and require avoidance of the 

rare plant habitat and protection of the water sources supplying the wetland habitat 

(Rabbit Springs) . 

(M-3) Require botanical surveys at specified alkali springs and avoid populations to 

the maximum extent practicable if checkerbloom is found. 

San Diego Horned Lizard (B-9) Maintain the integrity of the existing drainages on the north base of the San 

Gabriel Mountains. No structural flood control improvements would be built for 

these waterways south of Highway 138. Require a setback of 100 feet for projects 
Appendices 

on undeveloped private lands along the drainage, with an easement dedicated to the 

Flood Control District. The District would recognize a conservation easement over 

these lands. 

Shockley’s rockcress Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 

2.2.4.10.2 

Short-Joint beavertail Cactus (B-9) Maintain the integrity of the existing drainages on the north base of the San 

Gabriel Mountains. No structural flood control improvements would be built for 

these waterways south of Highway 138. A setback of 100 feet for projects on 

undeveloped private lands along the drainage would be required, with an easement 

dedicated to the Flood Control District. The District would recognize a 

conservation easement over these lands. (P-52) Review land division and 

development proposals in the Oak Hills area to insure minimization of impacts to 

short-joint beavertail cactus habitat. 

Triple-ribbed milkvetch (P-53) Limit improvements to Big Morongo Creek and Dry Morongo Creek to 

areas within 1⁄4 mile of Highway 62. (P-54) Require botanical surveys for grounddisturbing projects on private lands located within five miles of existing known 

locations for this species. Proposed projects on private land where this plant is 

detected would be required to avoid the occupied habitat. These parcels would be 

identified as priorities for acquisition. 

Western Snowy Plover (B-16) Restrict human and vehicle disturbance for a distance of 1/8 mile from nest 

sites during the nesting season (April 1 - August 1) . (B-17) Allow birds to 

complete the nesting season before construction begins. (Applies to Searles Lake 

and newly-detected nest sites) 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

(AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water 

levels in the Mojave River. 

White-Margined 

Beardtongue 

Require botanical surveys in identified suitable habitat and require avoidance to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Agencies 

California State Parks

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily Continue current management. 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned 

buildings or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) 

Provide for safe exit of bats from non-significant roosts. 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-8,10) Require relocation if owls are found. (RAP-11,HCA-4) 

Acquire linkage lands from Poppy Preserve to Liebre Ridge. 

Charlotte’s phacelia Monitor populations 

Desert tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM105) Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

LeConte’s Thrasher Continue current management. 

Long-Eared Owl (Rap-2) Require development projects to be located 1/4 mile away from occupied 

nests, unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance within 1/4 mile of nest sites during the nesting season. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave Fringe-Toed Lizard Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.9.1. (R-4) Acquire 

land adjacent to Saddleback Buttes State Park. 

Mojave tarplant Maintain current management 

Prairie Falcon (Rap-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 
Appendices 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. 

Red Rock poppy Maintain current management 

Red Rock tarplant Maintain current management 

San Diego Horned Lizard Maintain current management. Report sightings at Poppy Preserve to CNDDB. 

(HCA-4) Acquire linkage lands to Liebre Ridge. 

California Department of Fish and Game

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Barstow woolly sunflower (P-11, 12) Consolidate lands within the Conservation Area and manage as an 

Ecological Reserve. 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned 

buildings or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) 

Provide for safe exit of bats from non-significant roosts. Assist landowners with 

roost protection and safe exit of bats. (BAT-3,4) Review riparian and wash habitat 

protection for Townsend’s big-eared bat and California leaf-nosed bat (applies to 

newly-detected significant roosts) 

Burrowing owl (Rap-10) Respond to landowner requests for assistance with evictions and 

relocations. 

Desert tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. Retrofit problem poles based on 

monitoring results 

Inyo California Towhee (B-11) Enhance habitat at Indian Joe Canyon Ecological Reserve. Monitor 

populations. 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (HCA-27,29) (1% 

limitation on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) 

Long-Eared Owl (RAP-2) Require development projects to be located 1/4 mile away from occupied 

nests, unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance within 1/4 mile of nest sites during the nesting season. 

(HCA-3) Assist in acquisition within the Big Rock Creek Conservation Area. 

Lucy’s warbler Maintain surface and groundwater at Camp Cady. Assist with purchase of farmland 

and discontinuing the agricultural operations so that more water becomes available to 

to maintain the groundwater criteria at Well H3-2 in the Harvard/Eastern Baja 

subregion of the Mojave groundwater basin. Remove tamarisk. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Panamint alligator lizard (B-11) Maintain and enhance habitat at Indian Joe Canyon Ecological Reserve. 

Prairie Falcon (Rap-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. 

Southwestern Pond Turtle (MR-1,AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water 

levels in the Mojave River. (M-78) Monitor population at Camp Cady 

Summer tanager (MR-1,AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water 

levels in the Mojave River. 

Western snowy plover Continue with agreement between IMC Chemical Corporation, BLM, Lahontan 

Regional Water Quality Control Board and CDFG protecting known important 

nesting sites on Searles Lake 

Yellow warbler (MR-1,AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water 

levels in the Mojave River. 

Yellow-breasted chat (MR-1,AM-14) Cooperate with water management agencies to maintain ground water 

levels in the Mojave River. 
Appendices 

California State Lands Commission

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Bats (BAT-6) Require surveys of natural caves, cliff faces, mine shafts, abandoned buildings 

or bridges. Protect significant roosts by avoidance if found. (BAT-7) Provide for safe 

exit of bats from non-significant roosts. 

Burrowing owl (RAP6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP-8,10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (M-15) Report 

incidental take and relocations annually 

Desert tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous Hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (HCA-29) (1% 

limitation on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Prairie Falcon (RAP-2) Require development projects to stay 1/4 mile away from occupied nests, 

unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. (RAP-3) Prohibit 

construction or disturbance near nest sites during the nesting season. Impose blasting 

restrictions on new mines. 

Bureau of Land Management

SPECIES RESPONSIBILITY 

Alkali Mariposa Lily Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.4

Barstow Woolly 

Sunflower 

Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.5. (p-11) Exchange 

lands with CDFG. 

Bats Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.5 

Bendire’s Thrasher (B-1,HCA-3) Establish Bendire’s Thrasher Conservation Areas. (B-2) The first is the 

Kelso Valley Conservation Area within the existing Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC. 

Amend the ACEC management plan to include the Bendire’s thrasher. Consolidate 

public lands in the Kelso Valley through land exchanges, if the private landowners are 

willing. (B-3) In the North Lucerne Valley portion of the Bendire’s Thrasher 

Conservation Area, retain lands within the Town of Apple Valley sphere of influence. 

Route designate will integrate protection for the Bendire’s thrasher. (B-4) The 

conservation area on Coolgardie Mesa is entirely within the Superior-Cronese DWMA 

and the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. It also overlaps almost 

completely the Lane Mountain milkvetch Conservation Area. Purchase private lands 

on Coolgardie Mesa from willing sellers, and because this region contains several 

protected species, these lands would receive a high priority for acquisition. Route 

designation will reduce the number of open routes to benefit this vehicle-sensitive 

species. 

Bighorn sheep (MAM-1) Protect natural water sources in permanent habitat and prohibit diversions at 

bighorn springs. (MAM-2) Minimize helicopter overflights near lambing areas, at 

least seasonally (January 1 to June 30) . (MAM-4) Remove burros in the Argus 

Mountains because of damage to springs. (MAM-6) Provide methods for crossing new 

freeways, aqueducts and canals that otherwise would impede movement of bighorn 

between seasonal and permanent occupied habitat. (MAM-7) Require fencing of 

proposed heap leach pads if in occupied bighorn habitat or proven linkages. (MAM-5) 

Include funds to monitor potentially impacted sheep herds or to provide additional 

water sources as mitigation measures for mining proposals within occupied bighorn 

habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains. 

(MAM-3) Manage sheep grazing allotments to comply with the "nine-mile rule", 

which is the standard for separation of domestic sheep and bighorn. 
Appendices 

Brown-crested flycatcher (M-13) Monitor numbers at Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

Burrowing owl (RAP-6) Require abbreviated surveys at sites where tortoise clearance surveys are 

required. (RAP8,10) Require eviction or relocation if owls are found. (RAP-9) 

Provide educational brochures to landowners. (M-15) Report incidental take and 

relocations annually 

Charlotte’s phacelia (M-19) Monitor populations 

Crucifixion thorn (HCA-3) Establish the Pisgah Crater area as an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. 

(P-20) Sign larger populations to notify campers that firewood harvesting is prohibited.

Cushenbury buckwheat Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.2 

Cushenbury milkvetch Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.2 

Cushenbury oxytheca Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.2 

Desert cymopterus (P-21) Require land disturbing projects within identified suitable habitat to perform 

botanical surveys for this species, and if the plant is located, to avoid all occurrences to 

the maximum extant practicable. 

Desert tortoise Follow tortoise conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.2 

Ferruginous hawk (Rap-1,14) Require raptor-safe electrical distribution lines. (M-23,AM-22,AM-105) 

Retrofit problem poles based on monitoring results 

Flax-like monardella (HCA-3) Require surveys and avoidance of this species within Middle Knob 

Conservation Area. 

Gray vireo (B-5) Amend the management plan for the Juniper Flats ACEC to incorporate 

protection of the gray vireo as a goal of the plan. Add monitoring and adaptive 

management provisions of the West Mojave Plan to the management plan for Juniper 

Flats. 

(HCA-3) Establish a new ACEC for protection of the carbonate endemic plants. 

Inyo California towhee (B-10)Enhance habitat by excluding burros at Peach Spring. (B-11) Remove salt cedar 

and Phragmites at designated springs and replant with native willows. (B-12) 

Continue removal of feral burros from the Argus Mountains with a goal of zero. 

(B-13) Install signs indicating the China Lake NAWS boundary at Benko Spring and 

Ruby Spring (in cooperation with China Lake NAWS) . (B-14) Determine legality and 

effect of water diversions at Alpha Spring and Bainter Spring and cease diversion if 

necessary, subject to valid existing rights. Secure water rights at all other springs in 

Argus Mountains 

Kelso creek 

monkeyflower 

(HCA-3) Establish public land Conservation Areas. Monitor to determine potential 

impacts of OHV use and grazing. 

Kern Buckwheat (P-24) Construct vehicle barriers along the main access road where it adjoins occupied 

habitat. 

(P-25) Fence on both sides of the road near the Sweet Ridge population. Restore a 

vehicle turnaround and parking area so that traffic passes by, rather than on, the 

buckwheat habitat. (HCA-3) Establish the Middle Knob Conservation Area and 

ACEC 

Lane Mountain Milk 

Vetch 

(HCA-3) Designate a Lane Mountain Milkvetch Conservation Area. 

(P-26) Require botanical surveys prior to issuing any use permits. Issue no permits 

that allow take of this species (projects would have to be relocated) . 

(P-27) Prohibit grazing within the conservation area. 

(P-28) Designate acceptable open routes of travel. Fence approved routes as 

necessary, with signs advising the public that the area is closed to vehicle travel 

because of endangered species conservation. 

(P-29) Acquire, to the extent feasible and from willing sellers only all private lands 

within the Lane Mountain Milkvetch Conservation Area. (P-30) Withdraw all lands 

within the Conservation Area from mineral entry. Claimholders with valid existing 

rights will be compensated. 

(P-31) Revise the Management Plan for the Rainbow Basin Natural Area to 
Appendices 

incorporate specific measures that protect the Lane Mountain milkvetch. (P-32) Notify 

claimholders of the presence of endangered plants. Restrict casual use that involves 

ground disturbance within the Conservation Area as necessary. 

Least Bell’s vireo (M-13) Continue monitoring at Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

LeConte’s Thrasher (HCA-1) Establish DWMAs and follow conservation measures (HCA-29) (1% 

limitation on allowable new ground disturbance, 5:1 mitigation) 

Little San Bernardino 

Mountains Gilia 

(P-35) Pursue land exchanges to acquire known sites near JTNP. Retain scattered 

public lands south of Joshua Tree bordering Joshua Tree National Park. 

Long-Eared Owl (RAP-2) Require development projects to be located 1/4 mile away from occupied 

nests, unless the line-of-sight from the edge of development is obscured. Prohibit 

construction or disturbance within 1/4 mile of nest sites during the nesting season. 

(RAP-4) Establish a new Key Raptor Area encompassing the Argus Mountains for the 

long-eared owl. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.3 

Mojave Monkeyflower Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.13 

Mojave Fringe-toed 

lizard 

Follow conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.9.1 

Mojave Tarplant (P-45,M-56) Monitor the population numbers and extent at the Short Canyon and 

Cross Mountain sites. Maintain the cattle guards and fencing at Short Canyon. (P-45) 

Revise the ACEC Plan for Short Canyon to specify protection of Mohave tarplant as a 

goal of the plan. (P-46) Perform an initial (within two years of Plan adoption) census 

estimating numbers and acreage of occupied habitat at Short Canyon and Cross 

Mountain to provide a baseline. (AM-104) Monitor the numbers and acreage of 

occupied habitat very five years. 

Ninemile Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM rangeland health assessments 

Panamint alligator lizard (B-10) Continue removal of feral burros from the Argus Mountains with a goal of zero.

Enhance habitat by excluding burros at Peach Spring (B-11) Remove salt cedar and 

Phragmites at designated springs and replant with native willows. (R-10) Amend the 

Great Falls Basin ACEC management plan to incorporate protection of the Panamint 

alligator lizard as a goal of the Plan. Include the monitoring and adaptive management 

provisions of the West Mojave Plan in the ACEC management plan. 

Parish’s daisy Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.2 

Parish’s Phacelia (HCA-3) Designate a Parish’s Phacelia Conservation Area. 

Prairie Falcon Follow Prairie falcon conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.7.5. 

Red rock poppy Designate a network of open routes of travel that minimize parallel routes, hill climbs, 

and straying off established paths. 

Red rock tarplant Designate a network of open routes of travel that minimize parallel routes, hill climbs, 

and straying off established paths. 

Reveal’s buckwheat (P-51) Avoid impacts at the known location, followed by adaptive management. If 

additional botanical surveys better define the distribution of this species in the 

Jawbone Canyon area, a site-specific conservation plan would be developed. This 

could include posting signs to discourage off-road vehicle travel or placement of 

fences to keep out livestock. 

San Diego Horned Lizard (R-11) Amend the management plan for the Juniper Flats Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern to incorporate protection of the San Diego horned lizard as a 

goal of the plan. Add monitoring and adaptive management provisions of the West 

Mojave Plan to the management plan for Juniper Flats. 

(HCA-3) Establish a new ACEC for protection of the carbonate endemic plants. This 

area also serves to protect suitable habitat for the San Diego horned lizard. 

Shockley’s rockcress Follow Carbonate endemic conservation strategy as outlined in EIS Section 2.2.4.10.2 

Southwestern pond turtle (M-78) Monitor populations at Afton Canyon. Protect sites in Kelso Creek if pond 

turtles are detected. 
Appendices 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

Maintain migratory habitat in east Sierra canyons. (M-13) Monitor numbers at Big 

Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

 Monitor numbers at Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

Triple-ribbed milkvetch (P-53) Require avoidance of all known locations on public lands. (P-54) Require 

surveys within five miles of known locations. 

Vermilion flycatcher (M-13) Monitor numbers at Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

Western snowy plover Continue protection of the known important nesting sites on Searles Lake through an 

agreement between IMC Chemical Corporation, BLM, Lahontan Regional Water 

Quality Control Board and CDFG. (B-16) Restrict human and vehicle disturbance for 

a distance of 1/8 mile from nest sites during the nesting season (April 1 - August 1) . 

(B-17) Projects in nesting habitat should allow the birds to complete the nesting season 

before construction begins. (Applies to Harper Dry Lake and any newly detected 

nesting areas) . (B-18) Continue working towards provision of a permanent water 

supply to the marshes at Harper Dry Lake ACEC. 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

(MR-1) Maintain riparian habitat in east Sierra canyons. 

White-Margined 

Beardtongue 

(HCA-3)Change the BLM multiple use class designation on public lands with 

occupied habitat from moderate to limited. Adjust the existing 1985-1987 route 

designations as necessary to protect this species. (P-55) Acquire one private parcel 

where this plant occurs within the proposed Pisgah Crater ACEC if feasible. (HCA-3) 

Designate the Pisgah Crater area as an ACEC. Designate routes within the ACEC as 

open or closed and restore or block routes to be closed. 

Yellow-eared pocket 

mouse 

(MAM-8) Amend the management plans for the Jawbone-Butterbredt and Sand 

Canyon ACECs to incorporate protection of the yellow-eared pocket mouse as a goal 

of each plan. Add monitoring, adaptive management, and acquisition priorities into 

the plans. 

(MAM-10) Monitor grazing by cattle. (MAM-9) Acquire or exchange lands in Kelso 

Valley. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX C 

IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX C 

IMPLEMENTATION TASKS 

West Mojave Plan Funding and Costs 

Cost to Implement the West Mojave Plan: Exhibit C.1 of Appendix C lists the 

management prescriptions proposed by Alternative A, identifies costs to implement each of the 

prescriptions, and assigns priorities for implementation. The table assumes that implementation 

of the plan would occur over a 30-year period, and that costs would “ramp up” over the first five 

years of plan implementation as available funding gradually increases. Total projected costs to 

implement the West Mojave Plan would be approximately $68,000,000. 

Funding Assumptions: Three primary sources of funding area assumed for this 

analysis. These include funds appropriated by Congress to the BLM for public land 

management, compensation fees paid to BLM, and mitigation fees collected by local 

jurisdictions and administered by the Implementing Authority. Assumptions follow: 

• Because the large majority of lands within the Habitat Conservation Area are already 

public lands held by the BLM, CDFG, and other entities, mitigation fees would be used 

primarily for habitat enhancement rather than land acquisition (e.g. disease and raven 

management, fencing, headstarting, disturbed land rehabilitation, enforcement and 

maintenance). 

• BLM appropriated funding and compensation fees would remain at 1994-2004 levels. 

Substantial increases or decreases are not anticipated. 

Projected Funding: During the 30-year tern of the West Mojave Plan (2006 to 2035), 

approximately $79,000,000 would be available from BLM appropriated funds and compensation 

fees, and mitigation fees administered by the Implementing Authority. Of this, approximately 

$19,000,000 would be contributed by the BLM, and $60,000,000 by the Implementing 

Authority. 

Bureau of Land Management: Annual funds appropriated to BLM that are available 

for plan implementation are anticipated to be approximately $640,000. This figure corresponds 

to the funds currently applied by BLM for proactive species management in the planning area. 

In addition, BLM has received an average of $140,000 in project impact compensation funds, 

which are used for land acquisition. The typical usage of these funds typically breaks out as 

follows: 

• $40,000 for land acquisition (appropriated funds) 

• $140,000 for land acquisition (compensation fees) 

• $100,000 for monitoring and research 

• $40,000 for physical improvements 
Appendices 

• $70,000 for restoration 

• $50,000 for other proactive programs 

• $200,000 for enforcement and outreach 

BLM has received substantial grant moneys in the past that have been applied to these 

actions, such as “green sticker” grants from the State of California for rehabilitation of closed 

vehicle routes and implementation of the route network, and special congressional 

appropriations. Grants may amount to many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and it is 

anticipated that they will continue to be obtained in the future. They would play an important 

role in accelerating plan implementation. Grants, however, are not assured, and have NOT been 

included in the BLM revenue assumptions discussed above. 

Local Jurisdictions: Annual mitigation fee projections associated with local 

jurisdictions are set forth in the following table. These figures are based upon projections in the 

EIR/S economic analysis (see, especially, Table 4-38) 

Calculate Residential Acreage Calculate Commercial & 

Industrial Acreage Mining Acreage 

Year 

Housing 

Unit 

Forecast 

5 to 1 

0.5 to 

1 1 to 1 Subtotal 5 to 1 

0.5 to 

1 1 to 1 Subtotal 5 to 1 

0.5 to 

1 1 to 1 Subtotal 

Total 

Acreage Fee Estimate

2000 52,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0

2005 62,009 14 565 83 662 0 22 10 32 50 25 50 125 819 $592,643

2010 65,469 62 7,709 1,820 9,591 1 2,156 505 2,661 300 100 200 600 12,852 $7,176,631

2015 69,589 102 8,612 2,691 11,405 1 2,384 725 3,110 300 100 200 600 15,115 $8,608,090

2020 74,714 176 8,747 3,392 12,315 2 2,384 869 3,254 300 100 200 600 16,169 $9,598,184

2025 77,920 120 7,818 2,827 10,765 1 2,004 672 2,678 300 100 200 600 14,043 $8,290,113

2030 82,274 158 8,544 3,575 12,277 2 2,090 788 2,880 300 100 200 600 15,757 $9,415,384

2035 86,871 168 8,324 4,001 12,493 2 1,955 887 2,844 300 100 200 600 15,937 $9,721,891

Totals 800 50,319 18,389 68,708 8 12,994 4,456 17,459 1,850 625 1,250 3,725 90,692 $53,402,936

 The preceding table is based upon data submitted by cities and counties and/or estimates 

derived from the EIR/S economic analysis. A breakout by jurisdiction follows: 

San Bernardino County $18,532,331

Kern County $1,492,260

Inyo County $100,000

Los Angeles County $4,400,550

Adelanto $1,062,600

Apple Valley $1,062,600

Barstow $860,475

California City $300,000

Hesperia $4,158,000

Lancaster $11,842,600

Palmdale $6,606,600

Ridgecrest $264,495

Twentynine Palms $300,000

Victorville $3,218,600

Yucca Valley $500,000

TOTAL $53,402,936

 
Appendices 

As an example of how these acreage and growth projections were developed, the 

following describes the methodology used to estimate San Bernardino County fees. In order to 

allocate the housing growth projections for the plan area, a determination had to be made of the 

existing distribution of housing within each of the three fee areas (5 to 1, 1 to 1 and 0.5 to 1). To 

estimate the amount of commercial/industrial acres developed, a correlation between the 

residential and commercial/industrial acreage was made. The following analyses were 

performed:

1. Based on the 2000 Census block data, the three fee areas were overlaid on the blocks 

using GIS based tools and a total count of housing units by fee area was established.

2. The same type of analysis was completed on the SCAG 2000 Land Use coverage. The 

three fee area boundaries were overlaid on the land use coverage and a summary of land 

uses were developed for each area. Then, a ratio of commercial/industrial vs. residential 

acreage was developed that reflects the County’s experience with the relative proportion 

of commercial/industrial development to residential development. 

The acreage estimates were made as follows:

1. The change in housing units was calculated for each five-year increment in the forecast 

period. Then, the total number of units was allocated to each of the three fee areas based 

on the analysis of the census block housing data. 

2. The number of housing units was multiplied times an acreage factor for each fee area to 

calculate the total number of residential acres for each fee area. 

3. Then, the number of residential acres is multiplied times the commercial/industrial 

acreage factor developed for each fee area. 

4. Mining acreage was estimated for each fee area based on historical trends, independent of 

the residential and commercial/industrial acreage. 

Fees were then calculated on each acreage sub-category and totaled for the plan area. 

CalTrans: The West Mojave Plan allocates 1,833 acres of new ground disturbance to 

CalTrans. Approximately 1,700 acres would be located within the HCA, while the remainder 

would be split between the 1:1 and 0.5:1 fee compensation areas. The following fee estimate 

assumes all 1,833 acres would be developed during the 30-year term of the West Mojave Plan. 

Calculate CalTrans Acreage 

5 to 1 0.5 to 1 1 to 1 Total 

Fee Estimate

Totals 1,700 76 77 1,833 $6,633,550
Appendices 

Draft Tortoise and MGS Implementation Plan 

Exhibit C.2 of Appendix C presents a draft Implementation Plan for the Desert Tortoise 

and Mohave Ground Squirrel conservation strategies. 
Appendices 

Exhibit C.1 

Implementation Tasks 

Priorities and Costs
Tasks, Priorities and Funding Sources

Task Priority Code Task Description Estimated Cost Possible Funding Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 

1 TOTAL COST $10,626,520 $12,309,370 $11,602,610 $10,265,650 

DT-28 1 Assign a minimum of six Law Enforcement officers and six maintenance

workers to the Tortoise DWMAs.

Per officer: $100,000 for first year, $75,000/year thereafter.

Officers: 2006 (0), 2007 (1), 2008 (2), 2009 (3), 2010 (4), 2011

(5), 2012 (6)

IA $850,000 $2,225,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 

MV-9 1 Implementation of BLM's motorized vehicle access network Each subregion will be addressed in two phases: Phase I will

focus on critical restoration issues and problem areas, and willbe addressed in the first few years of Plan implementation;

Phase II (a decade or more out) will involve continued resolution

of minor problems and new circumstances. Estimated cost of

Phase I: $350,000 per complex subregion (10), $250,000 for

other areas (14). Total Phase I cost: $7,000,000. By 2010,

complete Phase I for following, in priority order: Ord, Juniper,Superior, Red Mountain, Fremont, Kramer, El Paso, NewberryRodman, Ridgecrest, El Mirage, Coyote ($3.75 million).

Address most critical issues elsewhere pending Phase Icompletion ($0.5 million per year)

BLM, IA $3,750,000 $2,500,000 $1,125,000 $750,000 

DT-28 1 Assign a minimum of six maintenance workers to the Tortoise DWMAs. Per maintenance worker: $50,000/year. Workers: 2006 (0),

2007 (1), 2008 (2), 2009 (3), 2010 (4), 2011 (5), 2012 (6)

IA $500,000 $1,450,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 

DT-28 1 Assign a minimum of two Law Enforcement Rangers and two maintenance

workers to the Tortoise DWMAs.

Per Ranger: $100,000 for first year, $75,000/year thereafter.

Rangers: 2006 (0), 2007 (1), 2008 (1), 2009 (2), 2010 (2).

BLM $500,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 

DT-30+ 1 Implement a raven management program Assume $150,000/year, ramping up as follows: 2006 ($30,000),

2007 ($60,000), 2008 ($90,000), 2009 ($120,000) and 2010

($150,000)

IA $450,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 

M-98 1 Desert tortoise: (Population monitoring)·Line distance sampling

(M-98) line distance sampling program in the DWMAs. (#1)

$150,000 per survey year over the 30 year period of the plan.

Every year for first five years; every other years for the next five

years; then every year for the next five years and so on for the

30 years of the plan.

BLM, IA $750,000 $300,000 $750,000 $300,000 

DT-28 1 Assign a minimum of two maintenance workers to the Tortoise DWMAs. Per maintenance worker: $50,000/year. Workers: 2006 (0),

2007 (1), 2008 (1), 2009 (2), 2010 (2).

BLM $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 

DT-17 4 Implement "Suggested Tortoise Disease Management Strategy." Assume $100,000/year, ramping up as follows: 2006 ($20,000),

2007 ($40,000), 2008 ($60,000), 2009 ($80,000) and 2010

($100,000)

IA $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 

HCA-36 1 Establish land acquisition priorities and acquire private land and/or

conservation easements on private lands within the HCA

Acquisition budget: Assume $100,000/year (ramp up:$30,000 in

2006 and 2007, $70,000 in 2008, 2009 and 2010). All

acquisitions mentioned in this table would draw from this fund.

IA $270,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 

HCA-28 1 Staff and operating expenses for Implementing Authority. In-house staff or contractor(s), reimbursement for hours

involved in following roles: Plan Administrator ($30,000/year);

contract biologist ($30,000/year); clerical support

($20,000/year); overhead & supplies ($10,000/year), a total of

$100,000/year. Assume $75,000/year in 2006 and 2007,

$90,000/year thereafter.

IA $420,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 

DT-26 1 Headstarting program. Implement a pilot program on one site within 5 years. "Fast

track" approach costs estimated at $250,000 and $300,000 per

site for two years. The "slow track" would include these plus

$100,000 to $120,000 for years three to five." If successful,

establish up to two additional slow track sites.

IA, BLM $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 

E-7 2 Education Program: The education program should include the preparation,

distribution and/or installation of signs, interpretive kiosks, displays, maps,

videos, education packets and brochures.

Estimate $50,000/year for education programs, with

$5,000/year for maintenance of existing facilities. Ramp-up:

2006 ($20,000), 2007 ($30,000), 2008 ($40,000), 2009

($40,000) and 2010 ($50,000).

IA, PA, BLM $160,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 

Costs
HCA-28 1 GIS database support for plan implementation and monitoring. Estimate $40,000/year, beginning in 2006. IA $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 

DT-18 1 Fence both sides of Highway 395 between Kramer Junction and Shadow

Mountain Road (18 mi)

Estimated cost of $5.00 per foot or $26,400 per mile on one

side or $52,800 on both sides. Assume installed by following

percentages for each 5-year block: 30, 30, 40, 0, 0, 0.

CT, IA $285,120 $285,120 $380,160 $0 

M-98 1 Desert tortoise: Desert tortoise: Conduct continued studies at specified

intervals on pertinent BLM permanent study plots including Kramer, Lucerne,

DTNA, Fremont Valley, and Fremont Peak. (#1)

Survey each plot every four years. Past costs were approx

$25,000 per survey plot.

BLM, IA $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 

M-241 1 Mohave ground squirrel: Establish long-term study plots throughout the

range and annually monitor their MGS populations. (#1) Mohave ground

squirrel:Fund continued monitoring in the Coso Range to provide baseline

population data. (#1)

Assume 3 sites (including Coso), $30,000/year ($20,000 in 2006

and 2007).

$130,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 

DT-15 1 Develop telephone tech support for the general public to deal with freeroaming tortoises in the No Survey Areas $18,000 per year (Assumes 2 hours per business day at $35 per hour) IA $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 

3 Fence both sides of the remaining unfenced portions of Highway 58

between Kramer Junction and Hinkley (10 mi).

Estimated cost of $5.00 per foot or $26,400 per mile on one

side or $52,800 on both sides. Assume installed by following

percentages for each 5-year block: 0, 0, 30, 30, 40, 0.

CT, IA $0 $0 $158,400 $158,400 

HCA-29 1 Mitigation fee fund management Estimate $15,000/year IA $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 

HCA-27 ongoing Track acreage of new ground disturbance in HCA for each participating

jurisdiction.

$12,800 per year (Based on 16 hours per jurisdiction at $50 per

hour).

IA, PA $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 $64,000 

MGS-4 1 Design and implement a MGS monitoring strategy. Assume $20,000 to design, and $10,000 per year to implement.

Design in 2006.

IA, BLM $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 

E-3 ongoing Work with non-government organizations with an interest in the western

Mojave Desert to better reach group members. The coordinator shouldwork with off-highway vehicle groups to help fund existing programs and

create new ones as needed to increase sensitivity to desert ecology.

$10,200 annually (Assumes 120 hours of outreach at $85 per

hour).

IA $51,000 $51,000 $51,000 $51,000 

HCA-27 1 Establish a base line aerial photo data set to identify those properties that

were developed prior to the adoption of the HCP.

$300,000 PA $300,000 $0 $0 $0 

A-48 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: Prohibit vehicle traffic on conserved habitat. Estimated at $3,000 per incident. Assuming 3 incidents per

year, total cost would be $9,000 per year. (Weeks)

$45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 

DT-23 1 Sign or otherwise designate DWMA boundaries Estimated $50,000 for the initial installation. Estimated

maintenance costs of about $5,000 per year for the life of

project.

IA, BLM $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 

MV-3 4 If monitoring or studies show that certain unimproved roads are causing

increased tortoise mortality, the Implementation Team should coordinate

with BLM, county road departments, and others to consider ways, including

speed regulators, to reduce or avoid that mortality.

Speed regulation equipment at $3,000 each at 10 sites equates

to $30,000 one time cost. Yearly maintenance costs would

equate to $10,000 per year. Assume installed at years

3,5,7,9,11,13,16,19,22,26

BLM $8,000 $20,000 $32,000 $40,000 

M-98 1 Desert tortoise: To monitor OHV impacts, reinitiate studies at the Johnson

Valley study plot. (#1)

Every 4 years, $25,000 each. BLM, IA $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 

M-2 ongoing Keep records of newly permitted activities issued within the conservation

areas.

$5,000 per year. Included within IA operating budget. IA $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 

M-239 3 Mohave ground squirrel:Perform trapping studies in Kern County Study

Area to see if MGS occurs west of Highway 14 and south of Highway

58.(#3)

Estimated total cost: $150,000 BLM, IA $0 $75,000 $75,000 $0 

DT-3 ongoing Cities and counties would report take of tortoises annually to the

Implementation Team.

$8,800 per jurisdiction. (assumes 80 hours of Planner III time at

$110 per hour). Assumes 15 jurisdictions.

PA $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 

DT-25 2 Place a standard fence along identified portions of the western boundary of

the Johnson Valley Open Area to prevent OHV use in the Ord-Rodman

DWMA.

$5,000 per mile including material and labor. Annual

maintenance and replacement estimated at 5 to 10% of cost to

install. There are approx. 10 miles to be fenced, so initial

fencing costs are approx. $50,000. Annual maintenance and

replacement costs are about $2,500 to $5,000.

BLM $0 $0 $66,000 $20,000 

M-1 ongoing Maintain database of new occurrences and share annually with NDDB. $4,000 per year (Assumes 80 hours annually at $50 per hour) NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 
HCA-27 Rate of new ground disturbance and the success of restoration programs

should be assessed on a periodic basis and the Plan amended as

necessary.

$3,400 per year if performed annually. (Based on 40 hours at

$85 per hour)

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

$17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 

A-7 If newly-detected significant roosts for Townsend’s big-eared bat and

California leaf-nosed bats are near open routes then provide case-by-case

review of open routes within riparian and desert wash habitat. If the new

roosts are impacted by open routes then take corrective action within the

foraging habitat or establish a new route avoiding the habitat.

$2,000 per project year cost (40 hours at $50 per hour). $5,000

per average relocation costs, estimating three relocations per

project year. Total of $17,000 per project year. To be done

once every fiver years.

BLM, IA $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 

MGS-5 3 Mohave ground squirrel: Conduct presence/absence surveys in the

northern portion of the Antelope Valley in Kern County.

$100,000 BLM, IA $0 $0 $0 $0 

E-6 ongoing Provide support to the efforts of museums, zoos, and other public

institutions to develop pertinent desert tortoise exhibits.

$2,000 annually from 2006-2010, $3000 annually thereafter. IA $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 

M-3 1 Alkali Mariposa Lily: (M-3) Conduct presence absence surveys at other

alkaline springs, seeps, and playas within one year of plan adoption. (#1)

$80,000 IA $10,000 $15,000 $10,000 $15,000 

M-208 2 Bendire's thrasher: Monitor periodically population numbers and habitat

disturbance in conservation areas. (#2)

$80,000 PA, FS, D, G $0 $80,000 $0 $0 

MV-XX 2 Route designation on newly acquired lands would occur every five years (or

sooner, if judged to be prudent by the Implementation Team), would comply

with applicable federal regulations (i.e., NEPA), and be incorporated into the

overall route implementation process.

Estimate based on adding 5 new sections of land per year with

an average of five miles per section. Estimate 125 miles of new

routes over 5 years. Estimate cost of $125 per mile to survey,

which equates to $15,625 every 5 years.

BLM $0 $15,625 $15,625 $15,625 

HCA-3 ongoing Acquire occupied habitat within the conservation area (149 acres) assuming

a willing seller.(Parish's phacelia)

Undetermined, but estimated at $500/acre plus administrative

fees

IA $0 $0 $0 $0 

MV-8 1 El Paso CAPA: Route designations in the El Paso Mountains and

Ridgecrest subregions would be performed after completion of the West

Mojave Plan through a community-based collaborative process utilizing the

designation methodology developed for the West Mojave Plan.

These two subregions have a relatively large number of routes.

Cost including designations, meetings, ACCESS and GIS data

base creation and QA/QC would include 3 technical staff in

addition to Resource Staff time for 2 months. ($75/hr X 150

hrs/mo X 2 months X 3 = $67,500).

BLM $67,500 $0 $0 $0 

HCA-33 ongoing Maintain a record of all HRCs awarded by the Implementing Authority $2,000 per year (40 hrs at $50 per hour) IA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

M-98, A206 ongoing Desert tortoise: Review information regarding plan authorized take of tortoises to determine whether adjustments are needed to the Survey/NoSurvey Areas. $2,000 per year (assumes 40 hrs at $50 per hour) NA (cost included in funding of IA) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 

Rap-11 2 Target identified remnant grassland areas where burrowing owls are known

for acquisition.

Survey and analysis by consultant estimated at $50,000. IA $0 $50,000 $0 $0 

Rap-12 1 Burrowing owl: Complete baseline inventory of conserved habitat. $50,000 IA $50,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-26 1 Prairie falcon: (M-26) Conduct surveys to determine occupancy and threats

at all nests present in 1979 (#1).

$50,000 IA $50,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-6 3 Townsend's big-eared bat: (M-6) Determine bat numbers in all significant

roosts, using CDFG approved methods.(#3)

Estimated at $8,000 per roost IA $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 

P-1 1 Fence the eastern boundary of the proposed Carbonate ACEC to prevent

cattle from trampling the listed plants on small portions of the Rattlesnake

allotment and to prevent cattle from entering forest lands near Terrace

Springs (along the east side of Arrastre Canyon). (Carbonate endemic

plants)

Cost per mile to install smooth four-strand wire on five foot

metal posts including material and labor is approximately $5,000

per mile. Annual maintenance and replacement estimated at 5

to 10% of cost to install.

IA $20,000 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 

Bat-1 3 Protect all significant roosts by installing gates over mine entrances and

restricting human access.

$5,000 per gate; assume 9 to be installed IA, BLM $0 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 

(M-56) 2 Mojave tarplant : (M-56) Census population at Short Canyon and Cross

Mountain every five years. (#2)

20000. Survey during third and fifth blocks. BLM, IA $0 $0 $20,000 $0 

A-54 Mojave tarplant: If existing or new populations are threatened by vehicles

or grazing, then protect them by providing barriers to vehicles or livestock.

$1000 study (20 hours at $50 per hour); expected two route

relocations per year, $3,000 per incident. This totals to $7,000

per year at five year increments.

$0 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 
E-5 Develop displays, programs, and materials that can be provided to school

districts in the West Mojave planning area. Fund and/or cooperate with

existing programs to provide for enhanced outreach to schools in desert

communities.

$30,000 (Estimate) IA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

DT-11 2 Develop a standardized revegetation plan (for utilities). $30,000 if done by consultant. Currently done case-by-case.

Reduced costs to utilities when standardized plan takes effect.

IA $0 $30,000 $0 $0 

P-28 Fence and sign approved open routes as necessary within the Coolgardie

and West Paradise CA.

1,000 feet to cover a site on two sides at $10 a foot. 3 sites per

year; totals $30,000 (this is a one time cost).

BLM $0 $30,000 $0 $0 

E-12 2 Develop local television outreach that talks about the plight of the tortoise

and implementation of the West Mojave Plan.

$30,000 (Estimate) IA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

M-7 ongoing Bats: (M-7) Approved projects that impact bats under the take limit would

be reported annually to the CDFG and the USFWS. (Ongoing)

No additional cost. BLM $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

M-8 2 Townsend's big-eared bat: (M-8) Conduct periodic surveys in the northern

part of planning area with high potential for containing significant roosts.

(#2)

$500 per site. BLM $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

M-6 3 California leaf-nosed bat: (M-6) Determine bat numbers in all significant

roosts, using CDFG approved methods.(#3)

IA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

M-207 1 California leaf-nosed bat:Monitor population numbers using bat houses if

installed. (#1)

IA $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

M-16 3 Burrowing owl: (M-16) Survey sites in Antelope Valley and along Mojave

River (#3).

$30,000 IA $30,000 $0 $0 $0 

DT-19 3 Desert tortoise:(DT-19) IT monitor mortality along roads and identify

measures such as fencing, culverts, signs, or speed regulators to be used

to reduce or avoid unacceptable mortality levels.(#3)

$10,000 per survey to be done every ten years. BLM, IA $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 

M-26 1 Golden eagle: (M-26) Conduct surveys to determine occupancy and

threats at all nests present in 1979 (#1).

One-time survey, $30,000 IA $30,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-27 ongoing Golden eagle: Compile record of electrocutions from incidental

observations and reports from the public and utilities.

$1,000 per year (Assumes 20 hours at $50 per hour) NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

A-33 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: If open routes threaten occupied habitat, then

change route designation in area.

$1,000 per year for monitoring (Assumes 20 hours at $50 per

hour); $3,000 per incident for sign installation and materials,

estimate three incidents per year ($9,000). One year cost will

include $1,000 for monitoring and $9,000 for sign

implememntation totaly $10,000 per year. Fund monitoring only.

Rest absorbed in route implementation task.

$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

HCA-3 1 Place signs at edge of playas closed to motor vehicle traffic within the

Parish's Phacelia CA.

$25 per sign; 5 signs per incident; 5 sites per year equals about

$625 per year. $500 per year for maintenance and relocation of

signs.

IA, BLM $0 $5,625 $5,625 $5,625 

Bat-5 ongoing Fence around (but not over) open abandoned mine shafts to provide bats

access to roosts and to reduce public hazards

$500 per adit; assume 1/year, then 2/year beginning in 2011. IA $2,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

A-84 Western snowy plover: If nest sites are disturbed, then close playa edges

to vehicular traffic in spring and provide temporary fencing of nest sites if

warranted.

Closure and detail signs; cost of $300 per route; average ofthree routes. Total of $900 per year for each site.

$4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 

A-230 LeConte's thrasher: If there are OHV conflicts then more intensive

management is needed (signing, seasonal restrictions, law enforcement)

$1000 per year (20 hours at $50 per hour), starting with second

budget block.

$0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 

E-8 ongoing Provide annual training for consultants and others working at construction

sites to ensure that they have a foundation in training for monitoring.

One day seminar, costing $750 plus facilities cost. IA $3,750 $3,750 $3,750 $3,750 

E-11 2 Develop specific outreach plans to 1) maximize the effectiveness of fences

constructed along the interface between urbanizing communities and the

HCA. 2) to discourage poaching. 3) To reduce raven/tortoise conflicts.

$20,000 (Estimate) IA $0 $20,000 $0 $0 

M-252 2 Yellow-eared pocket mouse: A trapping survey would be conducted in Kelso

Valley as part of the Monitoring Plan

One-time survey, $20,000. $0 $0 $20,000 $0 

P-25 2 Fence both sides of the road near the Sweet Ridge population. A vehicle

turnaround and parking area will be restored so that traffic passes by, rather

than on, the buckwheat habitat. (Kern buckwheat)

Two-sides of roads at 300 feet (equals 600 feet) at $10 per

foot equals $6,000. If barrier is rebuilt once every 10 years,

total estimated cost over 30 years would be $18,000.

IA, $0 $6,000 $0 $6,000 
HCA-33 ongoing Identify degraded habitat within the HCA suitable for rehabilitation. Three work months - $15,000 IA $0 $0 $15,000 $0 

M-8 2 California leaf-nosed bat: (M-8) Conduct periodic surveys of mine

openings in Pinto Mountains for Leaf-nosed bats in areas with high potential

for containing significant roosts. (#2)

IA $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 

M-34 2 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: (M-34) Conduct presence absence surveys on

public land identified as potential habitat (#2).

One-time survey, $15,000. BLM, IA $0 $15,000 $0 $0 

E-2 2 Develop an education program consistent with the goals identified in

Section 3.8.1 and that "fills the gaps" of existing education programs.

$13,600 (Assumes 160 hours at $85 per hour) IA $6,800 $0 $6,800 $0 

M-98 ongoing Desert tortoise:·Monitor integrity of new and old fences between BLM open

areas and adjacent DWMAs (e.g., El Mirage’s existing fence, Camp Rock

Road’s new fence).(ongoing)

$2,000 (40 hours at $50 per hour) at 5 year increments. BLM, IA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 

M-98, DT22 1 Desert tortoise:(DT-22) Monitor efficacy of solution worked out with Silver Lakes Association to address impacts on the Fremont-Kramer DWMA.(#1) $2,000 (40 hours at $50) at 5 year increments. BLM, IA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 

M-67 ongoing Red rock poppy: Conduct periodic review of potential effects of OHV use

on known populations.

$2,000 (40 hours at $50 per hour) at 5 year increments. BLM, IA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 

M-67 ongoing Red rock tarplant: Conduct periodic review of potential effects of OHV use

on known populations.

$2,000 (40 hours at$50 per hour) at 5 year increments. BLM, IA $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 

Rap-5 1 In areas where no desert tortoise clearance survey is required, provide

applicants for discretionary permits with an educational brochure.

(Burrowing owl)

$10,000 to prepare brochure (assumes approx 3 weeks at $85

per hour)

IA $10,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-75 2 Short-joint beavertail cactus: (M-75) Establish baseline population

numbers for Big Rock Creek and Mescal Creek areas. (#2)

One-time survey, $10,000. IA $0 $10,000 $0 $0 

M-84 3 Western snowy plover: (M-84) Conduct periodic censuses to determine

number of nesting pairs at Harper Dry Lake, and Dale, Koehn, and Searles

lakes. (#3)

$10,000 for census. BLM, IA $0 $0 $10,000 $0 

E-4 2 Prepare a single, programmatic education program to be given to

construction workers. Review files maintained by USFWS and CDFG to

see the range of education materials that have been used since the listing of

the tortoise.

$8,500 (Assumes 100 hours at $85 per hour) IA $8,500 $0 $0 $0 

DT-13, E-10 1 Establish a "Hotline" number to contact the Implementation Team in the

event a tortoise is found within a Non Survey area at the time of ground

disturbance.

Approx. $250 per year (minimal installation costs plus 3.5 cents

per minute. Assumes 30 min. per business day for 260 days)

IA $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 $1,250 

E-2 2 Determine environmental education programs that already exist, and

determine "gaps" in the program.

$6800 (Assumes 80 hours at $85 per hour) IA $6,800 $0 $0 $0 

DT-2 2 Filming: 1)Develop a brochure, to be provided to the proponent (likely

location manager), showing DWMAs and higher density areas within

DWMAs that filming activities should avoid. 2) Where filming activities may

occur equally well on alternatives sites, direct proponents to lands outside

DWMAs or to lower density DWMA areas. 3)BLM biologist's expertise to

help the location manager choose sites where the fewest and least

significant impacts exist.

1) $6800 (based on 80 hours at $85 per hour) 2) No new cost.

3) No new cost.

IA, BLM $6,800 $0 $0 $0 

DT-4 1 Develop a Feral Dog Management Plan. $6,000 for plan. Implementation cost to be determined by plan. IA $6,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-88 2 White-margined beardtongue: Monitor vehicle use of Argos Wash. (#2) $1,000 (assumes 20 hours at $50 per hour), to be done once

every 5 years.

RA, FS, D, G $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 

P-24 1 Construct vehicle barriers along the main access road where it adjoins

occupied habitat. (Kern buckwheat)

Estimated at $5,000 plus minimal maintenance BLM $5,000 $0 $0 $0 

Rap-9 Provide all applicants for discretionary permits with an informational

brochure with an illustration of a burrowing owl, a description of its burrows

and how they can be recognized, and a summary of the bird's life history.

Provide a phone number to reach member of Implementation Team if owl

sighted.

Cost of educational brochure estimated at $5,000 includingprinting; to be used by all jurisdictions.

IA $5,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-76 3 Short-joint beavertail cactus: (M-76) Determine numbers and identity of

beavertail cacti in eastern part of the range. (#3)

One-time survey, $5,000. IA $0 $0 $0 $5,000 

DT-200 1 Desert tortoise: Establish a feed-back loop between law enforcement and

the Implementation Team to identify problem areas and to identify issue

specific solutions.

$4,000 (Assumes 80 hours at $50 per hour) NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

$0 $4,000 $0 $0 
M-98 ongoing Desert tortoise: The efficacy of route closures to minimize impacts to

tortoises must be monitored to determine if new roads are being created,

closed routes are being used, route proliferation is resulting, etc.(ongoing)

40 hours at $50 per hour; 2 surveys, to occur 5 years

apart;total estimated cost $4,000.

BLM, IA $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 

DT-22 1 Initiate a working group with the Silver Lakes Association to determine if

fencing or public education is the best means to eliminate impacts for OHV

use in the Fremont-Kramer DWMA.

$3,300 (Based on 10 meetings - 3 hours each at $110 per hour

plus meeting arrangement time)

BLM $3,300 $0 $0 $0 

E-1 1 Identify a coordinator of educational programs. $1700 (Assumes 20 hours at $85 per hour) IA $1,700 $0 $0 $0 

DT-13 1 Develop a standard data sheet to record how many, if any, tortoises are

moved from harm's way during clearance surveys.

$1,000 IA $1,000 $0 $0 $0 

M-47 1 Mojave monkeyflower: (M-47) Monitor vehicle tracks to assess spillover

effects, if any, from OHV open areas (#1)

$1,000 (Assumes 20 hours at $50 per hour) BLM, IA $0 $1,000 $0 $0 

M-53 1 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: Monitor disturbance of occupied habitat by

OHVs. (#1)

$1,000 (Assumes 20 hours at $50 per hour) COVHC $0 $0 $1,000 $0 

DT-201 Complete assessment of public land health. Identify and implement

corrective measures to ensure compliance.

Covered by BLM livestock grazing budget. BLM $0 $0 $0 $0 

ongoing San Diego horned lizard: Acquire lands within Antelope Valley Significant

Ecological Area.

IA 

DT-14 ongoing Implement the Plan's standardized set of BMPs for Survey Areas outside of

DWMAs.

No new cost, already developed, just need to be implemented. IA $0 $0 $0 $0 

HCA-6 Clearance surveys within SRAs (and possible protective fencing in absence

of biological monitor).

$500 (approximate cost for a 40 acre-parcel) PP 

HCA-2 ongoing Project review within Sierra Foothills Habitat Connector. Undetermined. Potential additional costs to BLM and local

jurisditions to review project proposals, and to project proponent

if redesign is required.

PA, BLM 

HCA-2 ongoing Project review within SEAs No new cost. L.A. County already conducting review. PA 

HCA-33 ongoing Determine whether a property constitutes "degraded habitat" eligible for an

award of HRCs.

No extra cost. NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

HCA-33 ongoing Review rehabilitation projects to determine whether identified success

criteria have been met prior to awarding HRCs and/or whether partial credit

will be awarded.

$200 per project NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

HCA-36 ongoing Acquisition of private lands within the HCA must be followed immediately by

meaningful land management actions.

Dependent on management action, e.g. fencing, route

rehabilitation, signing.

BLM 

DT-3 ongoing On private lands, CEQA Lead would continue to ensure that filming

activities do not constitute a significant impact to species covered by the

Plan.

No new cost PA, PP 

DT-3 ongoing Special filming activities that require pyrotechnics, cross-country travel, and

habitat loss will be referred by the lead agency to the Implementation Team

for review and recommendation prior to permit issuance.

Undetermined. Cost to IA for reviewing proposals. Potential

costs to applicant if review requires revision to proposal.

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

DT-7 ongoing 1) Highway maintenance operators must be aware of tortoises and avoid

them. 2) If the Implementation Team judges that these or other measures

are not avoiding take of tortoises, a biological monitor may be necessary.

1) No new cost 2) $330 - $750 per day. 1) NA

2) PP

DT-8 ongoing Roadbeds should not be lowered and berms should not exceed 12 inches or

a slope of 30 degrees. Helendale Road, Fossil Bed Road, Camp Rock

Road, and Copper City toad were identified as particular problems.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to BLM and local

jurisditions to maintain roads to this standard.

RA 

DT-11 ongoing Review new linear utility projects within the HCA at the time they are

proposed for consistency with guidelines contained within the HCP.

No new cost NA (cost

included infunding of IA)

DT-11 1 Facilitate issuance of applicable salvage permits to participating utility

companies to enable them to remove raven nests from transmission lines

and other facilities

No additional cost NA 

DT-12 ongoing Clearance and presence-absence surveys within Tortoise DWMAs. Approx. cost for 40 acre parcel: Clearance survey = $500 (4

acres per hour at rate of $50 per hour) presence/absence

survey = $1530 (4 acres per hour ar rate of $85 per hour, plus 8

hours report prep time)

PP 

DT-13 ongoing Clearance surveys outside of DWMAs and No Survey Areas $500 (approximate cost for a 40 acre-parcel) PP 
DT-14 ongoing Require implementation of BMPs for specified construction projects. No new cost (Standardization of current management) PP 

DT-14 ongoing Ensure project compliance with BMPs and Handling Guidelines Undetermined. Potential additional costs to BLM and local

jurisditions to review project proposals, and to project proponent

if redesign is required.

BLM 

DT-15 2 Consider establishing translocation sites for wild tortoises removed from

impact zones if determined that other alternatives are unable to

accommodate all displaced tortoises

IA 

DT-18 ongoing Coordinate placement of fences along paved roadways to ensure that

access is provided to those routes identified as "open" that intersect with

roads to be fenced. Ensure that the latest, state-of the art gate designs are

used at designated portals

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to BLM, Caltrans, and

local jurisdictions in meeting and coordination time.

BLM 

DT-20 ongoing Install culverts of appropriate design and spacing to allow desert tortoises

to pass under the road within DWMAS when roads are fenced to preclude

entry by desert tortoises.

RA, FS, D, G 

DT-24 1 Use additional law enforcement and education to inform the public of

appropriate and inappropriate activities in conservation areas.

See DT-28 and E-2 RA, FS, D, G 

DT-27 ongoing Counties and cities shall ensure that no new landfills are constructed inside

DWMAs or within five miles of them (except Barstow Landfill).

Undetermined. Potential costs to counties and cities to review

and amend Integrated Waste Management Plans as necessary.

RA 

DT-26 1 Ensure that predation by ravens and other predators does not compromise

the headstarting program.

Included in overall cost of headstarting program IA 

DT-30 1 Reduce availability of anthropogenic sources of food and water to ravens

and coyotes by modifying landfill operation practices in the desert.

Undetermined. Varies by jurisdiction IA 

DT-31 1 Take steps to reduce the availability of organic wastes to ravens outside of

landfills.

Undetermined IA 

DT-32 Reduce the availability of carcasses of road-killed animals along highways

in tortoise habitat.

the only way to reduce carcasses is with fencing along roads. IA 

DT-33 1 Reduce the population density of ravens and number of birds that may take

tortoises by reducing the availability of water while being mindful of the

needs of other species.

Undetermined. Primarily education for jurisdiction project

review, agriculture, etc.

IA 

DT-34 1 Remove active raven nests from specific areas ) IA 

DT-35 ongoing Avoid constructing new nesting structures and reduce the number of existing

nesting structures in areas where natural or anthropogenic substrates are

lacking.

IA 

DT-36 1 Remove ravens from specific areas where tortoise mortality from several

sources is high, raven predation is known to occur, and the tortoise

population has a chance of benefiting from raven removal.

IA 

DT-37 3 Implement raven research measures IA 

DT-38 1 Establish two work groups to oversee raven management direction, review

information, coordinate with other agencies/groups, solicit funding for

implementation of specific management measures and distribute

information/data.

IA 

DT-40 ongoing Cooperate with known weed abatement specialists and organizations and

facilitate weed abatement/management programs that contribute to the

conservation of plant or animal species covered by the plan.

Undetermined. Costs involve Implementation Team staff time

to contact and coordinate with others.

NA (cost

included infunding of IA)

MGS-200 ongoing Mohave ground squirrel: ·Cooperate with military installations by sharing

scientific information and reviewing management plans.

Undetermined. Costs involve Implementation Team staff time

to contact and coordinate with others.

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

MR-1 ongoing Determine whether groundwater criterion are met in order to obtain

coverage for riparian habitat dependant species.

No cost. NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

Bat-3 ongoing Protect riparian habitat within five miles of known or newly discovered

maternity roosts for Townsend's big-eared bat, including monitoring of

grazing, if present.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to agencies to monitor

and identify/implement projects.

IA, BLM 
Bat-4 ongoing Protect desert wash vegetation within three miles of known or newly

discovered maternity and hibernation roosts of California leaf-nosed bats.

Assess motorized vehicle use of washes in these locations on a case-bycase basis. Develop alternative access routes if problem is determined.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to agencies to assess

vehicle use of washes and identify/implement projects. Involve

OHV user groups.

IA, BLM 

Bat-6 ongoing Project surveys for discretionary permits where potential for significant bat

roosts exists.

$500 PP 

Bat-7 ongoing Prior to disturbance or removal of a non-significant roost, a project sponsor

would provide for safe eviction of any bats present by a qualified biologist

in consultation with CDFG.

$2,000 PP 

Rap-1 ongoing All construction of new electric utility lines throughout the planning area must

be raptor-safe.

No new costs. Included within design. 

Rap-3 ongoing Ensure controls on blasting for new mines where raptor are potentially

affected.

Application of this standard involves no new costs. pp 

Rap-6 ongoing In areas where a desert tortoise clearance survey is required, discretionary

projects will be required to conduct a concurrent abbreviated survey for the

burrowing owl.

Cost included within tortoise clearance survey cost (see DT-12

& 13)

PP 

Rap-7 ongoing Discretionary projects within DWMAs will conduct a survey utilizing the fourvisit CDFG protocol for burrowing owl. $2,000 PP 

Rap-8 ongoing If survey shows burrowing owl to be present, applicant is required to

institute the minimization measures of eviction and burrow closure.

$6,000 PP 

Rap-12 ongoing Track all new sightings and new nest locations of burrowing owls as they are

detected in the future.

Included within IA staff budget. IA 

Rap-14 3 Retrofit existing electrical transmission and distribution lines identified as

"'problem poles" (or as part of voluntary proactive programs by utilities)

located near regular ferruginous hawk wintering areas to meet current

design standards to prevent electrocution.

Cost dependent on pole configuration. PP 

Rap-19 ongoing Enforce seasonal road closures where practical and necessary to protect

nesting prairie falcons.

No additional cost. Included in BLM operating budget. BLM 

Rap-19 ongoing Conduct a site-specific evaluation to determine if prairie falcon nest

locations are within the line-of-sight of vehicles and if seasonal closures are

necessary.

No additional cost. Included in BLM operating budget. BLM 

B-2 4 Consolidate public land in the Kelso Valley through land exchanges with

willing sellers (Bendire's thrasher)

Include with HCA acquisition priorities. Cost included in IA staff

budget.

IA 

B-8 ongoing Review land division and other development proposals in the Oak Hills area

to insure minimization of impacts to gray vireo habitat

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County and the city of Hesperia to review project proposals, and

to project proponent if redesign is required.

PP 

B-11 2 Remove salt cedar and Phragmites at designated springs and replant with

native willows. (Inyo California towhee)

Undetermined. Cost is site specific. IA, BLM 

B-12 ongoing Continue removal of feral burros from the Argus Mountains with a goal of

zero. (Inyo California towhee)

No additional cost. Part of ongoinf BLM program. BLM 

B-13 1 Install signs indicating the China Lake NAWC boundary at Benko Spring and

Ruby Spring (in cooperation with China Lake NAWS). (Inyo California

towhee)

Minimal cost for signs. Boundary surveys are underway. BLM 

B-15 ongoing Remove invasive riparian plants from the Mojave River. Undetermined and variable depending on implementing agency. BLM 

B-17 ongoing LeConte's thrasher: Prevent disturbance of nest sites during nesting

season.

No additional cost. PP 

R-1 ongoing Prohibit flood control structures that will impede sand transport at Big Rock

Creek, Sheep Creek, and the Mojave River. (Mojave fringe-toed lizard)

No new cost. NA 

R-2 ongoing Regulate aggregate mining in Big Rock Creek, Sheep Creek, and the

Mojave River to assure continued passage of sand downstream during

flood flows. (Mojave fringe-toed lizard)

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to local jurisditions to

review project proposals, and to project proponent if redesign is

required.

PP 

R-3 3 Widen the bridge over Big Rock Creek when Highway 138 is improved to

allow better sand and water flow and enhance the wildlife corridor between

the desert and the San Gabriel Mountains. Convert the existing double

channel into a single long and high span. (Mojave fringe-toed lizard)

Cost included within bridge design. Potentially higher

construction costs.

PP 
P-202 ongoing Continue BLM program of education of trail maintenance volunteers.

(Southern Sierra plants)

No new cost. BLM 

P-203 ongoing Acquire lands and relinquish mining claims consistent with the options

contained in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy.

Included with acquisition priorities. BLM 

P-3 ongoing Retain the flood discharge capability of Amargosa Creek to the extend

feasible and retain the capacity for sheet flow over the alkali flood plain

north of Lancaster and west of EAFB. (Alkali mariposa lily)

No new cost. NA 

P-2, P-3 1 Acquire or otherwise ensure the conservation of Paradise Spring and

Rabbit Springs. (Alkali mariposa lily)

Include in acquisition priorities IA 

P-9 ongoing Review proposals for development, mining or water extraction near springs

located along the Helendale Fault for compatibility with protection of the

mariposa lilies and the surface water supply. Require botanical surveys in

these areas. (alkali mariposa lily)

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County to review project proposals, and to project proponent if

redesign is required. Cost of botanical survey is approximately$2,000 per site.

IA 

P-11 2 BLM will exchange lands with CDFG so that a contiguous state ownership

of occupied Barstow woolly sunflower habitat is achieved.

No new cost; included within BLM operating budget. BLM 

P-14 4 Secure a conservation easement from U.S. Borax and other landowners

(between Highway 58 and EAFB, and adjacent to the solar facility north of

Highway 58) as a secondary reserve for the Barstow woolly sunflower.

Dependent on final configuation of conservation area. IA 

P-15 ongoing Require botanical surveys in the North Edwards Conservation Area until

such time as a permanent boundary is established. (Barstow woolly

sunflower)

Estimated at $2000 per 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

P-15 3 Establish permanent boundary for the North Edwards Conservation Area

once additional information is known. (Barstow woolly sunflower)

No additional cost. Part of adaptive management. RA 

P-17 ongoing Prior to new construction within the utility corridors located in the Barstow

woolly sunflower CA and NECA, botanical surveys shall be conducted and

existing populations avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

Cost dependent on project scope. BLM 

P-18 ongoing Review Plans of Operation for proposed mines to achieve compatibility

between mining and conservation of existing Barstow woolly sunflower

sites. Existing populations will be avoided to the maximum extent

practicable.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County and BLM to review project proposals, and to project

proponent if redesign is required.

PP 

P-18 2 Initiate mineral withdrawals for occupied habitat of Lane Mountain Milkvetch

.

Undetermined. Army 

P-19 1 Charlotte's phacelia : Designate routes of travel in the El Paso Mountains. No new cost; included within BLM and State Parks operating

budget.

BLM 

P-20 2 Sign the larger populations of crucifixion thorn to notify campers that

firewood harvesting is prohibited.

Minimal costs for signs. BLM 

P-21 ongoing Require botanical surveys for new projects within identified suitable habitat

for desert cymopterus.

Estimated at $2,000 for 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

HCA-3 3 Avoidance of this species would be required for any public or private land

ground-disturbing projects in the proposed Middle Knob Conservation Area.

(Flax-like monardella)

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to Kern County and

BLM to review project proposals, and to project proponent if

redesign is required.

P-30 3 Compensate claimholders within Coolgardie and West Paradise CA mineral

withdrawal areas.

Undetermined. Dependent on claim validity. Army 

P-32 1 Notify claimholders of the presence of endangered plants. Restrictions on

casual use that involves ground disturbance within the Lane Mountain

Milkvetch CA will be developed as necessary.

Undetermined mailing costs to claimholders. BLM 

P-33 ongoing Require applicants for discretionary permits within 100' of existing stream

channels within the SRA established for the Little San Bernardino Mountains

gilia to protect the integrity of the stream channels. Require setbacks of

100' from the outer banks of washes, and establish flood control and

conservation easements on private lands containing this species.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County and BLM to review project proposals, and to project

proponent if redesign is required.

PP 

P-34 ongoing Prohibit channelization of upper Big Morongo Creek, Little Morongo Creek,

and Dry Morongo Creek northwest of Highway 62 in order to maintain fluvial

processes supporting occurrences of the Little San Bernardino Mountains

Gilia in the Coachella Valley. Upstream improvements (e.g. culverts) within

1/4 mile of Highway 62 in these washes will be allowed.

No new costs. NA 
P-37 ongoing Botanical surveys for Mojave monkeyflower in the Brisbane Valley Unit

(optional).

Estimated at $3,000 per 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

P-38 ongoing Assign credits to any mitigation or conservation bank established for the

Mojave monkeyflower, and track incidental take and credits. (optional)

Cost part of IA operating budget. NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

P-38 ongoing Review any mining industry proposal for conservation of the Mojave

monkeyflower in the mining area as a whole. (optional)

Cost part of IA operating budget. NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

P-40 ongoing Acquire additional private lands west of the Newberry Mountains. Include in acquisition priorities. IA 

P-41 ongoing Proponents for development within one mile of the Waterman Hills

occurrences of the Mojave monkeyflower will be required to conduct

surveys.

Estimated at $3,000 per 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

P-42 ongoing New Utility projects, including proposals for wind energy development or

communications sites, within the Mojave Monkeyflower CA will performbotanical surveys and avoid existing populations.

Estimated at $3,000 per 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

P-42 ongoing Determine if construction monitoring is necessary for new utility projects

and prescribe monitoring requirements within Mojave Monkeyflower CA.

Cost part of IA operating budget. PP 

P-44 ongoing Maintain cattle guards and fencing at Short Canyon (Mojave tarplant). No new cost. BLM 

P-48 ongoing Insure that projects proposed on the dry lakes with occupied habitat of

Parish's phacelia avoid and minimize take of this species to the maximum

extent practicable.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County and BLM to review project proposals, and to project

proponent if redesign is required.

PP 

P-50 ongoing Ensure that utilities using portion of Corridors D and Q within Parish's

Phacelia CA avoid known populations or require restoration of the playa

habitat.

No cost for avoidance. Topsoil salvage and replacement cost

undetermined.

PP 

P-52 ongoing Review land division and development proposals in the Oak Hills area to

insure minimization of impact to short-joint bevertail cactus habitat.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County to review project proposals, and to project proponent if

redesign is required.

PP 

P-53 ongoing Review projects to ensure avoidance of all known locations on public lands.

(Triple-ribbed milkvetch)

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to San Bernardino

County to review project proposals, and to project proponent if

redesign is required.

PP 

P-54 ongoing Require botanical surveys for ground-disturbing projects on private lands

located within five miles of existing known locations for this species.

Require projects to avoid occurrences. (Triple-ribbed milkvetch)

Estimated at $3,000 per 40 acres for spring surveys. PP 

P-55 4 Acquire one private parcel where this plant occurs within the proposed

Pisgah Crater ACEC if feasible.

Dependent on property value. IA 

LG-XX ongoing Ensure that all cattle and sheep grazing prescriptions identified by the plan

(not listed below) are met.

BLM 

LG-1 ongoing Ensure utilization consistent with Hoechek's (et al., 1998) or the best

scientific information available.

BLM 

LG-2 2 Complete assessment of public land health for Double Mountain, Oak

Creek, and Round Mountain Allotments.

BLM 

LG-4 ongoing Modify the Lacey-Cactus-McCloud allotment boundary to exclude those

portions that occur on China Lake NAWS.

No additional cost. BLM 

LG-5 ongoing Remove and dispose of all cattle carcasses in an appropriate manner (I.e.,

not buried). Cross-country vehicle travel to remove cattle carcasses must

have prior approval from the BLM.

BLM 

LG-7 2 Modify all existing tortoise cattle guards in desert tortoise habitat to prevent

entrapment of desert tortoises.

BLM 

LG-8 ongoing Eliminate any hazards to desert tortoises that may be created, such as

auger holes and trenches, before the rancher, contractor, or work crew

leaves the site.

BLM 

LG-9 1 Complete health assessments for the following cattle allotments: Cady

Mountain, Hansen Common, Lacey-Cactus-McCloud, Olancha Common,

Rattlesnake Canyon, Rudnick Common, Tunawee Common, and WalkerPass Common.

BLM 
LG-13 ongoing For a grazing allotment partially within a DWMA, when ephemeral forage

production is less than 230 pounds per acre, cattle would be substantially

removed form "Exclusion Areas" from March 15 to June 15.

BLM 

LG-14 ongoing Cattle may remain past March 15 in expectation of ephemeral forage

production over 230 pounds per acre. If this level of forage is not attained

when weather conditions are appropriate, cattle must leave Exclusion Areas

until such time as 230 pounds per acre ephemeral forage is achieved or

June 15, whichever is earlier. This determination would be made based on

the evaluation and judgment of the BLM authorized officer. If cattle must be

removed, the operator would be given two weeks to remove them from the

DWMA.

B;LM 

LG-15 ongoing Cattle must be substantially removed from the Exclusion Areas by March 15

and remain out until such time as 230 pounds per acre ephemeral forage is

achieved or June 15, whichever is earlier.

BLM 

LG-17 1 The grazing strategy would be developed within a year and implemented

within two years of plan adoption . The strategy would be a written plandetailing the area of removal, natural cattle movements, existing and

potential improvements, and other constraints of cattle management.

BLM 

LG-18 1 Complete health assessments for the following allotments: Cronese Lake,

Harper Lake, and Ord Mountain allotments.

BLM 

LG-19 1 Conduct a study of tortoise nutritional ecology in relation to livestock

grazing, compatible to studies performed in the Ivanpah Valley during the

later 1990s. If appropriate modify grazing program in response to study

findings.

BLM 

LG-20 ongoing Turnout of sheep in all allotments would not occur until 230 pounds (air-dryweight) per acre of ephemeral forage is available. The lessee would be

required to remove sheep from the are or the entire allotment if production

falls below 230 pounds per acre.

BLM 

LG-22 ongoing All sheep carcasses would be removed and disposed of in an appropriate

manner (I.e. not buried) within two days of being found. Cross-country

vehicle travel to gather sheep carcasses) must have prior approval from the

BLM.

BLM 

LG-23 2 Health assessments would be performed within four years of plan adoption

for all sheep allotments, or portions thereof, available for grazing (e.g.,

areas of allotments outside DWMAs). Health assessments would not be

required for allotments that would no longer be available for grazing (e.g.,

areas of allotments inside DWMAs).

BLM 

LG-24 ongoing To avoid competition between sheep and the Mohave ground squirrel once

the ephemeral forage is no longer available and both species rely on

perennial forage, all sheep would be removed from the Mohave Ground

Squirrel Conservation Area when ephemeral plants are no longer the

primary forage being utilized by sheep.

Undetermined. Potential additional costs to BLM and grazing

lessee.

BLM 

LG-24 ongoing To facilitate adaptive management, if future research shows that key

species different from those listed in Table 2-XXX are important to the

Mohave ground squirrel, those additional species would be added to the

monitoring program. Similarly, if a key species identified above is not

considered important to the Mohave ground squirrel in another part of its

range (i.e., outside the Coso region), that species may be dropped from the

list.

BLM 

LG-25 1 Sheep grazing would be prohibited from the Middle Stoddard Mountain

Allotment where it coincides with the Mojave Monkeyflower CA. The BLM

would work with the lessee to clearly identify monkeyflower habitat to be

avoided.

Minimal cost. BLM 

LG-28 ongoing Following plan adoption, the lessees would be given two years notification

pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.4-2(b) before measure identified in Section

2.2.5.8 are implemented.

BLM 
LG-29 ongoing Grazing use would continue until the lessee voluntarily relinquishes their

grazing preference and lease. Upon relinquishment, BLM would, without

further analysis or notice; not reissue the lease; remove the allotment

designation; assume any and all private interest in range improvement

located on public land; and, designate the land as no longer available for

livestock grazing. (from 2.2.5.9)

BLM 

MV-XX ongoing Enforce regulations relating to designated motorized vehicle access

network.

See DT-28. BLM 

E-9 ongoing Provide education programs on a case-by-case basis to train utility and

Caltrans maintenance staff, personnel at mines, government employees,

and others to conduct rescue actions at isolated sites.

One day seminar, costing $750 plus facilities cost. IA 

M-9 ongoing Bats: (M-9) Effectiveness of mitigation measures providing for safe exit

of bats should be reported. (Ongoing)

No additional cost RA 

M-13 1 Brown-crested flycatcher: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon and in Mojave River to determine

number of nesting pairs. (#1)

Undetermined IA 

LG-9 1 Brown-crested flycatcher: (LG-9) BLM will conduct a regional rangeland

health assessment of the riparian area in the east Sierra Canyons within two

years of Plan approval. (#1)

BLM 

M-15 ongoing Burrowing owl: (M-15) Compile annually record of take and conservation by

acquisition and relocation. (Ongoing)

Included within IA operating budget IA 

M-18 2 Carbonate endemic plants: (M-18) Monitor disturbance within ACEC. (#2) Undetermined PP 

LG-9 1 Charlotte's phacelia: (LG-9) BLM would make a regional rangeland health

assessment on public lands in the east Sierra Canyons within two years of

Plan approval. (#1)

BLM 

DT-41 3 Desert tortoise:(Guzzler)Conduct monitoring to see if tortoise mortality is

an issue. Also attempt to ascertain use of guzzlers by known tortoise

predators.(#3)

No cost or minimal mapping costs w/ volunteers doing the work. BLM, IA 

M-98 1 Desert tortoise: Continue studies on the permanent study plots at the

Goldstone Deep Space Tracking Station, and in the Alvord Mountains and

elsewhere in the Superior-Cronese DWMA.(#1)

BLM, IA 

M-98 4 Desert tortoise: Conduct studies to determine the effects of the removal of

sheep grazing from the Fremont-Kramer DWMA on tortoise

populations.(#4)

BLM, IA 

M-98 1 Desert tortoise: (DT-39) Monitor both raven status and effectiveness of

management actions at reducing predation rates on juvenile tortoises.(#1)

BLM, IA 

M-23 ongoing Ferruginous hawk: (M-23) Compile records of electrocutions from

incidental sightings, reports from the public and reports from utilities to

identify “problem poles”. (Ongoing)

IA 

M-24 2 Ferruginous hawk: (M-24) utilize results of winter surveys to update the

BLM’s Key Raptor Area database (#2).

BLM 

M-24 2 Golden eagle: (M-24) Update Key Raptor Area database. (#2) No new cost IA 

M-227 3 Gray vireo: Identify and monitor threats to occupied habitat. (#3) Included within IA operating budget BLM 

M-32 2 Inyo California towhee: (M-32) Monitor spread of tamarisk and Phragmites

at springs(#2)

BLM 

M-35 1 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: (LG-9) BLM would make an assessment of

regional rangeland health on public lands in the Rudnick common allotment

within two years of Plan approval. (#1)

BLM 

M-36 ongoing Kern buckwheat: (M-36) Perform annual review of compliance with HCP

protection measures, with an objective of detecting new disturbance in

occupied habitat. (Ongoing)

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

M-36 ongoing Lane Mountain milkvetch: (M-36) Perform annual review of compliance

with HCP protection measures, with an objective of detecting new

disturbance in occupied habitat. (Ongoing)

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

M-38 ongoing Lane Mountain milkvetch: (M-38) Report annually on progress of

acquisitions. (Ongoing)

Included within IA operating budget NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)
M-13 1 Least Bell's vireo: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, Mojave River, and other known nest

sites to determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

M-41 3 Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia: (M-41) Conduct presence absence

surveys on BLM parcels near Joshua Tree, and north of Yucca Valley near

Rattlesnake Canyon. (#3)

IA 

M-13 1 Long-eared owl: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, Mojave River, Argus Mountains and

other known nest sites, to determine number of nesting pairs. Report

results to the BLM National Raptor Database. (#1)

RA, PA, FS,

D, G

M-46, LG18 1 Mojave monkeyflower: LG-18) Range land health assessments would be completed within one year of plan adoption for Ord Mountain allotment. (#1) BLM M-48 1 Mojave monkeyflower: (M-48) Determine acres of occupied habitat in

rainy years on public land in Brisbane Valley portion of conservation area

between I-15 and Mojave River (#1). .

BLM, IA 

M-49 3 Mojave monkeyflower: (M-49) Continue presence absence surveys of

remainder of core reserves and adjacent areas (#3).

BLM, IA 

M-50 2 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: M-50) Delineate blowsand habitat at Alvord

Mountain, Pisgah, Cronese Lakes, and northeast of Harper Dry Lake. (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-51 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: Measure dune movement. BLM, IA 

M-52 2 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: (M-52) Construction of windbreaks and exotic

plants potentially affecting occupied habitat should be monitored. (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-209 1 Mojave River vole: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well

records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

Included within IA operating budget IA 

M-55 2 Mojave River vole: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments

every five years (#2)

BLM 

M-56 2 Mojave tarplant: (M-56) Determine acres of occupied habitat at Short

Canyon and Cross Mountain every five years. (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-200 3 Parish's phacelia: (See P-43 & P-46)Census populations every five years,

with an estimate of acreage of occupied habitat (#3)

No additional cost. BLM 

M-60 2 Parish's alkali grass: (M-60) Establish baseline population numbers and

acreage of occupied habitat at Rabbit Springs. (#2)

IA 

M-3 1 Parish's alkali grass: (M-3, 95) Conduct surveys of other alkaline springs

and seeps to determine if other populations are present in the planning area.

(#1)

$80,000 (same survey for several species; see above) IA 

M-60 2 Parish's popcorn flower: (M-60) Establish baseline population size and

area of occupied habitat at Rabbit Springs. (#2)

IA 

M-3 1 Parish's popcorn flower: (M-3) Conduct surveys of other alkaline springs

and seeps to determine if other populations are present in the Planning

area. (#1)

$80,000 (same survey for several species; see above) IA 

M-24 ongoing Prairie falcon: (M-24) Update Key Raptor Area databases at five-year

intervals. (Ongoing)

Included within BLM operating budget BLM 

M-66 ongoing Prairie falcon: (M-66) Report on falconry take permits. (Ongoing) Included within CDFG operating budget BLM, IA 

M-97 ongoing Prairie Falcon: Maintain a database of survey reports and new records of

occurrence of the prairie falcon in cooperation with the CDFG's NDDB and

raptor nest card records program. Also, keep records of newly permitted

activities issued within the Key Raptor Areas for prairie falcon and for other

areas within one mile of a known prairie falcon nest

Included within IA operating budget IA 

M-68 2 Red rock poppy: (M-68) Coordinate population surveys with Red Rock

Canyon State Park. Perform population census every five years. (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-68 2 Red rock tarplant: (M-68) Coordinate population surveys with Red Rock

Canyon State Park. Perform population census every five years. (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-3 1 Salt Springs checkerbloom: Conduct surveys of other alkaline springs and

seeps to determine if other populations are present in the planning area.

$80,000 (same survey for several species) IA $0 $0 $0 $0 
M-60 2 Salt Springs checkerbloom: (M-60) Establish baseline population numbers

and area of occupied habitat at Rabbit Springs. (#2)

IA 

M-74 3 San Diego horned lizard: (M-74) Monitor surface disturbance at Big Rock

Creek and Mescal Creek. (#3)

IA 

M-79 2 Southwestern pond turtle: (M-79) Conduct presence absence surveys of

Kelso Creek and Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC in suitable habitat. (#2)

BLM 

M-13 1 Southwestern willow flycatcher: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on

annual censuses at Big Morongo Canyon and in Mojave River to determine

number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

LG-9 1 Southwestern willow flycatcher: Initiate first riparian assessment in Kelso

Valley and east Sierra Canyons within two years of Plan approval. (#1)

See M-14 BLM, IA 

M-13 1 Summer tanager: M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, other known nest sites and in Mojave

River, to determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

M-13 1 Vermilion Flycatcher: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, other known nest sites and in Mojave

River, to determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

M-13 1 Western Yellow-billed cuckoo: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on

annual censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, Mojave River, and other known

nest sites to determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

M-248 2 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: Perform Proper Functioning Condition

assessments in riparian areas every five years (#2)

BLM, IA 

M-87 2 White-margined beardtongue: (M-87) Census plant populations at known

locations (#2)

PA, FS, D, G 

M-13 1 Yellow-breasted chat: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual

censuses at Big Morongo Canyon, other known nest sites and in Mojave

River, to determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

M-13 1 Yellow warbler: (M-13) Cooperate with local bird clubs on annual censuses

at Big Morongo Canyon, other known nest sites and in Mojave River, to

determine number of nesting pairs. (#1)

IA 

LG-9 2 Yellow warbler: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments in

riparian areas every five years (#2)

See M-14 BLM 

M-93 4 Yellow-eared pocket mouse: Conduct presence absence survey in east

Sierra Canyons and public land in Kelso Valley (#4).

BLM, IA 

M-94 2 Yellow-eared pocket mouse: (LG-9, M-94) BLM would conduct rangeland

health assessments for allotments within the range of the yellow-eared

pocket mouse within five years of Plan approval. (#2)

See M-14 BLM, IA 

A-1 Alkali mariposa lily: (AM-1) If surveys show substantial occurrences at

isolated sites then the Implementing Authority will provide additional

protection, which could include: acquisition, fencing or conservation area

boundary modification.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

IA 

A-3 Barstow woolly sunflower: (AM-3) If new populations are identified through

new survey information then adjust boundaries of Kramer and North

Edwards Conservation areas to include those populations.

No new cost; within operating budget of IA. IA 

A-4 Barstow woolly sunflower: Adjust boundaries of Coolgardie Mesa

Conservation Area based on new occurrences if appropriate.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

IA 

A-5 Bats: Gate mine entrances if new significant roosts are found. Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

BLM, IA 

A-6 Bats: If populations decline or are threatened then install bat houses in

locations where appropriate.

$3,000 per location IA 

A-8 Bendire's thrasher: If new populations are discovered then adjust

conservation area boundaries.

No new cost; within operating budget of IA. IA 

A-9 Bendire's thrasher: If surveys show presence of significant numbers of

birds and undisturbed habitat, then consider addition of a conservation area

near Yucca Valley

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

IA 
A-202 Brown-crested flycatcher: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and

manage disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

BLM, IA 

A-13 Brown-crested flycatcher:(AM-13) If rangeland health assessments in

riparian areas of the east Sierra canyons do not meet Proper Functioning

Conditions, then adjust grazing practices or eradicate invasive riparian

plants.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

BLM, IA 

A-14 Brown-crested flycatcher: If cooperating with water agencies to provide

additional water to the Mojave River is not successful and groundwater

levels at monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit coverage.

No new cost. IA 

A-15 Burrowing owl: If new owl nesting sites are discovered, then designate new

conservation areas or adjust acquisition priorities.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

IA 

A-16 Carbonate endemic plants: (AM-16) If the revegetation and restoration of

mined properties is not successful, then adjust revegatation, per Carbonate

Management strategy

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

BLM, IA 

A-17 Carbonate endemic plants: If specific occurrences of Parish’s daisy need

to be protected from grazing, then fence.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

BLM, IA 

A-18 Charlotte's phacelia: (AM-18) If monitoring shows damage from OHV use

in the El Paso Mountains and elsewhere fence occurrences as necessary.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

BLM, IA 

AM-13 Charlotte's phacelia: (AM-13) If rangeland health assessments in the east

Sierra canyons do not meet requirements, then adjust grazing practices.

No new cost; within operating budget of BLM. BLM 

A-20 Crucifixion thorn: If new locations of occupied habitat are found, then review

route designation and prohibit firewood cutting.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

RA, FS, D, G 

A-21 Crucifixion thorn: If monitoring of “woodland” site indicates damage, then

construct fencing at strategic locations.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

RA, FS, D, G 

A-22 Ferruginous hawk: If electrical towers are identified in wintering areas as

causing electrocutions then retrofit the problem electrical towers or create

safe perches.

Undetermined, dependent on tower configuration. 

A-24 Golden eagle: If new threats to nest sites are identified then take corrective

actions.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-25 Golden eagle: If electrocutions are occurring then retrofit problem

electrical towers.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-26 Golden eagle: If electrocutions are occurring then construct nest platforms

on transmission line sites.

$3,000 per platform. 

A-27 Gray vireo: If cowbirds are found to be a threat, then initiate cowbird

control.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-28 Inyo California towhee: If Recovery Plan goals are met then initiate

delisting.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-30 Inyo California towhee: (AM-30) If monitoring indicates spread of invasive

plants (Phragmites and tamarisk) over baseline conditions, then remove the

invasives from the springs. The Bruce Canyon sites are within Wilderness

and work would be performed by hand.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-31 Inyo California towhee: If monitoring at Peach Springs indicates continuing

burro damage, then install an exclosure fence. Because this site is within

the Argus Mountains Wilderness, work must be performed by hand.

Cost dependent on monitoring. Can be performed by BLM

interns and volunteers.

A-32 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: (AM-32) If new populations are discovered

then BLM will adjust boundaries of conservation area.

No new cost; within operating budget of IA. 

A-34 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: (AM-34) If results of the rangeland health

assessments in Kelso Valley indicate consumption or trampling of the

flower, then adjust grazing practices.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-35 Kelso Creek monkeyflower: If newly discovered populations on private

land are found, then pursue land purchase or exchange on a high priority.

A-36 Lane Mountain milkvetch: If significant populations are found, then adjust

boundaries of ACEC and withdraw from mineral entry.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-202 Least Bell's vireo: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and manage

disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)
AM-14 Least Bell's vireo: Cooperate with water agencies to provide additional

water to Mojave River.

No new cost. 

A-39 (AM27) Least Bell's vireo: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not met, then adjust management in the riparian areas such as eradication of

invasive riparian plants.(AM-27) If cowbirds prove to be a threat, then

initiate cowbird control.

A-41 Little San Bernardino Mountain's gilia: If new occupied habitat is identified

then adjust boundaries of Conservation Area.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-42 Little San Bernardino Mountain's gilia: Remove the 50 acre limitation on

take on private land if: 1) New populations are found and are protected, or

2) the dry wash conservation measures are in place (conservation

easements, setbacks, prohibitions on vehicle travel in occupied washes.)

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-43 Long-eared owl: If new nest and communal roost sites are discovered then

protect them.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-44 Mojave monkeyflower: If grazing proves to be a threat, then adjust grazing

prescriptions in eastern conservation area with seasonal or area-specific

restrictions.

No additional cost 

A-46 Mojave monkeyflower: (AM-46) If OHV use proves to be impacting

occupied habitat, then sign or fence habitat adjacent to Stoddard Valley

Open Area. Fence as necessary in Brisbane Valley

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-45 Mojave monkeyflower: (AM-45) If significant new occurrences are found

on public lands or if opportunity arises on two sections designated as

“potential additions” or with Catellus land exchanges, then add to Brisbane

Valley conservation area. If surveys prove flowers are absent, then delete

lands from eastern conservation area.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-47 Mojave monkeyflower: If mining company surveys detect flowers within

mining area then establish boundaries of mitigation bank.

A-49 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: If important new blowsand processes are

identified then adjust boundaries as necessary to protect drainages and

wind transport area and extend conservation downwind if warranted.

No new cost; within operating budget of IA. 

A-241 Mojave River vole: If excessive damage is detected to occupied habitat,

then manage visitor use by fencing areas.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

AM-14 Mojave River vole: Cooperate with water agencies to provide additional

water to Mojave River. If groundwater levels at monitoring wells are not

maintained, drop permit coverage.

No new cost. 

A-242 Mojave River vole: If PFC assessments identify invasive plants as a

threat, then eradicate them.

A-53 Mojave tarplant: (AM-53) If Mojave tarplant are consumed or trampled in

Short Canyon and on Cross Mountain, then adjust grazing practices with

seasonal closures or fencing.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-54 Mojave tarplant: (AM-54) If existing or new populations are threatened by

vehicles or grazing, then protect them by providing barriers to vehicles or

livestock.

A-104 Mojave tarplant: (AM-104) If significant new populations are found on

public lands, then manage as an ACEC.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-104 Mojave tarplant: If private land conservation is judged to be necessary at

new locations, the sites will be given a high rating on the acquisition priority

list maintained by the Implementation Team.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-58 Parish's phacelia: If new locations are found, then protect with fencing or

signing at edge of playas.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-59 Parish's alkali grass: If new locations are found, then acquire, secure

water rights or protect from grazing.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

AM-59 Parish's popcorn flower: If new locations are found, formulate protection

plans. Measures could include acquisition, securing water rights, or

protection from grazing.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

(AM-24) Prairie falcon: (AM-24) If new threats to nest sites are identified then take

corrective actions.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-62 Red Rock poppy: If monitoring shows damage to occupied habitat, then

provide barriers to vehicles.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)
A-63 Red Rock poppy: If significant population is discovered on public land then

amend the desert plan to establish an ACEC that encompasses new

populations.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

AM-62 Red Rock tarplant: If monitoring shows damage to occupied habitat, then

provide barriers to vehicles.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

AM-63 Red Rock tarplant: If significant population is discovered on public land

then amend the desert plan to establish an ACEC that encompasses new

populations.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-59 Salt Springs checkerbloom: If new locations are found, then formulate

protection plans. Measures could include acquisition, securing water rights,or protection from grazing.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-69 San Diego horned lizard: If conserved habitat is disturbed in an edge effect,

then fence and post signs.

A-71 Short-joint beavertail cactus: (AM-71) If beavertail cactus are disturbed

during a project, then salvage and relocate plants within urban development

areas.

A-72 Short-joint beavertail cactus: (AM-72) if development pressure increases,

then create mitigation banks in the western part of the range.

If the populations in the eastern part of the range prove to be distinct, then

create smaller reserves as mitigation banks.

A-62 Southwestern pond turtle: (AM-62) If monitoring shows damage to

occupied habitat, then provide barriers to vehicles or livestock.

A-202 Southwestern willow flycatcher: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify

and manage disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-76 Southwestern willow flycatcher: If Proper Functioning Condition

requirements are not met, then adjust management including eradication of

invasive riparian plants

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-14 Southwestern willow flycatcher: If cooperating with water agencies to

provide additional water to the Mojave River is not successful and

groundwater levels at monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit

coverage.

A-202 Summer tanager: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and manage

disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-14 Summer tanager: If cooperating with water agencies to provide additional

water to the Mojave River is not successful and groundwater levels at

monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit coverage.

No new cost. 

A-227 Summer tanager: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not met,

then adjust management including eradication of invasive riparian plants

A-202 Vermilion flycatcher: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and

manage disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-14 Vermilion flycatcher: If cooperating with water agencies to provide

additional water to the Mojave River is not successful and groundwater

levels at monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit coverage.

No new cost. 

A-202 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify

and manage disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-227 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements

are not met, then adjust management including eradication of invasive

riparian plants

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)
A-14 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: If cooperating with water agencies to

provide additional water to the Mojave River is not successful and

groundwater levels at monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit

coverage.

No new cost. 

A-89 White-margined beardtongue: If monitoring shows damage along utility

corridors or in Argos Wash, then fence populations.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-202 Yellow-breasted chat: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and

manage disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-227 Yellow-breasted chat: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not

met, then adjust management including eradication of invasive riparian

plants

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-14 Yellow-breasted chat: If cooperating with water agencies to provide

additional water to the Mojave River is not successful and groundwater

levels at monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit coverage.

No new cost. 

A-27 Yellow-breasted chat: If cowbirds are found to be a threat, then initiate

cowbird control

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

(AM-13,

AM-34)

Yellow-eared pocket mouse: (AM-13, AM-34) If rangeland health

assessments in the east Sierra canyons and Kelso Valley indicate damage

to occupied habitat, then adjust grazing practices.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-96 Yellow-eared pocket mouse: If new location data identifies populations on

private land, then prioritize acquisition lands.

No new cost; within operating budget of IA. 

A-202 Yellow warbler: If nesting pairs decline by 25% then identify and manage

disturbance to habitat with fencing or restrictions on visitor use.

A-227 Yellow warbler: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not met,

then adjust management.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-14 Yellow warbler: If cooperating with water agencies to provide additional

water to the Mojave River is not successful and groundwater levels at

monitoring wells are not maintained, then drop permit coverage.

No new cost. 

AM-39(AM27) Yellow warbler: If invasive riparian plants in occupied habitat prove to be a threat, then eradicate them.

If cowbirds are found to be a threat, then initiate cowbird control

A-105 Raptors: If monitoring reveals "problem poles", existing electrical

transmission and distribution lines can be retrofitted to meet current design

standards that prevent electrocution. Identified regular perch poles adjacent

to important wintering areas for ferruginous hawk in the Mojave Valley and

Antelope Valley can be retrofitted to provide safe sites even if no

electrocution problem is evident. Established perches of golden eagles on

unsafe poles can be retrofitted. (See also, A-24)

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)

A-105 Raptors: Mines that cannot avoid occupied eagle and falcon nest sites will

provide relocated nests in cooperation with the wildlife agencies. (See also

A-24)

A-105 Raptors: The adaptive management conservation program will apply to any

new nest sites located over time and to communal roosts of long-eared owl

and communal migratory roosts of Swainson's hawk. Potential sources of

disturbance will be evaluated on a site-specific basis and management

measures formulated to reduce or eliminate the disturbance during the

nesting and roosting seasons.

A-59 Alkali wetland plants: (AM-59) If new locations are found, formulate

protection plans. Measures could include acquisition, securing water rights,

or protection from grazing.

Undetermined (Costs to be determined as need for action is

identified.)
A-103 Alkali wetland plants: The privately owned portions of the palm oasis and

alkali wetland at the Oasis of Mara adjacent to the Joshua Tree National

Park headquarters buildings could be considered for acquisition, depending

on the feasibility and results of botanical surveys of target species.

R-200 ongoing Southwestern pond turtle: Continue restoration at Camp Cady and Afton

Canyon.

M-200 ongoing Monitoring of reference populations of rare plants, especially annuals, will

be conducted at reference sites in Conservation Areas on public land.

IA, BLM

M-201 1 Alkali Mariposa Lily: Monitor population numbers and measure groundwater

levels in Conservation Area adjacent to LA County treatment ponds. (#1)

M-202 2 Alkali mariposa lily: Measure ground water levels at existing nearby wells

inside or within one mile of the Alkali Mariposa lily conservation area. If no

wells exist in close proximity, the surface water level may be measured.

(#2)

M-203 3 Alkali mariposa lily: Determine plant numbers and area of occupied habitat

at new sites identified since plan adoption every five years. (#3)

M-204 2 Barstow woolly sunflower: Establish baseline population numbers and

occupied acreage in conservation areas. (#2)

M-205 2 Barstow woolly sunflower: BLM and CDFG will monitor OHV disturbance

off designated open routes within the ACEC and Ecological Reserve area.

(#2)

M-207 1 Townsend's big-eared bat: Monitor population numbers using bat houses if

installed. (#1)

IA

M-209 1 Brown-crested flycatcher: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well

records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

M-210 ongoing Parish’s daisy: Report new populations of Parish’s daisy within grazing

allotments. (Ongoing)

BLM

M-211 2 Cushenbury buckwheat, Cushenbury milkvetch, Cushenbury oxytheca,

Parish’s daisy, Shockley’s rockcress: Evaluate revegetation and restoration

of mined properties.

BLM, IA

M-212 1 Charlotte’s phacelia: Monitor disturbance to occupied habitat in El Paso

Mountains. (#1)

BLM

M-19 2 Charlotte’s phacelia: (M-19) Monitor populations in the Short Canyon and

Sand Canyon ACEC's and at Red Rock Canyon State Park. (#2)

BLM, IA

M-200 1 Desert cymopterus:Monitor population numbers in occupied habitat every

three years. (#1)

BLM, IA

M-213 1 Desert cymopterus:(LG-18) Assess rangeland health on Harper Lake

allotment. (#1)

BLM

DT-21 ongoing Desert tortoise:(DT21) Monitor fences and culverts to ensure fence integrity

and unobstructed culverts.(ongoing)

BLM, IA

M-214 1 Desert tortoise:(Headstarting)·Longitudinal monitoring for a minimum of 15

years to determine efficacy of program. (#1)

M-215 1 Desert tortoise:Must monitor and minimize raven impacts on hatchling

tortoises at nurseries.(#1)

DT-17 1 Desert tortoise:(DT-17) Monitor for disease outbreaks concurrently with linedistance sampling and plot studies. (#1).

M-216 4 Desert tortoise:Monitor dust emissions from mining sites, agricultural fields,

road edges, disturbed playas for toxic elements. (#4)

M-98 1 Desert tortoise:·Monitor tortoise health status concurrently with line-distance

sampling and plot studies. (#1)

M-217 ongoing Desert tortoise:Necropsy all ill, dying and recently deceased tortoises as

per salvage protocols.(ongoing)

M-218 1 Desert tortoise:Use data from line distance and other surveys to see if new

die-off areas have extended further south of Highway 58 than what is

reported in the Draft (#1).
M-219 1 Desert tortoise:Identify feral dog problem areas within DWMAs

(concurrently done with tortoise population studies). (#1)

M-219 3 Desert tortoise:Feral dog Management Plan should have a monitoring

component that specifically looks at the distribution and intensity of feral

dog problems. (#3)

M-220 ongoing Desert tortoise:(Grazing)·Conduct health assessments as

scheduled.(ongoing)

M-221 ongoing Desert tortoise:·Monitor integrity and function of fences to maintain

Exclusion Areas and minimize cattle use outside the allotment (ongoing)

M-222 1 Desert tortoise:·Allotment-specific studies should be performed to

determine the threshold at which there would be sufficient ephemeral forage

quantity and quality to promote healthy tortoises and habitat.(#1)

M-223 ongoing Desert tortoise:Presence-absence surveys will be used to (a) report level of

authorized incidental take to regulatory agencies; (b) report level of 1%

AGD attributed to each jurisdiction; (c) provide results of surveys to ensure

appropriate boundaries for Survey and No Survey Areas (ongoing)

M-224 1 Desert tortoise:The BLM will provide for DWMA-directed law enforcement

and other public outreach through recreational technicians to help minimize

incidences of poaching, vandalism, pet collection, etc.(#1)

M-225 ongoing Desert tortoise: Monitor filming activities on private land within DWMAs to

avoid or minimize impacts to tortoises and burrows. (ongoing)

M-22 2 Ferruginous hawk: (M-22) Coordinate with local bird clubs and electrical

utilities to conduct winter population surveys. (#2).

IA

M-28 ongoing Golden eagle: Coordinate with utilities to monitor nests on transmission

lines (ongoing).

5000, starting with second budget block.Note, utilities currently

doing THIS. No new associated cost.

NA (cost

included in

funding of IA)

M-226 3 Gray vireo: Conduct surveys of nesting pairs in Conservation Area every

five years. (#3)

IA

M-228 2 Inyo California towhee: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments

every five years in conjunction with species surveys. (#2)

BLM

M-229 2 Inyo California towhee: Identify threats or disturbance to occupied habitat,

including parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. (#2)

BLM

M-230 ongoing LeConte's thrasher: Use the new sightings and records compiled over time

to define the densest populations, and define specific areas where more

intensive vehicle management is needed and where vehicle restrictions

could be relaxed.

M-231 2 Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia: Monitor occupied habitat for: weed

invasion, OHV disturbance, and other human-caused ground disturbance.

M-232 2 Long-eared owl: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments every

five years (#2)

M-233 2 Long-eared owl:Monitor disturbance of nest and communal roost sites.

M-234 4 Long-eared owl: Determine if great-horned owls are displacing or preying

upon long-eared owls. (#4)

M-235 ongoing Mojave monkey-flower: Incorporate results of monitoring by OHV

commission into database (ongoing)

IA

M-236 1 Mojave monkey-flower: Mining companies will conduct surveys on mining

lands. (#1)

PP

M-237 2 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: Conduct periodic presence/absence surveys for

the Mojave fringe-toed lizard at conserved sites.

M-238 1 Mohave ground squirrel:A monitoring strategy would be designed and

implemented by the IT, in coordination with the MGS Technical Advisory

Group. (#1)
M-240 ongoing Mohave ground squirrel:On a yearly basis, track the loss of MGS habitat

compared to the conservation of MGS habitat resulting from Plan

implementation (ongoing)

LG-9 1 Mojave tarplant: (LG-9) BLM will make a regional rangeland health

assessment on public lands in the Rudnick common allotment within two

years of Plan approval. (#1)

LG-9 1 Ninemile Canyon phacelia: (LG-9) BLM will make a regional rangeland

health assessment on public lands in the east Sierra Canyons within two

years of Plan approval. (#1)

BLM

M-59 Parish's phacellia: Perform annual report describing vehicle traffic, if any,

on specified playas.

No additional cost. BLM

M-242 2 South-western pond turtle: Perform Proper Functioning Condition

assessments every five years. (#2)

M-209 1 South-western pond turtle: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well

records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

M-243 2 South-western willow flycatcher: Perform Proper Functioning Condition

assessments every five years. (#2)

M-209 1 South-western willow flycatcher: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring

well records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

M-244 2 Summer tanager: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments of

the occupied habitat in the Mojave River every five years. (#2)

IA

M-209 1 Summer tanager: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well records

from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

M-245 2 Vermilion flycatcher: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments

every five years (#2)

BLM, IA

M-209 1 Vermilion flycatcher: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well

records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

M-246 ongoing Western snowy plover: Monitor disturbance at known nest sites. (Ongoing) BLM, IA

M-247 2 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: Perform Proper Functioning Condition

assessments every five years (#2)

BLM

M-209 1 Western yellow-billed cuckoo: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring

well records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

M-249 ongoing White-margined beardtongue: Monitor the Johnson Valley to Parker race.

M-250 2 Yellow-breasted chat: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments

every five years (#2)

BLM, IA

M-209 1 Yellow-breasted chat: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well

records from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

M-251 2 Yellow warbler: Perform Proper Functioning Condition assessments every

five years (#2)

BLM, IA

M-209 1 Yellow warbler: Obtain and analyze groundwater monitoring well records

from Mojave Water Agency on an annual basis. (#1)

IA

A-200 Alkali mariposa lily: If population numbers are dependent upon groundwater

levels at LA County treatment ponds, then acquire water rights to maintain

groundwater levels.

A-201 Barstow woolly sunflower: If adverse impacts to species are detected then

revise road network or install fencing based on disturbance surveys within

ACEC and Ecological Reserve Area.

BLM, IA

A-203 Burrowing owl: If research shows that active translocation is successful,

then utilize this method to establish colonies in protected areas.

IA
A-204 Carbonate endemic plants: If monitoring reveals OHV disturbance then sign

and gate access routes.

A-205 Desert cymopterus:If rangeland health assessments indicate that more than

half desert cymopturus flowering stalks are consumed, then adjust grazing

practices, including fencing.

A-207 Desert tortoise: If habitat continues to be degraded and tortoises continue

to die at elevated numbers without any evidence of sustained recruitment,

then IT, BLM, regulatory agencies, etc. should consider establishing new

regions to be fenced that are at least 50 square miles in size, and managed

similar to the DTNA.

A-208 Desert tortoise:If results of pilot studies are successful, then headstarting

could be used in these fenced areas to bolster the fenced population.

A-209 Desert tortoise:If the MOG, DMG, etc. recommend the use of the latest

population census methods, then ensure that they are used.

A-210 Desert tortoise: If the results of population studies indicate that recovery is

not occurring, then adjust management practices as needed

A-211 Desert tortoise: If the headstarting program proves effective in bolstering

population, then implement it in other places within DWMAs where tortoises

have been extirpated.

A-212 Desert tortoise:If the impermeable barriers between some DWMAs prove a

hindrance to genetic connectivity and research shows that there is truly

enough genetic difference among DWMAs, then translocation of individual

tortoises should be considered. Actions could include manual transfer of

tortoises and/or eggs from one place to another, as dictated by thenavailable information on translocation and other factors.

A-213 Desert tortoise:If genetic difference between DWMAs is established then a

headstarting program will be followed with collection of gravid females and

the laying of pathogen-free eggs in established nurseries.

A-214, DT16 Desert tortoise:· (DT-16) If the Implementation Team, MOG, etc. identify any breakthrough in disease management, then it should be incorporated

into the plan.

A-215 Desert tortoise:If scientific studies show that the spread of disease can be

curtailed through the closure of culverts, then consider closing culverts along

fenced roads.

A-216, DT22 Desert tortoise:DT-22) If impacts to the Fremont-Kramer DWMA by OHV originating in the Silver Lakes community are not curtailed following the

working group suggestions, then fencing may be necessary.

A-217 Desert tortoise:If monitoring or other information shows that feral dog

impacts are adversely affecting tortoises within DWMAs, then elevate the

priority of this program.

A-218 Desert tortoise:If guzzlers are determined to be a problem, then take

appropriate steps to modify guzzlers while retaining their function to prevent

further tortoise entrapment. Install predator prohibitive devices as needed.

A-219 Desert tortoise:If the boundary lines for Survey versus No Survey Areas are

not accurately portraying where tortoise are found, then modify the

boundary lines using the data collected on where there is take.

A-220 Desert tortoise:Tracking of law enforcement activities:If there are problem

areas identified (increased poaching, illegal target shooting), then identify

issue-specific solutions (increased law enforcement presence).
A-221, DT32 Desert tortoise:·(DT-32) If the reduction of road kill is not reducing raven numbers and tortoise mortality, then modify recommendations based on

information available.

A-222, DT38 Desert tortoise:(DT-38) If the two interagency work groups established to oversee management direction and implementation of the raven

management plan in the California desert recommend a change in policy,

then ensure that future phases are developed and implemented in

accordance with results of research and monitoring.

A-223 Desert tortoise:If monitoring data indicates a problem with routes of travel

(e.g. route proliferation, habitat degradation or increased tortoise mortality),

then consider corrective measures as needed (increased law enforcement,

fencing, modified route network).

A-224 Desert tortoise:If range land health assessments identify areas of

noncompliance, then implement corrective measures such as fencing,

seasonal closures or pasture rotation.

A-225, DT2 Desert tortoise:DT-2: If biological monitoring shows that filming is adversely affecting tortoises inside DWMAs, the Implementation Team will consider

remedial actions, which if deemed necessary, could include the prohibition

of all filming activities from DWMAs.

A-226 Gray vireo: If threats are identified for new nest sites then manage that area

to minimize threats

A-227 Inyo California towhee: If requirements of Proper Functioning Condition are

not met, then adjust management

A-228 Kern buckwheat: If new disturbance proves to be a threat to occupied

habitat then prevent disturbance, including fencing and route designation

A-229 Kern buckwheat:If monitoring shows that the habitat is damaged by wet

weather off-road travel, the access road will be closed during wet periods or

during the rainy season, at the discretion of BLM’s Ridgecrest Field Office.

A-231 Little San Bernardino Mountain's gilia: If occupied habitat is threatened, then

take appropriate protective actions, which may include fencing, barriers to

vehicle access or weed eradication.

A-232 Little San Bernardino Mountain's gilia: If new populations are discovered

and the need for an increase in the take limit becomes apparent, the Plan

will be amended for this species.

A-227 Long-eared owl: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not met,

then adjust management

A-233 Long-eared owl:If disturbance is causing abandonment of nest or roost

sites, then provide for seasonal or permanent closure of routes that may

cause disturbance and or fencing

A-234 Long-eared owl: If great-horned owls are impacting long-eared owls, then

potential solutions might involve destruction of great-horned owl nests.

A-235 If scientific study shows that the MGS CA is too small to conserve the

MGS, then IT and others should consider means of acquiring private lands

(or easements thereon) to ensure the conservation area is sufficiently

robust.

A-236 Mohave ground squirrel:··If trapping in Kern County Study Area identifies

significant populations, then, consider adding it to the conservation area.

The conservation strategy should continue to evolve as new scientific

information becomes available.

A-237 Mohave ground squirrel:··If current missions at either Edwards Air Force

Base or China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station change substantially so that

the current levels of protection are substantially reduced, then IT and

regulatory agencies should reconsider the conservation strategy.

A-238 Mohave ground squirrel:·If so-called “core areas” are identified, then IT and

regulatory agencies should consider additional means of protecting and

conserving that habitat.
A-239 Mohave ground squirrel:·Use the biological and population data from Goal

2, Objectives 2.2 to modify the management prescriptions, as necessary, to

ensure the long-term viability of the species.

A-240 Mojave fringe-toed lizard: If occupied habitat is impacted by increased

disturbance then increase law enforcement and/or signs.

A-243 Ninemile canyon phacelia: If Ninemile canyon phacelia are consumed or

trampled then adjust grazing practices with seasonal closures or fencing.

A-244 Prairie falcon: Prairie falcon If newly discovered nest sites are disturbed

by vehicular traffic then implement seasonal closures.

A-227 South-western pond turtle: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are

not met, then adjust management.

A-27 Summer tanager: (AM-27) If cowbirds prove to be a threat, then initiate

cowbird control.

A-227 Vermilion flycatcher: If Proper Functioning Condition requirements are not

met, then adjust management including eradication of invasive riparian

plants

A-27 Vermilion flycatcher:(AM-27) If cowbirds prove to be a threat, then initiate

cowbird control.

A-24 (AM-24) If new threats to nest sites are identified then take corrective

actions.
Appendices 

Exhibit C.2 

Draft Implementation Plan 

For the 

Desert Tortoise and 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 
Appendices 

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

For Desert Tortoise and Mojave Ground Squirrel 

Each measure identified in the Final EIR/S is included within this document. Measures 

include those that (a) reiterate “Current Management,” (b) “New Measures In Effect Upon Plan 

Adoption,” and (c) “New Measures To Be Implemented Following Plan Adoption.” For this 

later section, schedules and milestones are given for each prescription. 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT 

The following management prescriptions reiterate current management, and do not require any 

additional regulatory action. 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT: PRIVATE JURISDICTIONS 

Conservation Areas: Mohave Ground Squirrel

Los Angeles County has identified a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) for northeastern Los 

Angeles County that should prove beneficial to protection of the MGS in those areas. Within 

SEAs, the County performs a heightened environmental review for new projects, and has zoned 

the area for a minimum lot size of 10 acres. (HCA-2) 

Management Prescriptions

Commercial Filming 

On private lands, the CEQA Lead Agency shall continue to ensure that filming activities do not 

constitute a significant impact to species covered by the Plan. (DT-3) 

Grazing, Sheep 

Sheep grazing on private land would not be authorized by the West Mojave Plan. Under current 

management to avoid violation of section 9 of FESA, wool growers are required to consult 

independently with the USFWS under section 10(a)(1)(B) for incidental take of tortoises during 

otherwise lawful activities. Applicable State permits are also required. The West Mojave Plan is 

not considered the appropriate vehicle to enforce this existing requirement. (No #) 

Tortoise: Disposition 

It is suggested that tortoises continue to be handled by authorized biologists as given in the 

Desert Tortoise Council’s (1999) protocol, Guidelines for Handling Tortoises During 

Construction Projects. (DT-14) 

Utilities: Maintenance 

Maintenance operators must be aware of tortoises and avoid them. (DT-7) 
Appendices 

Vehicle-Based Recreation 

Hunting shall be allowed in all areas as regulated by current legislation. 

With respect to speed limits on unimproved roads, current law will apply. Basic Speed Law 

(38305) of the 2001 Vehicle Code, Traffic Laws states: “No person shall drive an off-highway 

motor vehicle at a speed limit greater than is reasonable or prudent and in no event at a speed 

which endangers the safety of other persons and property.” (MV-1) 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Conservation Area: Desert Tortoise

BLM Multiple Use Classes 

MUC The current BLM multiple use class designations for these lands will be retained, unless 

specifically changed by other provisions of this Plan. (HCA-1) 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Existing ACECs that lie within the boundary of the Tortoise DWMAs (included ACECs) will be 

maintained, unless specifically deleted by this Plan. The provisions of the Tortoise DWMAs 

will augment, rather than replace, current ACEC protections. (HCA-1) 

Special Review Areas 

Public lands managed by the BLM that occur in SRAs shall be managed as Category III Tortoise 

Habitat. (HCA-6) 

Management Prescriptions

Commercial Filming 

Commercial activities, such as commercial filming that result in ground disturbance or adverse 

effects are allowed in DWMAs, so long as protective measures identified herein for private lands 

and existing protections for public lands are applied. (DT-1) 

Tortoise: Disposition

It is suggested that tortoises continue to be handled by authorized biologists as given in the 

Desert Tortoise Council’s (1999) protocol, Guidelines for Handling Tortoises During 

Construction Projects. (No #) 

Tortoise: Monitoring 

If the BLM desires to monitor the effects of OHV activities on tortoises, it would be appropriate 

to reinitiate studies at the Johnson Valley study plot, the Stoddard Valley study plot should be 

relocated (i.e., it occurs on private lands), and new study plots should be established in other 

open areas (i.e., El Mirage, Jawbone, Spangler Hills, and Rasor open areas). (No #)

Tortoise: Surveys 

All environmental contractors must be approved by the Implementation Team or pertinent 
Appendices 

regulatory agencies prior to performing the activities listed below [see Best Management 

Practices]. (DT-14) 

Utilities: Maintenance Activities 

Maintenance operators must be aware of tortoises and avoid them. (DT-7) 

Utilities: Planning 

The CDCA Plan’s network of designated utility corridors and use restrictions is consistent with 

the West Mojave Plan’s tortoise conservation strategy. (DT-11) 

Insofar as possible, new utility right-of-ways in BLM-designated, Active and Contingent 

corridors shall be situated as closely together as practical given engineering specifications, 

human safety, and other limiting factors. (DT-11) 

Vehicle-Based Recreation 

Hunting shall be allowed in all areas as regulated by current legislation. (DT-10) 

The shooting or discharge of firearms shall generally be permitted on public lands except in 

specified areas (e.g. off highway vehicle open areas), as long as State and local laws permit such 

activity. On public lands within DWMAs, the only firearms discharges allowed would be 

during hunting season in pursuit of game, and target practice using retrievable targets only (such 

as paper targets). (DT-10) 

With respect to speed limits on unimproved roads, current law will apply. Basic Speed Law 

(38305) of the 2001 Vehicle Code, Traffic Laws states: “No person shall drive an off-highway 

motor vehicle at a speed limit greater than is reasonable or prudent and in no event at a speed 

which endangers the safety of other persons and property.” (MV-1) 

NEW MEASURES IN EFFECT UPON PLAN ADOPTION 

The following management prescriptions identify new measures that would (a) for Private 

Jurisdictions, be implemented through signing the Implementation Agreement, future general 

plan amendments, etc. and (b) for the BLM, result in amendments to the CDCA Plan. 

NEW MEASURES: PRIVATE JURISDICTIONS 

Conservation Areas: Desert Tortoise

Biological Transition Areas 

The following wording was provided when Biological Transition Areas (BTAs) were eliminated 

from the Draft. “In the absence of BTAs, the following measures are intended to help alleviate 

indirect impacts of adjacent human development on tortoises and habitat in proximate DWMAs. 

These measures include (a) Increase signing and/or fencing along boundary so adjacent residents 

are aware of the conservation area. (b) On BLM lands within the DWMAs, increase law 

enforcement or other BLM presence in the area to minimize illegal activities such as dumping, 

shooting, and cross-country vehicle use on public lands outside designated open areas. (c) 
Appendices 

Specifically consider and discuss DWMAs associated with these six areas when formulating the 

Feral Dog Management Plan. (d) Depending on monitoring results, there may need to be 

subsequent conservation (adaptive) management along the DWMA boundary to minimize 

impacts from authorized development in adjacent Incidental Take Areas.” (No #) 

Conservation Areas: Mohave Ground Squirrel

Habitat Conservation Area 

A conservation area would be established for the long-term survival and protection of the MGS. 

(HCA-2) 

Sierra Habitat Connector 

Although this area [Sierra Habitat Connector] is already part of the MGS HCA, special review of 

projects should occur in this area to ensure that the narrow corridor is not completely severed. 

(HCA-2) 

Management Prescriptions

Best Management Practices 

Ground disturbing construction projects authorized by the West Mojave Plan must be conducted 

in accordance with the “Best Management Practices” (see Appendix I). BMPs shall be 

implemented in DWMAs and in Survey Areas outside DWMAs when: (a) Tortoise sign is found 

during the clearance survey (DT-12); or (b) The Authorized Biologist determines that there is a 

reasonable likelihood that a tortoise may enter into the construction site, use area, or other zone 

of impact. (DT-14) 

Projects subject to BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following: construction of 

pipelines, utility lines, fiber optic cables, wind energy development, solar energy development, 

flood control facilities, new mine sites, expansion of existing mine sites into tortoise habitat, 

cross-country mineral exploration, discretionary commercial, industrial, or residential 

development (excluding single-family residences outside of DWMAs), new road construction, 

widening or realignment of existing roads, etc. BMPs normally would not apply to authorized 

recreation events (e.g., Dual Sport), most maintenance activities along existing linear corridors 

(unless such activities result in additional loss or degradation of tortoise habitat), and filming 

activities on lands administered by the BLM (which are covered by a separate set of take 

avoidance measures). (DT-14) 

In Survey Areas outside DWMAs, a standardized set of BMPs have been developed, and will be 

distributed by counties, cities, etc. over the counter when the discretionary permit is issued. (DT14) 

Commercial Filming 

If the Authorized Biologist determines that tortoises would not be affected, the hotline number 

identified relative to tortoise No Survey Areas shall be given to the pertinent production crew 

members. If a tortoise is observed in the filming area, in spite of the determination of no likely 

affect, the measures given below shall still be implemented. (E-10) 
Appendices 

If the Authorized Biologist determines that tortoises may be affected, the following measures 

shall be implemented: 

The Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor shall provide the following tortoise 

information to the entire production crew whose activities may affect tortoises (DT-2): 

Tortoises are known to occur in the area, and must be avoided at all times. Tortoises are not to 

be handled by any crew members, and only handled by the Authorized Biologist when necessary 

(as given above). (DT-2) 

Present pertinent life history information that will facilitate avoidance of impacts. Examples 

include seasonal and daily activity patterns of juvenile and adult tortoises; characteristics of 

burrows, including the terminus of burrows that may be as many as 30-feet distant from the 

burrow opening; deposition of eggs in nests, which may be in burrows or under shrubs; etc. (DT2) 

Pertinent protection afforded by State and endangered species acts, including fines for 

unauthorized take of tortoises; and outline forms of take that are covered by the WMP (i.e., take 

that occurs in spite of the measures given herein) and not covered by the WMP (i.e., 

unauthorized handling of tortoises by crew members, tortoise mortality caused by unauthorized 

cross-country travel, etc.). (DT-2) 

The Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor shall provide the following take avoidance 

measures to the entire production crew whose activities may affect tortoises (DT-2): 

The Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor shall work with the Location Manager to 

visit each film site ahead of the film crew arriving there to locate any burrows or tortoises that 

need to be avoided; burrows shall be flagged and avoided during filming activities; etc. To avoid 

all impacts to tortoises and burrows, known locations and other pertinent findings shall be shared 

with the crew when they arrive at the filming site. (DT-2) 

There shall be no cross-country vehicle travel by the film crew; all vehicles must be restricted to 

existing roads. If filming requires cross-country travel, the Authorized Biologist or 

Environmental Monitor shall survey the area immediately prior to filming to avoid all tortoises 

and burrows, as given in the previous point. Vehicle tracks shall be eliminated by hand, insofar 

as possible, by pertinent production crew members after filming is complete and before the crew 

leaves the site. (DT-3) 

All vehicles shall be restricted to a speed limit of no more than 20 miles per hour. (MV) 

A litter-free workplace shall be maintained at all times to avoid attraction of common ravens and 

other tortoise predators. (DT-31) 

All pets must be completely controlled by their owners, either on leash or otherwise retained 

(i.e., maintained in kennels, fenced areas, mobile homes, etc.), and never allowed to run free in 
Appendices 

the absence of the owner. (DT-4) 

All local, State, and federal ordinances, regulations, and laws governing the release of hazardous 

materials and wastes shall be implemented. Additionally, any and all reportable releases shall be 

reported to the CEQA Lead Agency or Implementation Team within 24 hours of discovering the 

release. (No #) 

Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors shall maintain records of all desert tortoises 

and other “covered species” encountered during filming activities, including the following 

information: (a) the locations (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; (b) general 

condition and health, including injuries and state of healing and whether animals voided their 

bladders; (c) locations from which and to which any animals are moved (UTM coordinates 

derived from a global positioning system - GPS - are preferable); (d) diagnostic markings (i.e., 

identification numbers or marked lateral scutes); (e) the amount of habitat lost (i.e., cleared of 

vegetation) or temporarily affected by the activity; and (f) remedial actions taken to restore lost 

or damaged habitat prior to the crew leaving the site. This report shall be submitted to the 

Implementation Team and pertinent CEQA Lead Agency (i.e., City or County Filming 

Commissions) within 30 days of the Authorized Biologist leaving the site. 

The following measure shall be implemented in tortoise No Survey Areas and in tortoise 

Survey Areas where the Authorized Biologist determines there would be no impacts to 

tortoises (E-10): 

A hotline number shall be provided to pertinent production crew members (e.g., Location 

Manager) so that the Implementation Team can be contacted if a tortoise is found on the 

site at the time of ground disturbance. In general, the measures given above for DWMAs 

and occupied tortoise Survey Areas shall be implemented in tortoise No Survey Areas 

where tortoises are found. (E-10) 

Landfills 

With the exception of the Barstow Landfill expansion, the planning of which has already been 

initiated, counties and cities shall ensure that no new landfills are constructed inside DWMAs or 

within five miles of them. (DT-27) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

The following take-avoidance measures discussed above for application within the DWMAs 

would also be applied within the MGS Conservation Area: Agriculture, Camping, Commercial 

Activities, Fire Management, Hunting and Shooting, Native Plant Harvesting, and Utility 

Construction and Maintenance. (MGS-1) 

Measures identified for DWMAs and tortoise Survey Areas and No Survey Areas apply where 

those areas overlap the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. (MGS-2) 

CDFG would not require Cumulative Human Impact Evaluation Forms (CHIEFs) to be 

completed, nor would trapping be required. (MGS-3) 
Appendices 

Tortoise: Disposition 

Within DWMAs, tortoises should be moved from the immediate area of impact to adjacent 

suitable habitat (or burrow). In general, tortoises should be moved no further than 1,000 feet 

from the impact area. The potential for these animals to wander back into harm’s way should be 

taken into account, and the distance given above modified by the Authorized Biologist, as 

necessary. Temporary or permanent fences may be needed to prevent tortoise immigration into 

the impact area. (DT-15) 

Within designated tortoise Survey Areas, (a) If only a small portion of a given site is to be 

developed then tortoises should be moved to portions of the site that are not to be developed; (b) 

Tortoises may be moved onto BLM lands if such lands are within (1/2) mile of the impact area; 

(c) If options (a) and (b) are not available, then tortoises can be moved into the edge of a DWMA 

that occur within one mile of the site; and (d) If options (a), (b) and (c) are not available then 

tortoises should be made available for research, educational purposes, captive breeding, zoo 

placement, adoption through recognized organizations (e.g. California Turtle and Tortoise Club), 

moved to areas within SRAs referred to above or, if clinically ill, dealt with in a manner 

consistent with the Berry Salvage Protocol. (DT-15) 

The following handling guidelines apply as indicated: In all areas, (a) injured, recently dead, ill 

and dying tortoises should be collected and disposed of as per a recent (June 2001) disposition 

protocol [Salvaging Injured, Recently Dead, Ill, and Dying Wild, Free-roaming Desert Tortoises 

(Gopherus agassizii)] developed by Dr. Kristin Berry (“Berry Salvage Protocol”). (DT-15) 

Tortoise: Surveys 

In DWMAs, except where No Survey Areas are identified, both presence-absence and clearance 

surveys must be conducted prior to the commencement of any new ground disturbing activities 

for which a discretionary permit must be obtained from a local jurisdiction or agency. (DT-12) 

Within Survey Areas, tortoise clearance surveys will be conducted prior to any new ground 

disturbance for which a discretionary permit was required. Surveys should follow USFWS 

protocol (1992) as modified herein. (DT-13) 

It would still be appropriate to perform reconnaissance surveys for projects in Survey Areas 

located outside DWMAs where there may be several alternative sites or alignments. (DT-13) 

Neither presence-absence nor clearance surveys will be required in tortoise No Survey Areas. A 

hotline number will be provided by the local jurisdiction so that the Implementation Team can be 

contacted if a tortoise is found on the site at the time of ground disturbance. (DT-13) 

Utilities: Maintenance Activities 

Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed, and impacts to tortoises and their habitats must be 

avoided. Maintenance crews must remain on existing access roads except for the point location 

of maintenance-related disturbance. Take of tortoises during maintenance activities is not 

authorized under this Plan. Such take must be authorized on a case-by-case basis. (DT-11) 
Appendices 

In DWMAs, non-emergency maintenance of utility right-of-ways resulting in ground disturbance 

should occur between November 1 and March 1. Juvenile tortoises may be active during this 

time and must be avoided. If maintenance during this period is infeasible and is required between 

March 2 and October 31 in DWMAs, a biological monitor must be present, or, the proponent 

must provide an assessment that clearly shows that tortoises will not be affected. (DT-11) 

As far as possible, road beds should not be lowered and berms should not exceed 12 inches or a 

slope of 30 degrees. Consider alternatives to grading, such as chain drag. Berms are likely 

barriers to vehicle straying into adjacent habitats, and should not necessarily be identified for 

complete removal. (DT-8) 

Weeds 

Invasive weeds should not be used in landscaping within or adjacent to DWMAs (e.g., Nonnative species should not be used in re-seeding programs). (DT-9) 

NEW MEASURES: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Conservation Areas: Desert Tortoise

Desert Wildlife Management Areas 

Establish four tortoise DWMAs. Tortoise DWMAs shall be managed for tortoise conservation 

and recovery until which time the tortoise may be delisted as per criteria given in the Recovery 

Plan or revisions thereof. (HCA-1) 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Public lands administered by the BLM within Tortoise DWMAs will be designated as Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. The West Mojave Plan shall serve as the ACEC management 

plan so that future ACEC plans for the four Tortoise DWMAs will not be required. (HCA-1) 

The ACEC designation will require the BLM to manage these lands in accordance with the 

goals, objectives, management prescriptions, and binding requirements set forth in this CDCA 

Plan amendment, as these parameters comprise the core components of the ACEC Management 

Plan for these four DWMAs. (HCA-1) 

If a provision of an included ACEC management plan conflicts with any of the measures 

described herein for the Tortoise DWMA, the measures identified by the West Mojave Plan will 

take precedence and the included ACEC’s Management Plan will be amended. Necessary 

amendments will be set forth in an appendix to the West Mojave Plan. (HCA-1) 

BLM Habitat Categories 

All BLM-managed lands outside Tortoise DWMAs that are within the range of the tortoise shall 

be managed as BLM Category III Tortoise Habitat. (HCA-1) 

Conservation Areas: Mohave Ground Squirrel

Public lands within the MGS Conservation Area would also be designated as a BLM Wildlife 
Appendices 

Habitat Management Area in the BLM’s CDCA Plan. The public lands immediately south of 

Owens Lake that are currently classified by the CDCA Plan as Multiple Use Class M should be 

reclassified as Multiple Use Class L. (HCA-2) 

Management Prescriptions

Best Management Practices 

Ground disturbing construction projects authorized by the West Mojave Plan must be conducted 

in accordance with the “Best Management Practices” (see Appendix I). BMPs shall be 

implemented in DWMAs and in Survey Areas outside DWMAs when (DT-14): 

Tortoise sign is found during the clearance survey; or (DT-14) 

The Authorized Biologist determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that a tortoise may 

enter into the construction site, use area, or other zone of impact. (DT-14) 

Projects subject to BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following: construction of 

pipelines, utility lines, fiber optic cables, wind energy development, solar energy development, 

flood control facilities, new mine sites, expansion of existing mine sites into tortoise habitat, 

cross country mineral exploration, discretionary commercial, industrial, or residential 

development (excluding single-family residences outside of DWMAs), new road construction, 

widening or realignment of existing roads, etc. BMPs normally would not apply to authorized 

recreation events (e.g., Dual Sport), most maintenance activities along existing linear corridors 

(unless such activities result in additional loss or degradation of tortoise habitat), and filming 

activities on lands administered by the BLM (which are covered by a separate set of take 

avoidance measures). (DT-14) 

Grazing, Cattle 

The following measures shall be implemented for all cattle allotments managed by the BLM in 

the West Mojave Plan area. Affected cattle allotments include: Cady Mountain, Cronese Lake, 

Double Mountain, Hansen Common, Harper Lake, Lacey-Cactus-McCloud, Oak Creek, 

Olancha, Ord Mountain, Pilot Knob, Rattlesnake Canyon, Round Mountain, Rudnick Common, 

Tunawee Common, Walker Pass, and Whitewater Canyon. (No #) 

The lessee may voluntarily relinquish their grazing preference and lease. At which time, the 

allotment(s) would become unavailable for grazing. Upon relinquishment, BLM will, without 

further analysis or notice: not reissue the lease; remove the allotment designation; assume any 

and all private interest in range improvement located on public land; and, designate the land as 

no longer available for livestock grazing. (LG-29) 

All cattle carcasses shall be removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner (i.e., not buried) 

within two days of being found. Cross-country vehicle travel to remove cattle carcasses must 

have prior approval from the BLM. (LG-5) 

In cattle allotments outside of DWMAs, ephemeral authorization would only be granted when 

ephemeral production exceeds 230 pounds per acre. (LG-6) 
Appendices 

Utilization of perennial plants on all cattle allotments shall not exceed the values given in EIS/R 

Chapter 2. (LG-1) 

Unless otherwise noted, all protective measures identified in the Draft (Section 2.2.19.1) shall 

also be implemented in desert tortoise habitat and the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation 

Area. Affected cattle allotments include: Cady Mountain, Cronese Lake, Hansen Common, 

Harper Lake, Lacey-Cactus-McCloud, Olancha, Ord Mountain, Pilot Knob, Rattlesnake Canyon, 

Rudnick Common, Tunawee Common, and Walker Pass. (No #) 

Any hazards to desert tortoises that may be created, such as auger holes and trenches, shall be 

eliminated before the rancher, contractor, or work crew leaves the site. (LG-8) 

Unless otherwise noted, all protective measures identified in Sections 2.2.9.1 and 2.2.9.2 of the 

Draft shall also be implemented in DWMAs. Affected cattle allotments include Cronese Lake, 

Harper Lake, and Ord Mountain. (No #) 

The Pilot Knob Allotment shall be unavailable for livestock grazing. (LG-10) 

Issuance of temporary non-renewable (TNR) grazing permits shall be prohibited in DWMAs. 

(LG-11) 

No ephemeral authorizations shall occur in DWMAs. (LG-10) 

For a grazing allotment partially within a DWMA, when ephemeral forage production is less 

than 230 pounds per acre, cattle shall be substantially removed from the DWMA from March 15 

to June 15. (LG-13) 

In years of good winter precipitation and soil moisture presence, cattle may remain past March 

15 in expectation of ephemeral forage production over 230 pounds per acre. If this level of 

forage is not attained when weather conditions (e.g., warming of the soil) are appropriate, cattle 

must leave the DWMA until such time as 230 pounds per acre ephemeral forage is achieved or 

June 15, whichever is earlier. This determination will be made based on the evaluation and 

judgment of the BLM authorized officer. If cattle must be removed, the operator will be given 

two weeks to remove them from the DWMA. (LG-14) 

In years of poor winter precipitation or absence of soil moisture, cattle must be removed from the 

DWMA by March 15 and remain out until such time as 230 pounds per acre ephemeral forage is 

achieved or June 15, whichever is earlier. (LG-15) 

The term “substantially removed” recognized that a few individual cattle may wander into the 

area of seasonal closure despite the operator’s best efforts and regardless of management 

facilities (e.g., fences, water sources) that are in place. (LG-16) 

Grazing, Sheep 
Appendices 

The following measures shall be implemented for all sheep allotments managed by the BLM in 

the West Mojave Plan area. Affected sheep allotments include: Antelope Valley, Bissell, Boron, 

Buckhorn Canyon, Cantil Common, Gravel Hills, Hansen Common, Johnson Valley, Lava 

Mountains, Monolith Cantil, Rudnick Common, Shadow Mountains, Spangler Hills, Stoddard 

Mountain, Superior Valley, Tunawee Common, and Warren. (No #) 

The lessee may voluntarily relinquish their grazing preference and lease. At which time, the 

allotment(s) would become unavailable for grazing. Upon relinquishment, BLM will, without 

further analysis or notice: not reissue the lease; remove the allotment designation; assume any 

and all private interest in range improvement located on public land; and, designate the land as 

no longer available for livestock grazing. (LG-29) 

Turnout of sheep in all allotments shall not occur until 230 pounds (air-dry-weight) per acre of 

ephemeral forage is available. The lessee shall be required to remove sheep from the area or the 

entire allotment if production falls below 230 pounds per acre. (LG-20) 

Following the removal of lambs, when multiple sheep bands are typically combined, there shall 

be no more than 1,500 adult sheep in a combined band. (LG-21) 

All sheep carcasses shall be removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner (i.e., not buried) 

within two days of being found. Cross-country vehicle travel to gather carcass(es) must have 

prior approval from the BLM. (LG-22) 

Unless otherwise noted, all protective measures given in Section 2.2.19.4 of the Draft shall also 

be implemented in the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area and the Mohave 

Monkeyflower Conservation Area. Affected sheep allotments include: Buckhorn Canyon, Cantil 

Common, Gravel Hills, Hansen Common, Lava Mountains, Monolith Cantil, Rudnick Common, 

Spangler Hills, Stoddard Mountain, Superior Valley, and Tunawee Common. (No #) 

In order to avoid competition between sheep and the Mohave ground squirrel once the ephemeral 

forage is no longer available and both species rely on perennial forage, all sheep shall be 

removed from the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area when ephemeral plants are no 

longer the primary forage being utilized by sheep. (LG-24) 

The following allotments, found entirely within DWMAs, shall no longer be available for sheep 

grazing: Buckhorn Canyon, Goldstone, Gravel Hills, and Superior Valley. (LG-26) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel 

The following take-avoidance measures discussed above for application within the DWMAs 

would also be applied within the MGS Conservation Area: Agriculture, Camping, Commercial 

Activities, Fire Management, Hunting and Shooting, Native Plant Harvesting, and Utility 

Construction and Maintenance. (MGS-1) 

Measures identified for DWMAs and tortoise Survey Areas and No Survey Areas apply where 

those areas overlap the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. (MGS-2) 
Appendices 

CDFG would not require Cumulative Human Impact Evaluation Forms (CHIEFs) to be 

completed, nor would trapping be required. (MGS-3) 

Tortoise: Disposition 

Within DWMAs, Tortoises should be moved from the immediate area of impact to adjacent 

suitable habitat (or burrow). In general, tortoises should be moved no further than 1,000 feet 

from the impact area. The potential for these animals to wander back into harm’s way should be 

taken into account, and the distance given above modified by the Authorized Biologist, as 

necessary. Temporary or permanent fences may be needed to prevent tortoise immigration into 

the impact area. (DT-15) 

Within designated tortoise Survey Areas, (a) If only a small portion of a given site is to be 

developed then tortoises should be moved to portions of the site that are not to be developed; (b) 

Tortoises may be moved onto BLM lands if such lands are within (1/2) mile of the impact area; 

(c) If options (a) and (b) are not available, then tortoises can be moved into the edge of a DWMA 

that occur within one mile of the site; and (d) If options (a), (b) and (c) are not available then 

tortoises should be made available for research, educational purposes, captive breeding, zoo 

placement, adoption through recognized organizations (e.g. California Turtle and Tortoise Club), 

moved to areas within SRAs referred to above or, if clinically ill, dealt with in a manner 

consistent with the Berry Salvage Protocol. (DT-15) 

The following handling guidelines apply as indicated: In all areas, (a) injured, recently dead, ill 

and dying tortoises should be collected and disposed of as per a recent (June 2001) disposition 

protocol [Salvaging Injured, Recently Dead, Ill, And Dying Wild, Free-roaming Desert Tortoises 

(Gopherus agassizii)] developed by Dr. Kristin Berry (“Berry Salvage Protocol”). (DT-15) 

Tortoise: Surveys 

In DWMAs, except where No Survey Areas are identified, both presence-absence and clearance 

surveys must be conducted prior to the commencement of any new ground disturbing activities 

for which a discretionary permit must be obtained from a local jurisdiction or agency. (DT-12) 

Within Survey Areas, tortoise clearance surveys will be conducted prior to any new ground 

disturbance for which a discretionary permit was required. Surveys should follow USFWS 

protocol (1992) as modified herein. (DT-13) 

It would still be appropriate to perform reconnaissance surveys for projects in Survey Areas 

located outside DWMAs where there may be several alternative sites or alignments. (DT-13) 

Neither presence-absence nor clearance surveys will be required in tortoise No Survey Areas. A 

hotline number will be provided by the local jurisdiction so that the Implementation Team can be 

contacted if a tortoise is found on the site at the time of ground disturbance. (DT-13) 

Utilities: Maintenance Activities 

Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed, and impacts to tortoises and their habitats must be 
Appendices 

avoided. Maintenance crews must remain on existing access roads except for the point location 

of maintenance-related disturbance. Take of tortoises during maintenance activities is not 

authorized under this Plan. Such take must be authorized on a case-by-case basis. (DT-11) 

In DWMAs, non-emergency maintenance of utility right-of-ways resulting in ground disturbance 

should occur between November 1 and March 1. Juvenile tortoises may be active during this 

time and must be avoided. If maintenance during this period is infeasible and is required between 

March 2 and October 31 in DWMAs, a biological monitor must be present, or, the proponent 

must provide an assessment that clearly shows that tortoises will not be affected. (DT-11) 

As far as possible, roadbeds should not be lowered and berms should not exceed 12 inches or a 

slope of 30 degrees. Consider alternatives to grading, such as chain drag. Berms are likely 

barriers to vehicle straying into adjacent habitats, and should not necessarily be identified for 

complete removal. (DT-14) 

Utilities: Planning 

If there is an option to use one or the other corridor, Corridor W is preferred over Corridor H in 

the Ord-Rodman DWMA. (DT-11) 

If at all possible, future utilities should be located in an alternative corridor rather than Corridor 

Q, or as given above, be situated to minimize the width of impact between existing and new 

utilities. (DT-11) 

Within existing corridors, areas that are already disturbed should be used rather than disturb new 

areas within the two- to three-mile wide corridor. (DT-11) 

Pipelines within DWMAs should be revegetated. Narrowing the construction right of way is suggested in all 

management areas. (DT-11) 

Vehicle-Based Recreation 

Within DWMAs, on public lands administered by the BLM, motorized-vehicle-based camping 

shall be allowed in previously existing disturbed camping areas adjacent to vehicle routes 

designated as open. (MV-5) 

Within DWMAs, motorized vehicle stopping and parking are allowed 50 feet from centerline of 

the designated route. (MV-5) 

Weeds 

Invasive weeds should not be used in landscaping within or adjacent to DWMAs (e.g., Nonnative species should not be used in re-seeding programs). (DT-9) 

NEW MEASURES: IMPLEMENTATION TEAM 

Management Prescriptions

Best Management Practices
Appendices 

The Implementation Team should determine the best application of the BMPs, consider them as 

guidelines, and modify them as necessary. In DWMAs, application of the BMPs should be 

determined by the Implementation Team on a case-by-case basis, and rely on the results of the 

newly completed presence-absence survey. (DT-14) 

All environmental contractors must be approved by the Implementation Team or pertinent 

regulatory agencies prior to performing the activities listed below. (DT-14) 

Commercial Filming 

A report shall be submitted to the Implementation Team and pertinent CEQA Lead Agency (i.e., 

City or County Filming Commissions) within 30 days of the Authorized Biologist leaving the 

site. 

A hotline number shall be provided to pertinent production crew members (e.g., Location 

Manager) so that the Implementation Team can be contacted if a tortoise is found on the 

site at the time of ground disturbance. (E-10) 

If the Implementation Team judges that these or other measures are not avoiding take of 

tortoises, a biological monitor may be necessary. 

Hazardous Spills 

All reportable releases of hazardous materials shall be reported to the CEQA Lead Agency or 

Implementation Team within 24 hours of discovering the release. 

Tortoise: Disease 

Issues relative to desert tortoise diseases (e.g., upper respiratory tract disease, cutaneous 

dyskeratosis, herpes virus, etc.) should be considered at the level of the interagency desert 

tortoise Management Oversight Group (MOG). (DT-16) 

Utilities: Planning 

New linear utility projects within the Habitat Conservation Area will be reviewed by the 

Implementation Team at the time they are proposed. (DT-11) 

NEW MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED 

FOLLOWING PLAN ADOPTION 

The following management prescriptions would be implemented at the specified time given in 

order to achieve milestones and avoid the need to have the incidental take permits (Private 

Jurisdictions) and authorization (BLM) withdrawn. 

NEW MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED: PRIVATE JURISDICTIONS 

Outreach & Tracking
Appendices 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall setup the hotline number (E-10), and shall design and implement the jurisdictional 

tracking system. (M-1, 2) 

 

Within No Survey Areas, (a) Develop telephone tech support for the general public to deal with 

free-roaming tortoises; and (b) Free roaming tortoises should be made available for research, 

education, captive breeding, zoo placement, adoption through recognized organizations (e.g. 

California Turtle and Tortoise Club); or, if clinically ill, dealt with in a manner consistent with 

the Berry Salvage Protocol. (E-10) 

Incidental take authorized by the Plan is necessarily attached to existing political infrastructure. 

For example, the Plan would authorize projects subject to discretionary permits but would not 

track projects subject to ministerial permits. It is important that authorized and unauthorized 

ground disturbance is tracked by the Plan to determine actual loss of habitat relative to the 1% 

Allowable Ground Disturbance. Agricultural development in DWMAs, which is not currently 

covered by the Plan, must be tracked to determine its relative impact, if any. It is generally 

understood that aerial photographs would be used, in conjunction with reports from participating 

jurisdictions, to track these forms of ground disturbance. (No #) 

 

Feral Dog Management Plan

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of the record of decision, the Implementation 

Team, BLM, county animal control, and other applicable entities shall develop a Feral Dog 

Management Plan (FDMP). (DT-5) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, if feral dogs are shown 

to be a significant threat to tortoises and other covered species, the earliest phase(s) of the FDMP 

shall be implemented. (DT-5) 
Appendices 

NEW MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED: BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT 

Fencing: Open Areas

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of the record of decision, the BLM shall work with 

the Implementation Team to determine the specific location along Camp Rock Road to install the 

fence, determine educational outreach needs, and develop a monitoring protocol. (E-7) 

A standard fence will be placed along pertinent portions of the western boundary of the Johnson 

Valley Open Area to prevent OHV use in the Ord-Rodman DWMA to the west and to minimize 

use in the Cinnamon Hills. (DT-23) 

The Plan proposes installation of new fences to counteract the effects of Johnson Valley and 

Stoddard Valley on tortoise populations in the Ord-Rodman DWMA. As with the recently 

installed fences around the El Mirage Open Area and along the Mojave-Randsburg Road, 

monitoring will be needed to cure intentional vandalism of the fences. Educational outreach will 

be a high priority at the time of fencing and thereafter. The desired effects are to reduce tortoise 

mortality and begin to repair degraded habitats (i.e., in the Cinnamon Hills and southern portions 

of the Ord-Rodman DWMA coinciding with northern Lucerne Valley), which should be 

monitored and adaptive management applied, as needed. (DT-23) 

Feral Dog Management Plan

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of the record of decision, the Implementation 

Team, BLM, county animal control, and other applicable entities shall develop a Feral Dog 

Management Plan (FDMP). (DT-5) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, if feral dogs are shown 

to be a significant threat to tortoises and other covered species, the earliest phase(s) of the FDMP 

shall be implemented. (DT-5) 

Grazing, Cattle

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the BLM shall modify 

boundaries as necessary relative to cattle allotments. 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: The grazing strategy shall be developed within a year of the record 

of decision. The strategy shall be a written plan detailing the area of removal, natural cattle 

movements, existing and potential improvements, and other constraints of cattle management. 

(LG-17) 
Appendices 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Health Assessments shall be completed within one year of the record 

of decision for the Cronese Lake, Harper Lake, and Ord Mountain allotments. (LG-18) 

Within Year 2

Implementation Milestone: The grazing strategy shall be implemented within two years of the 

record of decision. (LG-17) 

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Health Assessments shall be completed within two years of the 

record of decision for the following cattle allotments: Cady Mountain, Hansen Common, LaceyCactus McCloud, Olancha, Rattlesnake Canyon, Rudnick Common, Tunawee Common, and 

Walker Pass. (LG-9) 

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of the record of decision, range fences shall be 

installed in two places to exclude cattle from high concentration tortoise areas found adjacent to 

the Ord Mountain Allotment: (a) along the southern boundary of the allotment, west of the 

Cinnamon Hills, in northern Lucerne Valley; and (b) along the eastern boundary of the 

allotment, in the vicinity of Box Canyon. (No #) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision (assuming that the 

grazing strategy given in LG-17 has been implemented), the Implementation Team shall work 

with the BLM to determine if studies are needed to assess cattle impacts and determine any 

adaptive management prescriptions that may be required. (No #) 

Additionally, new management prescriptions would require modified grazing practices in the 

Ord Mountain, Harper Lake, and Cronese Lakes allotments. These include the exclusion of 

cattle from specific areas when dry ephemeral forage is below a threshold of 230 pounds/acre. 

This practice would require rest of certain pastures under these conditions, and would 

concurrently result in herding cattle onto other portions of the allotment. (LG-13) 

Another proposal is to strategically place waters so that cattle are concentrated in areas where the 

fewest tortoise-cattle impacts will occur. The effects of these and other management practices 

must be monitored to determine if the desired effects (i.e., decreased tortoise mortality and 

decreased habitat degradation) are being achieved. (No #) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: All existing cattle guards in desert tortoise habitat shall be modified 

within three years of the record of decision to prevent entrapment of desert tortoises. New cattle 

guards shall be designed and installed to prevent entrapment of desert tortoises. (LG-7) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: For cattle allotments outside desert tortoise habitat, DWMAs, and 
Appendices 

the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area (Lacey-Cactus McCloud, Olancha, Round 

Mountain, and Whitewater allotments), Health Assessments shall be completed within three 

years of the record of decision. (LG-2) 

Within Year 3 1⁄2 

Implementation Milestone: Within six months [3 1⁄2 years] after the completion of a Health 

Assessment for a specific area (i.e., grazing allotment, watershed, etc.), the BLM shall use the 

information to make a determination and evaluation, which shall serve as baseline information to 

develop corrective management strategies. Where Health Assessments show that standards and 

guidelines are not being achieved, new measures shall be identified to achieve standards and 

conform with guidelines. The need for specific Allotment Management Plans to be modified or, 

where none exists, newly drafted, shall be considered. (LG-3) 

Within Year 10 

Implementation Milestone: Grazing will be discontinued on the Whitewater Canyon allotment, 

pending completion of a study within the next 10 years that assesses livestock grazing 

compatibility with conservation of the desert tortoise, arroyo toad, riparian values, and with use 

of, and access to, intermingled private lands. Following study completion, conduct National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis of management alternatives intended to conserve and provide 

for these resources and values consistent with the study, and subsequently issue a grazing 

decision that implements compatible management provisions. (No #) 

Grazing, Sheep

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the BLM shall modify 

boundaries as necessary relative to sheep allotments. (No #) 

In the following allotments, boundaries shall be modified so that areas within DWMAs shall no 

longer be available for sheep grazing: Cantil Common, Lava Mountains, Monolith Cantil, 

Shadow Mountains, and Stoddard Mountain (east of Highway 247 and west of National Trails 

Highway). (LG-23) 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the BLM shall work with 

affected wool growers to avoid impacts to the Mohave Monkeyflower Conservation Area. (LG24) 

Sheep grazing shall be prohibited from those portions of the Stoddard Mountain Allotment that 

occur within the Mohave Monkeyflower Conservation Area. The BLM shall work with the 

lessee to clearly identify monkeyflower habitat that shall be avoided. (LG-24, 25) 

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Following the record of decision, the lessees shall be given two years 

notification pursuant to 43 CFR 4110.4-2(b) before the actions in section 2.2.19.6 of the Draft 

are implemented. (No #) 
Appendices 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, the Implementation 

Team shall work with the BLM to determine if studies are needed to assess the impacts of sheep 

and determine any adaptive management prescriptions that may be required. (No #) 

The Plan proposes to remove sheep grazing from all DWMAs, which would affect areas south of 

Shadow Mountain Road in the southern portions of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA. Areas north 

of Shadow Mountain Road have not been grazed since 1991. The removal of sheep from this 

area should be followed by studies to determine the efficacy of this measure. (LG-23) 

There are also opportunities to study the effects of sheep removal on lands north of Kramer 

Junction, where sheep continue to graze west of Highway 395 but were removed in 1991 east of 

Highway 395. (No #) 

Guzzlers

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, the Implementation 

Team, with input from the CDFG, shall institute a study to determine the impacts of guzzlers on 

tortoises (if any) inside DWMAs. The results of the study shall be used by the CDFG to 

implement appropriate actions. (DT-41) 

Law Enforcement

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the Implementation Team 

shall initiate coordination meetings with BLM and other applicable law enforcement agencies to 

discuss law enforcement needs relative to plan implementation. (No #) 

Additional law enforcement (ranger patrols) and educational outreach (recreation technicians) 

shall be used in concert with fencing and signs to inform the public of appropriate and 

inappropriate activities in conservation areas. (E-7) 

A minimum of eight (8) Law Enforcement Rangers and eight (8) maintenance workers shall be 

assigned to the DWMAs. (DT-28) 

Law Enforcement Rangers should work closely with the Implementation Team to facilitate Plan 

implementation, enforcement, and adaptive management. (DT-8) 

It is important that a feedback loop exist between law enforcement and the Implementation Team 

to identify problem areas, and in the spirit of adaptive management, to identify issue-specific 

solutions. (DT-28) 

It is important that anyone designing and implementing an education program work with law 

enforcement personnel (including BLM, county animal control, USFWS enforcement agents and 

CDFG rangers) to identify problems and develop solutions. (E-4) 
Appendices 

Signing

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the BLM shall work with 

the Implementation Team to schedule signing of DWMA boundaries and open areas. (E-7) 

DWMA boundaries should be signed or otherwise designated to identify boundaries and 

facilitate enforcement. An appropriate number of signs (to be determined) should be strategically 

placed between the two OHV open areas (Stoddard Valley and Johnson Valley) and the adjacent, 

Ord-Rodman DWMA. A quick field check should determine if boundary is adequately signed. 

(E-7) 

Proper signing on the ground is essential. (E-7) 

NEW MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED: IMPLEMENTATION TEAM 

Core Components

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, Core Components shall be 

designed and implemented by the Implementation Team. (No #) 

The list of Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors maintained by the Implementation 

Team should be available to the County, City, Filming Commissions, and others to facilitate this 

requirement. (DT-14) 

The Implementation Team shall prepare a standard data sheet to record how many, if any, 

tortoises are moved from harm’s way. The Implementation Team should use these data to 

determine the actual harassment and mortality take of tortoises authorized by the Plan. The 

Implementation Team will also reassess these data annually, and modify Survey and No Survey 

Areas accordingly. (M-1) 

A hotline number will be provided by the local jurisdiction so that the Implementation Team can 

be contacted if a tortoise is found on the site at the time of ground disturbance. (E-10) 

A monitoring strategy will be designed and implemented to ensure that the management program 

for species is accomplishing its objectives. (M-1, 2) 

The Implementation Team is tasked with producing a standard data sheet and developing a 

tracking system to determine how many tortoises are accidentally killed or incidentally harassed 

as a result of Plan implementation. It is expected that an annual review of this information will 

enable the Implementation Team, in conjunction with participating jurisdictions, to modify these 

boundary lines as needed. (M-2) 
Appendices 

Education

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall identify the Education Contractor. (E-1) 

A coordinator of educational programs should be identified. The “education coordinator” should 

work closely with the Implementation Team and/or appropriate regulatory agencies to approve 

the final education program, judge its efficacy, and ensure appropriate implementation. (E-1) 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Upon selection, the education contractor shall meet with the 

Implementation Team to begin to design the education program. Within one year of incidental 

take authorization, a “substantially complete” outline of the education program shall be 

submitted by the contractor to the Implementation Team. (No #) 

Distribute information and education materials (E-5, 6): 

 through schools, museums, private contractors and organizations 

at recreation vehicle shows, off highway vehicle events (e.g., dual sport), and dealer 

associations (Harley-Davidson, Honda, Suzuki, etc.) 

 at convenience stores and other walk-in commercial interests 

 consider using restaurant 

 place settings and napkins as part of public outreach 

through existing portals, such as Friends of El Mirage and Friends of Jawbone 

 at the Planning Departments of each participating jurisdiction 

Consider targeting users through green-sticker money, by distributing materials at the time the 

sticker is purchased through Division of Motor Vehicles. (No #) 

The first effort of the education coordinator should be to determine environmental education 

programs that already exist, and to determine gaps in the program. The coordinator should 

produce and implement the program to, in part, fill in these gaps. The education coordinator 

should take into consideration the experiences of successful desert education programs, such as 

the Sand Canyon Environmental Education Program, and the Hands Off Pardner program. (E-2) 

The education coordinator should work with non-government organizations with an interest in 

the western Mojave Desert to better reach group members. The coordinator should work with 

off-highway vehicle groups to help fund existing programs and create new ones as needed to 

increase sensitivity to desert ecology. (E-3) 

In drawing up a single, programmatic education program to be given to construction workers, the 

coordinator should review files maintained by the USFWS and CDFG to see the range of 

education materials that have been used since the listing of the tortoise, for example. Between 

1990 and 1995, for example, such an approach resulted in rescuing 1,455 tortoises out of harm’s 

way during construction of 171 federally-authorized projects in tortoise-occupied habitats 

(LaRue and Dougherty 1997). (E-4) 
Appendices 

Develop displays, programs, and materials that can be provided to school districts in the West 

Mojave planning area. Fund and/or cooperate with existing programs (San Bernardino County 

ecological study kits, etc.) to provide for enhanced outreach to schools in desert communities. 

(E-5) 

Schools should be targeted at the district level. Although schools in the West Mojave area 

should be targeted first, it is important to reach the larger area, including the Inland Empire and 

LA County school districts. (E-5) 

Provide support to the efforts of museums, zoos, and other public institutions to develop 

pertinent desert tortoise exhibits, including (E-6): 

The San Bernardino County museum’s program to develop a desert tortoise exhibit. (E-6) 

The Mojave Narrows Regional Park’s development of an outdoor interpretive program involving 

a live-tortoise exhibit. (E-6) 

Ongoing environmental education at the Lewis Center, other programs supported by Edwards 

Air Force Base, the BLM’s community outreach program, etc. (E-6) 

The education program should include the preparation, distribution and/or installation of signs, 

interpretive kiosks, displays, maps, videos, education packets and brochures. (E-7) 

Design and erect a new sign at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area; include in the sign appropriate 

behavior messages and offer an “800" telephone number for information on tortoise adoption. 

(E-7) 

Place information kiosks in pertinent parts of the desert. (E-7) 

Work with Caltrans to design and install separate, free-standing, interpretive kiosks with desert 

tortoise protection information at highway rest areas. (E-7) 

Target off highway vehicle use areas, such as El Mirage and Jawbone; distribute materials 

through volunteer groups associated with those areas. (E-7) 

Portable displays should be developed and produced, including a portable desert tortoise exhibit, 

for use at county fairs, shows, agency offices, shopping malls, museums, and the BLM’s 

California Desert Information Center in Barstow. User-friendly maps should be prepared which 

show approved routes of travel. Work with university, media and corporate sponsor(s) to 

develop a quality video on desert tortoises for release to network, local, and cable television 

stations. Develop educational packets for use in classrooms. Produce a brochure to be 

distributed by jurisdictions that outlines the farmer’s responsibilities under the endangered 

species act when developing habitat for target species. Produce a brochure to be distributed by 

jurisdictions describing the burrowing owl and its habitat features in urban areas. (E-7)
Appendices 

Fencing: Highways

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall convene a meeting with pertinent jurisdictions to discuss the intent of highway 

fencing, coordination, priorities, and monitoring needs; eventual culvert placement shall also be 

discussed. (No #) 

Intent 

Proponents wishing to construct new roads or railroads are encouraged to locate them outside of 

DWMAs. Proponents should implement designs and maintenance procedures that are consistent 

with the existing terms and conditions identified in various biological opinions for roads; 

locations of such roads should consider reserve design relative to the DWMAs and other factors. 

(DT-6) 

Reduce the availability of carcasses of road-killed animals along highways in tortoise habitat. As 

some ravens derive most of their food from road kills, erect barrier fences (1/2 to 1/4 inch mesh 

hardware cloth; Boarman and Sazaki 1996) along roads and highways specified in the fencing 

table to prevent animals from getting killed on roads. Recommendations may be modified as 

more information and evaluation becomes available. (H3) 

Some of the desired effects of fencing highways that require monitoring include: (a) reduction of 

tortoise mortality; (b) tortoise recolonization of unoccupied habitats immediately adjacent to the 

highways or interstates; (c) reduction of other vertebrate mortality and its effects on raven 

predation, scavenging, and nesting within a mile of the fenced highway; (d) tortoise use of 

culverts to offset the fragmentation of the fenced highway; and (e) reduction of human impacts 

associated with the highway (such as decreased poaching, pet collection and dumping). (No #) 

Coordination 

Placement of fences along paved roadways shall be coordinated among the Implementation 

Team, the California Department of Transportation, the BLM, county road departments and 

others to ensure that access is provided to those routes identified as “open” that intersect with 

roads to be fenced. (DT-18) 

Immediate fencing is preferable, and will have demonstrable results. The Implementation Team 

will coordinate with the California Department of Transportation and others to fence identified 

easements as soon as possible. If an opportunity exists to fence a road but culverts cannot be 

installed at the time of fencing, the fencing should proceed because reducing mortality of desert 

tortoises is a more immediate need than promoting genetic interchange. Culverts would be 

constructed at the time of widening. (DT-21) 

Priorities 

Unless new information reveals a better order of priority, the following roads, which are all 

bounded by proposed DWMAs, will be fenced on both sides in the following order: (i) Highway 

395 between Kramer Junction and Shadow Mountain Road; (ii) Highway 395 between Kramer 
Appendices 

Junction and 20 Mule Team Road; and (iii) the remaining portions of Highway 58 between 

Kramer Junction and Hinkley. (DT-18) 

Monitoring 

The Implementation Team, working with the California Department of Transportation, the BLM, 

county road departments and others shall ensure that fences and culverts are appropriately 

monitored, and that fence integrity and unobstructed culverts are maintained throughout the life 

of this Plan. (DT-21) 

Additionally, the fences must be monitored to cure breaches and ensure fence integrity. (No #) 

Culvert Placement 

Within DWMAs, when roads are fenced to preclude entry by desert tortoises, culverts of 

appropriate design and spacing to allow desert tortoises to pass under the road shall be installed 

to avoid habitat fragmentation and to allow continued gene transfer from one side of the road to 

the other. (DT-21) 

It is important that the USFWS and other entities (i.e., new Recovery Team members) discuss 

the closure of culverts as a mechanism to prevent spread of disease. The Draft concluded that 

the pattern of older and newer die-off regions might suggest spread of disease from the northwest 

to the south. Newer die-off regions found in two places south of Highway 58 could be an 

indicator that culverts facilitated spread of disease. These hypotheses merit consideration by 

experts. 

Feral Dog Management Plan

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of incidental take authorization, the 

Implementation Team, BLM, county animal control, and other applicable entities shall develop a 

Feral Dog Management Plan (FDMP). (DT-5) 

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, if feral dogs continue to 

be a significant threat to tortoises and other covered species, the earliest phase(s) of the FDMP 

shall be implemented. (DT-5) 

Headstarting

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall meet with BLM, pertinent experts in headstarting, and others to formulate a strategy 

for implementing headstarting. (No #) 

Implement a headstarting program in areas where tortoises have apparently been extirpated or 

numbers significantly reduced. These could include but are not limited to areas west and south 

of Fremont Peak, Fremont Valley, and the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area. (DT-26) 
Appendices 

The following action items shall be implemented throughout the western Mojave Desert. Where 

headstarting is implemented, ensure that predation by ravens and other predators does not 

compromise the integrity, function, and success of the program. (DT-26) 

Law Enforcement

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of the record of decision, the Implementation Team 

shall initiate coordination meetings with BLM and other applicable law enforcement agencies to 

discuss law enforcement needs relative to plan implementation. (No #) 

Additional law enforcement (ranger patrols) and educational outreach (recreation technicians) 

shall be used in concert with fencing and signs to inform the public of appropriate and 

inappropriate activities in conservation areas. (E-7) 

A minimum of eight (8) Law Enforcement Rangers and eight (8) maintenance workers shall be 

assigned to the DWMAs. (DT-28) 

Law Enforcement Rangers should work closely with the Implementation Team to facilitate Plan 

implementation, enforcement, and adaptive management. (DT-28) 

It is important that a feedback loop exist between law enforcement and the Implementation Team 

to identify problem areas, and in the spirit of adaptive management, to identify issue-specific 

solutions. (DT-28) 

It is important that anyone designing and implementing an education program work with law 

enforcement personnel (including BLM, county animal control, USFWS enforcement agents and 

CDFG rangers) to identify problems and develop solutions. (E-4) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, and at least 

annually thereafter, the Implementation Team shall meet with representatives of military 

installations (PACIDERM) and the Mohave Ground Squirrel Technical Advisory Committee to 

discuss management needs for MGS conservation (MGS-6). 

A group should be established to coordinate with, and assist if requested, staff of the China 

Lakes Naval Air Weapons Station, the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, and Edwards Air 

Force Base in devising and implementing MGS conservation programs on those installations. 

The Implementation Team should meet annually with representatives of these installations and 

the Mohave Ground Squirrel Technical Advisory Committee to discuss management needs for 

MGS conservation. (MGS-6) 

Monitoring: Distance Sampling

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within the first year of incidental take authorization, the 
Appendices 

Implementation Team shall ensure that distance sampling is funded and implemented. 

The Plan shall ensure that line distance sampling (or other scientifically credible method, if 

distance sampling proves ineffective) is implemented in the Fremont-Kramer, Superior-Cronese, 

Ord-Rodman, and Pinto Mountain DWMAs. (M-98) 

Within Years 2 to 30 

Implementation Milestone: Within the second year of incidental take authorization, and 

thereafter as scheduled (M-98), the Implementation Team shall ensure that distance sampling is 

funded and implemented. (No #) 

Distance sampling would occur in the West Mojave during the following years: 2003, 2004, 

2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 

2027, 2029, 2031, and 2033. (M-98) 

Monitoring: Efficacy of Route Network

Within Year 3 

Implementation Milestone: Within three years of the record of decision, the Implementation 

Team, with input from pertinent regulatory personnel (e.g., BLM, CDFG, Fort Irwin, USGS, 

USFWS, among others), shall design a monitoring study to determine the efficacy of the 

designated route network. (No #) 

Within Years 4 to 30 

Implementation Milestone: Between Year 4 and Year 30 of the record of decision, route network 

monitoring studies shall be implemented as identified in the schedule associated with preceding 

Implementation Milestone. (No #) 

In DWMAs, there is no current proposal to install speed regulators. However, if monitoring or 

studies show that certain unimproved roads are causing increased tortoise mortality, the 

Implementation Team should coordinate with BLM, county road departments, and others to 

consider ways, including speed regulators, to reduce or avoid that mortality. (MV-3) 

The Plan proposes the closure of a number of unpaved motorized vehicle routes, with the intent 

of reducing tortoise mortality and habitat degradation. There is widespread concern that 

reducing routes will lead to more habitat degradation along routes that are designated as “open.” 

Data should be collected to address the following: (a) Is there more or less cross-country travel 

before or after reductions? (b) Is there more use (and vandalism) on private lands where route 

reductions are not occurring? (c) Are new routes being created to replace old ones? (d) Are 

visitors using closed routes? (e) Given these and other data, where are the best places to focus 

limited law enforcement resources? (f) Has poaching, illegal target shooting, intentional 

vandalism, etc. been curtailed or facilitated? (g) Are new concentrated human-use areas (i.e., 

camp sites, staging areas, dump sites, etc.) forming along “open” routes? And ultimately, (h) Has 

the route network resulted in more or less tortoise mortality and/or habitat degradation? (No #) 

The efficacy of this plan [designated route network] needs to be monitored to determine which, 
Appendices 

if any, management actions have resulted in fewer tortoise mortalities. The monitoring effort 

may be linked with others: Are ravens predating more heavily on tortoises after highway fences 

are installed and road-killed vertebrates are less available to ravens? (No #) 

Monitoring: Specific Tortoise Population Studies 

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall meet with pertinent agency personnel (e.g., BLM, CDFG, Fort Irwin, USGS, 

USFWS, among others) to discuss specific population monitoring needs (other than distance 

sampling), coordination, and implementation. (No #) 

Within Years 2 to 30 

Implementation Milestone: Between Year 2 and Year 30 of incidental take authorization, 

population monitoring studies shall be implemented as identified in the schedule associated with 

preceding Implementation Milestone. (No #) 

It is important to fund continued studies at specified intervals on pertinent BLM permanent study 

plots, including Kramer, Lucerne, Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area (DTNA) (2 plots), 

Fremont Valley, and Fremont Peak. In the past, a total of 60 person days was spent on each plot, 

conducting a capture (first 30 days) recapture (last 30 days) study that was intended, among 

other things, to determine the density of tortoises on that square mile (i.e., with the exception of 

one of the plots at the DTNA, the other plots are one square mile in size). Since distance 

sampling is intended to determine regional densities, it would be appropriate to modify the 

methodology for the study plots away from a density estimate, and rather focus on demographic, 

disease, human threats, and other associated data that have traditionally been collected. (No #) 

It is important to replicate the study plots, perhaps on nearby, square kilometer plots (i.e., 

Appendix A in the Recovery Plan presents one approach), so that statistical inferences can be 

drawn for a given region. Thus, additional, new study plots would be randomly situated 

throughout the region of interest. In the past, these plots have been surveyed at four-year 

intervals, although a new schedule needs to be considered. Each of the existing study plots is 

uniquely situated to gauge continued threats and efficacy of conservation measures implemented 

as part of the Plan, as described in the following sections. (No #) 

This plot is located several miles west of the community of Silver Lakes, in the southern portion 

of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA, which is bounded to the north by Highway 58, to the east by the 

Mojave River, to the south by Shadow Mountain Road (actually several miles south of this 

road), and to the west by Highway 395. Unlike the northern and northwestern portions of this 

DWMA, there still appear to be relatively high numbers of tortoises in this area. The Kramer 

plot, and surrounding areas, are characterized by above-average tortoise sign counts collected 

since 1998. Known threats include ravens, poaching, off highway vehicle traffic (some of it 

likely from the Silver Lakes community), dumping, and dirt roads. Monitoring at this and 

adjacent plots should be structured to see if positive benefits are associated with the following 

conservation programs: raven management, increased law enforcement, route reductions, urban 

interface fencing or other control measures at Silver Lakes and fencing Highway 395. (No #) 
Appendices 

This plot is uniquely situated on the urbanizing interface with Lucerne Valley to the south and 

the Johnson Valley Open Area to the east; the Stoddard Valley Open Area is not too distant to 

the west. It occurs in one of three tortoise aggregations found in the Ord-Rodman DWMA. 

Documented threats include OHV impacts, cattle trespass, bisection by a major transmission line 

inside a BLM-designated utility corridor, raven predation, tortoise collection and vandalism, and 

feral dogs. Proactive management prescriptions given elsewhere in this Plan call for signing 

boundaries in this area, fencing portions of the cattle allotment to prevent cattle trespass, 

monitoring Camp Rock Road, raven management, route reductions, restrictions to development 

of new utilities, increased law enforcement, and education of Lucerne Valley residents. The 

monitoring program on this and replicated plots in the region should focus on the efficacy of 

these and other conservation programs implemented by the Plan. (No #) 

Several BLM permanent study plots are found at the DTNA, although like other plots, they have 

not been regularly funded since the early 1990's. These plots are unique in that they occur in a 

relatively protected, fenced area in which densities of more than 300 tortoises per square mile 

were documented in the 1970's and mid-1980's, but where present densities are substantially 

lower. Monitoring of this plot provides a unique opportunity to see if tortoises can naturally 

recolonize protected habitats. The fenced DTNA is surrounded by existing impacts that likely 

serve as “sinks” for tortoises that are relatively protected until they venture into adjacent, 

unfenced areas. Some of these uses include sheep grazing, intensive OHV use, agriculture and 

wind-blown dust from the west, indirect impacts associated with mining to the north, feral dog 

problems both inside and outside the DTNA, release of captive tortoises, raven predation, 

intentional vandalism of tortoises, and pet collection. Monitoring efforts should consider the 

efficacy of route reduction, enforcing California City’s sheep grazing policy, increased law 

enforcement, feral dog management plan, raven management, and education of visitors to the 

area. (No #) 

This study plot is located in the Fremont Valley, which is bounded to the north by the El Paso 

Mountains, to the south by the Rand Mountains, to the east by Red Mountain, and to the west by 

Koehn Lake. It is very similar to the DTNA plots in terms of observable disturbances, except it 

does not occur within the relative protection of a fenced area. All the programs mentioned above 

for the DTNA are also intended to recover tortoises in the Fremont Valley. Unique threats 

include road kill along Garlock Road, the direct and indirect effects of spreading biosolids in the 

desert, noise, vibration, and mortality effects of the nearby railroad. Monitoring of the study plot 

and replicated plots in the Fremont Valley should test the efficacy of conservation measures in 

bolstering tortoise populations in the northwestern portion of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA. 

Like DTNA and Fremont Valley, the Fremont Peak study plot has experienced recent declines in 

tortoise numbers, although fewer tortoises occurred when the BLM’s study plots were first 

surveyed in the 1970's. Unlike all other study plots mentioned above, the Fremont Peak plot is 

characterized as a salt bush scrub community (creosote bush scrub characterizes the other plots). 

 Sheep grazing was removed from the area in 1991, although threats persist: natural 

recolonization of a population that has nearly been extirpated, raven and canid predation, effects 

of roads (several bisect the plot), and the indirect effects of Highway 395, which is located 
Appendices 

several miles to the west. Conservation measures are recommended by this Plan that would 

minimize impacts associated with these and other impacts. Additionally, it is recommended that 

the pilot headstarting program occur in the vicinity of this plot, so that the beneficial effects of 

that program may be indirectly gauged by reviving studies on this and replicated plots within the 

region. (No #) 

The spatial location of the plots given above fairly well covers the Fremont-Kramer DWMA and 

southern portion of the Ord-Rodman DWMA, but does not adequately represent the SuperiorCronese or Pinto Mountain DWMAs. The Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, in 

conjunction with USGS, has established permanent study plots at the Goldstone Deep Space 

Communications Complex, in the Alvord Mountains, and elsewhere in the Superior-Cronese 

DWMA. Valuable information may be collected by continuing studies on these or other plots to 

be established. (No #) 

There are no permanent plots in the Pinto Mountains, although Joshua Tree National Park has 

such plots nearby. (No #) 

Many proactive conservation measures have been recommended that can be tracked at the study 

plots given above, however it will be necessary to gauge the success and failures of specific 

conservation programs for their efficacy and modification through adaptive management. Some 

of these follow (No #): 

Raven Management Working Group

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: At which time it is formulated, the BLM shall ensure that it has 

appropriate personnel committed to serve on the raven management working group. (No #) 

Establish two work groups to oversee management direction, review information, coordinate 

with other agencies/groups, solicit funding for implementation of specific management 

measures, and distribute information/data. The work groups shall meet annually or as needed to 

discuss raven management actions. One work group would be an Interagency Task Force to 

coordinate implementation of the program. This group would identify specific areas where 

lethal removal would be implemented using the criteria outlined above. The other would be a 

technical and policy oversight team to evaluate the progress of the Plan, interpretation of data, 

and recommend changes in the overall program based on scientific data. This group would help 

to determine what thresholds of predation and recruitment are necessary to trigger 

implementation of a cessation of lethal actions. There shall be data sharing between adjacent 

bio-regional plans and resource management plans. The goals of the work groups would be to (i) 

increase efficiency, effectiveness, and scientific validity of raven management in the California 

deserts, and (ii) ensure that future phases are developed and implemented in accordance with 

results of research and monitoring outlined above. (DT-38) 

The Implementation Team shall facilitate issuance of applicable salvage permits, of as long a 

duration as possible, to participating utility companies to enable them to remove raven nests 

from transmission lines and other facilities. (No #) 
Appendices 

Reduce the population density of ravens and number of birds that may take tortoises by reducing 

the availability to ravens of solid wastes at sanitary landfills. Reduce raven access to organic 

wastes at landfills: (i) ensure effective cover of waste multiple times each day (either < six (6) 

inches cover or complete cover of garbage with tarps temporarily), (ii) erect coyote-proof 

fencing, (iii) render raven-proof all sources of standing water at the landfill, and (iv) keep truck 

cleaning areas and temporary storage facilities clean and free from organic wastes and standing 

water. (DT-30) 

Reduce the availability to ravens of organic wastes outside of landfills. Take the following 

steps: (i) Encourage the use of self-closing trash bins at transfer stations and roadside rest stops, 

and behind restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores; use raven-proof garbage drums at houses 

and other facilities; and avoid use of plastic bags for street-side pick up in residential areas; (ii) 

Encourage livestock operators to reduce availability of cattle feed, carcasses, afterbirths, and 

insects at feedlots and dairy farms; (iii) Use public education and other means to reduce the 

number of citizens who purposely feed ravens or who inadvertently do so by leaving pet food out 

where ravens can easily access it; and (iv) clean up illegal dump sites that contain organic 

wastes. These educational efforts should include, but not be limited to, business and agriculture. 

(DT-31) 

Reduce the population density of ravens and number of birds that may take tortoises by reducing 

the availability of water to ravens while being mindful of the needs of other species. (DT-33) 

Reduce the impact ravens have on tortoise populations at specific locations by removing raven 

nests. Remove raven nests (i) in specific areas where raven predation is high and tortoise 

populations are targeted for special management, and (ii) do so during the egg-laying phase of 

the raven’s breeding cycle. Any nestlings found should be euthanized using standard humane 

measures. (DT-34) 

Avoid constructing new nesting structures and reduce the number of existing nesting structures 

in areas where natural or anthropogenic substrates are lacking. Reduce availability of nesting 

sites by observing the following. (i) Within and adjacent to DWMAs, prevent the construction of 

new structures (e.g., power towers, telephones, billboards, cell phone towers, open warehouses 

or shade towers, etc.) where alternative natural nesting substrates (e.g., Joshua trees, cliffs) do 

not already exist within approximately 2 miles. (ii) If they must be built, design such structures 

in such a way as to prevent ravens from building nests on them. (DT-35) 

Remove unnecessary towers, abandoned buildings, vehicles, etc., within tortoise management 

areas that may serve as nesting substrates unless natural structures are in abundance. (DT-35) 

Remove ravens that are known to prey on tortoises. Selectively shoot individual ravens in areas 

of high tortoise predation. Ravens will be shot by rifle or shotgun if they show a likelihood of 

preying on tortoises (e.g., tortoise shells showing evidence consistent with raven predation found 

beneath or within approximately 1 mile a nest or perch). Ravens will be trapped and humanely 

euthanized where shooting is not possible (e.g., on powerlines or in residential areas) or 
Appendices 

unsuccessful. Young ravens found in nests of removed adults will be euthanized humanely if 

they can be captured safely. Poisoning with DRC-1339 or other appropriate agent may be used 

against targeted ravens in these limited areas if it is shown by results of the research proposals 

discussed below to be safe for other animals. Poisoned carcasses will be removed if they can be 

located. (L-1) 

Facilitate recovery of critically threatened tortoise populations by removing ravens from specific 

areas where tortoise mortality from several sources is high, raven predation is known to occur, 

and the tortoise population has a chance of benefitting from raven removal. Remove all ravens 

foraging within specific areas (e.g., Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area, DWMAs, pilot 

headstarting sites, etc.) of historically high tortoise mortality and raven predation, particularly 

where demographic analyses indicate that juvenile survivorship has been unusually low. Ravens 

will be shot by rifle or shotgun if they are found foraging, hunting, roosting, or nesting within 

0.5 miles of the specific targeted area. Where shooting is not possible (e.g., on powerlines or in 

recreation and residential areas), ravens will be poisoned (if shown by the research programs 

recommended below to be safe) or trapped and humanely euthanized. Young ravens found in 

nests of removed adults will be euthanized humanely if they can be captured safely. (L-2) 

Determine behavior and ecology of ravens as they pertain to predation on tortoises. Data will be 

collected by direct observations, radio tracking, diet analysis, wing tagging, and non-invasive 

behavioral manipulations. (R1) 

Conduct regional surveys of the California deserts to locate and map ravens and their nests and 

communal roosts. Inventories would include private and public lands. Project proponents and 

other interested parties would contribute funds to a coordinated surveying program that would 

concentrate both on specific sites and broad regional patterns. (R2) 

Methods will be developed, tested, and implemented to determine effectiveness of and need for 

raven removal efforts for enhancing recruitment rates of juvenile desert tortoises into adult ageclasses. (R-3) 

Determine efficacy and cost of shooting as a method of eliminating raven predation and 

increasing tortoise survival. Data have already been collected and partially analyzed. (R-4) 

Determine if eating hard-boiled eggs may adversely impact animals other than ravens laced with 

the avicide DRC-1339. (R-5) 

An experiment should be conducted concerning methyl anthranilate (a non-toxic, grape-flavored 

food additive, but it is disliked by several species of birds) to determine if: (i) ravens are repelled 

by the chemical; (ii) it can be applied efficiently at landfills and other raven concentration sites, 

and on sources of water used by ravens (e.g., septage ponds, stock tanks, etc.); (iii) its repeated 

application prevents ravens from using the resource (e.g., garbage, water, etc.), and (iv) if 

methiocarb (Avery et al. 1993, Conover 1984), carbachol (Avery and Decker 1994, Nicolaus et 

al. 1989) or other compounds work better than methyl anthranilate. (R-6) 
Appendices 

Determine if: (i) raven dependence on human-provided perches and nest sites aids hunting, 

nesting, and overall survival; (ii) modifying raven perches, roost sites, and nest sites on a 

localized basis is an effective way of reducing raven predation on tortoises; and (iii) removal of 

raven nests early in the breeding cycle will prevent ravens from renesting in that season. (R-7) 

Determine: (i) if live trapping is a cost effective means of catching ravens, (ii) the relative 

effectiveness of different live trapping techniques, (iii) where ravens can be relocated practically 

and legally, and (iv) if relocated ravens will return to the capture site or other desert tortoise 

habitat. (R-8) 

Develop a demographic model of raven populations to predict the effect various management 

alternatives might have on raven populations. (R-9) 

Determine the extent ravens use commercial and municipal compost piles, then develop and test 

modifications to composting practices to make them inaccessible to ravens if a problem exists. 

Develop and test other methods to prevent ravens from accessing food and waste items. (R-10) 

Determine whether availability to ravens of anthropogenic sources of water could be reduced by 

modifying sewage and septage containment practices in three possible ways: (i) covering the 

water, (ii) altering the edge of the pond with vertical walls, (iii) placing monofilament line or 

screening over the entire pond or (iv) adding methyl anthranilate, or other harmless taste 

aversive chemicals to standing water sources. Emphasis should be placed on the reduction of 

water availability during the spring, when ravens are nesting, and summer, when water demands 

for ravens are high but natural sources are low. (R-11) 

Monitor both raven status and effectiveness of management actions at reducing predation rates 

on juvenile tortoises. (DT-39) 

Revegetation

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of incidental take authorization, the 

Implementation Team shall see that a standard, programmatic revegetation plan is developed and 

available to project proponents who are required to revegetate pipelines and other areas as a 

result of other plan prescriptions. (No #) 

The following guidelines are recommended for revegetation in DWMAs: Revegetation is the 

means by which (a) soil surfaces are stabilized (wind and water erosion control); (b) future 

vehicle use is minimized or eliminated in areas to be revegetated; (c) future vehicle use is 

minimized or eliminated for travel from the right-of-way into adjacent, undisturbed areas 

(minimize impacts associated with increased or new access); (d) the spread of exotic weeds is 

curtailed; and ultimately (e) habitat for the target species (desert tortoise in this case) is restored 

(see success criteria discussion given in Section 3.3.4). (DT-11) 

A standardized revegetation plan should be developed by the Implementation Team or its 

appointee and applied equitably throughout DWMAs.A technical advisory team of regulatory 
Appendices 

personnel, restoration experts, knowledgeable utilities personnel, and others should be assembled 

to devise and write the revegetation plan. (DT-11) 

Silver Lakes Association

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall initiate a meeting with the Silver Lakes Association to determine the best way to 

minimize impacts of that community to the adjacent DWMA. (DT-22) 

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of incidental take authorization, following 

discussions with the Silver Lakes Association, the Implementation Team shall implement 

protective measures identified during those discussions. Follow-up studies and/or monitoring 

will be implemented as per the schedule identified during discussions. (DT-22) 

The Plan proposes that a working group be established by the Implementation Team to work 

with the Silver Lakes Association and others to minimize the OHV impacts associated with that 

community on the Fremont-Kramer DWMA, which occurs immediately to the west. Potential 

solutions include installing a fence line along the western boundary of the community or 

developing an intensive educational program to minimize and eventually eliminate the impact. 

The efficacy of either of these approaches must be monitored and adaptive management applied. 

(DT-22) 

Tortoise: Disease

Within Year 1 

Implementation Milestone: Within one year of incidental take authorization, the Implementation 

Team shall designate one or more of its members to interface with the Management Oversight 

Group, most likely in the capacity of MOG Techincal Advisory Committee (MOG TAC) 

member, and continue to be involved, particularly with regards to disease research. (DT-16) 

Disease research is encouraged, and coordination between the Implementation Team and the 

appropriate MOG contact should be maintained. Any breakthrough relative to disease 

management should be incorporated into the West Mojave Plan through adaptive management 

provisions. (DT-16) 

At this time, the Plan relies on the Implementation Team adopting disease monitoring protocols 

as they are identified and endorsed by pertinent experts and, likely, the Management Oversight 

Group. (DT-17) 

Tortoise: Disposition

During the Life of the Plan 

Implementation Milestone: The Implementation Team shall consider the need to establish 

tortoise translocation areas if tortoises displaced as a result of plan implementation are not 

accommodated through identified translocation guidelines. (No #) 

 
Appendices 

If the Implementation Team determines that the above [tortoise disposition] scenarios are not 

accommodating all wild tortoises removed from impact zones where there is permanent loss of 

habitat, then it should consider establishing translocation sites into which animals can be placed. 

(No #) 

Weeds

Within Year 2 

Implementation Milestone: Within two years of incidental take authorization, the 

Implementation Team shall meet with appropriate weed management groups to begin 

discussions of funding, coordinating, encouraging, implementing, and facilitating weed 

abatement/management programs that contribute to the conservation of plant or animal species 

covered by the Plan. (DT-40) 

The Implementation Team will cooperate with known weed abatement specialists and 

organizations (including the Kern County Weed Management Agency, the Mono/Inyo Weed 

Management Area, the Mojave Weed Management Area, and the California Exotic Pest Plant 

Council) to fund, coordinate, encourage, implement, and facilitate weed abatement/management 

programs that contribute to the conservation of plant or animal species covered by the Plan. (DT40) 
Appendices 

APPENDIX D 

NEW AND REVISED 

ACEC MANAGEMENT PLANS
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX D 

NEW AND REVISED 

ACEC MANAGEMENT PLANS

Of the 30 ACECs within the West Mojave designated by the California Desert 

Conservation Area Plan, several were established for the purpose of protecting important 

botanical or wildlife resources. Others were established to conserve cultural sites, geological or 

paleontological resources, or outstanding scenic and recreational values. Some of the specific 

management plans were prepared in cooperation with the CDFG as Wildlife Habitat 

Management Plans under the Sikes Act. The Proposed West Mojave Plan would amend twentyfive ACEC plans to incorporate provisions to conserve covered species. In addition, it would 

establish new ACECs in some areas as part of the conservation strategy. 

The following discussion identifies the new measures proposed by the Proposed Plan. 

These include the following: (a) Modifications of existing ACEC Plans and (b) Management 

actions proposed for each of the proposed new ACECs. The West Mojave Plan is intended to 

serve as the ACEC management plan for each of the new ACECs; no further planning would be 

required. 

Many of the existing ACEC management plans identified a motorized vehicle access 

network. These networks have been incorporated into the proposed regional access networks 

addressed by the alternatives analyzed by this EIR/S. The networks, or a modified version 

thereof, would be incorporated into the CDCA Plan through the West Mojave planning process. 

D. 1 MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING ACEC PLANS 

 

D.1.1 Afton Canyon (ACEC 43) (4,726 acres) 

The Afton Canyon Natural Area Management Plan (1989) was prepared in cooperation 

with the CDFG under the Sikes Act and covers a larger area than the ACEC. The plan protects 

the riparian community of the Mojave River, the scenic values of the canyon, and the adjacent 

desert habitat in the Cady Mountains, which is occupied habitat for bighorn sheep and contains 

nest sites for prairie falcon and golden eagle. 

Afton Canyon is a BLM showcase for riparian restoration. For over ten years, invasive 

tamarisk plants have been removed and replaced with native willows and cottonwoods. The 

riparian area is fenced to exclude cattle. The canyon supports a relictual population of Western 

pond turtles and is a potential site for re-introduction of the Mojave tui chub. 

Visitor facilities include two campgrounds, an equestrian campground, the Mojave Road, 

and interpretative signs and kiosks. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the CDCA Plan would be amended as necessary to implement 
Appendices 

these recommendations of the 1989 management plan: 

• Expansion of the boundary of the ACEC by 3,840 acres, and deletion of 480 acres , 

making the expanded ACEC 8,160 acres in size. 

• Withdrawal of all lands within the expanded ACEC boundary from mineral entry. 

• Changing the CDCA Plan multiple use class designations M to L on certain lands within 

the expanded ACEC. 

The Proposed Plan would amend the Afton Canyon management plan by adding the 

following text on page 1, Section “B. Purpose”, following the second paragraph: 

This management plan adopts the provisions of the West Mojave Plan for protection of 

the following species and their habitat: 

All species of bats 

Bighorn sheep 

Prairie falcon 

Golden eagle 

Vermilion flycatcher 

Yellow-breasted chat 

Yellow warbler 

Summer tanager 

Least Bell’s vireo (potential habitat) 

Western pond turtle 

Desert tortoise 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

In addition, the management plan allows for the re-introduction of the Mojave tui chub 

into the Mojave River at such time as CDFG and USFWS deem appropriate. Activities of the 

wildlife agencies to restore habitat for the Mojave tui chub, including the removal of non-native 

fish, would be allowed. 

All provisions of the West Mojave Plan pertaining to surveys and minimization, 

mitigation, and compensation for adverse impacts to biological resources within a Conservation 

Area would apply within the Afton Canyon Natural Area boundary. 

D.1.2 Barstow Woolly Sunflower (ACEC 36) (314 acres) 

BLM designated 400 acres as the North Harper Dry Lake ACEC in the CDCA Plan to 

protect the rare Barstow woolly sunflower. The 1982 CDCA Plan Amendment number 16 

relocated the ACEC to 314 acres northeast of Kramer Junction and renamed it the Eriophyllum 

ACEC. It has become generally known as the Barstow woolly sunflower ACEC since that time. 

Although the existing ACEC protects a relatively large population of this species, it 

represents only a small proportion of the overall range, which is limited to the western Mojave 

Desert. The desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel are also found within the ACEC. The 
Appendices 

State of California owns nine sections of land to the east and west, which CDFG manages for 

protection of desert plants and animals. 

The Proposed Plan would enlarge the ACEC to encompass additional public lands 

northwest of Kramer Junction. Its name would be changed to adopt the more commonly used 

title, the Barstow Woolly Sunflower ACEC. Adjacent CDFG lands would become a CDFG 

Ecological Reserve, pending the completion of a land exchange between the BLM and CDFG. 

These lands, together with some intermixed private parcels, would constitute the West Mojave 

Plan’s 36,211 acre Barstow Woolly Sunflower Conservation Area. Public lands within the 

conservation are entirely within the Fremont-Kramer tortoise DWMA. 

 The primary management measures would be the acquisition of private lands from 

willing sellers and designation of vehicle routes. The route designations approved in the West 

Mojave Plan would be adopted for public lands within the ACEC. 

The CDFG will prepare a management plan for state-owned lands after the land exchange 

is completed and the Ecological Reserve is designated. 

 The following language will be added to the ACEC management plan: “ACEC #36 is 

renamed the Barstow woolly sunflower ACEC.” 

All provisions of the Proposed Plan pertaining to surveys and minimization, mitigation, 

and compensation for adverse impacts to biological resources within the Barstow woolly 

sunflower Conservation Area will apply within the ACEC. 

D.1.3 Bedrock Springs (ACEC 24) (785 acres) 

 Bedrock Spring was designated as an ACEC to protect prehistoric cultural resources: 

middens, petroglyphs, pictographs, rock shelters and milling features. 

 

The Proposed Plan would adopt the route designations specified in the 1987 ACEC 

management plan. The ACEC would be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation 

Area, and all conservation measures applicable to public lands within the conservation area 

would apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.4 Black Mountain Cultural Area (ACEC 35) (61,806 acres)

The Black Mountain ACEC is one of the largest ACECs in the western Mojave Desert. 

The original 5,120-acre designation was expanded to the current size with approval of the 

1989/1990 CDCA Plan Amendment Number 2. A management plan was approved in 1988 to 

protect the prehistoric and Native American values of this area northwest of Barstow. The 

southeastern half is within the Black Mountain Wilderness. 

This ACEC includes critical habitat for the desert tortoise, as well as known occupied 

habitat for the Mojave ground squirrel, LeConte’s thrasher, desert cymopterus and Barstow 
Appendices 

woolly sunflower. Nest sites are present for golden eagle and prairie falcon. The ACEC lies 

entirely within the proposed Superior-Cronese and Fremont-Kramer DWMAs. 

 The route designation for the Superior subregion included an inventory of all routes 

within the Black Mountain ACEC outside designated Wilderness. The West Mojave Plan will 

amend the ACEC plan to include route designations and protection of covered species as a goal. 

The DWMAs, if established by the Record of Decision, will be incorporated into the Black 

Mountain ACEC management plan. 

D.1.5 Calico Early Man Site (ACEC 40) (898 acres) 

This National Register Property was designated as an ACEC by the 1980 CDCA Plan. A 

management plan was prepared in 1984. The plan designated a network of vehicle access routes, 

a network designed to protect the evidence of ancient human occupation. This ACEC is located 

within the Superior-Cronese tortoise DWMA 

The ACEC management plan would be modified as follows. All provisions of the West 

Mojave Plan pertaining to surveys and minimization, mitigation, and compensation for adverse 

impacts to biological resources within the Superior Cronese DWMA would apply within the 

ACEC. 

D.1.6 Christmas Canyon (ACEC 23) (3,444 acres) 

The Christmas Canyon ACEC protects prehistoric values. Most of the ACEC lies within 

the Spangler Hills Open Area in San Bernardino County. The 1988 ACEC management plan 

prescribed ways that the archaeological resources could be protected within an area open to 

recreational vehicle use. 

A small portion of the southern edge of the ACEC outside the Open Area will be 

included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area, and all conservation measures 

applicable to public lands within the CA will apply to the ACEC. This portion of the ACEC will 

adopt the 1985-87 route designations for public lands, as specified in the June 2003 Record of 

Decision on the West Mojave Desert Off Road Vehicle Designation Project. 

D.1.7 Cronese Basin (ACEC 74) (10,226 acres) 

 The BLM designated the Cronese Lakes, north of Interstate 15 between Barstow and 

Baker, as an ACEC in the 1980 CDCA Plan. A management plan was published in 1985. 

 The purpose of this ACEC is to protect valuable cultural and natural resources, including 

the ephemeral wetlands present on the lakes, which serve as stopover points for migratory 

waterbirds and nesting sites for many species during very wet years. Mesquite hummocks and 

desert willow washes add to the biological importance, and the dunes and sand sheets are 

occupied habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The desert tortoise is found in low densities. 

 The southwest portion of the ACEC is within the Superior-Cronese tortoise DWMA. 
Appendices 

The Proposed Plan would revise the ACEC management plan to incorporate protection of 

blowsand areas for fringe-toed lizard. All conservation measures applicable to public lands 

within the tortoise DWMA will apply to portions of the ACEC that are included. 

D.1.8 Darwin Falls 

Lands in the former Darwin Falls/Canyon ACEC were added to Death Valley National 

Park with passage of the California Desert Protection Act in 1994, and are no longer part of the 

California Desert Conservation Area or the West Mojave planning area. The West Mojave Plan 

proposes the deletion of the Darwin Falls ACEC. 

D.1.9 Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area (ACEC 22) (25,695 acres) 

The CDCA Plan of 1980 designated lands north of California City in Kern County as an 

ACEC and a Research Natural Area. A management plan for the ACEC, prepared under 

authority of the Sikes Act, was approved in 1988. The ACEC is jointly managed by the BLM, 

CDFG and the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, a non–profit group established to acquire 

and manage lands for protection of the desert tortoise. 

The ACEC for the Desert Tortoise Natural Area would be expanded to include lands 

acquired by the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee outside the existing boundaries. The ACEC 

would also be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area and the FremontKramer tortoise DWMA, and all conservation measures applicable to public lands within the 

conservation area and the tortoise DWMA would apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.10 Fossil Falls (ACEC 10) (1,667 acres) 

The Fossil Falls ACEC was established in 1980 to protect prehistoric values. A 

management plan was approved in 1986. The Proposed Plan would amend the ACEC 

management plan by recognizing the provisions applicable to the Mohave ground squirrel 

Conservation Area. 

D.1.11 Great Falls Basin (ACEC 12) (9,726 acres) 

The Great Falls Basin ACEC management plan was prepared in 1987 in cooperation with 

the CDFG under the Sikes Act. The ACEC adjoins the Indian Joe Canyon Ecological Reserve 

and the northern portion is within the Argus Range Wilderness. The southern portion is within a 

Wilderness Study Area. The entire western boundary is contiguous with the China Lake Naval 

Air Weapons Station. 

The ACEC protects unique and valuable wildlife and scenic resources. Foremost among 

these are the dozens of seeps and springs that serve as habitat for the threatened Inyo California 

towhee. Designated Critical Habitat is present within the ACEC. In addition, large populations 
Appendices 

of quail and chuckar are present, as is a remnant population of bighorn sheep. Raptors nesting 

within the ACEC include golden eagle, prairie falcon, and long-eared owl. Potential habitat 

exists for the Panamint alligator lizard. 

The ACEC management plan would be amended to prohibit travel on roads previously 

designated as open but now part of Wilderness as directed by Congress, and to recognize the 

provisions applicable to the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area. In addition, all of the 

ACEC would fall within the proposed Argus Range Key Raptor Area. 

D.1.12 Harper Dry Lake (ACEC 37) (475 acres) 

The Harper Dry Lake ACEC was established to protect the remnant marshes at the 

southwestern edge of Harper Dry Lake. The marsh and alkali wetland habitat hold potential for 

discovery of several rare plant species. The playa bordering the marshes supported nesting 

Western snowy plovers in the past and these birds were present and probably nesting in 2001 and 

2004. 

The 1982 management plan for the Harper Dry Lake ACEC would be amended to 

incorporate provisions of the West Mojave Plan concerning conservation of the Western snowy 

plover and rare alkali wetland plant species. 

Recent improvements to the Harper Dry Lake ACEC include provision of surface water 

to the remnant marsh, and establishment of a parking area, kiosks, and restrooms. In order to 

accommodate these facilities, BLM would change the existing ACEC boundary by including 110 

acres of public lands on the south boundary and deleting 110 acres on the northern boundary 

(Map 2-5). The southern expansion includes the Watchable Wildlife Site improvements and the 

northern deletion contains barren lakebed. 

Specific changes to the management plan are provided below: 

On page 1, Section A. Purpose. Add as a new second paragraph: 

Management of the Harper Dry Lake ACEC will implement provisions of the West Mojave Plan 

regarding conservation of plant and animal species. 

On page 1, Section B. Management Objective: Add a new second and third paragraph: 

The West Mojave Plan has identified Harper Dry Lake as an area important for conservation of 

nesting habitat for the Western snowy plover. Management of the marsh and adjacent playa will 

include measures to protect Western snowy plover nesting areas and to reduce human disturbance 

to nest sites during the breeding season. 

The West Mojave Plan also recognizes Harper Dry Lake as an area where several restricted-range 

alkali wetland species may be discovered. Management of the ACEC will include botanical 

surveys for alkali wetland plants and incorporation of conservation measures for the plants and 

their habitat if new occurrences are located. 
Appendices 

On page 9, under Section C. Resource Summary: Add the following new fourth 

paragraph: 

Harper Dry Lake is recognized as a Key Raptor Area by the BLM, which designated 223 such 

areas nationwide. Key Raptor Areas are places known to be significant habitats for selected 

species of birds of prey, and Harper Dry Lake is one of seven Key Raptor Areas in the California 

desert. The species known to utilize the habitat at Harper Dry Lake are northern harrier, shorteared owl, ferruginous hawk and long-eared owl. 

On page 9, under Section C. Resource Summary: Add the following new sixth paragraph: 

The alkali wetland community bordering Harper Dry Lake holds potential for discovery of several 

rare and restricted-range plant species, including, but not limited to: 

Alkali mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) 

Black sedge (Schoenus nigricans) 

Cooper rush (Juncus cooperi) 

Hot springs fimbristylis (Fimbristylis thermalis) 

Lancaster milkvetch (Astragalus preussii var. laxiflorus) 

Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii) 

Parish’s phacelia (Phacelia parishii) 

Parish’s popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys parishii) 

Parry’s saltbush (Atriplex parishii)

Salt Springs checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) 

On page 11, under the Section on Planned Actions, part A. Physical Actions, add new 

numbers 6 and 7 as follows: 

6. Goal: Protect Western snowy plover nest sites during the breeding season. 

 

Action: Post signs and restrict human access to all areas within a 1/8 mile radius of 

known or presumed nest sites during the period April 1- August 1 of each year that the 

Western snowy plover is observed to establish nesting territories. 

7. Goal: Protect newly detected occurrences of rare and restricted range alkali wetland plant 

species. 

 Action: Post signs restricting human and vehicle intrusion onto occupied habitat. 

On page 15, Section A (Monitoring), add the following new final paragraph: 

A raptor census will be conducted of the Harper Dry Lake Key Raptor Area every five years, 

subject to available funds. Information will be stored in the BLM nationwide database of Key 

Raptor Areas. 

D.1.13 Jawbone/Butterbredt (ACEC 20) (187,486 acres) 

The 1982 Sikes Act Plan for the Jawbone/Butterbredt ACEC addressed the Sierra/ 

Mojave/ Tehachapi ecotone Wildlife Habitat Management Area, established as a “Special Area” 
Appendices 

by the CDCA Plan. The ACEC plan incorporated all of the Rudnick Common Grazing 

Allotment and the vehicle management boundary agreement between the BLM and the Rudnick 

Estate Trust. Routes of travel were designated for the ACEC, which includes both designated 

Wilderness and the Dove Springs and Jawbone Canyon Open Areas. The Pacific Crest Trail 

crosses the ACEC as well. 

The ACEC was established to manage and protect significant cultural and wildlife values 

of this transition zone between the mountains and the northern portion of the West Mojave 

planning. Among the wildlife habitats present are Butterbredt Springs, an important migratory 

bird stopover site, habitat for the yellow-eared pocket mouse in Kelso Valley, and the raptor and 

vulture migratory corridor between the Kern River Valley and the Mojave River. The West 

Mojave endemic plant, Kelso Creek monkeyflower, has nearly its entire range located within the 

ACEC. Protection of the Bendire’s thrasher, Mohave ground squirrel, yellow-eared pocket 

mouse and Kelso Creek monkeyflower would be added as specific objectives of the ACEC 

management plan. 

 The Proposed Plan would establish three new conservation areas within the ACEC 

boundaries: the Mohave ground squirrel, Kelso Creek monkeyflower, and Bendire’s thrasher 

conservation areas. All provisions of the West Mojave Plan applicable to these conservation 

areas will be applicable to the ACEC, including the 1% limitation on allowable ground 

disturbance and the requirement for a 5:1 mitigation fee ratio. 

Bendire’s Thrasher: The Bendire’s Thrasher Conservation Area would consist of 7,678 

acres of public land within the identified habitat of 16,273 acres. Public lands would be 

consolidated through land exchanges, if the private landowners were willing. The existing route 

designation for the Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC would remain in place. Vegetation harvesting 

would be prohibited within the conservation area. 

Monitoring provisions (M-10) would establish baseline numbers of Bendire’s thrashers, 

utilizing the methodology established in 1985–86 and employed in 2001, within three years for 

the conservation area. Future monitoring would be habitat-based, with the objective of detecting 

substantial changes in vegetation and ground disturbance. 

Adaptive management (A-8) would include adjustments to the conservation area 

boundaries based on thee results of botanical and wildlife monitoring studies. 

Kelso Creek Monkeyflower: BLM would establish a conservation area for the Kelso 

Creek monkeyflower, a western Mojave Desert endemic, on public lands within the range of this 

species. A total of 1,870 acres of public land in several parcels with occupied and potential 

habitat would be designated. Conservation prescriptions are: 

1. Maintain regional rangeland health standards. Direct grazing away from occupied 

habitat. 

2. Designate vehicle routes of travel. The existing routes designated for the JawboneButterbredt ACEC will be used unless monitoring reveals the need for change in 
Appendices 

areas of occupied habitat. 

3. Require botanical surveys for projects on public lands. Require avoidance of Kelso 

Creek monkeyflower occurrences. 

Monitoring of the habitat will play a key role in the conservation strategy for Kelso 

Creek monkeyflower. Monitoring prescriptions are: 

• (M-34) Continue surveys on public land identified as potential habitat. Document any 

spillover impacts to public lands from private lands. 

• (M-35) BLM will make a determination of regional rangeland health standards on public 

lands in the Rudnick common allotment within five years of Plan approval. 

Adaptive management prescriptions are: 

• (A-32) Adjust boundaries of conservation area based on survey results. 

• (A-33) Change route designation as necessary to protect occupied habitat. 

• (A-34) Adjustments grazing practices and Allotment Management Plans in Kelso Valley 

will be made as necessary based on the results of the rangeland health determinations. 

• (A-35) Pursue land purchase or exchange. 

• Fence BLM/private property boundaries if spillover impacts are evident. 

D.1.14 Juniper Flats (ACEC 45) (2,528 acres) 

The CDCA Plan designated an ACEC for the Juniper Flats Cultural Area in 1980. A 

management plan was prepared in 1988. The foothill area south of Apple Valley containing 

springs and riparian habitat in a dense stand of junipers was an important Native American 

habitation and special use site. 

 Juniper Flats also provides important habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and the gray 

vireo, two unlisted species proposed for protection in the West Mojave Plan. Conservation of 

these species will be added as a goal of the ACEC management plan. The Willow fire in 2000 

burned over the entire ACEC, leading to a temporary closure of the area until vegetative 

recovery had begun. Juniper Flats is an important equestrian riding area and provides access to 

the hot springs along Deep Creek on the San Bernardino National Forest. 

 The Proposed Plan would allow construction of a multi-use trailhead within the ACEC, 

sufficient to allow parking and staging facilities for equestrian users of all recreation lands in the 

area. As a result of public comment on the Draft EIR/S, the route network for the Juniper 

subregion, including the ACEC has been modified. The ACEC Plan will adopt the route 

network changes incorporated in the Approved Plan and Record of Decision for the West 

Mojave Plan. 

D.1.15 Last Chance Canyon (ACEC 21) (5,913 acres) 
Appendices 

 The CDCA Plan designated Last Chance Canyon in the El Paso Mountains in 1980. A 

Plan Amendment in 1984 adjusted the boundaries to include additional prehistoric sites. This 

amendment implemented a recommendation of the ACEC management plan, which was 

completed in 1982. The archaeological sites are part of a larger archaeological district placed 

on the National Register of Historic Places in 1971. 

The Proposed Plan would adopt the 1985-87 route designations for this area, except for 

the east access to Mesa Springs, which was recommended for closure by the 1982 ACEC 

management plan. A Record of Decision for the Western Mojave Desert Off Road Vehicle 

Designation Project approved this network in June 2003. This network would be effective on an 

interim basis, until the completion of a collaborative and community-based program to develop a 

revised motorized vehicle access network for the El Paso Mountains, including all of the Last 

Chance Canyon ACEC outside wilderness. Participants in this effort would include the City of 

Ridgecrest, Kern County, BLM and interested stakeholders. When it is completed, the revised 

network for the El Paso Mountains would be incorporated into the CDCA and West Mojave 

Plans through a plan amendment. 

The ACEC would be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area, and all 

conservation measures applicable to public lands within the CA will apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.16 Manix (ACEC 85) (2,897 acres) 

The Manix ACEC, located about 20 miles northeast of Barstow along the Mojave River, 

was established in 1990 by the BLM to protect paleontological and cultural resources. This site 

also contains blowsand habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard and the terminus of the Mojave 

Road. No management plan has been prepared for this ACEC. 

The Proposed Plan would designate public lands along the Mojave River within the 

ACEC as a conservation area for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, and all provisions of the West 

Mojave Plan applicable to conservation areas would apply. The 1985-1987 route designations 

for this area, as approved in June 2003, apply to this ACEC. 

 

D.1.17 Mojave Fishhook Cactus (ACEC 77) (628 acres) 

A 1984 CDCA Plan Amendment established the Mojave fishhook cactus ACEC, and a 

management plan was completed in 1990. The ACEC is in two separate parcels in the Brisbane 

Valley. The purpose of the ACEC is to protect the yellow-spined form of the Mojave fishhook 

cactus. Subsequent studies have shown that this area may be important to the Mohave 

monkeyflower as well. 

The 1990 management plan designated routes for the ACEC but deferred a Plan 

Amendment on the route designation. The Proposed Plan would incorporate this route network 

into the CDCA Plan. The network closes the ACEC to motorized travel except for the road in 

Section 4 formerly numbered SV 2120. In addition, protection of the Mohave monkeyflower 
Appendices 

and its habitat would be added as a goal of the ACEC management plan. 

The multiple use classification for the ACEC would change from Unclassified to L for 

the northern parcel and from M to L for the southern parcel. 

 The Proposed Plan proposes the designation of Brisbane Valley as a tortoise Special 

Review Area, where additional take-avoidance measures would be implemented to prevent 

injury or deaths of desert tortoises. The entire Mojave fishhook cactus ACEC would be subject 

to these provisions. 

D.1.18 Rainbow Basin – Owl Canyon (ACEC 39) (4,087 acres) 

The 1991 management plan for the Rainbow Basin – Owl Canyon ACEC addressed both 

the ACEC and certain surrounding lands, collectively the Rainbow Basin planning area (RBPA). 

 The management plan designated motorized vehicle routes within the RBPA as open or closed 

and made recommendations for campground and trail improvements and closure of the natural 

area to target shooting. Hunting is allowed. 

Within the ACEC are two campgrounds, a scenic loop drive, hiking trails and an 

interpretive trail. The area is popular with visitors who come to see the colored geological 

formations. 

The June 2003 Western Mojave Desert Off Road Vehicle Designation Project did not 

propose any route changes within the ACEC, but proposed changes on lands north of the ACEC 

but within the RBPA. This area is part of the Coolgardie Mesa conservation area and ACEC. 

Routes within the Coolgardie Mesa ACEC would be limited to graded/ drained/ natural surface 

streets and roads and rough bladed or two-track surface routes shown on BLM’s Cuddeback 

Lake (1997) and Soda Mountains (2000) Desert Access Guides. This action would close about 

ten links between regional routes in order to reduce disturbance to the federally endangered Lane 

Mountain milkvetch. In addition, parts of the RBPA outside the ACEC would be withdrawn 

from mineral entry (P-31). Protection of the Lane Mountain milkvetch would be added as a 

primary goal of the Natural Area Management Plan on page 4, Section B. 

The ACEC would protect two nest sites for the prairie falcon. Continued protection of 

the nesting areas would be added as a goal for the management plan. 

The ACEC would be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area and the 

Superior-Cronese DWMA, and all conservation measures applicable to public lands within the 

conservation area and DWMA will apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.19 Red Mountain Spring (ACEC 26) (717 acres) 

The Red Mountain Spring ACEC was designated by the CDCA Plan to protect 

prehistoric values. It was formerly called Squaw Spring. 
Appendices 

A 1982 Plan Amendment listed this area as closed to vehicle travel. A management plan 

was completed in 1987. The Proposed Plan would adopt the route designations specified in the 

ACEC management plan. 

The West Mojave CDCA Plan Amendment would also formally rename this ACEC Red 

Mountain Spring. 

The ACEC would be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area and the 

Fremont-Kramer tortoise DWMA, and all conservation measures applicable to public lands 

within the conservation area and DWMA will apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.20 Rodman Mountains Cultural Area (ACEC 84) (6,204 acres) 

The CDCA Plan Amendment for 1988 designated parts of the Rodman Mountains as an 

ACEC to protect cultural resources. Most of this area is within the Rodman Mountains 

Wilderness. Portions outside the wilderness are part of the Ord-Rodman route designation 

subregion. The ACEC also contains raptor nests and limited desert tortoise habitat. No 

management plan has been prepared. 

Most of the ACEC would be included in the Ord-Rodman tortoise DWMA, and all 

conservation measures applicable to public lands within the DWMA would apply to the ACEC. 

D.1.21 Rose Springs (ACEC 7) (859 acres) 

An area surrounding Rose Springs in Inyo County was designated as an ACEC by the 

CDCA Plan to protect prehistoric values. Access is limited by a gate, which has been vandalized 

in the past. 

A management plan was prepared in 1985. It recommended closure of the ACEC to 

motorized vehicles. Access is via a transmission line road and the Los Angeles Aqueduct road. 

The ACEC will be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area, and all 

conservation measures applicable to public lands within the conservation area would apply to the 

ACEC. 

D.1.22 Sand Canyon (ACEC 11) (2,609 acres) 

The Sand Canyon ACEC was established to protect riparian habitat and wildlife. 

Inventories have shown it to be one of the most diverse areas in all the West Mojave for species 

of small mammals and to support a wide variety of reptiles and birds. Two species nearly 

endemic to the West Mojave are found within the ACEC: the Ninemile Canyon phacelia and the 

yellow-eared pocket mouse. The riparian habitat is an important stopover site for migratory 

birds, including the willow flycatcher. 

The 1989 Sand Canyon ACEC management plan would be amended to incorporate 
Appendices 

provisions of the Proposed Plan for conservation of specific plants and animals. Specific 

wording changes follow. 

On page 1, Introduction, Section A (Purpose and Objectives), add the following language 

as a new second paragraph: 

Management of the Sand Canyon ACEC will implement provisions of the West Mojave Plan 

regarding conservation of plant and animal species. 

On page 2, Section B ( Management Framework), add a new paragraph after the 

paragraph numbered 8: 

9. The Sand Canyon ACEC is part of the system of conservation areas designated in the West 

Mojave Plan for protection of plant and animal species. The West Mojave Plan is an interagency 

Habitat Conservation Plan allowing incidental take permits to be issued to local jurisdictions for 

projects on private land under the state and federal endangered species acts. The West Mojave 

Plan is dependent on resource management within the ACEC for issuance of permits for certain 

species. 

On page 20, Section H (Wildlife), under 2, other species of special concern, add the 

following paragraph: 

The yellow-eared pocket mouse was detected in Sand Canyon in 1990. This rodent is a West 

Mojave endemic with a very restricted range in Kern and Inyo counties. It is a BLM sensitive 

species and is subject to the management prescriptions of the West Mojave Plan.

On page 31, Section E, the goal describing protection and enhancement of wildlife 

resources, add a new paragraph: 

23. Action: Conduct a small mammal trapping survey, subject to available funds, to determine the 

acreage of occupied habitat of the yellow-eared pocket mouse (Perognathus xanthonotus). 

Discussion: The yellow-eared pocket mouse is a West Mojave endemic discovered in Sand 

Canyon in 1990. Information is needed on its distribution and relative abundance within the 

ACEC in order to insure proper management of its habitat. 

D.1.23 Short Canyon (ACEC 81) (754 acres) 

The Short Canyon ACEC was established by an amendment to the CDCA Plan in 1988. 

A management plan was prepared in 1990. The purpose of the ACEC is to protect the unusual 

vegetation and diverse flora. The primary management action was to exclude grazing from the 

ACEC. This measure has been implemented through fencing and placement of cattle guards. 

Most of the ACEC lies within the Owens Peak Wilderness. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the Short Canyon ACEC management plan would be amended 

to incorporate provisions of the West Mojave Plan for conservation of specific plants and 

animals. These changes are presented below. 
Appendices 

On page 2, Introduction, Section A (Purpose and Objectives), add the following language 

as a new second paragraph: 

Management of the Short Canyon ACEC will implement provisions of the West Mojave Plan 

regarding conservation of plant and animal species. 

On page 6, under section F (Vegetation), replace the third paragraph with the following 

text: 

Short Canyon is known to support occurrences of Charlotte’s phacelia (Phacelia nashiana), a 

limited-range plant whose distribution falls almost entirely within the boundaries of the West 

Mojave Plan. In addition, a significant population of the state-listed Mojave tarplant (Deinandra 

[Hemizonia] mohavensis) was detected in the canyon in 1998.

 

On page 15, under Section J, the goal describing the monitoring plan, add a new 

paragraph: 

17. Action: Monitoring of the Mojave tarplant numbers and acreage will be conducted every five 

years. The baseline numbers and acreage should be established in the first year of implementation 

of the West Mojave Plan. 

D.1.24 Steam Well (ACEC 25) (41 acres) 

The Steam Well ACEC protects historic and prehistoric values, primarily petroglyphs. 

The ACEC lies within the Golden Valley Wilderness in San Bernardino County. 

The ACEC would be included in the Mohave ground squirrel Conservation Area, and all 

conservation measures applicable to public lands within the conservation area would apply to the 

ACEC.

D.1.25 Trona Pinnacles (ACEC 16) (4,055 acres) 

The 1989 management plan for the Trona Pinnacles ACEC focused on protection of the 

outstanding scenery and geological features of this area ten miles south of Trona. The site is 

used for commercial filming and sightseeing. At least one prairie falcon nest site was reported 

within the ACEC, but falcons have not been recorded there for the past ten years. 

The Proposed Plan would adopt the 1985-1987 route designations for the Trona 

Pinnacles ACEC, as approved in June 2003 by the Western Mojave Desert Off Highway Vehicle 

Designaation Project. No other changes to the ACEC plan are proposed. 

D.1.26 Western Rand Mountains (ACEC 2) (17,877 acres) 

 A management plan for the Western Rand Mountains ACEC was completed in 1993. 

This plan, called the Rand Mountains Fremont Valley Management Plan, included surrounding 

lands, such as Koehn Lake and lands to the northeast. The Western Rand Mountains ACEC 
Appendices 

formerly supported high densities of desert tortoises, though tortoise numbers have declined 

substantially from historical levels. The ACEC is believed to support the Mohave ground 

squirrel, and is known to harbor the burrowing owl and the LeConte’s thrasher. 

 The ACEC plan was prepared in cooperation with the CDFG under authority of the Sikes 

Act. It received a “no jeopardy” Biological Opinion from the USFWS. 

The plan recommended five amendments to the CDCA Plan: 

1. Expand the West Rand ACEC by 13,120 acres. 

2. Change Class M lands in the ACEC expansion and adjacent alluvial fan areas to Class L. 

3. Designate 32,590 acres as withdrawn from mineral location and entry. 

4. Designate open routes of travel. 

5. Designate lands southeast of Red Mountain on both sides of the Randsburg-Mojave Road 

as Category 1 desert tortoise habitat. 

The Rand Mountains Fremont Valley Management Plan reduced the number of open 

routes by 90%, although compliance has been a problem. Within the ACEC, open and closed 

routes of travel were identified on the ground with open and closed signs. All open routes were 

signed and many, but not all, closed routes were signed as closed. In selected areas, hay bails 

and plastic safety fencing have been used to stop motorcycle use on closed routes or to stop 

cross-country travel. Hay bails and fencing have been more effective in reducing noncompliance that signs alone. 

The plan also established a goal of ranger patrols eight hours per week plus eight hours 

each weekend from March 1 to June 30, September 1 to November 1, and holiday weekends. 

Ranger staffing levels have not increased sufficiently to fully achieve this goal over the entire 

period since the plan was approved in 1993. Over the past year, one Ranger was assigned 

primary patrol responsibilities for the Rand Mountains, Fremont Valley and the Desert Tortoise 

Natural Area. Patrol effort for the region is now meeting the management goal.

The Proposed Plan includes these recommendations to implement the management plan. 

 In addition, all of the study area except Koehn Lake and disturbed areas near Red Mountain 

would become part of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA and the Mohave Ground Squirrel 

Conservation Area. All conservation measures applicable to public lands within the 

conservation area and DWMA will apply to the ACEC. 

D.2 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PROPOSED FOR EACH NEW 

ACEC 

A detailed description of the management program to be applied within each of the four 

proposed tortoise DWMAs can be found in Chapter 2. Management actions proposed for other 

newly proposed ACECs follow. 
Appendices 

D.2.1 Bendire’s Thrasher Conservation Area (25,129 Acres) 

The conservation strategy for Bendire’s thrasher is based on conservation of habitat on 

public lands where thrashers were seen in 2001 or were abundant in the mid 1980s and 

conditions appear unchanged. Four public lands conservation areas would be established. These 

are within Joshua Tree National Park (106,710 acres), the Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC (7,678 

acres), northern Lucerne Valley (9,805 acres) and Coolgardie Mesa (7,646 acres). Prescriptions 

for management of the conservation areas are given below for northern Lucerne Valley and 

Coolgardie Mesa. Prescriptions for Jawbone-Butterbredt are provided above in changes of 

existing ACEC management. No change in management is needed within Joshua Tree National 

Park. 

Designate 9,805 acres of public land as an ACEC within the 11,440-acre polygon of 

occupied habitat (B-3). BLM would retain lands within the Town of Apple Valley sphere of 

influence. Motorized vehicle routes would follow the June 30, 2003 designations for this area 

within the Granite subregion. Vegetation harvesting would be prohibited. New allowable 

ground disturbance would be limited to 1% and the 5:1 mitigation fee ration would apply to 

projects on public lands. 

Monitoring provisions (M-10) would establish baseline numbers of Bendire’s thrashers, 

utilizing the methodology established in 1985–86 and employed in 2001, within three years for 

the conservation area. Future monitoring would be habitat-based, with the objective of detecting 

substantial changes in vegetation and ground disturbance. 

Adaptive management (A-8) would include adjustments to the conservation area 

boundaries based on survey results. 

D.2.2 Carbonate Endemic Plants Research Natural Area ACEC (5,155 acres) 

BLM would designate public lands within an area east of Highway 18 in the foothills of 

the San Bernardino Mountains as a Research Natural Area and manage the land as an ACEC to 

protect four federally listed and one unlisted species of plants, as well as the San Diego horned 

lizard, gray vireo, and bighorn sheep. Lands within the proposed ACEC would be subject to a 

standard of no surface occupancy, in order to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of 

lands under the surface mining regulations (43CFR 3809). Private lands within the proposed 

ACEC may be acquired or exchanged for other BLM lands in Lucerne Valley. The acquired 

lands would be withdrawn from mineral entry. BLM would change the CDCA Plan multiple use 

class from M to L. 

(P-1) The West Mojave Plan will implement provisions of the Carbonate Habitat 

Management Strategy (CHMS). The CHMS is a cooperative plan developed by the Forest 

Service, BLM, and mining and environmental stakeholders. It includes very specific criteria for 

conservation, land acquisition, and mining. 

(HCA-3) Conserved federal lands (4,393 acres) within the carbonate habitat management 
Appendices 

zone described in the CHMS would be designated as the Carbonate Endemic Plants Research 

Natural Area ACEC (see Map 2-9). The boundaries would adjoin a complementary Research 

Natural Area proposed for the San Bernardino National Forest. 

A Research Natural Area means an area that is established and maintained for the 

primary purpose of research and education because the land has one or more of the following 

characteristics (43 CFR 8223): 

• A typical representation of a common plant or animal association; 

• An unusual plant or animal association; 

• A threatened or endangered plant or animal species; 

• A typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features; or 

• Outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water features. 

The proposed RNA meets the characteristics above because it supports an unusual 

geologic, soil and plant association and because it contains habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. Considerable research has been conducted in this area, including botanical 

surveys, geologic studies, genetic studies of the carbonate endemic plants, and use of the area by 

bighorn. 

No other carbonate or limestone geologic deposits are conserved within the West Mojave 

Desert. All of the commercial grade carbonate deposits are mined, and most of the secondary 

deposits are planned for mining in the future. Some limestone deposits are protected within the 

Mojave National Preserve, but these do not support threatened and endemic plant species. 

The range of the carbonate endemic plants is limited and fragmented, both from natural 

patterns of occurrence and past impacts from mining. A RNA on BLM or Forest Service lands 

alone is not large enough to provide researchers with the ability to study a relatively intact 

habitat block covering the range of elevations, soil types, geologic substrates and plant 

communities. The BLM portion of the RNA includes the lowest elevation occurrences of all 

four listed plants, as well as the desert plant communities and lower grade limestone substrates 

where the plants occur. The Forest Service lands provide the high-quality limestone, upper 

elevations and montane plant communities. 

The ACEC would consist of the area north of Monarch Flat, the Blackhawk slide and the 

area surrounding Round Mountain. Activities within the ACEC would be required to be 

compatible with protection of the listed carbonate endemic plants. 

Management prescriptions for the proposed ACEC are: 

1. All existing routes of travel on public land within the proposed ACEC would be 

designated as open, limited or closed. The boundary road defining the perimeter of the 

ACEC is an open route. Most other existing routes within the ACEC are limited or 

closed. These internal routes cross designated critical habitat for the listed plants, but are 

open for limited use to allow access to claimholders, researchers and other permitted 
Appendices 

events or activities. Permitted events, such as dual sport rides, can occur but would 

require monitoring and stipulations to avoid areas of botanical sensitivity adjacent to 

roads. Route designation Maps 70 and 73 illustrate the proposed network accessing the 

ACEC and within the ACEC. 

2. The multiple use class for lands within the ACEC would change M to L (HCA-9). 

3. Acquisition of private lands (762 acres) is an objective of the ACEC. Three options are 

presented for acquisition of private land and relinquishment of claims. All three methods 

may be implemented to achieve the objective. Acquired lands would be withdrawn from 

mineral entry. 

• Option 1. The BLM would initiate or participate in a land exchange for the highest 

priority private lands. Public lands bordering the rail spur south of Lucerne Valley would 

be exchanged for private lands east of Highway 18. The lands along the railway would 

then be available to mining interests or industrial uses, and the acquired lands east of 

Highway 18 would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

• Option 2. Mining companies may acquire lands within the ACEC as mitigation for use 

of lands west of Highway 18. "Acquisition" can include purchase of mining claims on 

public lands as well as purchase of fee title to private lands. The claims or title would be 

conveyed to the BLM, and the acquired lands would be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

• Option 3. BLM and Forest Service would prepare an application for Congressional 

funding through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Any funds appropriated 

through this process would be used to purchase private fee lands within the proposed 

ACEC and the National Forest. Acquisition funding would also be sought from the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Section 6 grants to states. Acquired lands would be unavailable for 

mineral entry. 

4. Fire suppression and prescribed fires would not be allowed unless they are used to sustain 

natural communities. 

5. Pest control would not be allowed unless it can be shown to be necessary to sustain 

natural communities. 

6. Fencing along the eastern boundary of the proposed ACEC would be installed to prevent 

cattle from trampling the listed plants on small portions of the Rattlesnake allotment and 

to prevent cattle from entering Forest lands near Terrace Springs. The fencing would be 

constructed along the east side of Arrastre Canyon. 

7. Under provisions of the mining law and regulations (43CFR 3809), all plans of operation 

must comply with standards set in the applicable agency land use plan. Within the 

ACEC, no surface occupancy would be allowed because of the potential for undue 

degradation to occupied habitat and designated critical habitat. Surface mining would 
Appendices 

not be consistent with the objectives of a Research Natural Area. 

8. Reclamation and revegetation standards specified in the CHMS (Appendix S) would be 

required for reclamation or restoration projects within the ACEC. 

D.2.3 Coolgardie Mesa ACEC 

 The Coolgardie Mesa ACEC would lie within the Superior-Cronese DWMA and contain 

conservation areas for the desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, Bendire’s thrasher and Lane 

Mountain milkvetch. It would serve as a multispecies reserve for these four species as well as 

the Barstow woolly sunflower. 

 Applicable management within the Coolgardie Mesa ACEC would include the 1% 

limitation on allowable ground disturbance and 5:1 mitigation fee ratio found in all conservation 

areas as well as: 

1. All provisions for conservation and management of the desert tortoise. 

2. All provisions for conservation and management of the Mohave ground squirrel. 

3. Prohibition of vegetative harvesting. 

4. (P-28) Designated routes of travel. Fencing of the approved routes would be 

installed as necessary, with signs advising the public that the area is closed to vehicle 

travel because of endangered species conservation. 

5. (P-30) All lands within the Conservation Area will be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

 Claimholders with valid existing rights will be compensated. 

6. (P-32) Claimholders should be notified of the presence of endangered plants. 

Restrictions on casual use that involves ground disturbance within the Conservation 

Area would be developed as necessary. 

7. (P-26) BLM would require botanical surveys prior to issuing any use permits. No 

permits would be issued which allow take of Lane Mountain milkvetch (projects 

would have to be relocated). 

8. (P-27) No grazing would be permitted within the conservation area. 

9. (P-29) All private lands would be acquired, to the extent feasible and from willing 

sellers only. 

Monitoring provisions (M-10) would establish baseline numbers of Bendire’s thrashers, 

utilizing the methodology established in 1985–86 and employed in 2001, within three years for 

the conservation area. Future monitoring would be habitat-based, with the objective of detecting 

substantial changes in vegetation and ground disturbance. 

Monitoring for Lane Mountain milkvetch (M-37) would consist of an annual review of 

compliance with HCP protection measures, with an objective of detecting new disturbance in 

occupied habitat. An annual report on the progress of acquisitions would be submitted to 

USFWS (M-38). 

Adaptive management (A-8, A-36)) would include adjustments to the conservation area 
Appendices 

boundaries based on new surveys. A new conservation area would be established for Lane 

Mountain milkvetch if a significant population were located outside the existing conservation 

areas. New conservation areas or additions to existing conservation areas would be withdrawn 

from mineral entry. 

D.2.4 Kelso Creek Monkeyflower ACEC (1,870 acres) 

Prescriptions for this new conservation area are found under the changes proposed for the 

Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC. 

D.2.5 Middle Knob ACEC 

The BLM will designate the Middle Knob area as a new Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. Management of this area will include requirements for avoidance of all covered 

species of plants and animals, designation of vehicle routes of travel to ensure compatibility with 

the purposes of the ACEC and with the Pacific Crest Trail, and a prohibition on new wind 

energy development on public lands. Private land restrictions will include a requirement for 

avoidance of any occurrence of the Kern buckwheat by any development proposed for the area. 

Surveys for flax-like monardella in suitable habitat would be required for any public 

ground-disturbing projects in the Middle Knob Conservation Area. 

 Within the ACEC, BLM will initiate a restoration project to reduce impacts and enhance 

habitat for the Kern buckwheat. This work will include: 

1. (P-24) Barriers to vehicles along the road adjoining occupied habitat. 

2. (P-25) Fencing on both sides of the road near the Sweet Ridge population. A vehicle 

turnaround and parking area would be restored so that traffic passes by, rather than on, 

the buckwheat habitat. 

 Monitoring for the ACEC will consist of: 

(M-26) Conduct raptor surveys within three years of Plan adoption to determine current 

activity at all nests present in 1979 and confirm the baseline numbers. 

(M-29) Update Key Raptor Area database at five year intervals. 

(M-36) For Kern buckwheat, perform an annual review of compliance with HCP 

protection measures, with an objective of detecting new disturbance in occupied habitat. 

D.2.6 Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard ACEC (28,193 acres and Dale Lake) 

Two separate regions would be designated as conservation areas for the Mojave fringetoed lizard and managed as ACECs. These are found along the Mojave River east of Barstow 

and in and adjacent to the Sheephole Wilderness east of Twentynine Palms. Three other ACECs 

(proposed at Pisgah and existing at Manix and Cronese Lakes) will serve to protect this species 
Appendices 

as well. 

 BLM would initiate the following conservation actions for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard: 

1. Retain public lands within the Mojave River wash. 

2. Designate a new conservation area for scattered parcels along the Mojave River. These 

lands total 28,193 acres. 

3. Change the CDCA MUC from Class M to L. 

4. Designate a new conservation area near Dale Lake consisting of public lands within the 

Sheephole Wilderness, and BLM managed lands adjacent to the wilderness and Joshua 

Tree National Park. 

D.2.7 Mojave Monkeyflower ACEC (47,057 acres) 

Conservation of Mojave monkeyflower is based on establishment of two areas that 

include the majority of the known populations. These reserves will become Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern on BLM-managed lands in the southern Brisbane Valley and near 

Daggett Ridge. 

Brisbane Valley: BLM would retain 16.5 sections of public land, comprising 

approximately 10,633 acres, between the Mojave River and Interstate 15. Prescriptions would 

include: 

1. Designation of routes of travel. 

2. Retention of public lands for conservation. The conservation area will be deleted from 

the lands available for exchange in the Land Tenure Adjustment program. 

3. Changing the CDCA MUC from Class M to L. 

4. Sheep grazing will be discontinued. 

Daggett Ridge: A second part of the Mohave Monkeyflower Conservation Area will 

include known occurrences west of the Newberry Mountains Wilderness near Daggett Ridge. 

This area of 36,424 acres is within the Ord-Rodman DWMA established for the protection of the 

desert tortoise. BLM will designate the conservation area as an ACEC. 

Within the Daggett Ridge portion of the conservation area, BLM will designate routes of 

travel with the goal of eliminating routes within washes, unnecessary parallel routes, and routes 

bisecting populations of Mohave monkeyflower. This network is contained within the 

Newberry-Rodman and Ord Mountains route designation subregions. New utilities locating 

within the existing corridor will be required to avoid monkeyflower occurrences to the maximum 

extent practicable and provide mitigation fees for compensation lands where avoidance is 

infeasible. 

D.2.8 Parish’s Phacelia ACEC (898 acres) 

BLM will establish a new ACEC for conservation of Parish’s phacelia northeast of 
Appendices 

Barstow along the Manix Trail. The plan would designate 898 acres as a conservation area for 

this species. Within the Parish’s Phacelia Conservation Area are 386 acres (43%) of private and 

512 acres (57%) of public land. Within the conservation area, vehicle travel on the dry lakes 

will be prohibited and acquisition of occupied habitat on private land will be pursued. Signs will 

be placed to indicate the boundaries of the ACEC. 

D.2.9 Pisgah ACEC (14,224 acres) 

A new BLM ACEC will be designated for a portion of the Pisgah Crater and surrounding 

area (Map 2-11). This crater and lava flow, an uncommon landform in the western Mojave 

Desert, is currently designated as a Research Natural Area. It contains lava tubes of several 

types, some of which are used as bat roosts. The mix of dark lava and white sand has resulted in 

interesting color adaptations in the reptiles and small mammal fauna, called cryptic coloration or 

background color matching. These white and dark forms occurring together represent a location 

of high genetic biodiversity within species. The ACEC would include areas where populations 

of crucifixion thorn, white-margined beardtongue, sand linanthus, and Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

occur. Desert tortoise also occurs in the area. 

 The Pisgah Crater was designated as a Research Natural Area by the 1980 CDCA Plan 

(page 127 and Map 17). The boundaries of the RNA extended into the Marine Corps base, 

following the lava flow. 

This ACEC would differ from others because of the existing land uses, which include 

mining, utility easements, rockhounding and competitive recreation events. Existing mineral 

extraction operations will continue, and the Johnson Valley to Parker vehicle race will be 

allowed on a specified route within the ACEC. New mining would be allowed, subject to the 1% 

limitation on new allowable ground disturbance and payment of the 5:1 mitigation fee amount 

ratio. 

Management prescriptions include: 

• Designate routes within the ACEC as open or closed and restore or block routes to be 

closed. 

• Change the CDCA multiple use class from M to L. 

• Acquire private parcels where white-margined beardtongue occurs within the proposed 

Pisgah ACEC if feasible. 

• Allow the Johnson Valley to Parker race with stipulations to protect biological resources. 

• Mining or other permitted uses would not be allowed to destroy or degrade the lava 

tubes.7 

• The existing mining operations at Pisgah Crater will not be restricted by these proposals. 

Monitoring would include (M-50) delineation of the blowsand habitat at Pisgah to better 

define occupied habitat for the fringe-toed lizard. For the white-margined beardtongue, (M-87) 

BLM or the Implementation Team would census known locations every three years. 
Appendices 

Adaptive management measures include a prohibition of vehicle traffic on conserved 

occupied habitat (A-48) for the fringe-toed lizard and adjustments based on the habitat 

delineation. Occurrences of the white-margined beardtongue would be fenced along the utility 

corridors if monitoring shows damage (A-89). 

D.2.10 West Paradise ACEC 

 The West Paradise ACEC would lie within the Superior-Cronese DWMA and contain 

conservation areas for the desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, and Lane Mountain 

milkvetch. It would serve as a multispecies reserve for these three species. 

 Applicable management within the West Paradise ACEC would include the 1% 

limitation on allowable ground disturbance and 5:1 mitigation fee ratio found in all conservation 

areas as well as: 

1. All provisions for conservation and management of the desert tortoise. 

2. All provisions for conservation and management of the Mohave ground squirrel. 

3. (P-28) Designated routes of travel. Fencing of the approved routes would be 

installed as necessary, with signs advising the public that the area is closed to vehicle 

travel because of endangered species conservation. 

4. (P-30) All lands within the Conservation Area will be withdrawn from mineral entry. 

 Claimholders with valid existing rights will be compensated. 

5. (P-29) All private lands would be acquired, to the extent feasible and from willing 

sellers only. 

6. (P-32) Claimholders should be notified of the presence of endangered plants. 

Restrictions on casual use that involves ground disturbance within the Conservation 

Area would be developed as necessary. 

7. (P-26) BLM would require botanical surveys prior to issuing any use permits. No 

permits would be issued which allow take of Lane Mountain milkvetch (projects 

would have to be relocated). 

8. (P-27) No grazing would be permitted within the conservation area. 

Monitoring for Lane Mountain milkvetch (M-37) would consist of an annual review of 

compliance with HCP protection measures, with an objective of detecting new disturbance in 

occupied habitat. An annual report on the progress of acquisitions would be submitted to 

USFWS (M-38). 

Adaptive management (A-36)) would include establishment of a new conservation area 

or adjustments to the two proposed conservation area boundaries based on new surveys. A new 

conservation area would be established for Lane Mountain milkvetch if a significant population 

were located outside the existing conservation areas. New conservation areas or additions to 

existing conservation areas would be withdrawn from mineral entry.
Appendices 

D. 3 EXISTING ACEC PLANS WHICH WOULD NOT BE 

CHANGED BY THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN 

D.3.1 Amboy Crater National Natural Landmark (ACEC 87) (679 acres) 

 An ACEC was designated at Amboy Crater by an amendment to the CDCA Plan in 1989. 

 This area is managed by the Needles Field Office, and contains an access road, parking area and 

rest rooms. 

D.3.2 Big Morongo Canyon (ACEC 50) (28,274 acres) 

The Big Morongo Canyon ACEC is managed as a wildlife reserve, with emphasis on 

strict protection of the flora and fauna. This desert oasis is known internationally for its bird 

diversity, and opportunities are provided for wildlife viewing and photography, including 

boardwalk trails, interpretive displays and brochures. Expansion of the ACEC in 1996 created a 

habitat linkage between the Little San Bernardino Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains, 

though several private parcels remain to be acquired. The ACEC is one of the West Mojave 

hotspots, and provides conservation for 14 covered species. 

The BLM’s Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office manages the Big Morongo Canyon 

ACEC. An amendment to the CDCA Plan covering public lands within the Coachella Valley, 

including Big Morongo Canyon ACEC, was completed in December 2002. This amendment did 

not change the boundaries of the ACEC, but it designated routes of travel for public lands. The 

Proposed Plan proposes no changes to the Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. 

D.3.3 Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings (ACEC 47) (186 acres) 

 The Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings Preserve was established to protect ancient 

vegetation in the Fry Valley, where creosote bushes have developed as clonal rings, attaining an 

age of up to 11,700 years. A management plan for this ACEC was approved in 1982. The 

CDFG owns 488 acres adjacent to the ACEC, managed as the King Clone Ecological Reserve. 

D.3.4 Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings (ACEC 46) (353 acres) 

 The CDCA Plan of 1980 established an ACEC for the unique clonal yucca rings found 

near the Fry Mountains within the Johnson Valley Open Area. The yucca plants are believed to 

have grown in a manner similar to the ancient creosote rings near Soggy Dry Lake and represent 

a stable, old plant community. A management plan was completed in 1982, and a Plan 

Amendment in 1984 adjusted the boundary along parcel lines to make it legally defensible. 

D.3.5 Whitewater Canyon (ACEC 49) (16,381 acres) 

The Whitewater Canyon ACEC straddles the West Mojave Plan boundary, with the upper 
Appendices 

elevations lying within the planning area. All of the ACEC within the West Mojave Plan lies 

within the San Gorgonio Wilderness. Wildlife protection is a goal of the ACEC Plan, and the 

ACEC protects a substantial herd of bighorn sheep and harbors nests of golden eagle and prairie 

falcon. Significant riparian areas are found in lower Whitewater Canyon (out of the West 

Mojave) and these are known to support the several covered species of riparian birds as well as 

the arroyo toad. Potential habitat exists for the triple-ribbed milkvetch within upper Whitewater 

Canyon. The Pacific Crest Trail and the California Riding and Hiking Trail cross the ACEC. 

The BLM’s Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office manages the Whitewater Canyon 

ACEC. An amendment to the CDCA Plan covering public lands within the Coachella Valley, 

including Whitewater Canyon ACEC, was approved in 2002. The Coachella Valley CDCA Plan 

Amendments did not change the boundaries of the Whitewater Canyon ACEC, but designated 

routes of travel for public lands. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX E 

WILDERNESS AREAS
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX E 

WILDERNESS AREAS 

Argus Range: This wilderness contains a 28-mile stretch of the Argus range, a long and 

narrow mountain chain along the west side of Panamint Valley. Elevations range from 2,800 

feet on the east side to more than 7,500 feet on the west side of the wilderness, which is adjacent 

to the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station. Steep mountain slopes and highly dissected 

canyons characterize the Argus Range. Several springs are located within this dry desert 

mountain range, providing water for a small population of desert bighorn sheep and critical 

habitat for the Inyo California towhee. At least three golden eagle territories, with five separate 

nest sites, have been identified. Remains of historic mining activity and a few prehistoric sites 

are scattered throughout the area. Vegetation types include creosote bush scrub on the lower 

slopes, scattered pinyon juniper woodland on the high slopes and relatively little vegetation on 

the steep mountain slopes and canyon walls. 

Bighorn Mountains: The rugged Bighorn Mountains in the north-central portion of this 

wilderness are the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Visitors can experience the rare 

ecological transition that occurs here, including yucca and Joshua trees on the desert floor and 

stands of Jeffrey pine at higher elevations, including the 7,500-foot high Granite Peak. Mule 

deer, mountain lion, bobcat and goldeneagles make their home among the Joshua trees and 

yucca and stands of Jeffrey pine in the remote, higher elevations. Resident and migratory birds 

rest along Rattlesnake Canyon Creek, which flows northward through the wilderness to Johnson 

Valley. This wilderness encompasses both BLM and Forest Service administered lands. 

Black Mountain Wilderness: This wilderness is a volcanic flow and mesa with a 

deposit of fine-grained dune sand in the southeast corner. Elevations range from 2,080 to 3,941 

feet at the summit of Black Mountain. Golden eagles and prairie falcons nest and forage in this 

area, which is also known for its occasional display of spring flowers. The wilderness contains 

significant prehistoric rock art. 

Bright Star: Kelso Peak and associated drainages to the north, south and east is 

surrounded by this wilderness. To the west, the Kelso Mountain system is contiguous with the 

Piute Mountain Range in the Sequoia National Forest. Vegetation varies: upper slopes of the 

5,000 foot Kelso Peak are dotted with pinyon pine and juniper trees; intervening slopes are 

brushy with large granite rock outcroppings; and the boulder-strewn valley supports dense stands 

of Joshua trees. The wilderness supports small numbers of Kelso Creek monkeyflower. The 

varied habitats of the Mojave Desert, Sierra Nevada, San Joaquin Valley and Transverse Ranges 

ecoregions allow for a wide diversity of wildlife. The entire wilderness is included within the 

BLM Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC, an area set aside for cultural and wildlife values. 

Cleghorn Lakes: Named for the dry lakes found near its center, this wilderness contains 

vastly different natural resources. The east portion is mountainous while the west portion is a 

vast alluvial slope or bajada. Elevations range from 1,400 feet at the desert floor to the rugged 
Appendices 

Bullion Mountains, which rise more than 4,100 feet across a 4-mile stretch. The Bullion 

Mountains include desert bighorn sheep habitat and desert tortoise can be found on the valley 

floor. Barrel cactus "gardens" and "smoke trees" inhabit some washes. The lakes offer 

occasional spring wildflower displays and crucifixion thorn has been found near the eastern edge 

of the wilderness boundary. 

Coso Range: This wilderness encompasses the northern section of the Coso Mountain 

Range, an area of extensive erosion revealing outstanding volcanic displays and numerous 

valleys and washes. From high points within the wilderness, most notably Joshua Flat, one can 

obtain outstanding views of the Owens Valley and the eastern Sierra Nevada range. Creosote 

bush scrub, Mojave mixed woody scruband large stands of Jushua trees are the primary 

vegetation in the area. Vermillion Canyon and Joshua Flat are two especially scenic areas within 

this wilderness. Cactus Flat and McCloud Flat are two areas of historic mining activity. 

Darwin Falls: Although named Darwin Falls Wilderness, the falls are under the 

administration of the adjoining Death Valley National Park. The Darwin Plateau and Darwin 

Hills form the landscape of this wilderness. The plateau, which is cut by numerous shallow 

depressions and canyons, displays a variety of volcanic rock faces and exposures. Vegetation is 

typical of a creosote bush scrub community with Joshua tree woodland at higher elevations. 

Wildlife species include nesting and foraging habitat for prairie falcon. 

El Paso Mountains: Numerous reddish-colored buttes and dark, uplifted volcanic mesas 

dissected by narrow canyons distinguish this wilderness. Badlands topography surrounds Black 

Mountain, its central feature. The most spectacular attribute of this area is the abundance of 

cultural sites. The southern portion of the wilderness is included in the Last Chance 

Archaeological District and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Wildlife 

includes abundant game birds (chuckar and quail), a significant concentration of nesting raptors, 

and the desert tortoise. Vegetation primarily consists of creosote bush scrub with Joshua Trees 

on the western side of the mountain. 

Golden Valley: The Golden Valley, for which this wilderness is named, is surrounded 

on either side by two distinct mountain ranges. The Lava Mountains stretch across the 

northwestern portion of the area, crowned by Dome Mountain at nearly 5,000 feet. This range is 

cut by several steep-walled canyons that reveal bands of multi-colored sedimentary rocks. The 

Almond Mountains, rising to an elevation of 4,500 feet, enclose the valley on the southeast. 

Golden Valley, which is known for its spectacular spring floral displays, lies between the two 

ranges. The ruggedness of these mountains have helped shelter the valley from human intrusion. 

The wilderness provides nesting and foraging habitat for raptors and habitat for the desert 

tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel. Vegetation consists primarily of creosote bush scrub 

community with Joshua Trees and numerous annuals. 

Grass Valley: Nearly three-quarters of this area consists of Grass Valley itself. This 

valley is the main topographic feature of the wilderness. A series of scattered hills, reddishbrown to yellow in appearance and gently rising to elevations from 200 to 600 feet above the 

desert valley floor, lie across the western portion of the area. Vegetation is typical of a creosote 
Appendices 

bush scrub community with a scattering of Joshua trees. Wildlife values include raptor foraging 

and desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

Kiavah: This wilderness encompasses the eroded hills, canyons and bajadas of the 

Scodie Mountains Unit within the Sequoia National Forest -- the southern extremity of the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains. A unique mixing of several different species of plants and animals occurs 

within the transition zone between the Mojave Desert and Sierra Nevada Mountains. Desert 

plants such as creosote bush, Joshua tree, burro bush and shadscale may be found in close 

association with pinyon pine, juniper, canyon oak and digger/grey pine. The varied vegetation 

provides habitat for a great diversity of wildlife over a small geographic area. Species of note 

include raptors, the yellow-eared pocket mouse, a variety of lizards and a number of migrant and 

resident bird species. This wilderness is part of a National Cooperative Land and Wildlife 

Management Area and the BLM Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC. 

Newberry Mountains: Noted for its rugged volcanic mountains and deep, maze-like 

canyons, the topography of the Newberry Mountains wilderness ranges from 2,200 feet in the 

north to 5,100 feet in the south. The unique desert features are the result of ancient volcanic 

activity. Desert bighorn sheep have historically traveled this area, and prairie falcons and golden 

eagles nest on the cliffs. Spring wildflower displays are likely along the west boundary. Small 

numbers of the Mojave monkeyflower are protected within the wilderness. 

Owens Peak: The majority of this wilderness is comprised of the rugged eastern face of 

the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Owens Peak, the high point of the southern Sierra Nevada, rises 

more than 8,400 feet. The mountainous terrain has deep, winding, open and expansive canyons, 

many which contain springs with extensive riparian vegetation. This area is a transition zone 

between the Great Basin, Mojave Desert and Sierra Nevada ecoregions. Vegetation varies 

considerably with a creosote desert scrub community on the bajadas, scattered yuccas, cacti, 

annuals, cottonwood and oak trees in the canyons and valleys and a juniper-pinyon woodland 

with sagebrush and grey pine on the upper elevations. Wildlife includes mule deer, golden 

eagle, with four recorded nesting territories, and prairie falcon. The Owens Peak wilderness 

protects eight southern Sierra Nevada endemic plant species, and its lower elevations contain 

occupied habitat for Charlotte’s phacelia and Ninemile Canyon phacelia. Evidence of 

occupation by prehistoric peoples has been found throughout the wilderness. The Pacific Crest 

Trail passes through the wilderness along its western boundary. 

Rodman Mountains: A series of ridges and valleys climbing from 2,000 feet to almost 

5,000 feet are the result of faults which cross this wilderness. A lava flow slices this area in two 

from northwest to southeast, forming a sloping mesa. Colorful escarpments, calico-colored 

mountains, maze-like canyons and broad, majestic bajadas come together here. Steep canyons 

and cliff-like walls form dry falls along deep drainage channels, creating cascades during heavy 

rain storms. More than a half dozen natural water tanks sit within the lava flow. Two of the 

tanks, Hidden Tank and Deep Tank, hold thousands of gallons of water. One of only seven core 

raptor breeding areas in the desert is within this wilderness, where prairie falcons and golden 

eagles areprominent. The mountains themselves are part of the historical range of the desert 

bighorn sheep. While sheep have not been spotted here, this wildlife species has been seen in 
Appendices 

the nearby Newberry Mountains. 

Sacatar Trail: This wilderness encompasses a portion of the rugged pristine eastern 

face of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Topography ranges from valley, canyons and alluvial fans 

to steep hills that lead into granite peaks and ridgetops reaching elevations of more than 7,800 

feet. Vegetation is extremely diversified with creosote bush, Mojave mixed woody scrub and 

Joshua trees on the lower slopes and cacti and scattered pinyon juniper woodlands on the upper 

slopes. Several of the canyons are complemented by springs with riparian habitats of 

cottonwoods, willows and grasses. The Sacatar Trail, an old wagon road and one of the few 

evidences of man in this area, provides backcountry access into this wilderness. Wildlife within 

the area includes mule deer, nesting golden eagles, prairie falcon, quail and dove. 

San Gorgonio: This wilderness is part of the eastern slope of the San Bernardino 

Mountains with topography rapidly changing from low, rolling foothills and canyons to steep, 

rugged mountains. Elevations range from 2,300 to 5,500 feet. Because of this elevation 

gradient, the wilderness reflects a unique transition between desert, coastal and mountain 

environments, including the different types of vegetation representative of each elevation. 

Portions of Mission Creek have been determined to be eligible for Wild River designation by 

Congress. 

Sheephole: The Sheephole Valley, from which this wilderness takes its name, separates 

the Sheephole Mountains and Calumet Mountains. The Sheepholes are a steep, boulder-strewn, 

granitic mountain mass. The Calumets take on a similar appearance, although rising only half as 

high as the 4,600-foot tall Sheepholes. Bighorn sheep utilize the Sheephole range for foraging 

and as a dispersal corridor, while the desert tortoise occupies the valleys below. The wilderness 

contains significant habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The area’s lack of springs and 

extreme distances make wilderness travel a challenge for the most experienced desert hiker. 
Appendices 

APPENDIX F 

MOJAVE RIVER 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER 

ELIGIBILITY REPORT
Appendices 
Appendices 

MOJAVE RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ELIGIBILITY REPORT 

This report presents the results of an eligibility study on potential additions to the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System for an identified riverine system in the West Mojave 

Planning Area. The river considered potentially eligible for designation is the Mojave River, 

originating near the Forest Service boundary in Hesperia and terminating in the Mojave National 

Preserve. This eligibility report evolved from the agency mandate to evaluate eligible waterways 

and the stipulation contained in a lawsuit settlement agreement. Table F-1 shows the findings of 

eligibility or non-eligibility for each river segment. This report concludes with a discussion of 

management standards and guidelines applicable to rivers designated under the National Wild 

and Scenic River (WSR) Act of 1986. 

Background: Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have 

been mandated to evaluate potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System 

(NWSRS) per Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 United States Code 

1271-1287, et seq). Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart 297, addresses 

management of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Title 43 CFR, Subpart 8350, specifically addresses 

designation of management areas. NWSRS study guidelines have also been published in Federal 

Register Volume 7, Number 173 (September 7, 1982) for public lands managed by the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture and Interior. Additional guidance on wild and scenic rivers (WSR) 

is provided in BLM Manual 8351. 

 

The NWSRS study process includes three regulatory steps: 

1. Determination of what river(s) and/or river segment(s) are eligible for WSR designation; 

2. Determination of eligible river(s) and/or segment(s) potential classification with respect to 

wild, scenic, recreational designation, or any combination thereof, and 

3. Conducting a suitability study of eligible river(s) and/or segment(s) for inclusion into the 

NWSRS via legislative action. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is commonly 

prepared to document the analysis needed for suitability determination/WSR designation. 

Any river or river segment on public lands found eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS is 

to be managed as if this river/segment were designated, until such time as a suitability 

determination is made. This requires management of public lands within 0.25 mile of the subject 

river or river segment to conform to management standards and guidelines presented in federal 

agency manuals for wild and scenic rivers until the suitability determination is completed. 

If a river or river segment is found suitable for inclusion to the NWSRS, the U.S. 

Congress must then pass legislation designating this river/segment, prior to its formal addition to 

the NWSRS. In addition to Federal agencies, private individuals and/or groups, as well as State 

governments, can nominate rivers and/or segments for inclusion. 
Appendices 

Only the determinations of eligibility and classification are documented in this report and 

the impacts evaluated in the attached West Mojave Desert Proposed Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. The remaining suitability determination would be completed in a separate 

document, and analyzed in an EIS format. The results of the suitability determination would 

amend CDCA Plan. 

To meet eligibility criteria for wild and scenic river designation, a river or segment must 

be free-flowing in nature and must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable cultural, 

fish/wildlife, geologic, historic, recreational or scenic values within its immediate proximity. 

Free flowing, as defined in Section 16(b) of the WSR Act reflects water flowing in a natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, or other modification of the waterway. 

 However, the existence of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time of 

designation, does not necessarily bar consideration for inclusion on the NWSRS. Nor are there 

any minimum river or segment lengths necessary for inclusion. Congress has designated a 

riverine stretch as short as 4.25 miles. Considerations in defining study rivers and/or study river 

segments should include land ownership patterns, physical changes in the river/segments and 

their environs, as well as the type and amount of human modification of lands bordering 

identified rivers/segments. 

 

The term “Outstandingly Remarkable” is not clearly defined in the NWSRS, 

necessitating professional judgment by submitting parties. In general, the term is defined as a 

resource that is considered more than simply ordinary, in the context of the local region. 

Examples include areas supporting an “A” Scenic Quality Rating (BLM Manual 8400); habitats 

for threatened and/or endangered plants/animals; exemplary physiographical, ecological, 

geological or recreational type locations; and areas where little human modification is evident or 

where terrain is rugged and physically challenging to traverse. 

Accessibility, primitive nature, number and type of land developments, structures, water 

resource developments, and water quality were all considered in assigning classifications. The 

primary criteria for the three classifications are outlined below [In: A Compendium of Questions 

& Answers Relating to Wild & Scenic Rivers (Technical Report of the Interagency Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 1999)]: 

• Wild River Areas: Those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free from impoundments, 

generally inaccessible except by trail (no roads), with watersheds or shorelines 

essentially primitive, and having unpolluted waters. 

• Scenic River Areas: Those rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free from impoundments, 

having shorelines or watersheds largely primitive and undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads (i.e., roads may cross but generally not parallel [in close proximity to] the 

river. These rivers or segments of rivers are usually more developed than wild and less 

developed than recreational. This classification may or may not include scenery as an 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV). 
Appendices 

Recreational River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, may have had some development of the shoreline, and may have had some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. This classification, does not, however, imply that 

recreation is an ORV. 

Interim Protection: The Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) Act and federal guidelines 

require federal agencies, upon determination of WSR eligibility, to provide interim protection 

and management for a river’s free-flowing character and any identified outstandingly remarkable 

values, subject to valid existing rights, until such time as a suitability study is completed. Upon 

study completion, the federal agency (BLM in this instance) makes a recommendation to 

Congress, which acts on that recommendation. 

Description of River Under Consideration: The Mojave River is the focal hydrologic 

system of the central portion of the West Mojave Desert planning area. It is a closed 

groundwater basin and the free-flowing segments of the Mojave River are largely subterranean. 

It begins its northerly, largely underground flow near Hesperia at the boundary of the San 

Bernardino National Forest and the CDCA. The two primary forks of the upper watershed, Deep 

Creek and the West Fork of the Mojave River, converge at the Mojave Forks Dam to form the 

mainstem of the Mojave River. The tributaries of Horsethief Creek and Little Horsethief Creek 

enter the West Fork upstream from the dam. Additional tributaries are dammed upstream by 

Silverwood Lake, within the San Bernardino National Forest. 

From the Mojave Forks Dam the Mojave River is free-flowing but without surface water 

until it reaches Spring Valley Lake, an adjacent residential subdivision. From Spring Valley, 

perennial surface flow continues through the Upper and Lower Narrows to the vicinity of Oro 

Grande, a distance of 8.5 miles. Surface flow between Oro Grande and Barstow is intermittent, 

supporting light riparian cover intermixed with areas of dense riparian vegetation, including 

stands of trees. Between Helendale and Camp Cady, near Harvard Road, the river is dry except 

during storm flows. Water surfaces at Camp Cady for a distance of 1.8 miles, though not in all 

years. The river is dry downstream again until Afton Canyon, where 2.9 river miles have surface 

flow and support riparian vegetation. Past Afton Canyon, the river widens into a broad dry 

wash, terminating at Soda Lake within the Mojave National Preserve. In some years, stormwater 

flows north into a terminus at the Cronese Basin. 

The primary contributor to the surface flow of the Mojave River is bedrock forcing the 

underground flow to the surface at the Upper and Lower Narrows, Camp Cady, and Afton 

Canyon. Surface flow is augmented by discharge from Pelican Lake within Mojave Narrows 

Regional Park, and from the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority and City of 

Barstow sewage treatment plants. Precipitation falling in the San Bernardino Mountains flows to 

the Mojave River in the headwaters, where dams block it. These dams release storm water at a 

controlled rate. Rainfall from the north side of the and San Gabriel Mountains drains to the 

Mojave River primarily via Oro Grande Wash in Victorville. 

Most desert washes between Victorville and Mojave National Preserve do not carry 
Appendices 

stormwater all the way to the Mojave River except in very exceptional wet years. These washes 

drain the hills in the Brisbane Valley, Fairview Valley, Waterman Hills, and Iron Mountain. 

Washes draining the Newberry Mountains and Rodman Mountains terminate in the Mojave 

Valley prior to reaching the Mojave River. Runoff from the Cady Mountains and Cave 

Mountains similarly rarely reaches the river in Afton Canyon. Exceptions to this pattern are the 

larger drainages, particularly Bell Mountain Wash, Buckthorn Wash (named Buckhorn Wash on 

some maps) and Daggett Wash. 

 Water flow in the Mojave River is greatly reduced by groundwater pumping from presettlement and historical periods, and the Mojave River Basin is in severe overdraft. Water 

rights are allocated according to the Mojave Basin Adjudication, which requires a rampdown of 

groundwater use in specified sub-basins. The likelihood of a return to historical levels of surface 

flow in the near future is very low. Lake Silverwood and the Mojave Forks Dam capture 

stormwater flows at the headwaters, and the San Bernardino County Department of Public 

Works provides flood protection in the river in several locations. Structural improvements are 

limited, but regular maintenance in the channel affects the riparian habitat and some of the 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values on private lands in the middle reaches of the river. 

 The Pleistocene history of the Mojave River involved permanent flow to a series of lakes. 

 In the last Ice Age, extending from 30,000 to 10,000 years ago, the Mojave River discharged to 

the south into the Mojave Valley, Lavic Lake, Dale Lake, Bristol Lake, and other playas 

extending nearly to the Colorado River. The river and lakes supported species of invertebrates, 

fish, amphibians, and pond turtles, and attracted migratory birds dependent on water. Remnant 

populations of these animals are still present today, and comprise many rare or disjunct species. 

The ancient river and lakes formed sandy beaches and prevailing winds carried the finer particles 

to the east, forming hummocks and dunes. These blowsand areas now support unique species of 

insects, plants, and reptiles, including the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, whose entire distribution 

can be traced to the former path of the ancient Mojave River and Amargosa River. 

Lands along the river are largely in private ownership. Of the 100.5 river miles between 

Mojave Forks Dam and the Mojave Sink at the west boundary of the Mojave National Preserve, 

23.6 miles are managed by BLM. Many of the BLM managed lands are in scattered parcels. 

Larger blocks of public land exist at the Manix and Afton Canyon ACECs and in the Rasor Open 

Area. Afton Canyon is the only part of the Mojave River with perennial water on public lands. 

3.5 river miles are managed by the Department of Fish and Game at Camp Cady and 2.0 miles 

are owned by CDFG at Mojave Narrows Regional Park, which is managed by San Bernardino 

County Department of Regional Parks. Eligibility determinations are made for BLM public 

lands only. 

 

Description of River Segment(s) Under Consideration: Considerations for National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System eligibility are based on resource values, land ownership patterns, 

shoreline development, proximity of roads and previous river modifications. The eligibility 

determination made here is for a 2.9 mile segment of the Mojave River near Afton Canyon. The 

required suitability study on this segment will be deferred until after the Record of Decision for 

the West Mojave Plan amendment to the CDCA Plan. 
Appendices 

Recommended NWSRS Segment Classification and Land Ownership: Once 

determined eligible, river segments are tentatively classified for study as wild, scenic, or 

recreational, based on the degree of access and amount of development along the river area. If 

Congress designates a river or segment, the enabling legislation generally specifies the 

classification. 

Table F-1 

Summary of River Segment Eligibility and Recommended Classifications

RIVER REACH LENGTH COMMENTS 

Mojave Forks Dam to Spring Valley 

Lake 

11 miles Not eligible – no free flowing water. 

Public land limited to two parcels totaling 0.375 miles. 

Spring Valley Lake to Interstate 15 

bridge 

3.5 miles No determination. No public land. 

Interstate 15 bridge to Oro Grande 4.5 miles No determination. No public land. 

Oro Grande to Helendale 10 miles No determination. No public land. 

Helendale to Barstow 19 miles Not eligible – no free flowing water. 

Public land limited to 2.25 miles in three parcels. 

Barstow to Harvard Road crossing 22 miles Not eligible – no free flowing water. 

Public land on 8.0 miles in 5 separate parcels. 

Harvard Road crossing to Basin 

Road 

22.5 miles Eligible in part. Free flowing water for 2.9 miles. 

Recommended classification of “Recreational” for this 

segment. Outstanding remarkable scenic, geologic, 

recreational, wildlife, cultural and historic values. Public land 

limited to 14 miles in this reach. Seven miles are within 

Afton Canyon ACEC and one mile is within Manix ACEC. 

Basin Road to Soda Lake (Mojave 

National Preserve) 

8 miles Not eligible – no free flowing water. 

Public land covers 7 river miles within Rasor Open Area. 

Table F-2 

Comparison of Outstanding Remarkable Values for 

Public Land River Segments of the Mojave River

RIVER 

SEGMENT - 

PUBLIC LAND 

FREE 

FLOW 

SCENIC REC GEOLOGIC FISH WILDLIFE 

HISTORIC CULTURAL 

ELIGIBL

E 

WSR 

Mojave Forks 

Dam to Spring 

Valley Lake 

0.375 miles 

No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No 

Helendale to 

Barstow 

2.25 miles 

No 4 0 0 0 3-4 0 0 No 

Barstow to 

Harvard Road 

crossing 

8 miles 

No 4 4 3 0 3 4 0 No 

Harvard Road 

crossing to Yes 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 Yes 
Appendices 

RIVER 

SEGMENT - 

PUBLIC LAND 

FREE 

FLOW 

SCENIC REC GEOLOGIC FISH WILDLIFE 

HISTORIC CULTURAL 

ELIGIBL

E 

WSR 

Basin Road 

14 miles 

Basin Road to 

Soda Lake 

(Mojave 

National 

Preserve) 

7 miles 

No 4 2 4 0 4 4 4 No 

The following segment of the Mojave River has been found eligible because it is free flowing and 

possess at least one outstanding remarkable value: 2.9 miles within the Afton Canyon ACEC. 

Key to Ratings: 

0 – None 

1 – Exemplary, one of the better examples of that type of resource at a national level 

2 – Unique, a resource or combination of resources that are regionally one of a kind 

3 – High quality at a regional and /or local level 

4 – A common resource at the regional and/or local level

Outstanding Remarkable Values: The segment identified as eligible on public lands 

contains Outstandingly Remarkable Scenic Values (ORVs), i.e., Class “A” scenic quality, per 

BLM Manual guidelines. Public lands in this segment have been previously designated as an 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern in part because of spectacular scenery. Regionally rare 

plant communities such as Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, Willow Riparian Scrub, 

Mesquite Bosque, as well as alkaline meadow, and emergent plant communities can also be 

found along this portion of the river. Wildlife supported by these plant communities includes a 

high percentage of neotropical migrant birds and local or regional disjuncts. The threatened 

desert tortoise occurs near this segment, as well as a host of sensitive and/or special concern 

species. The presence of flowing water in this segment has served to attract humans for 

thousands of years. The high relief, stark topography and lush riparian vegetation provided by 

this segment continue to offer many opportunities for non-intrusive recreation. Table F-2 

documents the comparative assessment of ORVs by river segment. ORVs for the eligible 

portion of the Mojave River follow. 

Wildlife and Plants: Vegetation in the eligible segment consists of riparian plant 

communities, including Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, Willow Scrub and introduces 

tamarisk thickets. Drier portions of the river adjacent too the flowing water support Mesquite 

Bosque. Invasive tamarisk has been removed as part of a restoration program by BLM over the 

past twelve years, and large numbers of willows and cottonwoods are replacing former tamarisk 

thickets. Exclusion of cattle from the riparian area has assisted with the riparian restoration 

effort. 

 The riparian zone serves as a major stopover point for neotropical birds, and is utilized as 

nesting habitat for a variety of species. 180 bird species have been recorded from Afton Canyon, 
Appendices 

including disjunct occurrences of yellow warbler, vermilion flycatcher, summer tanager and 

yellow-breasted chat. The surrounding mountains support nesting golden eagles and prairie 

falcons and a number of other nesting and wintering raptors have been recorded. 

 Unusual reptiles in Afton Canyon include the easternmost occurrence of the southwestern 

pond turtle, desert tortoises in the adjacent creosote bush scrub and Mojave fringe-toed lizards in 

nearby blowsand deposits. Several species snakes and lizards are present, making Afton Canyon 

an area of high reptilian diversity. 

Three species of fish have been recorded: black bullhead, flathead minnow and arroyo 

chub. These fish have displaced the native Mojave tui chub, an endangered species. The 

Mojave tui chub could be re-introduced at Afton Canyon, but several major problems would 

have to be overcome. These include removal of non-native fish and predators, prevention of 

hybridization with the arroyo chub, storm proofing of a refugium site, and maintenance of water 

levels. The Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider reintroduction of the Mojave tui chub into the Mojave River to be infeasible at this time. 

However, Afton Canyon appears to provide a re-introduction site with a high potential for 

success compared to other locations along the river. 

Bighorn sheep are present in the Cady Mountains, and Afton Canyon provides a reliable 

water source for these animals. Other larger desert mammals, primarily predators, utilize the 

water as well. 

Geologic: This segment of the Mojave River presents a spectacular landscape of 

badlands with an exposed multicolored stratigraphy. The Pleistocene drainage of Lake Manix 

about 19,000 years ago sent water down the river to cause downcutting and erosion through lake 

and pre-lake sediments as well as the fanglomerate in Afton Canyon. The Manix fault is an 

important structural geologic feature of the area. 

A fossil assemblage of Rancholabrean age occurs in the area, and fragmentary remains 

have been found of dire wolf, mammoth, sabre-toothed cat, bison, antelope and horses. 

Cultural: Prehistoric sites along the Afton Canyon segment indicate an intermittent or 

continuing occupation by indigenous peoples for over 12,000 years. These sites include quarry 

sites, lithic scatter, ground stone artifacts, a possible cave site and six occupation or multi-use 

sites. Afton Canyon was part of a prehistoric trade route across the Mojave Desert and was a 

significant “way station”. The canyon was part of the Serrano Indians traditional resource area, 

near the boundary of the Chemehuevi territory. 

Historic: The Mojave Road was a major historic trade and migration route. Jedidiah 

Smith, Kit Carson and John C. Fremont traveled through the canyon in the early 1800s and 

recommended it as a route. One mining operation in the hills adjoining the riparian segment has 

been in operation since the 1930s. 

Recreational: Afton Canyon is one of the most heavily used recreation areas of the 
Appendices 

California desert. The area is used by OHV enthusiasts, equestrians, rockhounds, campers, 

picnickers, hikers, hunters and birdwatchers. BLM campgrounds facilitate use of the canyon and 

adjacent lands. Scientific and educational use of the area by colleges and universities is also 

common. The Mojave Road is an important historic and recreation feature attracting a high 

number of users. 

Wilderness: No designated wilderness is found in the eligible river segment, but the adjacent 

Cady Mountains are designated as a Wilderness Study Area and have been included in current 

Congressional legislation for wilderness status. 

References 

Bilhorn, Thomas W. 1993. Mojave River Riparian Vegetation Existing in 1993. Maps prepared 

for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Lines, Gregory C. and T. W. Bilhorn 1996. Riparian Vegetation and Its Water Use During 1995 

Along the Mojave River, Southern California. U. S.Geological Survey, Water Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4241, Sacramento, CA. Available from Mojave Water Agency, 

Apple Valley, CA. 

Tierra Madre Consultants, 1992. Natural Resources Inventory of the Mojave River Corridor. 

Report prepared for City of Victorville, Victorville, CA. Includes “Cultural Resources 

Sensitivity Study of the Mojave River Corridor, San Bernardino County, California” by the 

Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside, CA. 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997. Mojave River Floodplain Maintenance Plan. Corps of 

Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA. 

U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1989. Management Plan for the Afton 

Canyon Natural Area. BLM, Barstow Field Office, Barstow, CA.
Appendices 

Management Standards and Guidelines for National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542, as amended) established a method of 

providing Federal protection for certain of our remaining free-flowing rivers, and preserving 

these locales for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Such designated rivers 

benefit from the protective management that the act provides. 

Section 10(a) of the WSR Act states: 

Each component of the NWSRS shall be administered in such a manner as to 

protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in said system 

without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other uses that do not 

substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values. In such 

administration, primary emphasis shall be given to protecting its esthetic, scenic, 

historic, archaeologic, and scientific features. Management plans for any such 

component may establish varying degrees of intensity for its protection and 

development, based on the special attributes of the area. 

This section is generally interpreted by the Secretary of the Interior as a stated non-degradation 

and enhancement policy for all designated river areas, regardless of classification. 

The following National Standards and Guidelines are summarized from BLM Manual 8351 

[Wild and Scenic Rivers-Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation and 

Management (1992)]. These standards/guidelines are intended to apply to formally designated 

rivers through incorporation into, or amendment of, resource or land use management plans. 

Incorporation or amendment efforts are typically completed within three years of formal WSR 

designation. However, these guidelines also apply, on an interim basis, as described above. For 

the sake of clarity, guidelines are presented for each separate river classification (wild, scenic 

and recreational). 

Wild River Areas 

The WSR Act defines wild river areas to include; “those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds and 

shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive 

America.” 

Wild river areas are to be managed with a primary objective of providing primary emphasis to 

protection of identified outstandingly remarkable values, while providing consistent, riverrelated, outdoor recreation opportunities in a primitive setting. 

Where National Management Standards/Guidelines include allowable practices such as 

construction of minor structures related to wildlife habitat enhancement, protection from fire, 

and rehabilitation or stabilization of damaged resources, provided the area will remain natural 

looking and the practices or structures will harmonize with the environment. Developments such 

as trails, bridges, occasional fencing, natural-appearing water diversions, ditches and water 

management devices, may be permitted if they are unobtrusive and do not have a significant, 
Appendices 

adverse impact on the natural character of the river area. The following Wild River Program 

Management Standards apply: 

Forestry Practices 

Cutting of trees not permitted except when needed in association with a primitive 

recreation experience (such as clearing trails, for visitor safety purposes, or for fire control). 

Timber outside the boundary, but within visual corridors, should where feasible, be managed and 

harvested in a manner designed to provide special emphasis on visual quality. 

Water Quality 

Conditions will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or federally approved 

State Standards. River management plans shall prescribe a process for monitoring water quality 

on a scheduled basis. 

Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development 

No such development would be permitted in the channel or river corridor. All water 

supply dams and major diversions are prohibited. The natural appearance and essentially 

primitive character of the river area must be maintained. Federal agency groundwater 

development for range, wildlife, recreation or administrative facilities may be permitted if there 

are no adverse effects on ORVs. 

Mining 

New mining claims and mineral leases are prohibited within 0.25 mile of the river. Valid 

existing claims would not be abrogated and, subject to existing regulations, e.g., 43 CFR 3809, 

and any future regulations the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect the rivers 

included in the NWSRS, existing mining activity would be allowed to continue. All mineral 

activity on federally administered land must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface 

disturbance, water sedimentation, pollution and visual impairment. Reasonable mining claim 

and mineral lease access will be permitted. Mining claims beyond 0.25 mile of the river, but 

within the wild river boundary, and perfected after the effective date of designation, can be 

patented only as to the mineral estate and not the surface estate. 

Road and Trail Construction 

No new roads or other provisions for overland motorized travel would be permitted 

within a narrow incised river valley or, if the river valley is broad, within 0.25 mile of the river 

bank. A few inconspicuous roads leading to the boundary of the river area and unobtrusive trail 

bridges may be permitted. 

Agricultural Practices and Livestock Grazing 

Agricultural use is restricted to a limited amount of domestic livestock grazing and hay 
Appendices 

production to the extent currently being practiced. Row crops are prohibited. 

Recreation Facilities 

Major public use areas, such as campgrounds, interpretive centers, or administrative 

headquarters are located outside of wild river areas. Simple comfort and convenience facilities, 

such as toilets, tables, fireplaces, shelters and refuse containers may be provided as necessary 

within the river area. These should harmonize with the surroundings. Unobtrusive hiking and 

equestrian trail bridges could be allowed on tributaries, but would not normally cross the 

designated river. 

 

Public Use and Access 

Recreational use including, but not limited to, hiking, fishing, hunting and boating is 

encouraged in wild river areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river 

environment. Public use and access may be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect 

and enhance wild river values. 

Rights-of-Way 

New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless 

specifically prohibited outright by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative 

exits, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new 

rights-of-way are unavoidable, locations and construction techniques will be selected to 

minimize adverse effects on wild river area-related values and fully evaluated during the site 

selection process. 

Motorized Travel 

Although this use can be permitted, it is generally not compatible with this river 

classification. Normally, motorized use will be prohibited in a wild river area. Prescriptions for 

management of motorized use may allow for search and rescue/emergency situations. 

Scenic River Areas 

The WSR Act defines scenic river areas to include “those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines 

largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” 

Scenic river areas are to be managed with a primary objective of maintaining and 

providing outdoor recreation opportunities in a near-natural setting. The basic distinctions 

between “wild” and “scenic” classifications, involve varying degrees of development, types of 

land use, and road accessibility. In general, a wide range of agricultural, water management, 

silvicultural and other practices could be compatible with scenic classification values, providing 

such practices are carried out in a manner not resulting in a substantial adverse effect on the river 

and its immediate environment. 
Appendices 

National Management Standards/Guidelines include the same considerations set forth for 

wild rivers, except that motorized vehicle use may in some cases be appropriate and that 

development of larger scale public-use facilities within the river area, such as moderate-sized 

campgrounds, interpretive centers, or administrative headquarters would be compatible, if such 

facilities were screened from the river. The following Scenic River Program Management 

Standards apply: 

Forestry Practices 

Silvicultural practices, including timber harvesting could be allowed, provided that such 

practices are carried out in such a way that there is no substantial adverse effect on the river and 

its immediate environment. The river should be maintained in its near-natural condition. 

Timber outside the boundary, but within the visual screen area, should be managed and 

harvested in a manner designed to provide special emphasis on visual quality. Preferably, 

reestablishment of tree cover would be through natural revegetation. Cutting of dead and down 

materials for fuelwood will be limited. Where necessary, restrictions on the use of wood for fuel 

may be prescribed. 

Water Quality 

Conditions will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or federally approved 

State Standards. River management plans shall prescribe a process for monitoring water quality 

on a scheduled basis. 

Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development 

No such development would be permitted in the channel or river corridor. Flood control 

dams and levees would be prohibited. All water supply dams and major diversions are 

prohibited. Maintenance of existing facilities and construction of some new structures would be 

permitted, provided that the area remains natural in appearance and the practices or structures 

harmonize with the surrounding environment. 

Mining 

Subject to existing regulations, e.g. 43 CFR 3809, and any future regulations the 

Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect the rivers included in the NWSRS, new mining 

claims and mineral leases can be allowed. All mineral activity on federally administered land 

must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, water sedimentation, 

pollution and visual impairment. Reasonable mining claim and mineral lease access will be 

permitted. Mining claims within the wild river boundary, and perfected after the effective date 

of designation, can be patented only as to the mineral estate and not the surface estate. 

Road and Trail Construction 

Roads may occasionally bridge the river and short stretches of conspicuous or lengthy 
Appendices 

stretches of inconspicuous and well-screened roads would be allowed. Maintenance of existing 

roads and any new roads will be based on the type of use for which the roads are constructed and 

the type of use that will occur in the river area. 

Agricultural Practices and Livestock Grazing 

In comparison to wild river areas, a wider range of agricultural and livestock grazing uses 

are permitted, to the extent currently being practiced. Row crops are not considered as much of 

an intrusion of the “largely primitive” nature of scenic corridors, as long as there is not a 

substantial adverse effect on the natural-like appearance of the river area. 

Recreation Facilities 

Larger-scale public use areas, such as moderate-sized campgrounds, interpretive centers, 

or administrative headquarters, are allowed if such facilities are screened from the river. 

Public Use and Access 

Recreational use including, but not limited to, hiking, fishing, hunting and boating is 

encouraged in scenic river areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river 

environment. Public use and access may be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect 

and enhance scenic river values. 

Rights-of-Way 

New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless 

specifically prohibited outright by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative 

exits, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new 

rights-of-way are unavoidable, locations and construction techniques will be selected to 

minimize adverse effects on scenic river area-related values and fully evaluated during the site 

selection process. 

Motorized Travel 

This use, on land or water, could be permitted, prohibited or restricted to protect river 

values. Prescriptions for management of motorized use may allow for search and 

rescue/emergency situations. 

Recreational River Areas 

The WSR Act defines recreational river areas to include “those rivers or sections of rivers 

that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their 

shorelines, that may have undergone some development along their shorelines, and that may 

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.” 
Appendices 

Recreational river areas are to be managed with an objective of protecting and enhancing 

existing recreational values. The primary objective is to provide opportunities for the public to 

participate in recreation activities dependent on, or enhanced by, the largely free-flowing nature 

of the river. 

National Management Standards/Guidelines include allowable practices such as 

construction of recreation facilities in proximity to the river, although recreational river 

classification does not require extensive recreational developments. Such facilities are still to be 

kept to a minimum, with visitor services provided outside the river area. Future construction of 

impoundments, diversions, straightening, riprapping and other modification of the water way or 

adjacent lands would not be permitted, except where such developments would not have a direct 

and adverse effect on the river and its immediate environment. The following Recreational 

River Program Management Standards apply: 

Forestry Practices 

Silvicultural practices, including timber harvesting could be allowed under standard 

restrictions to avoid adverse effects on the river environment and its associated values. 

Water Quality 

Conditions will be maintained or improved to meet Federal criteria or federally approved 

State Standards. River management plans shall prescribe a process for monitoring water quality 

on a scheduled basis. 

Hydroelectric Power and Water Resource Development 

No such development would be permitted in the channel or river corridor. Existing low 

dams, diversion works, riprap and other minor structures may be maintained, provided the 

waterway remains generally natural in appearance. New structures may be allowed, provided 

that the area remains natural in appearance and the practices or structures harmonize with the 

surrounding environment. 

Mining 

Subject to existing regulations, e.g. 43 CFR 3809, and any future regulations the 

Secretary of the Interior may prescribe to protect the rivers included in the NWSRS, new mining 

claims and mineral leases can be allowed. All mineral activity on federally administered land 

must be conducted in a manner that minimizes surface disturbance, water sedimentation, 

pollution and visual impairment. Reasonable mining claim and mineral lease access will be 

permitted. Mining claims within the wild river area boundary perfected after the effective date 

of designation can be patented only as to the mineral estate and not the surface estate. 
Appendices 

Road and Trail Construction 

Existing parallel roads can be maintained on one or both riverbanks. There can be 

several bridge crossings and numerous river access points. 

Agricultural Practices and Livestock Grazing 

In comparison to scenic river areas, lands may be managed for a full range of agricultural 

and livestock grazing uses, consistent with current practices. 

Recreation Facilities 

Interpretive centers, administrative headquarters, campgrounds and picnic areas may be 

established in proximity to the river. Recreational classification does not require extensive 

recreation development. 

Public Use and Access 

Recreation use including, but not limited to, hiking, fishing, hunting and boating is 

encouraged in recreational river areas to the extent consistent with the protection of the river 

environment. Public use and access may be regulated and distributed where necessary to protect 

and enhance recreational river values. 

Rights-of-Way 

New transmission lines, natural gas lines, water lines, etc., are discouraged unless 

specifically prohibited outright by other plans, orders or laws. Where no reasonable alternative 

exits, additional or new facilities should be restricted to existing rights-of-way. Where new 

rights-of-way are unavoidable, locations and construction techniques will be selected to 

minimize adverse effects on recreational river area-related values and fully evaluated during the 

site selection process. 

Motorized Travel 

This use, on land, will generally be permitted, on existing roads. Controls will usually be 

similar to that of surrounding lands. Motorized travel on water will be in accordance with 

existing regulations or restrictions. 

Management Objectives Common to All Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Management of river areas that overlap designated wilderness areas or wilderness study 

areas will meet whichever standard is highest. If an area is released from wilderness study area 
Appendices 

status and the associated Interim Management Policy, the applicable river classification 

standards and guidelines would then apply. 

Fire Protection and Suppression 

Management and suppression of fires within a designated river area will be carried out in 

a manner compatible with contiguous federal lands. On wildfires, suppression methods will be 

utilized that minimizes the long-term impacts on the river and surrounding area. Pre-suppression 

and prevention activities will be conducted in a manner that reflects management objectives for 

the specific river segment. Prescribed fire may be utilized to maintain or restore ecological 

condition or meet objectives of the river plan. 

Insects, Diseases and Noxious Weeds 

The control of forest and rangeland pests, diseases and noxious weed infestations will be 

carried out in a manner compatible with the intent of the WSR Act and management objectives 

of contiguous federal lands. 

Cultural Resources 

Historic and prehistoric resource sites will be identified, evaluated and protected in a 

manner compatible with the objectives of the river and in accordance with applicable regulations 

and policies. Where appropriate, historic or prehistoric sites will be stabilized, enhanced and 

interpreted. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement 

The construction and maintenance of minor structures for the protection, conservation, 

rehabilitation and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat are acceptable, provided they do not 

affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river, are compatible with the classifications, that 

the area remains natural in appearance and the practices or structures harmonize with the 

surrounding environment. 
Appendices 

APPENDIX G 

INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT 

BACKGROUND DATA
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX G 

INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT BACKGROUND DATA 

Information Sources and Comments 

California City Prison – Jack Stewart, City Manager, 25 November 2002. Stewart 

indicated that although the impact was restricted to 70 acres, the proponent purchased 320 acres, 

at the cost of $5000/acre, for a total of $1,600,000. Since the ratio was 1:1, it is assumed the 

remaining 250 acres is in an existing mitigation bank 

Cushenbury Mine Site - Paul Kielhold, Lilburn Corporation, 25 November 2002. 

Kielhold indicated that the write-up costs were about $7,500, although another $20,000 was 

likely spent in coordination and ancillary documentation. Similarly, he indicated that 115 acres 

were purchased at about $900 to$1,000/acre (hence the $103,500 - $115,000), but that mitigation 

monitoring and other services may have cost another $120,000. 

High Desert Power Project – Kenny Stein, of Constellation and Anne Knowlton, of 

URS, on 26 November 2002. With regards to timeframe for permit issuance, Stein indicated that 

it took approximately two years to issue the original permit and an additional year (hence “3 

years”) for the permit to be amended to cover an additional acre of accidental impact (for which 

the proponent offered to compensate 7 acres for the 1 accidentally impacted). The compensation 

ration was varied, based on short- and long-term impacts, but in total included about $900/acre 

for the actual 100 acres that were disturbed (hence $900,000 for compensation). Although 

tortoises were regularly handled on the Section 7 portion of this project, Stein indicated that 

there was no take associated with the Section 10(a) permit part of the project. 

Kern County Waste Management – Franklin Bedard, Kern County Waste Managemen, 

December 2002. Bedard did not know the costs for write-up or compensation, but indicated that 

the three landfill sites were compensated at the relatively high (inconsistent) rate of 3:1. 

Miller Church Sites – Ed LaRue, November 2002. Compensation lands purchased at 

DTNA by the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee, which continues to manage the land with 

under an MOU with the BLM. $9,000 included acquisition of 5 acres plus endowment funds. 

Electrified Fence Project – No information contact was found for this project, which 

authorized the construction of electrified fences around numerous State prison sites, mostly 

located outside tortoise habitat. 

Sunland Communities – Ed LaRue, November 2002. Total of 320 acres of private land 

purchased by project proponent and deeded to the BLM. The $220,000 was for both land 

acquisition and endowment funds. 

U.S. Borax Mine Site – Dave Weiss, 22 November 2002 and Dennis Boyle, 25 

November 2002, U.S. Borax. Boyle indicated that U.S. Borax purchased 2,274 acres (including 
Appendices 

two sections of Catellus lands) for $731,900 and provided CDFG with $238,000 in endowment 

funds, for a total of $969,900. 

Wildwash Sand & Gravel Mine – Ed LaRue, November 2002. Compensation lands 

purchased by E.L. Yeager from Catellus Land Corporation and deeded to the BLM 
Appendices 

APPENDIX H 

CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX H 

CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 

The West Mojave planning area is a desert characterized by hot summer temperatures 

(average daily highs above 100 degrees Fahrenheit) and low annual precipitation (approximately 

5 inches). Snow can occur during the winter. Probably more important than the averages is the 

extreme variability in the weather. Ridgecrest has recorded temperatures as high as 118 degrees 

and as low as 0 degrees. Daily temperatures ranges of 40 degrees can occur. Precipitation 

extremes are also common. Variations of 80% in annual precipitation are common. Summer 

thunderstorms can drop more precipitation on a site in one event than the mean precipitation for 

that location. High winds can occur. Peak wind velocities above 50 miles per hour (MPH) are 

not uncommon and winds of 100 MPH occur every year. One site has recorded 174 MPH winds. 

Climactic Influences: California lies within a zone of prevailing westerly winds. It is 

also located on the east side of the semi-permanent high-pressure area of the northeast Pacific 

Ocean. High-pressure areas exhibit clockwise wind circulation. The basic flow in the free air 

above the state, therefore, is from the west or northwest during most of the year. The mountain 

chains within the state, however, deflect these winds and, except for the immediate coast, wind 

direction is likely to be more a product of local terrain than it is of prevailing circulation. This is 

especially true in the western Mojave Desert where the Sierra Nevada Mountains form a wall on 

the west boundary of the planning area and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains 

direct winds along the southern boundary of the plan area. Elevations rise to above 10,000 feet 

in all of these ranges. Prevailing winds out of the southwest are the result of the blocking nature 

of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the proximity of the area to coastal and central California. 

During the winter, the storm tracks move further south bringing high and low pressure 

cells with them. Wind direction and speed are modified by these migratory pressure centers. 

When there is a strong high-pressure area over the Great Basin and an intense low-pressure area 

approaches the coast from the west, strong and sometimes damaging winds occur, usually from 

an easterly or southeasterly direction, especially along the coast and in the coastal mountains. 

As the storms move inland the winds veer to southerly and southwesterly directions, and high 

wind speeds may occur anywhere within the plan area. The greatest velocities generally occur 

adjacent to the mountains and the Walker, Tehachapi, Soledad and Cajon passes. Wind gusts in 

excess of 80 MPH occur regularly in Mojave and along the western edge of the Indian Wells 

Valley. Gusts over 100 MPH are not unusual and a gust of 174 MPH was recorded in the Indian 

Wells Valley (December 1996). 

During the summer a Pacific Subtropical High cell influences the region. This cell, 

which sits off the coast, inhibits cloud formation and encourages daytime solar heating. Air 

masses pushed onshore in Southern California are channeled through the Mojave Desert as a 

result of differential heating and a thermal low-pressure area located over the Southeastern 

Desert areas. There is a marked diurnal pattern in the strength of the wind. 
Appendices 

Another influence on the area air circulation is the result of the northwest wind moving 

alongshore the prominent headlands at Pt. Arguello. Wind speeds in the immediate vicinity of 

this major headland can be two or three times as great as the wind flow at nearby points. Here a 

strong jet of air is projected southward past San Miguel and San Nicholas Islands, driving a huge 

eddy as much as 200 miles in diameter. The air swings eastward near San Diego then northward 

and westward along the coast to rejoin the southward flowing air at the west end of the Santa 

Barbara Channel. This effect is called a coastal eddy and it can cause a southern airflow into the 

desert from the coastal basins. These various airflow mechanisms are the most influential in the 

western Mojave Desert. The airflows diminish toward the eastern Mojave Desert where the 

monsoonal air masses from the continental areas are more influential. Periodically a highpressure area with its clockwise air circulation will settle in the four corners area (where 

Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah meet) resulting in an air circulation from the east to 

the west. 

Temperature extremes are common in the planning area. Below or near freezing 

temperatures are common at most weather stations. Seven of thirteen stations have average low 

temperatures below freezing in December and January. El Mirage has the lowest average 

temperatures in the planning area and Twentynine Palms has the highest average temperatures. 

Average daily temperature variation is 29 degrees for all stations. Seasonal variations are high. 

Ridgecrest, for example, has recorded highs of 118 degrees and lows of 0 degrees since the 

middle 1980s. 

Precipitation: Deserts are noted for their low rainfall and the Mojave Desert is no 

exception. The blocking nature of the mountains on the western and southern boundaries of the 

desert results in a rain shadow on the desert side of the mountains where precipitation is far less 

than on the coastal side. Weather patterns and their resulting precipitation follow the seasonal 

wind patterns and changes. This results in winter precipitation generally arriving from the 

southwest and spreading eastward across the desert. Winter precipitation volumes normally are 

the highest in the western Mojave Desert and diminish toward the east. This is illustrated in the 

mean precipitation for western locations such as Lancaster and Mojave (over 6 inches) and 

eastern cities such as Twentynine Palms (4 inches). 

All of the weather stations in the planning area receive some of their precipitation as 

snow. The total average snowfall ranges from under one inch in Trona to over three inches at 

Haiwee reservoir and Lancaster. 

A cyclic weather phenomenon called the El Nino brings increased precipitation to 

portions of the eastern Pacific Rim. This is especially true in the western Mojave Desert. 

Weather Bureau records indicate that there have been 23 El Nino years since 1931. These 23 

years represent approximately 1/3 of the years, but on the western edge of the desert, those years 

account for 65% of the precipitation. 

During the summer the western edge of the Mojave Desert is heavily influenced by the 

dry southwest airflows resulting in typically very dry weather. The influence of the southwest 

winds diminishes toward the eastern Mojave Desert. This results in a more continental influence 
Appendices 

and its resulting monsoonal weather patterns. This east to west variability is also reflected in the 

pronounced east to west difference in average monthly precipitation (Table H-1) and in the 

influence of the El Nino years. In Twentynine Palms, for example, only 44% of the precipitation 

falls in El Nino years as opposed to 65% along the western edge of the desert. 

The consistent occurrence of two wet seasons in the eastern portion of the planning area 

is reflected in the vegetation. There is a distinction between plants having most of their 

photosynthetic activity during the late spring and summer (warm season plants) and plants 

having most photosynthetic activity during the winter (cool season plants). The vegetation in the 

eastern Mojave Desert includes warm season plants such as Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigrea), 

galleta grass species (Pleuraphis spp.) and others in addition to the cool season plants. The 

warm season plants are absent from the western edge of the desert. The break between the warm 

season area and the cool season area follows a north south line along the Mojave River and just 

west of Harper Dry Lake. 

Extreme variability is another characteristic of the precipitation. Some locations such as 

Mojave have a mean precipitation of 6.06 inches and a standard deviation of 4.04 inches. This 

means that the normal precipitation ranges from a low of 2.02 inches to 10.10 inches. This is an 

80 % variation in precipitation volumes. 
Appendices 

Table H-1 

Precipitation Data 

% OF YEARS 

RAINFALL >1" 

LOCATION MEAN 

PRECIPITATION 

(INCHES) 

STANDARD 

DEVIATION 

RANGE 

H / L 

LENGTH OF 

OBSERVATIONS 

(YEARS THROUGH 

2000)

JULY AUGUST 

% RA

FALLIN

EL NIN

YEAR

Barstow Fire 4.25 2.43 10.62 / 0.24 62 8 16 47 China Lake 3.39 2.48 9.82 / 0.75 53 5 3 65 Daggett Airport 3.68 1.28 5.50 / 1.20 48 58 El Mirage Field 5.74 3.30 12.62 / 1.92 29 3 17 63 Goldstone Echo 4.84 2.58 10.51 / 1.74 23 59 Haiwee Reservoir 

6.69 3.77 17.27 / 1.50 71 6 18 42 

Inyokern 4.12 2.94 11.70 / 0.59 55 5 9 50 Lancaster 6.56 4.60 16.85 / 1.85 16 66 Mojave 6.06 4.04 15.77 / 0.85 60 3 7 48 Palmdale 6.56 4.13 14.44 / 1.35 16 65 Randsburg 6.46 3.81 16.44 / 1.29 63 2 6 48 Trona 3.94 2.41 8.66 / 0.42 49 6 9 46 Twentynine Palms 

4.22 2.42 12.32 / 0.27 66 21 18 44 

Victorville 5.61 3.02 13.42 / 1.27 62 3 6 48 Needles 63 16 27 Notes: Rainfall based upon calendar year  Data from NOAA and China Lake NAWS 

Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX I 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN 

TORTOISE HABITAT
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX I 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN 

TORTOISE HABITAT

I.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR DWMAs 

I.1.1 Awareness Program

1. The Implementation Team will develop and make available a standard education program, and 

maintain a list of Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors who can administer the 

program and implement the protective measures given below. 

2. At a minimum, the awareness program shall emphasize the following information relative to 

the desert tortoise: (a) distribution on the job site; (b) general behavior and ecology; (c) 

sensitivity to human activities; (d) legal protection; (e) penalties for violating State or federal 

laws; (f) reporting requirements; and (g) project protective mitigation measures. The Authorized 

Biologist and/or Environmental Monitor shall work with the project proponent to ensure that all 

workers have received the awareness program and understand the various components. 

Interpretation shall be provided for non-English speaking construction workers. 

3. All employees, subcontractors, and others who work on-site shall participate in a desert 

tortoise awareness program prior to initiation of field activities. The project proponent is 

responsible for ensuring that the awareness program is presented prior to conducting activities. 

Hard hat stickers to identify personnel who have attended the training and wallet-sized cards 

listing key BMPs are encouraged. 

4. Educational materials produced by the West Mojave Implementation Team may be 

accompanied by a video, and the program administered by the Authorized Biologist or 

Environmental Monitor in a classroom setting, if available. In other cases, the program would be 

given in the field prior to initiation of construction activities, and shall include truck drivers, 

delivery personnel, and other project-related personnel occasionally entering the work site. 

I.1.2 Preconstruction Planning

5. Whenever possible, the project proponent shall work with the Implementation Team to plan 

for and conduct construction activities (particularly linear projects through Tortoise Survey 

Areas) when tortoises are least likely to be active, which generally occurs between November 15 

and February 15. 
Appendices 

6. Where more than one site or alignment could satisfy the project proponent’s needs, it is 

suggested that a presence-absence survey be conducted on the alternative sites to determine 

which site or alignment will result in the fewest impacts to tortoises and occupied habitat during 

project development. 

I.1.3 Enforcement Capabilities

7. The Authorized Biologist shall serve as the field contact representative (FCR), and be 

responsible for implementing the following measures: (a) be responsible for overseeing 

compliance with protective stipulations for the desert tortoise; (b) coordinate compliance with 

the Lead Federal Agency; (c) have the authority to halt all activities that are in violation of the 

stipulations; and (d) maintain a copy of all appropriate stipulations (including pertinent BMPs) 

when work is being conducted at the site. 

8. Monitors shall document all non-compliance activities. Repeated violations shall be resolved 

at the workplace between appropriate individuals. If problems persist, the Authorized Biologist 

or Environmental Monitor shall report infractions back to the Lead Federal Agency for public 

projects or Implementation Team for private projects within three to five days of the repeated 

violation. Such repeated violations, if not promptly rectified, may serve as the basis for stopping 

the project until the non-compliance issue is resolved. 

9. If the project proponent fails to comply with any of the protective measures, the Lead Federal 

Agency shall suspend the pertinent authorization until such time that the project proponent is in 

compliance with those measures and conditions.

I.1.4 On-site Minimization Measures

I.1.4.1 Travel

10. Except when required by the project and explicitly stated in the project permit, cross-country 

vehicle use by project-related personnel shall be prohibited during work hours. 

11. Except on paved roads with posted speed limits, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 20 miles per 

hour through desert tortoise habitat during travel associated with the authorized activity. 

I.1.4.2 Minimize Habitat Disturbance 

12. To the extent possible, previously disturbed areas within the project site shall be used for 

stockpiling excavated materials, storing equipment, locating office trailers, parking vehicles, and 

other surface-disturbing activities. The Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor shall 

assist the project foreman in locating such areas to avoid desert tortoise mortality, minimize 

impacts to habitat, and ensure compliance with this measure and other pertinent regulatory 

documents (e.g., Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG). 

13. The area of disturbance shall be confined to the smallest practical area, considering 
Appendices 

topography, placement of facilities, location of desert tortoise burrows, public health and safety, 

and other limiting factors. Work area boundaries shall be delineated with flagging or other 

marking to minimize surface disturbance outside of the approved work area. Special habitat 

features, such as burrows, identified by the Authorized Biologist shall be avoided to the extent 

possible. 

I.1.4.3 Survey 

14. The Authorized Biologist(s), which have been previously approved by the Implementation 

Team and/or Federal Lead Agency, shall perform clearance surveys and remove desert tortoises 

from harm’s way. Environmental Monitors, who also must be approved by the Implementation 

Team, may assist but must be accompanied by the Authorized Biologist in removing desert 

tortoises during clearance surveys. 

15. Only those animals in the construction area or otherwise in harm’s way shall be moved. All 

potential habitat areas to be lost or otherwise impacted by construction activities shall be 

surveyed for tortoises and burrows immediately prior to the disturbance, using the following 

guidelines, which take into consideration when adult tortoises are most likely (February 15 - 

November 15) and least likely (November 16 - February 14) to be active aboveground: 

(a) Between February 15 and November 15, the survey shall occur within 48 

hours prior to ground disturbance and the surveyor shall remain on-site 

until all vegetation has been cleared. 

(b) Between November 16 and February 14), the survey may be performed 

several days or several weeks prior to ground disturbance. However, the 

Authorized Biologist must be on-site at the time of ground disturbance to 

rescue any injured animals or collect animals accidentally killed. 

16. In general, the clearance survey would be conducted along transects spaced at 30-foot 

intervals on flat, open terrain or at shorter intervals (e.g., 15-20 feet apart) in dense vegetation, 

rocky hillsides, or in other situations where substrates are not easily observed. Environmental 

Monitors may assist the Authorized Biologist in the clearance survey, but shall not perform the 

clearance survey in the absence of the Authorized Biologist. 

17. If no tortoise sign is found in the Impact Area, the Authorized Biologist must judge the 

likelihood of tortoises occurring in adjacent areas. 

18. If the Authorized Biologist judges that tortoises are absent from the site AND that there is no 

likelihood of a tortoise immigrating into the Impact Area, the Authorized Biologist shall convey 

that information to personnel directly responsible for ground-disturbing activities, and leave an 

educational brochure outlining measures to be taken if a tortoise is encountered. 

19. If tortoises or intact (i.e., active) tortoise burrows are found in the Impact Area OR if the 

Authorized Biologist is reasonably sure that a tortoise may enter into the construction site, take 
Appendices 

avoidance measures shall be implemented. Any tortoises within the Impact Area shall be 

removed and relocated by the Authorized Biologist as per guidelines given in Attachment I-1. 

Tortoises outside the Impact Area shall not be handled or otherwise disturbed. 

20. All burrows in the Impact Area, including those not recently used, shall be excavated by the 

Authorized Biologist at the time of the survey. Eggs shall be relocated by the Authorized 

Biologist as they are found (see Desert Tortoise Council, 1999). 

21. Once the initial tortoises are removed and burrows excavated, the site would then be 

surveyed an additional time to located any tortoises or burrows missed by the first survey. The 

site would then be considered clear and ground-disturbing activities may proceed. 

22. The Authorized Biologist shall remain on-site until it is completely brushed. 

23. Upon locating a recently dead or injured desert tortoise, the Authorized Biologist shall 

immediately notify the Lead Federal Agency (for federal projects) or Implementation Team (for 

non-federal projects). Where appropriate, it is recommended that tortoise remains be collected 

and stored as given in Dr. Kristin Berry’s June 2001 protocol for salvaging dead and sick 

tortoises. Written notification shall be made within five days of the finding to the 

Implementation Team and the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance. The 

information provided shall include the date of the finding or incident (if known), location of the 

carcass or injured animal, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent 

information. Injured animals shall be transported to a qualified veterinarian for treatment at the 

expense of the project proponent. If injured animals recover, the project proponent shall contact 

the Implementation Team for final disposition of the animal(s). 

24. Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors are advised to follow the appropriate 

guidelines outlined in Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises during Construction Projects, 

Appendix 2 (Desert Tortoise Council 1999). 

I.1.4.4 Monitor and Construction Worker Responsibilities 

25. The Authorized Biologist(s) shall be present during all activities where habitat is lost or 

substantially affected. Once the construction area has been cleared of all desert tortoises, an 

Environmental Monitor may be used instead of an Authorized Biologist. Environmental 

Monitors are only allowed to handle desert tortoises in emergency situations when the 

Authorized Biologist is not available. 

26. Desert tortoises shall not be handled by construction workers. Monitors shall work 

cooperatively with construction personnel, and encourage all workers to inform them if a desert 

tortoise is found within or near project areas. All work in the vicinity of a desert tortoise that 

could injure or kill the animal shall cease and the desert tortoise shall be observed until it is 

moved from harm’s way by the biologist or, in an emergency, by the monitor. 

27. Workers shall look for desert tortoises under vehicles and equipment before they are moved. 
Appendices 

 If a desert tortoise is present, the worker shall wait for the desert tortoise to move from under the 

vehicle and out of harm’s way. Alternatively, the Authorized Biologist shall be contacted to 

remove and relocate the desert tortoise. 

28. In general, there shall be one Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor assigned to 

each ground disturbing activity that may take tortoises (i.e., especially vegetation removal). 

Relatively mobile, often wide-spread construction activities (i.e., installing fiber optic cables and 

some water lines) will likely require multiple monitors, whereas many different stationary 

activities (i.e., drill rigs, gravel sifters) may either be fenced or observed by a single monitor. 

29. Construction-related activities in desert tortoise habitat may be conducted after dark only in 

areas in which clearance surveys for desert tortoises have been conducted during daylight hours, 

as described in these BMPs. Areas in which work will occur after dark shall be clearly and 

specifically marked with reflective flagging or by some other means to indicate the boundaries 

within which night-time activities are to be limited. 

30. All open holes shall be covered, fenced, OR inspected for trapped desert tortoises by an 

Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor at the beginning, middle, and end of each day. 

If desert tortoises are trapped, the Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor shall be 

notified immediately. Ramps shall be constructed at the ends of trenches, and, where feasible, at 

about 100-foot intervals along the trench to allow entrapped tortoises to escape. The desert 

tortoise shall be allowed to escape or shall be carefully removed and relocated by the 

biologist/monitor before work continues at that location. 

31.All local, State, and federal ordinances, regulations, and laws governing the release of 

hazardous materials and wastes shall be implemented. Additionally, any and all reportable 

releases shall be reported to the Lead Federal Agency or Implementation Team (for Section 7 

and Section 10(a)(1)(B) projects, respectively) within 24 hours of discovering the release. 

32. Trash and food items shall be contained in closed containers and regularly removed to reduce 

the attractiveness or the area to opportunistic predators such as common ravens (Corvus corax), 

coyotes (Canis latrans), and feral dogs. 

33. Pets shall be prohibited from the construction site. If guard dogs are to be used, the project 

proponent shall ensure that such animals do not adversely affect tortoises or other covered 

species. 

34. Firearms, except as otherwise authorized, shall be prohibited from the construction site. 

I.1.4.5 Monitor Versus Fencing 

35. In DWMAs, if construction lasts for more than a week OR occurs between February 15 and 

November 15 OR there is a reasonable likelihood that tortoises may wander onto the 

construction site, the Implementation Team shall require the project proponent to either (i) fence 

the site to preclude tortoises from the construction area (see Attachment I-2 for general 
Appendices 

guidelines) or (ii) employ an Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor to remain on-site 

until all activities likely to harm tortoises are completed. 

36. In DWMAs, if construction lasts less than a week OR occurs between November 16 and 

February 14 OR there is little likelihood that tortoises may wander onto the construction site as 

determined by the Authorized Biologist, the project proponent is not required to fence the site or 

monitor. Instead, a tortoise placement hotline number shall be provided in case a tortoise enters 

the construction area, so that the tortoise may be rescued from harm’s way and placed into 

adjacent areas as otherwise stipulated (see Attachment I-1). 

I.1.5 Reporting

37. Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors shall maintain records of all desert 

tortoises and other covered species encountered during project activities, including the following 

information: (a) the locations (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; (b) general 

condition and health, including injuries and state of healing and whether animals voided their 

bladders; (c) locations from which and to which any animals are moved (UTM coordinates 

derived from a global positioning system - GPS - are preferable); and (d) diagnostic markings 

(i.e., identification numbers or marked lateral scutes). 

38. A written status report shall be submitted to the Implementation Team every 30 days until 

which time the project is completed OR the potential to take tortoises no longer exists (i.e., if the 

site is fenced and the Authorized Biologist has already removed all tortoises from the fenced, 

impact area). 

39. No later than 90 days after completion of construction or termination of activities, the 

Authorized Biologist, serving as the FCR, shall prepare a report for the Implementation Team. 

The report shall document (a) the effectiveness and practicality of the mitigation measures; (b) 

the number of desert tortoises excavated from burrows, moved from the site, and accidentally 

killed or injured; and (c) the specific information for each tortoise as described previously. The 

report may make recommendations to the Implementation Team and Lead Federal Agency, if 

appropriate, for modifying the stipulations to enhance protection of the desert tortoise or to make 

it more workable. The report shall provide an estimate of the actual acreage disturbed by various 

aspects of the operation. 

Attachment I-1. Guidelines for Relocating Tortoises During Authorized Construction Projects in All 

Occupied Tortoise Habitats 

AREA RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 

Desert Wildlife 

Management 

Area 

Tortoises shall be moved from the immediate area of impact to adjacent suitable habitat (or 

burrow). In general, adult tortoises (>180 mm) shall be moved no further than 1,000 feet from 

the impact area; subadults (<180 mm) shall not be moved further than 300 feet. Fencing or 

monitoring may be required, as described in BMPs 35 and 36. 

Incidental Take 

Area: Special 

Review Areas 

(a) If only a small portion of a given site is to be developed then tortoises shall be moved to 

portions of the site that are not going to be developed. 

(b) Tortoises may be moved onto BLM lands if such lands are within (one-half mile of the 
Appendices 

impact area. 

(c) If the number of tortoises moved to avoid take exceeds a reasonable threshold identified by 

the Implementation Team, then an area of BLM land in the SRA should be fenced and animals 

moved there. The southern portion of Brisbane Valley, which may be dedicated to Mojave 

monkeyflower conservation, may serve this purpose (i.e, as a translocation site). A second 

area needs to be identified in the southeast (e.g., Little San Bernardino Mountains Gilia 

Special Review Area) to receive animals from Yucca Valley east to Twentynine Palms. 

ITA: Designated 

Survey Area 

(a) If only a small portion of a given site is to be developed then tortoises shall be moved to 

portions of the site that are not to be developed. 

(b) Tortoises may be moved onto BLM lands if such lands are within one-half mile of the 

impact area. 

(c) If neither option (a) nor (b) is available then tortoises should be made available for 

research, educational purposes, zoo placement, adoption through recognized organizations 

(e.g. California Turtle and Tortoise Club), or if clinically ill, euthanized. 

ITA: Designated 

Non-Survey 

Area 

(a) Free roaming pet tortoises and other animals should be made available for research, 

education, zoo placement, adoption through recognized organizations (e.g. California Turtle 

and Tortoise Club), or if clinically ill, euthanized. 

(b) Develop telephone tech support for general public to deal with these “incidental” animals. 

All Areas (a) Sick tortoises and those recently dead, where appropriate, should be collected and disposed 

of as per a recent (Oct 2001) disposition protocol developed by Kristin Berry. 

(b) It is suggested that tortoises be handled as given in Desert Tortoise Council’s (1999) 

protocol, Handling Tortoises During Construction Projects 

Attachment I-2. General Guidelines for Tortoise-Proof Fencing in DWMAs.

The BMPs identify several scenarios where a tortoise-proof fence may be used in lieu of 

prolonged environmental monitoring to avoid take of tortoises, subsequent to the Authorized 

Biologist or Environmental Monitor leaving the site. Specifically: 

35. In DWMAs, if construction lasts for more than a week OR occurs between February 15 and November 

15 OR there is a reasonable likelihood that tortoises may wander onto the construction site, the 

Implementation Team shall require the project proponent to either (i) fence the site to preclude tortoises 

from the construction area (see Attachment I-2 for general guidelines) or (ii) employ an Authorized 

Biologist or Environmental Monitor to remain on-site until all activities likely to harm tortoises are 

completed. 

36. In DWMAs, if construction lasts less than a week OR occurs between November 16 and 

February 14 OR there is little likelihood that tortoises may wander onto the construction site as 

determined by the Authorized Biologist, the project proponent is not required to fence the site or 

monitor. Instead, a tortoise placement hotline number will be provided in case a tortoise enters the 

construction area, so that the tortoise may be rescued from harms way and placed into adjacent 

areas as otherwise stipulated (see Attachment I-2).

Herein, we provide general guidelines for fencing materials, installation, monitoring, and 

maintenance of these fences. There are two basic types of fences: (1) non-tortoise-proof fences 

that preclude human use or other activities from a given area, and (2) tortoise-proof fences that 

exclude tortoises from the fenced area. The first type of fence supports either barbed wire or 

barbless wire, but in all cases, does not have tortoise-proof, meshed hardware cloth attached to 

the bottom and usually buried in the ground. This fence type allows tortoises to moved in an 

unrestricted manner into or out of the fenced area. The barbless fences along the northern 
Appendices 

boundary of the El Mirage Open Area, along the Mojave-Randsburg Road, and on many cattle 

allotments are examples. This memo concerns tortoise-proof fences, which have a hardware 

cloth component and are intended to preclude tortoises from a given area (i.e., usually an impact 

area at a construction or mine site). 

In general, there are at least three types of tortoise-proof fences: (1) temporary fences to 

preclude tortoises from a given area (i.e., usually active construction sites) for a short amount of 

time (i.e., usually weeks or months, in some cases, days); (2) permanent fences to preclude 

tortoises from a given area and minimize human impacts to tortoises in perpetuity; and (3) 

special-condition fences, which are usually permanent, and tailored to meet specific needs. 

Guidelines for using each fence type are described below. The Implementation Team may 

modify these guidelines as new information becomes available or where the particular project 

type calls for modification of these guidelines. 

1. Temporary Tortoise-Proof Fences. 

1.a. Intended Function. This fence type is intended to preclude tortoises from an active 

construction site, where said activities (a) are likely to adversely affect tortoises; (b) are of short 

duration, usually a matter of weeks or months; and (c) fencing is less expensive and equally 

effective compared to having an environmental monitor remain on-site for a prolonged period of 

time. In this case, tortoises are known to occur in or adjacent to the impact area, which would be 

determined at the time of the clearance survey. This type of fence is best used on a fixed 

construction site [i.e., new or expanding mine area, residential development on a relatively small 

parcel (i.e., less than about 100 acres), etc.]. Pipelines and other long, linear projects are not well 

suited for temporary tortoise-proof fences, although fences have been effectively used during 

construction of pump houses, booster stations, stationary excavations, etc. along the right-ofway. In general, installing the temporary tortoise-proof fence is less expensive than employing 

an environmental monitor for the duration of the ground-disturbing activity. 

1.b. Timing. The West Mojave Plan requires that all areas within Tortoise DWMAs and 

additional areas within a Tortoise Survey Area are to be surveyed for tortoises prior to ground 

disturbance. If during this clearance survey, the Authorized Biologist or Environmental Monitor 

(accompanied by the biologist) finds tortoise(s) on the site or in adjacent areas, a set of Best 

Management Practices, which may include fence installation, would be implemented to avoid 

take of tortoises. If a temporary tortoise-proof fence is to be erected, it should be placed around 

the perimeter of the area to be impacted, allowing sufficient room for construction activities to 

occur inside the fence without harm to construction personnel. The Authorized Biologist or 

Environmental Monitor would remain on-site and assist construction personnel or the fencing 

contractor in the placement of the fence to keep as many tortoise burrows as possible outside the 

fence. Once the fence is erected, the fenced area would be surveyed for tortoises and burrows, as 

described in the BMPs. All burrows would be excavated, and all tortoises and tortoise eggs 

would be moved out of harm’s way, outside the fenced area, as described in Attachment I-1 

(Guidelines for Relocating Tortoises During Authorized Construction Projects in All Occupied 

Tortoise Habitats). Once the site is cleared of tortoises, the biologist or monitor need not remain 

on-site, so long as all construction activities are restricted to and contained within the temporary 

fence. 
Appendices 

1.c. Materials and Installation. In general, the temporary tortoise-proof fence would 

consist of 24-inch wide, 2-inch mesh, galvanized hardware cloth attached to 36-inch tall rebar or 

other post material. It may be advisable to clear a narrow (3- to 4-foot wide) path in which the 

fence would be installed, although the fence may be installed without removing any vegetation. 

The mesh is then folded in half, creating a 12-inch vertical portion and a 12-inch horizontal 

portion, at more-or-less right angles to each other. When installing the fence, it is important that 

the horizontal portion of the fence lie evenly on the ground surface and face outward from 

the fenced area. In so doing, when a tortoise excluded from the fenced area encounters the 

vertical portion of the fence, it would be standing on the horizontal portion of the fence, which 

will restrict its ability to burrow beneath the fence and enter the impact area. Rebar or other post 

material should be spaced at about 10-foot intervals, although the specific situation may require 

closer intervals (i.e., as in extremely rocky areas) or allow for wider intervals. In any case, post 

placement should ensure that no gaps exist in the fencing material between the posts. The 

fencing material is then attached to the rebar with hog rings, fence clamps, or other fasteners. 

Once attached, the horizontal portion of the fence (which is effectively outside the fenced area) 

should be covered with soil or rocks, or otherwise secured to the ground surface, so that no gaps 

allow for tortoise immigration into the impact area. Finally, it may be appropriate to tie 

surveyor’s flagging or other highly visible material to the tops of the posts to increase the 

visibility of the fence, so that construction personnel avoid tripping on the fence and vehicles 

avoid damaging it. 

There is no evidence that hurricane fencing, plastic mesh, or similar materials will 

preclude tortoises from an area; tortoises, and lizards in particular, often get their heads or 

appendages stuck in chicken wire and fencing materials with a mesh size larger than 2 inch; until 

new information shows otherwise, these materials should not be used as alternate fencing 

material. 

1.d. Gates. One or more gates will be necessary to allow entry and exit of construction 

vehicles onto the site. There are no specific gate designs associated with the temporary fence, 

although it must function to preclude tortoises from the area. The gate may be an extension of 

the fence line, and opened inwards or outwards to allow for vehicle passage. As with the fence, 

the horizontal portion of the gate should face out from the fenced area. Keeping the gate closed 

when vehicles are not actively entering or leaving the site has been a major problem in the past, 

and undermines the effectiveness of the fence. As a guideline, if construction is occurring 

during the tortoise inactivity period, generally from November 15 to February 15, there is 

probably no need to close the gate. However, it should be closed at all times when not in use 

between February 15 and November 15, or if tortoises are known to be active in the area. 

1.e. Monitoring and Maintenance. It is essential that someone be assigned the 

responsibility of periodically walking (or driving, if conditions warrant) the fence line to ensure 

its integrity and effectiveness in precluding tortoises from the impact area. Whereas this may be 

accomplished with weekly or monthly inspections, it is important to check the fence after each 

rain storm to ensure no gaps in the material. Most breaches are remedied by replacing soil or 

rocks on the horizontal portion of the fence to close the gap. 
Appendices 

2. Permanent Tortoise-Proof Fences. 

2.a. Intended Function. This fence type is intended to exclude tortoises, including 

hatchlings, from a given area in perpetuity. It may also function to minimize human impacts on 

tortoises occurring in adjacent areas. A permanent tortoise-proof fence is generally 

recommended for facilities in tortoise habitat where there are regular visits to the facility (e.g., 

pump stations, tank sites, vehicle storage yards, etc.) for the foreseeable future. The need for 

such a fence should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Implementation Team, and be 

based as much as possible on the known occurrence of tortoises in the area. A permanent 

tortoise-proof fence in downtown Victorville is a waste of money, as no tortoises occur in the 

interior, urban portions of this and many other desert communities. 

2.b. Timing. As with the temporary tortoise-proof fence, the permanent fence should be 

installed as early as possible, preferably before ground-disturbing activities. If that is not 

feasible and a temporary fence is used, the permanent fence should be installed inside the 

temporary fence as part of the contained construction activities. As its name implies, the 

permanent fence would remain in place in perpetuity, or for as long as the facility is in operation. 

 

2.c. Materials and Installation. The description given above for the temporary fence is 

also applicable to the permanent fence, with two important exceptions: the hardware cloth is 

attached to a more substantial fence (i.e., usually chain-link or range fencing) and it is buried. 

The same 24-inch wide, 2-inch mesh, galvanized hardware cloth should be buried to a depth of 

about 6 to 8 inches, with the remaining portion securely attached to the more substantial fence. 

If a temporary fence is installed first, followed later by the permanent fence, the same hardware 

cloth may be used for both. Ditch witches, backhoes, and other heavy equipment are often used 

to excavate a trench in which the bottom portion of the hardware cloth is buried. If the ground is 

too rocky and precludes burying the fence, the contractor must still ensure that the fence 

excludes tortoises from the area. Three-to-four-inch galvanized posts are often used with chainlink, and t-posts are often used with range fencing, but in any case, the permanent fence should 

be sturdy enough to remain in place in perpetuity. Installation of these fences should be 

monitored, unless the fence can be installed alongside existing roads, and even then, the biologist 

still needs to survey the fenced area to excavate all tortoise burrows and move all tortoises/eggs 

out of harm’s way, to outside the fenced area. 

2.d. Gates. Whereas the temporary gate may be as rudimentary as a fold in the extended 

fence line, the gate on a permanent tortoise-proof fence must be more substantial and sufficiently 

sturdy to withstand years of use and still function to preclude tortoises. Cement foundations and 

permanent footings have been used effectively in blocking the gap at the bottom of gates that are 

frequently used. In cases where there are infrequent visits, hardware cloth may be attached to 

the bottom of the gate, and closely fit the ground surface to preclude tortoises from entering the 

site. Often, this type of tortoise-proof gate material drags across the ground as the gate is opened 

and closed. Keeping the gates closed to frequently used facilities is a persisting problem. 

Maintaining a closed-gate policy from February 15 to November 15 is advisable. 

2.e. Monitoring and Maintenance. Monitoring and maintaining permanent tortoise-proof 
Appendices 

fences is important. Given that the bottom of the fence is buried, it may not be necessary to 

check the fence as often as the temporary fence. However, maintaining the integrity of a 

permanent fence is equally or more important than the temporary fence, and will require an 

extended monitoring program for as long as the fence remains in place. Curing breaches in a 

permanent fence may require heavy equipment and is likely to be more time consuming than 

fixing a gap in a temporary fence. A single storm event may erode away soil from the buried 

fence, and should be considered in the monitoring and maintenance procedures for the 

permanent fence. 

3. Special Condition Fences.

Finally, in about 1996 (revised 29 January 2002), Dr. Bill Boarman assisted Caltrans in 

designing a tortoise-proof fence and culverts for the Highway 58 widening project. The 

following narrative and diagram were provided by Dr. Boarman as one example of how such a 

fence would be installed and function: 

Specifications for Culverts and Tortoise-proof Fence along Highway 58, San 

Bernardino County, California.

These comments are not to be considered a recommendation; they only serve to 

explain the current design of the culverts and tortoise-proof fence in place along a fifteenmile stretch of State Highway 58 between Barstow and Kramer Junction, San Bernardino 

County, California. The fence consists of 6-strand highway right-of-way fencing with 1/2-

inch mesh galvanized hardware cloth sunk part-way into the ground (Figure 1). The fence is 

connected to several storm-drain culverts that span the entire width of the highway, thus 

permitting access by tortoises to the culverts. 

The basic fence right-of-way consists of 7-foot long metal posts (t-bars) sunk 2 feet 

6 inches into the ground and spaced approximately ten feet apart. There are six strands of 

wire placed about 10 inches apart. The top three strands are barbed, the bottom three are 

unbarbed strands of 10-gage galvanized wire; this allows medium-sized mammals to climb 

over without injury. The tortoise-proof feature is made of 24-inch wide, 1/2-inch mesh, clear 

galvanized steel hardware cloth that is attached to each metal post with steel rings. The cloth 

is sunk 6 inches into the ground, leaving 18 inches of exposed cloth. 

An additional feature of the fence is a specially designed tortoise-proof gate placed 

at varied intervals along the fence. The gate is a standard 12-foot wide gate with a central 

vertical stay and attached to a 7-foot metal gate post which is sunk 3 feet into the ground. 

The 24-inch wide, 1/2-inch mesh, clear galvanized steel hardware cloth is attached to the 

lower 2 feet of the gate, flush with the bottom of the gate. Beneath the gate, parallel to the 

gate in a closed position, is an 8 inch by 8 inch by 12 foot Douglas Fir beam sunk completely 

into the ground with its top edge flush with the ground surface. The gate is hung with a 1/2-

inch clearance above the Douglas Fir post. 

The culverts are located in washes since they were placed to facilitate water runoff, 

not tortoise movements. The 156 to 206 foot-long culverts are made of 36 to 60 inch, 

corrugated steel pipe, 54 inch, reinforced concrete pipe, and 10 ft to 12 ft by 6 ft to 10 ft, 

reinforced concrete boxes. The culverts cross beneath the entire width of the highway and 

connect directly to the fence, thus providing an unobstructed pathway between both sides of 

the fenced highway. The entrance to each culvert is to be maintained to prevent erosion 

exposing the edge of the culvert or creating gullies, both of which may prohibit tortoise use 

of the culverts. 
Appendices 

I.2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR DESERT 

TORTOISE SURVEY AREAS (OUTSIDE DWMAs)

The measures given below comprise a subset of the BMPs developed for construction 

projects in Tortoise DWMAs, and are modified as necessary for applicability to Incidental Take 

Areas outside DWMAs where focused desert tortoise surveys would be required (i.e., 

specifically within Tortoise Survey Areas). 

Although DWMAs represent essential habitats required for the conservation and recovery 

of the desert tortoise, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) require that the take of tortoises be minimized insofar as possible 

in all areas supporting tortoises, not just in DWMAs. The West Mojave Plan (Plan) has used 

the best available data to delineate areas where clearance surveys would (Tortoise Survey Area) 

and would not (Tortoise Non-Survey Areas) be required for projects covered by the Plan. 

In the Tortoise Non-Survey Areas, a clearance survey would not be required, rather, at 

the time of discretionary permit issuance, the pertinent lead agency (i.e., mostly counties and 

cities) would distribute a brochure that, among other things, includes a hotline number to be 

called in the unlikely event a wild tortoise would be encountered. 

The following BMPs are recommended for Tortoise Survey Areas: 

I.2.1 Surveys

1. The Implementation Team would maintain a list of Authorized Biologists who are qualified 

to perform desert tortoise clearance surveys. Environmental Monitors, who also must be 

approved by the Implementation Team, may assist the Authorized Biologist but are not 

authorized to perform clearance surveys by themselves. 

2. The following guidelines are given to direct the timing of clearance surveys prior to grounddisturbing activities based on the assumption that most tortoises (with the exception of juveniles) 

are in hibernation from November 15 through February 15: 

(a) Between February 15 and November 15, the clearance survey shall occur 

within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance. 

(b) Between November 16 and February 14, the survey may be performed several 

days or several weeks prior to ground disturbance. 

3. In general, the clearance survey shall include 100% of the area to be developed (Impact Area) 

and be conducted along transects spaced at 30-foot intervals on flat, open terrain or at shorter 

intervals (e.g., 15-20 feet apart) in dense vegetation, rocky hillsides, or in other situations where 

substrates are not easily observed. 
Appendices 

4. If no tortoise sign is found on the site, the Authorized Biologist shall judge the likelihood of 

tortoise occurrence in the adjacent area. 

5. If the Authorized Biologist judges that tortoises are absent from the area AND would not be 

directly affected by construction activities (i.e., are not likely to immigrate onto the site), the 

Authorized Biologist shall convey that information to personnel directly responsible for grounddisturbing activities, and leave an educational brochure outlining measures to be taken if a 

tortoise is encountered. 

6. If tortoises or intact (i.e., active) tortoise burrows are found in the Impact Area OR if the 

Authorized Biologist is reasonably sure that a tortoise may enter into the construction site, take 

avoidance measures shall be implemented. Any tortoises within the Impact Area shall be 

removed and relocated as per guidelines given in Attachment I-1. Tortoises outside the Impact 

Area shall not be handled or otherwise disturbed. 

7. All burrows in the Impact Area, including those not recently used, shall be excavated at the 

time of the survey. Eggs shall be relocated as they are found (see Desert Tortoise Council, 

1999). 

8. Once the initial tortoises are removed and burrows excavated, the site shall then be surveyed 

an additional time to located any tortoises or burrows missed by the first survey. The site would 

then be considered clear, and ground-disturbing activities may proceed. 

9. The Authorized Biologist shall remain on-site until it is completely brushed. 

10. Upon locating a recently dead or injured desert tortoise, the Authorized Biologist shall 

immediately notify the Lead Federal Agency (for federal projects) or Implementation Team (for 

non-federal projects). Where appropriate, it is recommended that tortoise remains be collected 

and stored as given in Dr. Kristin Berry’s protocol for salvaging dead and sick tortoises. Written 

notification shall be made within five days of the finding to the Implementation Team and the 

Service’s Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance. The information provided shall include the 

date of the finding or incident (if known), location of the carcass or injured animal, a 

photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent information. Injured animals shall be 

transported to a qualified veterinarian for treatment at the expense of the project proponent. If 

injured animals recover, the project proponent shall contact the Implementation Team for final 

disposition of the animals. 

11. Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors are advised to follow the appropriate 

guidelines outlined in Guidelines for Handling Desert Tortoises during Construction Projects, 

Appendix 2 (Desert Tortoise Council 1994, revised 1999). 

I.2.2 Educational Brochure

12. The Implementation Team will develop and make available a standard education brochure, 

and maintain a list of Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors who are authorized to 
Appendices 

distribute the brochure. Among other things, this brochure shall outline steps to be taken if a 

$tortoises enters into the construction site once the Biologist/Monitor has left the site. 

I.2.3 Preconstruction Planning

13. Whenever possible, the project proponent shall work with the Implementation Team to plan 

for and conduct construction activities (particularly linear projects through Tortoise Survey 

Areas) when tortoises are least likely to be active, which generally occurs between November 15 

and February 15. 

14. Where more than one site or alignment could satisfy the project proponent’s needs, it is 

suggested that a presence-absence survey be conducted on the alternative sites to determine 

which site or alignment will result in the fewest impacts to tortoises and occupied habitat during 

project development. 

I.2.4 Reporting

15. Authorized Biologists and Environmental Monitors shall maintain records of all desert 

tortoises and other covered species encountered during project activities, including the following 

information: (a) the locations (narrative and maps) and dates of observations; (b) general 

condition and health, including injuries and state of healing and whether animals voided their 

bladders; (c) locations from which and to which any animals are moved (UTM coordinates 

derived from a global positioning system - GPS - are preferable); (d) diagnostic markings (i.e., 

identification numbers or marked lateral scutes); and (e) the amount of habitat lost (i.e., cleared 

of vegetation) to the activity. This report shall be submitted to the Implementation Team within 

30 days of the Authorized Biologist leaving the site. 
Appendices 

APPENDIX K 

STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF 

DESERT TORTOISE SURVEYS
Appendices 
Statistical Analysis of BLM Desert Tortoise Surveys 

In Support of the West Mojave Management Plan 

Report I: Exploratory and Initial Data Analysis 

1 May 2002 

by 

Anthony J. Krzysik, Ph.D. 

11 Highland Terrace 

Prescott, AZ 86305
2

Introduction 

This report represents the exploratory and initial data analysis of the BLM desert tortoise surveys 

and calibration plots that support the West Mojave Management Plan. Ed LaRue of BLM is the 

primary monitor of this analysis effort and Principal Investigator of the role of desert populations 

in the development of this plan. Kathy Buescher, Senior Wildlife Biologist at Chambers Group, 

Inc., is the subcontract manager. The data used for analysis came from Emily Cohen and Ric 

Williams in 2002. The data was provided in Excel format. The tortoise calibration plot data was 

provided by Emily on 13 February. Ric’s 1998 and 1999 data sets were provided 12 March, and 

were initially used for analyzing the tortoise survey data, because they contained UTM 

coordinates from BLM GIS tortoise distribution maps. After a great deal of exploratory and 

actual analysis, there appeared to be errors in the 1998 data set. Therefore, a close comparison 

was made of all individual transects for both the 1998 and 1999 data from Emily and Ric. A 

number of discrepancies were found between the pairs of data sets, particularly in the 1998 pair. 

Ed LaRue, Emily Cohen, and Ric Williams were provided with the detailed individual 

discrepancies between the 1998 and 1999 data files on 8 April. Everyone agreed that the two 

files should have been identical. Emily carefully corrected the 1998 data set and sent it to me 24 

April. Ed LaRue has the original data field data sheets and noted that he will recheck the Excel 

data. The 1999 data set also requires further examination. Out of 1617 cases, 589 have Area 

codes, 980 have Areas that were coded as “unknown” and 48 had “blank” fields for Area. The 

1999 data set was analyzed with 589 cases. Therefore, the 1998 and 1999 tortoise survey data 

that were analyzed were provided by Emily Cohen. The 2001 data set provided by Emily Cohen 

on 5 April was not analyzed because survey Areas were not identified. The “Transect Area” data 

field contained only “1s”. 

These initial data analyses were important in developing data analyses approaches and 

techniques, formatting the data, identifying problem areas in the original data, correcting minor 

errors in the data that analyses and data formatting revealed, and importantly, also generated 

some initial results. The Conclusions section discusses the results of the current analysis to 

provide guidance for the final data analysis phase. 

Methods 

Final data analyses were conducted with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS 1999a). Three 

tortoise sign counts were used in the analysis: burrows, scats, and TCS. The variable burrow is 

the actual observed tortoise burrow count on individual surveyed transects and was available 

from the provided data matrix. The variable scat is the corrected tortoise scat count on 

individual surveyed transects, and was calculated from the data matrix as TCS – burrow. The 

variable TCS (Total Corrected Sign) is the total corrected burrow + scat count on individual 

surveyed transects and was available from the provided data matrix. Table 1 provides the 

variable abbreviations used for the Calibration Plot Areas. 

Tortoise sign require square root data transformation, because the data represent counts with 

many data cells being “0”. Counts follow a Poisson distribution where the mean equals the 

variance, and therefore the mean and variance cannot be independent, but vary identically. 
3

All the sign data was transformed as x = (x+0.5)1/2, where x represents a tortoise sign variable 

(Sokal and Rohlf 1995). 

Bivariate parametric and nonparametric correlation analyses were performed on three data sets to 

assess the association of tortoises, burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses on survey transects. The 

parametric test was the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. Two nonparametric 

rank correlations were used: Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau. The three data set used were: 

Calibration Plot Areas, 1998+1999+2001 

1998 tortoise survey Areas 

1999 tortoise survey Areas 

Guided by the results of the correlation analyses, a Step-Wise Linear Regression model was 

developed to assess the relative importance of the three tortoise sign parameters to “predict” 

tortoise transect occurrences. 

 

Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for the calibration plot surveys for 

comparing statistical significance of burrows, scats, and TCS among surveyors, years, and Areas. 

The 5 percent significance level (P < 0.05) was used based on experience and general acceptance 

in ecological research and field biology. Burrows, scats, and TCS were each used in separate 

analyses as dependent variables with years, Areas, and surveyors as “factors”, the independent 

variables. Tables 2 shows all the data cells available for Years – Areas – Surveyors analyses. 

Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize the data of Table 2. Various combinations of years, Areas, 

surveyors, and variables were used in multiple analyses to minimize “unbalanced” ANOVA 

designs. Unbalanced design in these analyses refers to the situation when there are empty cells 

in the years x Areas x surveyors matrix (e.g., some surveyors were not present in some areas in 

some years, see Table 2). All analyses, unless specified otherwise, used Type III calculation of 

Sums of Squares, because this algorithm is generally recommended, it is invariant with respect to 

cell frequencies, and when there are no missing cells it is equivalent to Yates’ weighted-squaresof-means method (Milliken and Johnson 1984, Shaw and Mitchell-Olds 1993). Type IV 

calculation of Sums of Squares was used when the factorial design was unbalanced with respect 

to possessing empty cells among factor comparisons (Milliken and Johnson 1984, Shaw and 

Mitchell-Olds 1993). For example, in a three factor ANOVA (years-surveyors-Areas) when 

comparing three survey years all surveyors did not survey all three years in all the areas that 

were under investigation (e.g., there were empty cells in the factorial design). 

Levene’s test for equality of error variances was used for all analyses, and does not depend on 

the assumption of normality (Levene 1960). Bartlett’s test is often used to assess homogeneity, 

but its practical value has been questioned (Harris 1975), and this test is not very efficient and 

strongly affected by non-normality (Zar 1999). Levene’s test uses the average of absolute 

deviations instead of the mean square of deviations, making it less sensitive to skewed 

distributions (Snedecor and Cochran 1989). Levene’s test checks to see if error variances are 

homogeneous among the factors being compared in an ANOVA. Homogeneous variances are a 

parametric assumption in ANOVA. ANOVA is a parametric statistical procedure that 

technically requires parametric assumptions to be met: homogeneous error variances, normally 

distributed data, adequate sample sizes, and independence of sampling or experimental errors 
4

(random sampling, independence of observations). Nevertheless and importantly, ANOVA is 

considered robust to departures from the first two of these assumptions, particularly when proper 

transformations are employed (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, Underwood 1997, Zar 1999). 

Additionally, SPSS algorithms are very robust to nonnormality (Morgan and Griego 1998). 

Many researchers believe that the routine use of nonparametric statistics avoids many issues of 

parametric assumptions, but these methods are equally affected by the last two critical 

assumptions – independence of sampling errors and the loss of statistical power with inadequate 

sample sizes (Krzysik 1998). The routine use of nonparametric analysis in ecological research is 

not recommended (Johnson 1995, Smith 1995, Stewart-Oaton 1995), but see Potvin and Roff 

(1993). 

The use of factorial ANOVA designs requires the use of Post Hoc multiple comparison tests to 

assess the statistical significance when there are more than two levels for any factor. Five Post 

Hoc multiple comparison tests were used in all factorial ANOVA analyses. The Bonferroni test, 

based on the Student’s t statistic, adjusts the significance level for multiple comparisons. This 

test has the widest range of applications, is conservative, and when there are few comparisons 

has high power (Zolman 1993, SPSS 1999b). Conservative tests were desirable in these 

analyses, because they minimize Type I error, the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis 

(null hypothesis = no significance difference) (Krzysik 1998). In other words, reporting 

significance when the comparison was not statistically significant. When factor variances are 

heterogeneous, pooled estimates of variance cannot be used to calculate the standard error of the 

comparison (Day and Quinn 1989). The use of Post Hoc tests that specifically address this issue 

are recommended (Day and Quinn 1989, SPSS 1999b). Therefore, four additional Post Hoc tests 

were used for all factorial ANOVA comparisons that were made: 

 

Tamhane’s T2 – conservative pairwise comparison test based on a t test 

Dunnett’s T3 – pairwise comparison test based on the Studentized maximum modulus, 

 highly recommended (Fry 1993) 

Games-Howell – liberal pairwise comparisons test, highly recommended (Fry 1993) 

Dunnett’s C – pairwise comparisons test based on the Studentized range 

Although all five tests were examined for significance at the 0.05 level, only the results of the 

conservative Tamhane’s T2 test were reported. The results of all five Post Hoc tests were 

reasonably similar for all the factorial ANOVA analyses conducted in this study. This indicates 

that the data were reasonably behaved. As expected, the Games-Howell test was more liberal, 

while the Bonferroni test was frequently very liberal in contrast to the other four tests, 

particularly when Levene’s test showed significant departure from homogeneous residuals. 

One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to assess the statistical significance among the tortoise 

survey Areas. Analyses were done separately for 1998 and 1999. Analysis of the 2001 data was 

not conducted, because Area was not distinguished in the data matrix. A large number of cases 

in the 1999 data were removed from the data matrix, because the Area variable was either 

designated “unknown” or left as a blank field. Tamhane’s T2 and Games-Howell Post Hoc tests 
5

were performed on all analyses to statistically established differences among the tortoise survey 

sites. The results of Tamhane’s T2 test were reported in the results. 

Results 

Bivariate Correlation Analysis 

In all analyses, very similar results were obtained with Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation 

Coefficient (Parametric) and two Nonparametric methods Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau rank 

correlation. The values reported below are Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. 

Tortoise Calibration Areas 

Year: 1998 + 1999 + 2001 

All Areas (N=8) All Surveyors (N=13) 

N = 624 

 Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses

Tortoises 0.39** 0.17** 0.26** -0.004 NS 

Burrows 0.35** 0.58** -0.002 NS 

Scats 0.96** 0.018 NS 

TCS 0.021 NS 

** Highly Significant: P < 0.01 

NS Not Significant: P > 0.05 
6

Tortoise Survey Areas 

Year: 1998 

All Areas (N=19) All Surveyors (N=7) 

N = 876 

 Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses 

Tortoises 0.29** 0.14** 0.23** -0.004 NS 

Burrows 0.43** 0.68** 0.13** 

Scats 0.95** 0.027 NS 

TCS 0.067* 

** Highly Significant: P < 0.01 

* Significant: P < 0.05 

NS Not Significant: P > 0.05 

Tortoise Survey Areas 

Year: 1999 

All Areas (N=9) All Surveyors (N=4) 

N = 589 

 Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses 

Tortoises 0.36** 0.18** 0.25** 0.074 NS 

Burrows 0.35** 0.60** 0.15** 

Scats 0.95** 0.006 NS 

TCS 0.054 NS 

** Highly Significant: P < 0.01 

NS Not Significant: P > 0.05 
7

Step-Wise Linear Regression 

Exploratory Model: 

Tortoises = a(Burrows) + b(Scats) + c(TCS) + d 

Tortoise Calibration Areas 

Year: 1998 + 1999 + 2001 

Significance 

Burrows Scats TCS

<0.001 0.88 NS 0.66 NS 

Survey Areas 

Year: 1998 

Significance 

Burrows Scats TCS

<0.001 0.82 NS 0.54 NS 

Survey Areas 

Year: 1999 

Significance 

Burrows Scats TCS

<0.001 0.88 NS 0.64 NS 
8

Analysis of Calibration Plots 

Statistical Comparison of Surveyors 

Note: Balanced Factor ANOVA unless noted otherwise 

Years: 1998 

Areas Used: Alvord, Kramer, Liz, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, LaRue 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign)

Levene’s Test 

NS (0.971) NS (0.307) NS (0.389) 

Statistical Significance (Type III) 

B=L (0.050) L>B (0.005) B=L (0.070) 

Years: 1998

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer 

Surveyors Compared: Karl, Vaughn 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(0.009) NS (0.814) NS (0.498) 

Statistical Significance (Type III) 

K=V (0.940) K=V (0.756) K=V (0.595) 

Years: 1998

Areas Used: Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, LaRue, Vaughn 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

NS (0.211) NS (0.391) NS (0.882) 
9

Statistical Significance (Type III), Post Hoc Comparisons Unnecessary 

B=L=V (0.966) B=L=V (0.079) B=L=V (0.198) 

Years: 1998

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Hoover, Karl, LaRue, Silverman, Vaughn, Woodman 

Note: Unbalanced Design, each surveyor not in all Areas 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

NS (0.057) (0.024) NS (0.074) 

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

NS (0.135) (<0.001) (0.002) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

NS (>0.080) B>H (<0.001) B>H (<0.001) 

 B>K (<0.001) B>K (0.002) 

 B>S (0.046) B>S (0.025 

 L>H (<0.001) L>H (<0.001) 

 L>K (<0.001) L>K (<0.001) 

 L>S (0.003) L>S (0.002) 

 L>W (0.041) V>H (0.009) 

 V>H (0.016) 

 V>K (0.019) 

Years: 1999 

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Karl, LaRue, Vaughn, Woodman 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(0.007) (<0.001) (0.009) 
10

Statistical Significance (Type III) 

(<0.001) (0.001) NS (0.169) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

K>L (0.002) NS (>0.074) NS (>0.692) 

V>L (0.028) 

W>L (0.001) 

Years: 1999 

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Frank, Goodlett, Karl, Laberteaux, LaRue, Vaughn, 

Woodman 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(0.015) (<0.001) (0.003) 

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

G>Lar (0.004) Lar>F (0.006) Lar>G (0.029) 

K>Lar (0.005) Lar>G (<0.001) 

W>Lar (0.004) Lar>Lab (0.002) 

 W>G (0.034) 

Years: 2001 

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Frank, LaRue, Vaughn 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(0.002) (<0.001) (<0.001) 

Statistical Significance (Type III) 

NS (0.251) (0.037) NS (0.200) 
11

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

B=F=L=V B=F=L=V B=F=L=V 

(>0.637) (>0.562) (>0.912) 

Years: 2001 

Areas Used: Fremont, Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Frank, Keaton, LaRue, Smith, Vaughn, Wood (Peggy 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

(0.002) (<0.001) NS (0.100) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

W>B (0.032) NS (>0.725) NS (>0.998) 

W>L (0.006) 

W>S (0.034) 

Years: 1998 and 1999

Areas Used: Alvord, Fremont, Kramer, Liz, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Karl, LaRue, Vaughn, Woodman 

Note: Unbalanced Design, each surveyor not in all Areas 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

NS (0.090) NS (0.067) NS (0.097) 

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

(0.002) (<0.001) (0.025) 
12

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

B>L (0.007) B>K (<0.001) B>K (<0.001) 

 B>W (0.006) B>W (0.009) 

 L>K (<0.001) L>K (<0.001) 

 L>V (0.041) L>W (<0.001) 

 L>W (<0.001) V>K (0.019) 

 V>K (0.002) 

Years: 1999 and 2001

Areas Used: Alvord, Fremont, Kramer, Liz, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, Frank, LaRue, Vaughn 

Note: Unbalanced Design, each surveyor not in all Areas 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign)

Levene’s Test 

(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

(<0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

B>L (0.037) L>F (<0.001) L>F (0.004) 

V>L (0.017) 

Years: 1998, 1999, and 2001 

Areas Used: Alvord, Fremont, Kramer, Liz, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, LaRue, Vaughn 

Note: Unbalanced Design, each surveyor not in all Areas 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

(0.001) (<0.001) (<0.001) 
13

Statistical Significance (Type IV) 

(0.002) (<0.001) (0.013) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

B>L (0.001) B=L=V B=L=V 

V>L (0.004) (>0.094) (>0.615) 

Years: 1998, 1999, and 2001 

Areas Used: Kramer, Lucerne 

Surveyors Compared: Boland, LaRue, Vaughn 

Burrows Scats TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test 

NS (0.076) (0.010) (0.003) 

Statistical Significance (Type III) 

(0.002) (<0.001) (0.010) 

Post Hoc Comparisons (Tamhane’s T2) 

B>L (0.043) L>B (0.039) B=L=V 

V>L (0.001) (>0.240) 

Statistical Comparison of Years and Areas 

Years Compared: 1998, 1999, 2001 

Areas Compared: Alvord, Fremont, Kramer, Liz, Lucerne 

Surveyors: Boland, LaRue, Vaughn 

Data for Year – Area – Surveyor 

Note that the data fields are not completely balanced. Only Kramer and Lucerne have all 

three surveyors for all three years, Fremont has all three surveyors for only 1999 and 2001, 

and Alvord and Liz have the same two surveyors for all three years. The statistical 

advantages of using the full Factorial ANOVA Design should outweigh the lack of complete 

balance in the experimental design. 
14

 Boland LaRue Vaughn

1998 

 Alvord * * 

 

Fremont * 

 

Kramer * * * 

 Liz * * 

Lucerne * * * 

1999 

 Alvord * * 

 Fremont * * * 

 Kramer * * * 

 Liz * * 

 Lucerne * * * 

2001 

 Alvord * * 

 Fremont * * * 

 Kramer * * * 

 Liz * * 

 Lucerne * * * 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Significant (0.025) 

Difference among AREAS: Significant (<0.001) 

Differences among SURVEYORS: Significant (<0.001) 
15

BURROWS (cont.)

Years – Areas Interaction: Not Significant (0.295) 

Years – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.061) 

Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.233) 

Years – Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.179) 

Difference among Years (Tamhane’s T2) 

 1998 > 1999 (0.003) 

 1998 > 2001 (0.007) 

Difference among Areas (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Alvord > Fremont (<0.001) Kramer > Liz (0.001) 

 Alvord > Liz (0.003) Lucerne > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Kramer > Fremont (<0.001) Lucerne > Liz (0.003) 

Summary: 

 Alvord – Lucerne – Kramer > 

 Fremont – Liz 

Burrows were more abundant in 1998 than in either 1999 or 2001. Burrow counts at Alvord, 

Lucerne and Kramer were similar, and larger than at Fremont and Liz. The latter two were 

simlar. The non-significant interactions made the analysis easy to interpret. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.054) 

Difference among AREAS: Significant (<0.001) 

Differences among SURVEYORS: Significant (<0.001) 

Years – Areas Interaction: Significant (<0.001) 
16

SCATS (cont.) 

Years – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.965) 

Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.361) 

Years – Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.859) 

Difference among Years (Tamhane’s T2) 

 1998 > 1999 (0.026) 

Difference among Areas (Tamhane’s T2) 

Alvord > Fremont (<0.001) Kramer > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Alvord > Kramer (<0.001) Kramer > Liz (<0.001) 

 Alvord > Liz (<0.001) Liz > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Kramer (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Liz (<0.001) 

Summary: 

 Alvord – Lucerne > 

 Kramer > 

 Liz > 

 Fremont 

Scats were more abundant in 1998 than in 1999. Scat counts were similar at Alvord and 

Lucerne, and higher than the other Areas, following the sequence above. There was a significant 

Years – Areas interaction which indicates that some of the difference in scat counts among Areas 

was influenced by year. 

TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.154) 

Difference among AREAS: Significant (<0.001) 
17

TCS (Total Corrected Sign) (cont.)

Differences among SURVEYORS: Significant (0.009) 

Years – Areas Interaction: Significant (<0.001) 

Years – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.911) 

Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.517) 

Years – Areas – Surveyors Interaction: Not Significant (0.936) 

Difference among Years (Tamhane’s T2) 

 1998 > 1999 (0.005) 

Difference among Areas (Tamhane’s T2) 

Alvord > Fremont (<0.001) Kramer > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Alvord > Kramer (<0.001) Kramer > Liz (<0.001) 

 Alvord > Liz (<0.001) Liz > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Fremont (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Kramer (<0.001) 

 Lucerne > Liz (<0.001) 

Summary: 

 Alvord – Lucerne > 

 Kramer > 

 Liz > 

 Fremont 

TCS followed the identical pattern of scat counts. This is not surprising because scat counts 

have the predominant influence on TCS. The correlation analyses identified this characteristic. 

TCS were more abundant in 1998 than in 1999. TCS were similar at Alvord and Lucerne, and 

higher than the other Areas, following the sequence above. There was a significant Years – 

Areas interaction which indicates that some of the difference in TCS, as in scat counts among 

Areas was influenced by year. 
18

Analysis of Tortoise Survey Areas 

Numbers refer to SURVEY AREAS in data matrix 

1998 

Burrows 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

4 > 

3 0.035 

6 <0.001 

15 0.009 

17 <0.001 

5 > 

1 0.025 

3 0.013 

6 0.001 

15 0.005 

17 <0.001 

8 > 

3 0.049 

6 0.004 

15 0.022 

17 0.002 

10 > 

1 0.006 

3 0.003 

6 <0.001 

9 0.037 

15 0.001 

17 <0.001

11 > 

1 <0.001 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 0.004 

9 <0.001 

13 0.002 

14 0.014 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

12 > 

1 <0.001 

2 0.013 

12 > (cont.)

3 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 0.046 

9 0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

UNK 0.003 

13 > 

6 0.002 

17 0.001 

UNK > 

6 <0.001 

17 0.002
Scats 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

6 <0.001 

7 0.004 

9 0.009 

17 0.009 

19 0.020 

4 > 

1 0.008 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

4 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

12 0.005 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

10 > 

2 0.003 

5 0.021 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 0.025 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

11 > 

1 <0.001 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

10 0.002 

12 <0.001 

14 0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 
20

Scats (cont.) 

12 > 

6 0.001 

7 0.024 

9 0.040 

17 0.041 

13 > 

2 <0.001 

3 0.001 

5 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 0.001 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

18 > 

1 0.002 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

12 0.001 

14 0.013 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK 0.001 

UNK > 

7 0.017 

17 0.046
21

TCS 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

6 <0.001 

17 0.003 

4 > 

1 0.001 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

5 0.006 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 0.003 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

5 > 

6 0.007 

8 > 

6 <0.001 

7 0.036 

9 0.010 

15 0.017 

17 <0.001 

10 > 

2 0.001 

3 0.002 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

11 > 

1 <0.001 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

10 0.001 

12 <0.001 

13 0.002 

14 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001
22

TCS (cont.) 

12 > 

2 0.042 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 0.003 

UNK 0.005 

13 > 

1 0.033 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK <0.001 

18 > 

1 0.001 

2 <0.001 

3 <0.001 

5 0.002 

6 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

8 0.003 

9 <0.001 

14 0.015 

15 <0.001 

17 <0.001 

19 <0.001 

UNK 0.001 

UNK > 

6 <0.001 

17 0.004

 
23

Tortoises 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: 0.033 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

UNK > 

7 <0.001 

8 <0.001 

Carcasses 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

6 > 

17 0.001 

8 > 

17 0.028 

11 > 

17 0.010 

19 > 

1 0.042 

3 0.031 

17 0.005 

UNK > 

17 <0.001 
24

1999 

Burrows 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

5 0.009 

9 0.002 

10 <0.001 

7 > 

9 0.011 

10 0.008 

Scats 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

4 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

10 <0.001 

12 <0.001 

 

5 > 

4 0.001 

7 0.002 

9 <0.001 

6 > 

8 > 

4 <0.001 

5 0.024 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

10 > 

4 0.012 

9 <0.001 

12 > 

9 0.003 

4 0.013 

7 0.023 

9 0.010 
25

TCS 

Levene’s Test: 0.002 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

4 <0.001 

5 <0.001 

7 <0.001 

9 <0.001 

10 <0.001 

12 <0.001 

 

5 > 

4 0.008 

9 0.003 

6 > 

4 0.026 

9 0.009 

7 > 

9 0.049 

8 > 

4 <0.001 

7 0.010 

9 <0.001 

10 > 

9 0.007 

12 > 

9 0.007

Tortoises 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: 0.23 NS 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

5 > 

4 0.004 

9 0.004 

Carcasses 

Levene’s Test: <0.001 One-Way ANOVA: <0.001 

Tamhane’s T2 Post Hoc Comparison: 

1 > 

10 0.011 

4 > 

8 0.046 

10 0.018 

5 > 

8 0.035 

10 <0.001 

7 > 

10 0.011 
Discussion 

Correlation and Regression Analyses 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty of observing live desert tortoises on survey transects, and 

the very high variability of tortoise sign (burrows and scats) among transects, there was a highly 

significant correlation (P<0.01) of live tortoises with burrows, scats, and TCS. Although in most 

cases the actual correlation coefficient does not appear to be particularly “high”, the large sample 

sizes involved make the relationship highly statistically significant. These results can be 

interpreted in the following general way. 

1) Transects associated with live tortoises are typically also associated with appreciable 

sign counts. 

2) Live tortoises are found to a much smaller extent on transects possessing little or no 

tortoise sign. 

3) Nevertheless, live tortoises are often not seen on transects possessing appreciable sign 

counts. 

A number of important patterns were evident from the correlation analyses. 

 

1) The correlation analysis results were similar for all three data sets that were 

examined, again possibly attributable to the high sample sizes. The data sets were: 

 Calibration Areas, 1998+1999+2001 

 1998 tortoise survey Areas 

 1999 tortoise survey Areas 

2) Burrows had the highest correlation with tortoises, while scats had the lowest 

correlation. 

 3) Tortoises were not correlated with carcasses. 

 4) With a few exceptions, carcasses were not correlated with tortoise sign. 

5) As expected, TCS was strongly correlated with scat, because on a given transect scat 

counts are usually much higher than burrow counts. 

Motivated by the significant correlation of tortoises with their sign, an exploratory Step-Wise 

Linear Regression Model was developed to assess and statistically verify the relative importance 

of the three sign counts to predict tortoise occurrence. This technique selects the best predictor 

variable that explains most of the scatter around the regression line. Inherently, it eliminates 

redundant variables that possess high multicollinearity. For example, TCS is a composite of the 

other two sign counts. Traditionally, the validity and interpretation of step-wise techniques have 

been questioned (Green 1979). However, there has recently been a revival in their applications. 

The result of this analysis clearly demonstrated that burrow counts were the only predictor 
27

variable necessary to explain the variability of tortoises on transects. Statistically, scats and TCS 

did not contribute significant information to the regression. 

Comparison of Surveyors on Calibration Plots 

1998 

Surveyors possessed statistically similar sign counts for burrows, scats, and TCS when 

comparisons were made among balanced data sets. 

 The following contrasts were similar: 

 Bolan – LaRue 

 Karl – Vaughn 

 Bolan – LaRue – Vaughn 

When all surveyors were compared together there was no difference among burrow counts, but 

Bolan, LaRue, and Vaughn, possessed higher scat counts than Hoover, Karl, and Silverman. 

However, in this analysis an unbalanced data set was used (not all surveyors were at all Areas), 

so this result should be interpreted with caution. 

1999 

In the 1999 calibration surveys there was a tendency for LaRue to have lower burrow counts on 

transects, but higher scat counts than some of the other surveyors. 

Scat are more difficult to locate than burrows, not only because they are smaller, but importantly, 

their detection is related to habitat parameters. Therefore, a persistent and focused search image 

is mandatory. Habitat characteristics that appreciably affect scat detection include: color and 

texture of substrate (e.g., light-colored sands versus black volcanic basalt rocks), ground and 

shrub cover, topography, and sun angle (Krzysik and Woodman 1991). While burrows are much 

easier to detect, there are nevertheless problems associated with their counts. Non-tortoise 

burrows (e.g., kit fox, coyote, badger) or even predator diggings could be mistaken for tortoise 

burrows. Additionally, it is important to classify burrow condition, and decide before actual 

surveys if burrows in poor condition or collapsed should be counted. In the case of burrows, 

these factors may influence survey counts more than actual detections. 

Surveyors were more consistent with TCS counts, because they tended to “average” the 

variability among individual burrow and scat counts. For example, LaRue’s lower burrow 

counts were “balanced” by his higher scat counts. 

2001 

Seven surveyors demonstrated agreement and were consistent in all sign counts: burrows, scats, 

and TCS, with the single exception of Wood (Peggy) having higher burrow counts. 

1998 – 1999 

Five surveyors possessed similar burrow counts, but LaRue was less than Bolan. Similar to 

1999, LaRue tended to have higher scat counts. On the other hand, Karl and Woodman had 
28

lower scat counts than some of the other surveyors. However, the data set was unbalanced, and 

the results should be interpreted with caution. 

1999 – 2001 

The four surveyors have only some differences in sign count. LaRue had lower burrow counts 

than Bolan and Vaughn, but higher scat counts than Frank. This data set is not balanced. 

1998 – 1999 – 2001 

This analysis combined all three years, and there were three surveyors: Bolan, LaRue, and 

Vaughn. Scat counts were very similar, but LaRue’s counts were higher than Bolan (barely 

significant, P=0.04). LaRue had lower burrow counts than the other two surveyors. TCS counts 

were statistically similar for all three surveyors. 

Comparison of Years and Areas on Calibration Plots 

Burrows were more abundant in 1998 than in either 1999 or 2001. Burrow counts at Alvord, 

Lucerne and Kramer were similar, and larger than at Fremont and Liz. The latter two were 

simlar. The non-significant interactions made the analysis easy to interpret. 

Scats were more abundant in 1998 than in 1999. Scat counts were similar at Alvord and 

Lucerne, and higher than the other Areas according to the following sequence: 

Alvord = Lucerne >Kramer > Liz > Fremont. There was a significant Years – Areas interaction, 

indicating that some of the difference in scat counts among Areas was influenced by year. 

TCS followed the identical pattern as scat counts. TCS is predominantly determined by scat 

counts as determined by the correlation analyses. 

Comparison of Tortoise Survey Areas 

Statistical analyses were conducted separately for 1998 and 1999 to avoid confounding effects 

among years, and it was not know if the numbers that identified specific “Survey Areas” were 

used consistently between 1998 and 1999. 

1998 

There were 19 Areas surveyed in 1998. It was not known if the Area designated as “unknown” 

consisted of one or more Areas. In the analysis it was treated as a single Area. 

Areas 11 and 12 had the highest burrow counts, followed by Areas 10 then 5, then 4 and 8 which 

were similar. Areas 6, 15 and 17, especially 6 and 17 had the lowest burrow counts. 

The pattern of the scat counts were somewhat different than the burrow counts, and Areas were 

more separated statistically. At this point in the analysis it is not known if this is a sensitive 

measure for Area separation or if the scat merely represent extraneous “noise” in the system. 

Areas 11, 4, 18, 13 and 10 had the highest scat counts. Areas 11and 10 therefore, closely parallel 
29

the results of the burrow counts. However, unlike burrow counts, Area 12 had a much lower scat 

count ranking, and was only higher than 4 other sites. Areas 6 and 17, had low scat counts, 

paralleling their lower burrow counts. Area 1 had a higher ranking with scat counts than burrow 

counts. 

Area 11 with its high counts of both burrows and scats dominated all other sites in TCS. Areas 

18 and 4 with high scat counts were the next highest in TCS. The next highest TCS Areas were 

13, 10, and 12. Area 13 had high scat counts, Area 12 had high burrow counts, while Area10 

had both. Areas 6 and 17, on the basis of low burrow and scat counts had the lowest TCS. 

The statistical significance of live tortoise and carcasses among Areas is very difficult to assess 

because of very small sample sizes. Interestingly, the only significant comparison with tortoises 

was that the “unknown” Area was higher than Areas 7 and 8. Possibly no tortoises were seen in 

these Areas. All three of these Areas were neither among the highest nor the lowest in sign 

count. Small sample sizes make interpretation tenuous. 

Area 17 demonstrated an unusually low carcass count. This Area was also among the lowest in 

both burrow and scat counts. This data suggests that the low carcass counts are paralleling a low 

density of tortoises. 

1999 

There were 9 Areas surveyed in 1999. The “unknown” category included many data cases, and 

therefore, may have consisted of several individual survey Areas. Additionally, a number of 

cases lacked an Area designation. All these cases were not included in the analysis. 

Areas 1 and 7 had more burrow counts than Areas 9 and 10. Area 1 also had more burrow 

counts than Area 5. 

Scat counts and TCS paralleled each other closely and statistically separated the nine Areas to a 

much greater extent than burrow counts. As in the case of the 1998 data, at this point in the 

analysis it is not known if this is a sensitive measure for Area separation or if the scat merely 

represent extraneous “noise” in the system. Area 1 also had the highest scat/TCS counts, but scat 

counts were not particularly high at Area 7. Area 9 demonstrated particularly lower scat/TCS 

counts that all the other Areas. 

Tortoises were higher at Area 5 than at Areas 4 and 9. Area 5 was not particularly high in sign 

count, but did have significantly higher scat/TCS than 4 and 9, but not burrow counts. Small 

sample sizes make interpretation tenuous. 

Area 10 and to a smaller degree Area 8 showed lower carcass counts. Although Area 10 also 

possessed low burrow counts, Areas 10 and 8 it did not have particularly reduced scat/TCS. 

Small sample sizes make interpretation tenuous. 

Desert Tortoises and Their Sign 

Desert tortoises should be closely associated with their sign – burrows and scats. Desert tortoises 

possess relatively small home ranges even in highly productive years (averaging < 8 ha), and this 
30

home range dramatically decreases even further in a drought year (averaging < 3 ha) (Duda et al. 

1999). Within their home range they build burrows, using 2-11/tortoise in a productive and 1-6 

in a drought year (Duda et al. 1999) and deposit scats at a rate that is at least an order of 

magnitude greater than their burrow numbers (Krzysik, in review). Based on their dedication to 

small home ranges, and because tortoises spend a major portion of their lives in burrows, 

particularly in drought years and bad weather (Duda and Krzysik 1998), it is intuitive that 

tortoise sign represents a surrogate for actual live tortoises. Traditional desert tortoise surveys 

have summed burrow counts and “independent” scat counts to produce TCS, total corrected sign. 

Conclusions 

The data presented here and other evidence suggests that tortoise burrows appear to be a better 

surrogate for comparisons of tortoise distribution and relative abundance patterns than either 

scats or TCS. TCS was strongly correlated with scat counts, and essentially did not provide 

additional statistical information. However, TCS was useful when comparing and contrasting 

surveyors, because at least in some cases it tended to “average” individual surveyor’s variability 

in burrow and scat counts. The data presented here demonstrate that surveyors are more similar 

to each other in burrow counts than they are in scat counts. The data also show that scat counts 

are much more variable than burrow counts, both within and between specific statistical 

comparisons. Importantly, burrow counts along the standard triangular tortoise survey transects 

(10 yards wide) accurately represent actual burrow density estimates, because the effective 

survey width using Distance Sampling surveys is equal to 4.5 m on a side (Krzysik, in review). 

Effective survey width for scats is approximately 1 m on a side. Therefore, burrow counts on 10 

yard wide transects directly represent burrow density, while scat counts are relative numbers at 

best, and cannot be used as density estimates. Effective survey width is equal to half the width 

of survey transects when all survey objects are detected (Buckland et al. 1993). 

As a general statement, experienced surveyors are reasonably similar in their tortoise sign counts 

along transects. Individual exceptions can be found for specific years, Areas, inexperienced 

surveyors, and other circumstances, but the overall variability of sign counts both within and 

between comparisons may override innate differences among individuals for object detection. 

Training sessions are recommended to standardize the correct identification of tortoise burrows 

and the classification of their “condition”. The counting of tortoise burrows that are collapsed or 

in poor condition should be standardized among all surveyors before actualsurveys are 

conducted. 

The next phase of this project should include the following tasks by our team. 

Ed LaRue and I need to get together to spatially identify the specific survey Areas coded 

in all the data sets. 

We need to associate UTM coordinates with individual survey transects. Much of this is 

already accomplished, but requires checking for consistency and accuracy. 

Survey Areas require further delineation in the 1999 and 2001 data sets. 

All other potential analyses of the current data will be discussed with Ed LaRue. 
31

 All data sets should be rechecked for field data accuracy. Should all the data or only 

random spot-checking be done? 

Distance Sampling data will be analyzed (not yet available) (AJK). 

2002 data will be analyzed (not yet available) (AJK). 

References 

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance Sampling: 

Estimating Abundances of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. 446pp. 

Day, R.W., and G.P. Quinn. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in 

ecology. Ecological Monographs 59:433-463. 

Duda, J.J., and A.J. Krzysik. 1998. Radiotelemetry study of a desert tortoise population: Sand 

Hill Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACERL Technical Report 98/39. 75pp. 

Duda, J.J., A.J. Krzysik, and J.E. Freilich. 1999. Effects of drought on desert tortoise movement 

and activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1181-1192. 

Fry, J.C. 1993. One-way analysis of variance. Pages 3-39 in Biological Data Analysis: A 

Practical Approach, J.C. Fry, ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 418pp. 

Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 257pp. 

Harris, R.J. 1975. A Primer of Multivariate Statistics. Academic Press, New York, NY. 332pp. 

Johnson, D.H. 1995. Statistical sirens: The allure of nonparametrics. Ecology 76:1998-2000. 

Krzysik, A.J. 1998. Ecological design and analysis: Principles and issues in environmental 

monitoring. Pages 385-403 in Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians, M.J. 

Lannoo, ed. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 507pp. 

Krzysik, A.J. A landscape sampling protocol for estimating distribution and density patterns of 

desert tortoises at multiple spatial scales. Invited Paper. In Review, ΑChelonian Conservation 

and Biology≅. 

Krzysik, A.J., and A.P. Woodman. 1991. Six years of Army training activities and the desert 

tortoise. The Desert Tortoise Council Symposia 1987-1991:337-368. 

Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variance. Pages 278-292 in Contributions to 

Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 
32

Milliken, G.A., and D.E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume I: Designed 

Experiments. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 473pp. 

Morgan, G.A., and O.V. Griego. 1998. Easy Use and Interpretation of SPSS for Windows: 

Answering Research Questions with Statistics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 276pp. 

Potvin, C., and D.A. Roff. 1993. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable 

alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74:1617-1628. 

Shaw, R.G., and T. Mitchell-Olds. 1993. ANOVA for unbalanced data: An overview. Ecology 

74:1638-1645. 

Smith, S.M. 1995. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable alternatives to 

parametric statistics? Ecology 76:1997-1998. 

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th ed. Iowa State University 

Press, Ames, IA. 503pp. 

Sokal, R.R, and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York, NY. 887pp. 

SPSSa. 1999. SPSS analysis software package. Version 9.0.1 SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 

SPSSb. 1999. SPSS User’s Guide, Version 9.0. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 740pp. 

Stewart-Oaten, A. 1995. Rules and judgments in statistics: Three examples. Ecology 76:2001-

2009. 

Underwood, A.J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

504pp. 

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 663pp. 

Zolman, J.F. 1993. Biostatistics: Experimental Design and Statistical Inference. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY. 343pp. 
33

Tables 

Table 1. Calibration Plot Areas 

Code Name for Analysis Complete Name

Alvord Alvord 6 

DTNA1 DTNA Interior 

DTNA2 DTNA Interp Inside 

Freemont Fremont Peak 

Johnson Johnson Valley 

Kramer Kramer Hills 

Liz Liz C 

Lucerne Lucerne Valley, Lucerne 2 
34

Table 2. Data matrix for Calibration Plot Areas. X indicates survey. 

Surveyor Alvord Fremont Kramer Liz Lucerne DTNA1 DTNA2 Johnson

1998 

Boland X X X X 

Larue X X X X 

Vaughn X X X 

Frank 

Karl X X X X 

Woodman X X X 

 Goodlett 

 Hoover X X X 

 Keaton 

 Laberteaux 

 Silverman X X X 

 Smith 

 Wood P 

1999 

Boland X X X X X 

Larue X X X X X 

Vaughn X X X 

Frank X X X 

Karl X X X 

Woodman X X X X X 

 Goodlett X X X 

 Hoover 

 Keaton 

 Laberteaux X X X 

 Silverman 

 Smith 

 Wood P 

2001 

Boland X X X X X 

Larue X X X X X 

Vaughn X X X 

Frank X X X 

Karl 

Woodman 

 Goodlett 

 Hoover 

 Keaton X X X 

 Laberteaux 

 Silverman 

 Smith X X X 

 Wood P X X X 
35

Table 3. Calibration Plot Areas surveyed by YEAR. 

 

1998 1999 2001 

ALVORD X X X 

DTNA1 X 

DTNA2 X 

FREMONT X X X 

JOHNSON X 

KRAMER X X X 

LIZ X X X 

LUCERNE X X X 

 

Table 4. Surveyors at Calibration Plot Areas by YEAR. 

1998 1999 2001 

Boland X X X 

Frank X X 

Goodlett X 

Hoover X 

Karl X X 

Keaton X 

Laberteaux X 

Larue X X X 

Silverman X 

Smith X 

Vaughn X X X 

Wood P X 

Table 5. Surveyors used at Calibration Plot Areas in multiple years. 

1998-1999 Boland, Karl, Larue, Vaughn, Woodman N=5 

1999-2001 Boland, Frank, Larue, Vaughn N=4 

1991-2001 Boland, Larue, Vaughn N=3 
Statistical Analysis of BLM Desert Tortoise Surveys 

In Support of the West Mojave Management Plan 

Report II: Statistical Comparison of DWMAs (1999 & 2001) 

19 June 2002 

by 

Anthony J. Krzysik, Ph.D. 

11 Highland Terrace 

Prescott, AZ 86305
2

Introduction 

This report represents the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Correlation Analysis, and Stepwise 

Linear Regression Analysis of the 1999 and 2001 data sets based on BLM’s “Desert Wildlife 

Management Areas” (DWMAs). These data and analysis support the West Mojave Management 

Plan. Ed LaRue of BLM is the primary monitor of this analysis effort and Principal Investigator 

of the role of desert populations in the development of this plan. Kathy Buescher, Senior 

Wildlife Biologist at Chambers Group, Inc., is the subcontract manager. 

The data used for these specific analyses were developed by Ric Williams and Hubert Switalski, 

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. and sent to me 14 June for statistical analyses. These data 

sets originally were sent to me by Emily Cohen, and I edited and modified them for statistical 

analysis. However, the tortoise transect data lacked association with DWMAs, or any other 

specific landscape areas of management interest, although UTM coordinates were present. I sent 

these data to Ric and Hubert and they developed the variable “NAME” which represented 

specific DWMAs. The new data sets associated individual transect data with landscape specific 

DWMAs (Table 1). The 1998 data set will be similarly associated with DWMAs in July. 

DWMA Data Years

Fremont – Kramer 1999, 2001 

Ord – Rodman 1999, 2001 

Pinto Mountain 1999 

Superior – Cronese 1999, 2001 

Table 1. DWMAs and YEARS compared in this report. 

Methods 

Data analyses were conducted with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS 1999a). Four tortoise 

sign counts were used in the analysis: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. The variable burrow

is the actual observed tortoise burrow count on individual surveyed transects and was available 

from the data matrix. The variable scat is the corrected tortoise scat count on individual 

surveyed transects, and was calculated from the data matrix as TCS – burrow. Raw scat counts 

require to be “corrected” because some scats are found in clumps, which are treated as a “single 

count”. The variable TCS (Total Corrected Sign) is the total burrow + corrected scat count on 

individual surveyed transects and was available from the data matrix. The variable carcass is the 

observation of tortoise shells (carapace/plastron) or skeletal remains on the transect. Survey 

transects were further classified by two variables based on their TCS values (Table 2). 
3

Classification A: 

Designation TCS 

Low < 7 

High > 6 

Classification B: 

Designation TCS

1 0-1 

2 2-3 

3 4-6 

4 7-9 

5 > 9 

Table 2. Classification of survey transects based on TCS values. 

Tortoise sign require square root data transformation, because the data represent counts with 

many data cells being “0”. Counts follow a Poisson distribution where the mean equals the 

variance, and therefore the mean and variance cannot be independent, but vary identically. 

All the sign data was transformed as x = (x+0.5)1/2, where x represents a tortoise sign variable 

(Sokal and Rohlf 1995). 

 

Bivariate parametric and nonparametric correlation analyses were performed on the data sets to 

assess the association of live tortoises with: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses on survey 

transects. The parametric test was the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. Two 

nonparametric rank correlations were used: Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau. 

Guided by the results of the correlation analyses, a Stepwise Linear Regression model was 

developed to assess the relative importance of burrows, scats, and TCS to “predict” tortoise 

transect occurrences. 

 

Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to contrast years and DWMAs with respect 

to burrows, scats, TCS, live tortoises, and carcasses. 

Three major ANOVAs were performed to compare DWMAs: 

1) The complete Factorial Analysis, using Years and DWMAs as factors 

2) Analyzing Years separately 

3) Analyzing High and Low TCS Classes separately 

Low TCS transects possessed 0 to 6 TCS 

High TCS transects possessed > 6 TCS 

The 5 percent significance level (P < 0.05) was used based on experience and general acceptance 

in ecological research and field biology. Burrows, scats, TCS, tortoises, and carcasses were each 

used in separate analyses as dependent variables with year and DWMAs as “factors”, the 

independent variables. The data sets are considered “unbalanced” in the complete ANOVA 

design, because empty cells are present in the years x DWMAs matrix (e.g., Pinto Mountain was 

not surveyed in 2001). The complete Factorial ANOVA analyses used Type IV calculation of 

Sums of Squares, because this algorithm is generally recommended for data possessing empty 
4

cells among factor comparisons (Milliken and Johnson 1984, Shaw and Mitchell-Olds 1993). 

The ANOVAs analyzing years and TCS classes separately used Type III calculation of Sums of 

Squares, because this algorithm is generally recommended, it is invariant with respect to cell 

frequencies, and when there are no missing cells it is equivalent to Yates’ weighted-squares-ofmeans method (Milliken and Johnson 1984, Shaw and Mitchell-Olds 1993). 

 

Levene’s Test for equality of error variances was used for all analyses, and does not depend on 

the assumption of normality (Levene 1960). Bartlett’s test is often used to assess homogeneity, 

but its practical value has been questioned (Harris 1975), and this test is not very efficient and 

strongly affected by non-normality (Zar 1999). Levene’s Test uses the average of absolute 

deviations instead of the mean square of deviations, making it less sensitive to skewed 

distributions (Snedecor and Cochran 1989). Levene’s Test checks to see if error variances are 

homogeneous among the factors being compared in an ANOVA. Homogeneous variances are a 

parametric assumption in ANOVA. ANOVA is a parametric statistical procedure that 

technically requires parametric assumptions to be met: homogeneous error variances, normally 

distributed data, adequate sample sizes, and independence of sampling or experimental errors 

(random sampling, independence of observations). Nevertheless and importantly, ANOVA is 

considered robust to departures from the first two of these assumptions, particularly when proper 

transformations are employed (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, Underwood 1997, Zar 1999). 

Additionally, SPSS algorithms are very robust to nonnormality (Morgan and Griego 1998). 

Many researchers believe that the routine use of nonparametric statistics avoids many issues of 

parametric assumptions, but these methods are equally affected by the last two critical 

assumptions – independence of sampling errors and the loss of statistical power with inadequate 

sample sizes (Krzysik 1998). The routine use of nonparametric analysis in ecological research is 

not recommended (Johnson 1995, Smith 1995, Stewart-Oaton 1995), but see Potvin and Roff 

(1993). 

The use of factorial ANOVA designs requires the use of Post Hoc multiple comparison tests to 

assess statistical significance when there are more than two levels for any factor. Five Post Hoc 

multiple comparison tests were used in all factorial ANOVA analyses. The Bonferroni test, 

based on the Student’s t statistic, adjusts the significance level for multiple comparisons. This 

test has the widest range of applications, is conservative, and when there are few comparisons 

has high power (Zolman 1993, SPSS 1999b). Conservative tests were desirable in these 

analyses, because they minimize Type I error, the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis 

(null hypothesis = no significance difference) (Krzysik 1998). In other words, reporting 

significance when the comparison was not statistically significant. When factor variances are 

heterogeneous (i.e., Levene’s Test is significant), pooled estimates of variance cannot be used to 

calculate the standard error of the comparison (Day and Quinn 1989). The use of Post Hoc tests 

that specifically address this issue are recommended (Day and Quinn 1989, SPSS 1999b). 

Therefore, four additional Post Hoc tests were used for all factorial ANOVA comparisons that 

were made: 

 

Tamhane’s T2 – conservative pairwise comparison test based on a t test 

Dunnett’s T3 – pairwise comparison test based on the Studentized maximum modulus, 

 highly recommended (Fry 1993) 

Games-Howell – liberal pairwise comparisons test, highly recommended (Fry 1993) 
5

Dunnett’s C – pairwise comparisons test based on the Studentized range 

Although all five tests were examined for significance at the 0.05 level, only the results of the 

conservative Tamhane’s T2 test were reported. The results of all five Post Hoc tests were 

essentially similar for all the factorial ANOVA analyses conducted in this study. This indicates 

that the data were reasonably behaved. As expected, the Games-Howell test was more liberal, 

while the Bonferroni test was frequently very liberal in contrast to the other four tests, 

particularly when Levene’s Test showed significant departure from homogeneous residuals. 

Results 

Bivariate Correlation Analysis 

In all analyses, very similar results were obtained with Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation 

Coefficient (Parametric) and the two Nonparametric rank correlations: Spearman’s rho and 

Kendall’s tau. The values reported in Table 3 are Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient with the 

two-tailed analysis. This analysis is more conservative than the one-tailed analysis, and 

therefore, minimizes Type I error. All DWMAs were used in the analysis. 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses N 

All 0.37** 0.20** 0.29** 0.045 1351 

1999 0.35** 0.16** 0.26** 0.030 962 

 

2001 0.44** 0.29** 0.38** 0.088 389 

Low TCS 0.27** 0.95** 0.22** 0.024 1197 

High TCS 0.38** -0.11 0.062 0.058 154 

0-1 TCS 0.13** 0.020 0.12** -0.029 750 

2-3 TCS 0.24** -0.20** 0.12* -0.036 277 

4-6 TCS 0.16* -0.11 0.020 0.076 170 

7-9 TCS 0.34** -0.31** -0.14 0.16 88 

>9 TCS 0.45** -0.063 0.16 -0.085 66 

Table 3. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of LIVE TORTOISES with four 

tortoise sign parameters: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. N is the sample size. 

* indicates statistical significance (P < 0.05) 

** indicates high statistical significance (P < 0.01) 
6

Stepwise Linear Regression 

Exploratory Model: 

Tortoises = a(Burrows) + b(Scats) + c(TCS) + d 

Tortoise DWMAs 

Year: 1999 + 2001 

Predictors All data High TCS Low TCS

Burrows < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 

Scats NS (0.85) NS (0.94) NS (0.97) 

TCS NS (0.54) NS (0.96) NS (0.58) 

Statistical Comparison of Years and DWMAs 

A) Complete ANOVA 

Years Compared: 1999, 2001 

DWMAs Compared: see Below 

Sample sizes: 

Factor N

1999 968 

2001 389 

Fremont – Kramer 412 

Ord – Rodman 129 

Pinto Mountain 43 

Superior – Cronese 773 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.61) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.061) 

Years – DWMAs Interaction: Not Significant (0.36) 
7

Summary: 

Burrow counts were similar in both years and at all DWMAs. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.51) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.001) 

Years – DWMAs Interaction: Significant (0.003) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 

Summary: 

Scat counts were significantly less abundant at Pinto Mountain than they were at the other three 

DWMAs, which were similar to one another. There was a significant Years – DWMAs 

interaction which indicates that some of the difference in scat counts among DWMAs were 

influenced by year. This was the logical outcome, because the DWMA possessing the lowest 

scat counts was only surveyed in a single year. 

TCS (Total Corrected Sign) 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.41) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (<0.001) 

Years – DWMAs Interaction: Significant (0.009) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 
8

Summary: 

TCS counts paralleled scat counts very closely. This is expected, because the largest contributor 

to TCS is scat counts. TCS was significantly less abundant at Pinto Mountain than at the other 

three DWMAs, which were similar to one another. There was a significant Years – DWMAs 

interaction which indicates that some of the difference in TCS among DWMAs was influenced 

by year. This was the logical outcome, because the DWMA possessing the lowest TCS was only 

surveyed in a single year. 

TORTOISES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.80) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.034) 

Years – DWMAs Interaction: Not Significant (0.22) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Not Significant (>0.42) 

Summary: 

Live tortoises found in both years and at all DWMAs were similar, despite a great deal of 

variability. 

CARCASSES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among YEARS: Not Significant (0.57) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (<0.001) 

Years – DWMAs Interaction: Not Significant (0.26) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman (<0.001) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese (0.005) 

 Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman (0.001) 
9

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (0.046) 

 

Summary: 

Carcass counts were statistically ranked as follows: 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman = Pinto Mtn. 

Carcass counts were significantly more abundant at Fremont – Kramer than at the other 

DWMAs. Superior – Cronese counts were more abundant than Ord – Rodman and Pinto Mtn., 

which were similar. 

B) Analysis by Year 

Year: 1999 

DWMAs Compared: See Below 

Sample Sizes: 

DWMA N

Fremont – Kramer 220 

Ord – Rodman 108 

Pinto Mountain 43 

Superior – Cronese 597 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.069) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.53) 

Summary: 

Burrow counts were similar at all DWMAs. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.003) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 
10

 Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 

Summary: 

Scat counts were significantly less abundant at Pinto Mountain than they were at the other three 

DWMAs, which were similar to one another. 

TORTOISES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.20) 

Summary: 

Live tortoises found at all DWMAs were similar, despite a great deal of variability. 

CARCASSES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman (0.001) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (0.002) 

 Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman (0.021) 

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (0.043) 

 

Summary: 

Carcass counts were statistically ranked as follows: 

Fremont – Kramer = Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman = Pinto Mtn. 

Carcass counts were similar at Fremont – Kramer and Superior – Cronese, and the counts were 

significantly more abundant at these DWMAs than at Ord – Rodman and Pinto Mtn., which were 

similar. 
11

Year: 2001 

DWMAs Compared: See Below 

Sample Sizes: 

DWMA N

Fremont – Kramer 192 

Ord – Rodman 21 

Superior – Cronese 176 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.078) 

Summary: 

Burrow counts were similar at all DWMAs. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.002) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Kramer (0.002) 

 

Summary: 

Scat counts were significantly more abundant at Superior – Cronese than at Fremont – Kramer. 

All other paired comparisons were similar. 

TORTOISES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.044) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2)

 Not Significant (>0.053) 
12

Summary: 

Live tortoises found at all DWMAs were similar, despite a great deal of variability. 

CARCASSES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman (<0.001) 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese (0.021) 

 Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman (<0.001) 

Summary: 

Carcass counts were statistically ranked as follows: 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 

Carcass counts were more abundant at Fremont – Kramer and lowest at Ord – Rodman. 

B) Analysis by TCS Class 

TCS Class: Low (0 – 6) 

DWMAs Compared: See Below 

Sample Sizes: 

DWMA N

Fremont – Kramer 372 

Ord – Rodman 117 

Pinto Mountain 43 

Superior – Cronese 671 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.23) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.91) 
13

Summary: 

Burrow counts were similar at all DWMAs. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (0.025) 

 Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn. (0.006) 

 

Summary: 

Scat counts were significantly less abundant at Pinto Mountain than they were at the other three 

DWMAs, which were similar to one another. 

TORTOISES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.003) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2)

 Not Significant (>0.28) 

Summary: 

A similar number of live tortoises were found at all DWMAs. 

CARCASSES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (<0.001) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman (<0.001) 
14

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn. (<0.001) 

 Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman (0.001) 

Summary: 

Carcass counts were statistically ranked as follows: 

Fremont – Kramer = Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn = Ord - Rodman 

Carcass counts were similar at and significantly more abundant at Fremont – Kramer and 

Superior – Cronese than at Ord – Rodman and Pinto Mtn., which were similar. 

TCS Class: High (> 6) 

DWMAs Compared: See Below 

Sample Sizes: 

DWMA N

Fremont – Kramer 40 

Ord – Rodman 12 

Superior – Cronese 102 

BURROWS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.61) 

Difference among DWMAs: Significant (0.018) 

Difference among DWMAs (Tamhane’s T2) 

 Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Kramer (0.023) 

Summary: 

Burrow counts were greater at Superior – Cronese than at Fremont – Kramer. All other contrasts 

were similar. 

SCATS 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.23) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.55) 
15

Summary: 

Scat counts were similar at all DWMAs. 

TORTOISES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.14) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.63) 

A similar number of live tortoises were found at all DWMAs. 

CARCASSES 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances: Not Significant (0.36) 

Difference among DWMAs: Not Significant (0.94 

Summary: 

A similar number of carcasses were found at all DWMAs. 

Discussion 

Desert Tortoises and Their Sign 

Desert tortoises should be closely associated with their sign – burrows and scats. Desert tortoises 

possess relatively small home ranges even in highly productive years (averaging < 8 ha), and this 

home range dramatically decreases even further in a drought year (averaging < 3 ha) (Duda et al. 

1999). Within their home range they build burrows, using 2-11/tortoise in a productive and 1-6 

in a drought year (Duda et al. 1999) and deposit scats at a rate that is at least an order of 

magnitude greater than their burrow numbers (Krzysik, in review). Based on their dedication to 

small home ranges, and because tortoises spend a major portion of their lives in burrows, 

particularly in drought years and bad weather (Duda and Krzysik 1998), it is intuitive that 

tortoise sign represents a surrogate for actual live tortoises. Traditional desert tortoise surveys 

have summed burrow counts and “independent” scat counts to produce TCS, total corrected sign. 

Correlation and Stepwise Regression Analyses 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty of observing live desert tortoises on survey transects, and 

the very high variability of tortoise sign (burrows and scats) among transects, there was a highly 

significant correlation (P<0.01) of live tortoises with burrows, scats, and TCS for the total 

DWMA data set and in each of the two years (Table 3). However, when the data were classified 

by the abundance of TCS, the results of the correlation analysis became interesting (Table 3). 

On transects with high (>6) TCS, only burrows were significantly correlated with live tortoises. 

When the TCS counts were further delineated into five classes (Table 3), burrows consistently 
16

for all five classes were significantly correlated with tortoise counts, while scat counts and TCS 

were inconsistent and unreliable. TCS were only correlated with tortoises at the two lowest TCS 

classes, undoubtedly reflecting the large sample sizes in these classes, and the positive influence 

of burrows being included with TCS. Scat counts were very unreliable, and even demonstrated 

NEGATIVE significant correlations with tortoises with TCS classes of 2-3 and 7-9. These 

results are very critical and interesting, because the majority of transects in any tortoise survey 

data set contain low sign counts, and high sample sizes may mask interesting details among 

gradients of sign densities. As demonstrated in the ANOVA analyses, scat counts being more 

abundant than burrows dominate TCS, and parallel results are achieved with these two variables. 

However, in the correlation analysis inconsistent scat correlations across the TCS gradient, 

resulted in inconsistent TCS correlations. These data provide compelling evidence that burrows 

are a more consistent and reliable surrogate for tortoise counts than scats or the combination of 

burrows + scats (TCS). The current analysis extends and reinforces the similar conclusions 

reached in the last report (Krzysik 2002). Additional transect data, as well as, additional 

analyses are required and will be conducted for the next report to further elucidate this 

interesting pattern. 

 

Carcass counts were not correlated with transect live tortoise counts. A priori, everything else 

being equal, one would expect that DWMAs with higher tortoises densities would also possess 

higher carcass densities (a significant positive correlation), assuming mortality rates are similar. 

DWMAs that suffered higher tortoise mortality should show a negative correlation between live 

tortoises and carcasses. The carcass data suggest that BOTH tortoise densities and tortoise 

mortality rates are similar at the DWMAs. 

Motivated by the significant correlation of tortoises with their sign, an exploratory Stepwise 

Linear Regression Model was developed to assess and statistically verify the relative importance 

of the three sign counts to predict tortoise occurrence. This technique selects the best predictor 

variable that explains most of the scatter around the regression line. Inherently, it eliminates 

redundant variables that possess high multicollinearity. For example, TCS is a composite of the 

other two sign counts. Traditionally, the validity and interpretation of stepwise techniques have 

been questioned (Green 1979). However, there has recently been a revival in their applications. 

The result of this analysis clearly demonstrated that burrow counts were the only predictor 

variable necessary to explain the variability of tortoises on transects. Statistically, scats and 

TCS did not contribute significant information to the regression. As in the correlation analysis, 

Stepwise Linear Regression reinforces the validity in using burrow counts as a surrogate for 

tortoise counts. 

The data presented here and other evidence suggest that tortoise burrows appear to be a better 

surrogate for comparisons of tortoise distribution and relative abundance patterns than either 

scats or TCS. TCS was strongly correlated with scat counts, and essentially did not provide 

additional statistical information. The data also show that scat counts are much more variable 

than burrow counts, both within and between specific statistical comparisons. Importantly, 

burrow counts along the standard triangular tortoise survey transects (10 yards wide) accurately 

represent actual burrow density estimates, because the effective survey width using Distance 

Sampling surveys is equal to 4.5 m on a side (Krzysik, in review). Effective survey width for 

scats is approximately 1 m on a side. Therefore, burrow counts on 10 yard wide transects 

directly represent burrow density, while scat counts are relative numbers at best, and cannot be 
17

used as density estimates. Effective survey width is equal to half the width of survey transects 

when all survey objects are detected (Buckland et al. 1993). 

Analysis of Variance 

Burrow counts (densities) were similar at all DWMAs and for both 1999 and 2001. 

Interestingly, when only high (>6) TCS transects were analyzed, Superior – Cronese had higher 

burrow counts than Fremont – Kramer. Pinto Mtn. did not have any high TCS transects. 

Scat and TCS counts produced similar results in ANOVA, because TCS is usually dominated by 

scat counts. Therefore, scat counts were used for all analyses, with the exception of the complete 

Factorial ANOVA where TCS was also used. Pinto Mtn. had lower scat counts than the other 

DWMAs in 1999, and when considering only Low TCS transects. Pinto Mtn. was not 

represented in 2001 nor in high TCS transects. In 2001, Superior – Cronese had higher scat 

counts than Fremont – Kramer. However, when high TCS transects were analyzed all DWMAs 

had similar scat counts. 

Live tortoise counts were similar at all DWMAs, for both 1999 and 2001, and for both low and 

high TCS transects. However, statistical interpretation can be quite tenuous, because of the high 

variability and low sample sizes associated with finding tortoises on survey transects. 

Carcass counts were highest at Fremont – Cramer and Superior – Cronese. Depending on the 

specific comparisons, these two DWMAs were either similar or the former had higher carcass 

counts than the latter. Ord – Rodman and Pinto Mtn. had lower carcass counts than the two 

above DWMAs, and they were similar to each other. 

Based on the available data and sample sizes, the four DWMAs appear to be similar to one 

another in their tortoise and sign counts, and therefore, of similar value as desert tortoise 

conservation areas. Although there were some statistical differences with specific comparisons 

of scat and carcass counts, these parameters may not be important in elucidating actual tortoise 

densities. Although the analyses could not demonstrate statistical differences among DWMAs 

with respect to live tortoise counts, the high variability and small sample sizes makes 

interpretation tenuous. An interesting outcome of the ANOVA analyses was that burrow counts 

(i.e., densities) were higher at Superior – Cronese than at Fremont – Kramer for the high TCS 

transects. This suggests that either Superior – Cronese tortoises possess a higher burrow/tortoise 

ratio, or tortoises are more abundant at this DWMA. Further analyses are being planned and will 

be conducted to explore and further elucidate the patterns identified in this report. 
18

References 

Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, and J.L. Laake. 1993. Distance Sampling: 

Estimating Abundances of Biological Populations. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. 446pp. 

Day, R.W., and G.P. Quinn. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in 

ecology. Ecological Monographs 59:433-463. 

Duda, J.J., and A.J. Krzysik. 1998. Radiotelemetry study of a desert tortoise population: Sand 

Hill Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACERL Technical Report 98/39. 75pp. 

Duda, J.J., A.J. Krzysik, and J.E. Freilich. 1999. Effects of drought on desert tortoise movement 

and activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1181-1192. 

Fry, J.C. 1993. One-way analysis of variance. Pages 3-39 in Biological Data Analysis: A 

Practical Approach, J.C. Fry, ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 418pp. 

Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 257pp. 

Harris, R.J. 1975. A Primer of Multivariate Statistics. Academic Press, New York, NY. 332pp. 

Johnson, D.H. 1995. Statistical sirens: The allure of nonparametrics. Ecology 76:1998-2000. 

Krzysik, A.J. 1998. Ecological design and analysis: Principles and issues in environmental 

monitoring. Pages 385-403 in Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians, M.J. 

Lannoo, ed. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 507pp. 

Krzysik, A.J. 2002. Statistical analysis of BLM desert tortoise surveys in support of the West 

Mojave Management Plan. Report I: Exploratory and initial data analysis. 1 May 2002. 35pp. 

Krzysik, A.J. A landscape sampling protocol for estimating distribution and density patterns of 

desert tortoises at multiple spatial scales. Invited Paper. In Review, ΑChelonian Conservation 

and Biology≅. 

Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variance. Pages 278-292 in Contributions to 

Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 

Milliken, G.A., and D.E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume I: Designed 

Experiments. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 473pp. 

Morgan, G.A., and O.V. Griego. 1998. Easy Use and Interpretation of SPSS for Windows: 

Answering Research Questions with Statistics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 276pp. 

Potvin, C., and D.A. Roff. 1993. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable 

alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74:1617-1628. 
19

Shaw, R.G., and T. Mitchell-Olds. 1993. ANOVA for unbalanced data: An overview. Ecology 

74:1638-1645. 

Smith, S.M. 1995. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable alternatives to 

parametric statistics? Ecology 76:1997-1998. 

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th ed. Iowa State University 

Press, Ames, IA. 503pp. 

Sokal, R.R, and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York, NY. 887pp. 

SPSSa. 1999. SPSS analysis software package. Version 9.0.1 SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 

SPSSb. 1999. SPSS User’s Guide, Version 9.0. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 740pp. 

Stewart-Oaten, A. 1995. Rules and judgments in statistics: Three examples. Ecology 76:2001-

2009. 

Underwood, A.J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

504pp. 

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 663pp. 

Zolman, J.F. 1993. Biostatistics: Experimental Design and Statistical Inference. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY. 343pp. 
Statistical Analysis of BLM Desert Tortoise Surveys 

In Support of the West Mojave Management Plan 

Report III: 

Desert Tortoises at DWMAs and 

Association of Tortoise Encounters 

and Sign Counts On Transects 

5 September 2002 

by 

Anthony J. Krzysik, Ph.D. 

11 Highland Terrace 

Prescott, AZ 86305
2

Introduction 

This report compares four Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) with respect to tortoise 

survey transects, and also provides detailed statistical analyses and graphical presentations for 

exploring and assessing the association of live tortoise encounters with tortoise sign counts on 

surveyed 1.5 mile triangular transects. Three different databases were used in the analyses: 1370 

(13 had missing data cells) transects surveyed in 1999 and 2001 at the four DWMAs, 624 

transects surveyed in 1998, 1999, and 2001 at 7 “Calibration Plots”, and 876 transects surveyed 

in 1998 at localities undisclosed in the database. Statistical procedures used in the analyses 

were: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Parametric and Nonparametric Bivariate Correlation 

Analyses, and Graphical Associations of Transect Means for the Association Analysis. 

These data and analysis results support the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, West Mojave Management Plan. Ed LaRue of BLM is the primary monitor of this 

analysis effort and the Principal Investigator for the incorporation of desert tortoise conservation 

and management in the development of this plan. Kathy Buescher, Senior Wildlife Biologist at 

Chambers Group, Inc., is the subcontract manager. 

The databases used for these specific analyses were developed and sent to me by Emily Cohen, 

Ric Williams, and Hubert Switalski. I edited and modified the databases for statistical analysis 

procedures. 

Methods 

Data analyses were conducted with the SPSS statistical package (SPSS 1999a). Four tortoise 

sign counts were used in the analysis: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. The variable burrow

is the actual observed tortoise burrow count on individual surveyed transects and was available 

from the data matrix. The variable scat is the corrected tortoise scat count on individual 

surveyed transects, and was calculated from the data matrix as (TCS – burrow). Raw scat counts 

require to be “corrected” because some scats are found in clumps, which are treated as a “single 

count”. The variable TCS (Total Corrected Sign) is the total burrow + corrected scat count on 

individual surveyed transects and was available from the data matrix. The variable carcass is the 

observation of tortoise shells (carapace/plastron) or skeletal remains on the transect. Survey 

transects were further classified into three different subclasses based on their TCS and burrow 

counts (Table 1). 

Subclass 

1 

TCS Subclass 

2 

TCS Subclass 

3 

Burrows

 

Low 0-6 1 0-1 1 0 

 2 2-3 2 1 

High >6 3 4-6 3 2 

 4 7-9 4 3 

 5 >9 5 >3 

Table 1. Classification of tortoise survey transects based on TCS and burrow counts. 
3

Tortoise sign require square root data transformation, because the data represent counts with 

many data cells being “0”. Counts, particularly of rare events, follow a Poisson distribution 

where the mean equals the variance, and therefore the mean and variance cannot be independent, 

but vary identically. All the sign data was transformed as x = (x+0.5)1/2, where x represents a 

tortoise sign variable (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). 

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically assess differences among DWMAs with 

respect to burrows, scats, TCS, live tortoises, and carcasses. Years (1999, 2001) were analyzed 

separately, and also combined to increase sample size for analyses. TCS classes Low and High 

(Table 2) were analyzed separately and also combined for analyses. 

Year 1999 2001 

TCS 

Class 

Low TCS 

(0-6) 

High TCS 

(>6) 

Low TCS

(0-6) 

High TCS 

(>6) 

Total 

DWMA 

Superior - 

Cronese 

526 71 145 31 773 

Fremont - 

Cramer 

193 27 179 13 412 

Ord - 

Rodman 

97 11 20 1 129 

Pinto 

Mtn 

43 0 0 0 43 

Total 859 109 344 45 1357 

Table 2. Sample sizes at the four DWMAs in 1999 and 2001 for Low TCS and High TCS 

classes. 

The 5 percent significance level (P<0.05) was used based on experience and general acceptance 

in ecological research and field biology. Burrows, scats, TCS, tortoises, and carcasses were each 

used in separate analyses as dependent variables with DWMAs as “the factor”, the independent 

variable. ANOVAs used Type III calculation of Sums of Squares, because this algorithm is 

generally recommended, it is invariant with respect to cell frequencies, and when there are no 

missing cells it is equivalent to Yates’ weighted-squares-of-means method (Milliken and 

Johnson 1984, Shaw and Mitchell-Olds 1993). 

Levene’s Test for equality of error variances was used for all analyses, and does not depend on 

the assumption of normality (Levene 1960). Bartlett’s test is often used to assess homogeneity, 

but its practical value has been questioned (Harris 1975), and this test is not very efficient and 

strongly affected by non-normality (Zar 1999). Levene’s Test uses the average of absolute 

deviations instead of the mean square of deviations, making it less sensitive to skewed 

distributions (Snedecor and Cochran 1989). Levene’s Test checks to see if error variances are 
4

homogeneous among the factors being compared in an ANOVA. Homogeneous variances are a 

parametric assumption in ANOVA. ANOVA is a parametric statistical procedure that 

technically requires parametric assumptions to be met: homogeneous error variances, normally 

distributed data, adequate sample sizes, and independence of sampling or experimental errors 

(random sampling, independence of observations). Nevertheless and importantly, ANOVA is 

considered robust to departures from the first two of these assumptions, particularly when proper 

transformations are employed (Sokal and Rohlf 1995, Underwood 1997, Zar 1999). 

Additionally, SPSS algorithms are very robust to nonnormality (Morgan and Griego 1998). 

Many researchers believe that the routine use of nonparametric statistics avoids many issues of 

parametric assumptions, but these methods are equally affected by the last two critical 

assumptions – independence of sampling errors and the loss of statistical power with inadequate 

sample sizes (Krzysik 1998). The routine use of nonparametric analysis in ecological research is 

not recommended (Johnson 1995, Smith 1995, Stewart-Oaton 1995), but see Potvin and Roff 

(1993). Table 3 provides the results of Levene’s Test for the ANOVA analyses of DWMAs. 

Year TCS 

Class 

Burrows Scats TCS Tortoises Carcasses N 

1999 & 

2001 

All 0.001 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1357 

1999 All NS 

(0.070) 

<0.001 0.003 0.001 <0.001 968 

2001 All <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 389 

1999 & 

2001 

Low NS 

(0.23) 

<0.001 0.041 <0.001 <0.001 1203 

1999 & 

2001 

High NS 

(0.61) 

NS 

(0.23) 

NS 

(0.12) 

NS 

(0.14) 

NS 

(0.36) 

154 

1999 Low NS 

(0.61) 

0.001 NS 

(0.072) 

<0.001 <0.001 859 

1999 High NS 

(0.73) 

NS 

(0.47) 

NS 

(0.25) 

NS 

(0.14) 

NS 

(0.22) 

109 

Table 3. Statistical significance of Levene’s Test for homogeneity of variances for ANOVA of 

DWMAs in 1999 and 2001. Analyses were not conducted on TCS classes for 2001 because of 

small sample size and the lack of surveys at Pinto Mountain. Note the high degree of 

heterogeneity in the DWMA data set. Values of P <0.001 are highly significant. 

ANOVA designs require the use of Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Tests to assess statistical 

significance when there are more than two levels for any factor. Five Post Hoc multiple 

comparison tests were used in the ANOVA analyses. The Bonferroni test, based on the 

Student’s t statistic, adjusts the significance level for multiple comparisons. This test has the 

widest range of applications, is conservative, and when there are few comparisons has high 

power (Zolman 1993, SPSS 1999b). Conservative tests were desirable in these analyses, because 

they minimize Type I error, the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis (null hypothesis = 

no significance difference) (Krzysik 1998). In other words, erroneously reporting significance 
5

when the comparison was not statistically significant. Importantly, when factor variances are 

heterogeneous (i.e., Levene’s Test is significant), pooled estimates of variance cannot be used to 

calculate the standard error of the comparison (Day and Quinn 1989). The use of Post Hoc tests 

that specifically address variance heterogeneity are recommended (Day and Quinn 1989, SPSS 

1999b). Therefore, the high degree of data heterogeneity (Table 3), motivated the use of four 

additional Post Hoc tests that fit this criteria. 

 

Tamhane’s T2 – conservative pairwise comparison test based on a t test 

Dunnett’s T3 – pairwise comparison test based on the Studentized maximum modulus, 

 highly recommended (Fry 1993) 

Games-Howell – liberal pairwise comparisons test, highly recommended (Fry 1993) 

 

Dunnett’s C – pairwise comparisons test based on the Studentized range 

Although all five tests were examined for significance at the 0.05 level, only the results of the 

conservative Tamhane’s T2 test were reported. The results of all five Post Hoc tests were 

usually similar for all the factorial ANOVA analyses conducted in this study. This indicates that 

the data were reasonably behaved. As expected, the Games-Howell test was more liberal, while 

the Bonferroni test was frequently very liberal in contrast to the other four tests, particularly 

when Levene’s Test showed significant departure from homogeneous residuals. 

Bivariate parametric and nonparametric correlation analyses were performed on the three data 

sets (DWMAs, Calibration Plots, 1998 Data) to assess the association of live tortoises with: 

burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses on survey transects. The parametric test was the Pearson 

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient. Two nonparametric rank correlations were used: 

Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau, and these gave results similar to the parametric test. The 

values reported in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 are Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient with the two-tailed 

analysis. The two-tailed analysis is more conservative than the one-tailed, and therefore, 

minimizes Type I error. 

Graphical presentations are provided to visually assess the association of live tortoise encounters 

with tortoise sign on survey transects. The data used was based on transect means of tortoises, 

burrows, and scats assessed at the three subclasses shown in Table 1. Burrow and scat transect 

means were multiplied by “10” and tortoise means by “100” for the purpose of convenient 

scaling of the graphics. Association of metrics through graphical visualizations represents an 

important tool for conveying information to the reader that may be difficult to track statistically 

(Tufte 1983, Harris 1999). 

Results 

Statistical Comparison of Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) 

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of transformed data was used to compare four DWMAs 

(Superior – Cronese, Fremont – Kramer, Ord – Rodman, and Pinto Mountain). Data were 

collected in 1999 and 2001 on standardized 1.5 mile triangular transects. The Pinto Mountain 
6

DWMA was not surveyed in 2001. Sample sizes for the analyses are provided in Table 2. Note 

that the data were subdivided into LOW (0-6) and HIGH (>6) Total Corrected Sign (TCS) 

classes. Table 3 provides the statistical significance of Levene’s Test for homogeneity of 

variances for all of the ANOVA contrasts in the DWMA comparisons. Note that in most of the 

sign comparisons the data were highly variable – Levene’s Test was highly significant. Data 

heterogeneity only stabilized when sign counts increased on the survey transects (i.e., TCS >6). 

Importantly, also note that burrow counts were more homogeneous than any other transect 

counts. 

Table 4 provides a summary of the ANOVA comparisons at all four DWMAs. Analyses were 

not conducted separately for 2001 TCS classes because of small sample size and the lack of data 

for Pinto Mountain. Note that there was no significant difference among the DWMAs in the 

number of live tortoise encountered on transects. The analysis of transects with High TCS 

counts not only had a small sample size, but also innately selected transects with high scat 

counts. Therefore, it was not surprising that there were no significant differences among the 

DWMAs in scat and TCS counts. However, burrow counts were significantly different. I 

attribute this significance of burrow counts to the relatively small sample sizes, and the reality of 

high scat counts relative to burrow counts inflating some of the TCS values. Importantly, if the 

two data sets for “High TCS counts” are not included; note that scat, TCS, and carcass counts are 

highly significantly different among the DWMAs in all comparisons, while burrow counts are 

statistically similar at all DWMAs and parallel the results derived for live tortoises. 

Year TCS 

Class 

Burrows Scats TCS Tortoises Carcasses N 

1999 

and 

2001 

All NS 

 (0.13) 

** 

(0.002) 

*** 

(<0.001) 

NS 

(>0.41) 

*** 

(<0.001) 

1357 

1999 All NS 

 (0.53) 

** 

(0.003) 

** 

(0.001) 

NS 

 (0.20) 

** 

(0.001) 

968 

2001 All NS 

 (0.078) 

** 

(0.002) 

** 

(0.003) 

NS 

 (>0.05) 

** 

(0.001) 

389 

1999 

and 

2001 

Low NS 

 (0.91) 

*** 

(<0.001) 

** 

(0.005) 

NS 

 (>0.27) 

*** 

(<0.001) 

1203 

1999 

and 

2001 

High * 

(0.018) 

NS 

 (0.55) 

NS 

 (0.64) 

NS 

 (0.63) 

NS 

 (0.94) 

154 

1999 Low NS 

 (0.97) 

** 

(0.002) 

* 

(0.010) 

NS 

 (>0.36) 

** 

(0.001) 

859 

1999 High ** 

(0.008) 

NS 

 (0.41) 

NS 

 (0.73) 

NS 

 (0.60) 

NS 

 (0.89) 

109 

Table 4. ANOVA results of the comparison of the four DWMAs with data collected in 1999 

and 2001. See Table 2 for DWMA identification and specific sample sizes, and Table 1 for TCS 

class definition. NS = Not Significant (P>0.05). 
7

The Appendix provides the results of the detailed Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison of all ANOVA 

results using Tamhane’s T2 procedure (see Methods). These data along with Table 4 

summarizes the results presented and discussed in Report II (Krzysik 2002b). These results 

suggest that in 1999 Pinto Mountain had less scat counts, and subsequently lower TCS counts 

than the other three DWMAs. In 2001, when Pinto Mountain was not surveyed, Fremont – 

Kramer had lower scat and TCS than Superior – Cronese when all TCS classes were considered, 

but only had lower scat than Ord – Rodman when Low TCS data were used. 

Carcass counts were significantly different among the four DWMAs. On the basis of the data 

summarized in the Appendix, the following ranking of carcass counts was established. 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese > (Ord – Rodman = Pinto Mountain) 

Ed LaRue provided me with Desert Tortoise estimated densities for the four DWMAs, where the 

Distance Sampling method was used for density estimation. Figure 1 provides these tortoise 

density estimates along with the standard error and the tortoise encounter rate for 100 km of 

transect. 

Figure 1. Estimated desert tortoise densities at the four DWMAs based on the Distance 

Sampling method. Data values are the mean with standard error. 

Figure 2 provides the tortoise density estimates along with the 95% confidence interval of the 

estimates. Pinto Mountain has the largest “error bar” around the mean because of its smaller 

sample size. On the basis of the Distance Sampling estimated means and their error terms at all 

four DWMAs appear to possess similar tortoise densities, with the possibility that SuperiorEstimated Desert Tortoise Densities at Four DWMAs 

(2001 Distance Sampling Estimates)

Ord-Rodman Pinto Mtn Fremont-Kramer Superior-Cronese

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

X

X

X

X

X = Tortoise encounter rate per 100 km

Tortoises/km2

 (mean with standard error)

Data from: Ed LaRue

31 August 2002

L=317 L=128 L=323 L=339

L = Total Survey Transect Length (km)
8

Cronese has a slightly lower density. On the basis of the estimated mean tortoise density, 

Superior – Cronese had a 21% lower density than Fremont – Kramer, and 35% less than Ord – 

Rodman. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of overlap evident in the standard errors and 95% 

confidence intervals. 

Figure 2. Estimated desert tortoise densities at the four DWMAs based on the Distance 

Sampling method. Data values are the mean with 95% confidence interval. 

Bivariate Correlation Analyses 

Extensive bivariate correlation analyses were performed to explore the association of live 

tortoise encounters on the 1.5 mile triangular survey transects with four other transect signs: 

burrows, scats, TCS (burrows + scats), and carcasses. In all analyses, similar results were 

obtained with Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (Parametric) and the two 

Nonparametric rank correlations, Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau. The reality of extremely 

low tortoise encounter rates on survey transects (usually 0), makes for small correlation 

coefficients. Nevertheless, sample sizes are large enough to provide statistically significant 

correlations and explore potential relationships. This is discussed in greater detail in the next 

section. 

Estimated Desert Tortoise Densities at Four DWMAs 

(2001 Distance Sampling Estimates)

Ord-Rodman Pinto Mtn Fremont-Kramer Superior-Cronese

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Tortoises/km2 (mean with 95% confidence interval)

Data from: Ed LaRue

31 August 2002
9

Table 5 provides the bivariate correlations of live tortoise encounters with burrow, scat, TCS, 

and carcass counts on individual transects at the four DWMAs. This table was also provided in 

Report II (Krzysik 2002b, Table 3). 

 

Sites: DWMAs Year: 1999 and 2001 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses N 

All 0.37** 0.20** 0.29** 0.045 1351 

1999 0.35** 0.16** 0.26** 0.030 962 

 

2001 0.44** 0.29** 0.38** 0.088 389 

Low TCS 0.27** 0.95** 0.22** 0.024 1197 

High TCS 0.38** -0.11 0.062 0.058 154 

0-1 TCS 0.13** 0.020 0.12** -0.029 750 

2-3 TCS 0.24** -0.20** 0.12* -0.036 277 

4-6 TCS 0.16* -0.11 0.020 0.076 170 

7-9 TCS 0.34** -0.31** -0.14 0.16 88 

>9 TCS 0.45** -0.063 0.16 -0.085 66 

Table 5. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of LIVE TORTOISES with four 

tortoise sign parameters: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. N is the sample size. 

* indicates statistical significance (P<0.05) 

** indicates high statistical significance (P<0.01) 
10

Table 6 provides the bivariate correlations of live tortoise encounters with burrow, scat, TCS, 

and carcass counts on individual transects at the Calibration Plots. 

Sites: Calibration Plots Year: 1998, 1999, 2001 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses N 

All 0.39** 0.17** 0.26** -0.004 624 

1998 0.26** 0.020 0.099 0.11 180 

 

1999 0.45** 0.22** 0.33** -0.043 282 

2001 0.43** 0.25** 0.33** -0.074 162 

Low TCS 0.24** 0.024 0.14** -0.057 388 

High TCS 0.40** -0.005 0.18** 0.018 236 

0-1 TCS 0.076 -0.071 0.001 -0.022 149 

2-3 TCS 0.16 -0.21* -0.084 -0.079 108 

4-6 TCS 0.22* -0.24** -0.070 -0.075 131 

7-9 TCS 0.40** -0.41** 0.022 0.18 93 

>9 TCS 0.39** -0.004 0.19* -0.11 143 

Table 6. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of LIVE TORTOISES with four 

tortoise sign parameters: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. N is the sample size. 

* indicates statistical significance (P<0.05) 

** indicates high statistical significance (P<0.01) 

Sample sizes at Calibration Plots are as follows: 

Plot Number of Transects

 

Lucerne 186 

Kramer 180 

Fremont 156 

Alvord 42 

Liz 42 

DTNA 12 

Johnson 6 
11

Table 7 provides the bivariate correlations of live tortoise encounters with burrow, scat, TCS, 

and carcass counts on individual transects for surveys conducted in 1998. 

Sites: Unknown Year: 1998 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS Carcasses N 

All 0.29** 0.14** 0.23** -0.004 876 

Low TCS 0.28** 0.089* 0.22** 0.029 662 

 

High TCS 0.21** -0.007 0.12 -0.084 214 

0-1 TCS 0.13* -0.052 0.055 -0.038 308 

2-3 TCS 0.15* -0.081 0.11 0.013 192 

4-6 TCS 0.22** -0.27** -0.13 -0.014 162 

7-9 TCS 0.11 -0.058 0.11 -0.17 93 

>9 TCS 0.27** -0.032 0.14 -0.020 121 

Table 7. Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation Coefficient of LIVE TORTOISES with four 

tortoise sign parameters: burrows, scats, TCS, and carcasses. N is the sample size. 

* indicates statistical significance (P<0.05) 

** indicates high statistical significance (P<0.01) 
12

Table 8 represents randomly selected subsets of transect data from the DWMA database. Ten 

bivariate correlation analyses were performed for each of six subsets of data from the original 

data. The data subsets represented approximately 2%, 3%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 50% of the 

original data. 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

0.48** 0.43** 0.48** 31 

 0.086 -0.11 -0.045 28 

 0.60** 0.43** 0.54** 30 

2% 0.54** 0.43** 0.50** 33 

of Data 0.45** 0.45** 0.49** 28 

 0.37 0.12 0.32 27 

 0.094 0.060 0.072 34 

 0.57** 0.41** 0.53** 25 

 0.074 0.20 0.16 24 

 0.38 -0.16 0.049 22 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

 

0.26 0.088 0.16 35 

 0.57** 0.26 0.43** 35 

 0.60** 0.20 0.41** 43 

3% 0.33* 0.15 0.24 42 

of Data 0.39* 0.25 0.38* 37 

 0.21 0.17 0.20 53 

 0.097 0.51 0.23 42 

 0.26 0.28 0.29 42 

 0.39* 0.40** 0.44** 42 

 0.25 0.28 0.29 33 

Table 8. Randomly generated subsets of the DWMA database. Ten bivariate correlation 

analyses were performed for each of six subsets of data. The data subsets represent 2%, 3%, 

5%, 10%, 20%, and 50% of the original sample transects. Statistical significance as in Table 7. 
13

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

 

0.42** 0.32** 0.42** 83 

 0.47** 0.32** 0.39** 65 

 0.43** 0.037 0.23 52 

5% 0.35** 0.40** 0.42** 59 

of Data 0.46** 0.14 0.27* 73 

 0.21 0.16 0.20 57 

 0.34** 0.44** 0.47** 68 

 0.33* 0.13 0.21 59 

 0.16 0.42** 0.42** 72 

 0.26* 0.18 0.24 67 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

 

0.31** 0.21* 0.28** 122 

 0.35** 0.18* 0.28** 155 

 0.37** 0.24** 0.32** 147 

10% 0.35** 0.20* 0.27** 138 

of Data 0.47** 0.13 0.30** 132 

 0.39** 0.30** 0.37** 140 

 0.35** 0.039 0.17 133 

 0.23** 0.17 0.22* 130 

 0.39** 0.36** 0.40** 136 

 0.31** 0.16 0.25** 121 

Table 8. (continued)
14

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

 

0.39** 0.27** 0.35** 266 

 0.21** 0.15* 0.21** 285 

 0.44** 0.19** 0.32** 252 

20% 0.30** 0.13* 0.22** 283 

of Data 0.32** 0.083 0.20** 270 

 0.34** 0.25** 0.33** 256 

 0.33** 0.25** 0.33** 263 

 0.38** 0.26** 0.35** 275 

 0.35** 0.21** 0.29** 272 

 0.33** 0.19** 0.27** 263 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

 

0.34** 0.17** 0.26** 678 

 0.36** 0.22** 0.30** 671 

 0.37** 0.20** 0.30** 645 

50% 0.35** 0.16** 0.25** 685 

of Data 0.41** 0.24** 0.33** 655 

 0.45** 0.25** 0.36** 660 

 0.36** 0.20** 0.28** 641 

 0.30** 0.19** 0.26** 701 

 0.36** 0.16** 0.26** 667 

 0.33** 0.17** 0.25** 672 

Tortoise vs Burrows Scats TCS N 

100% 

of Data 0.37** 0.20** 0.29** 1352 

 

Table 8. (continued)
15

Examination of the three data sets (Tables 5, 6, 7) reveals that tortoise encounters on transects 

are typically strongly correlated with burrow counts. Only 3 of 29 analyses do not possess a 

significant correlation, and two of these are on transects that had fewer than four TCS. On the 

other hand, 14 of 29 for scats and 15 of 29 for TCS do not show significant correlations. In all 

three data sets, when all transects were analyzed and the largest sample size was available, 

tortoise encounters were strongly correlated with any measure of sign count: burrows, scats, or 

TCS. Carcasses never had a significant correlation with live tortoise encounters on transects (0 

for 29). 

It was of interest to explore the effects of smaller sample sizes on the correlation of tortoise 

encounters with transect sign counts (Table 8), and the results were surprising. Note that sample 

sizes with approximately 20% of the original number of transects gave comparable results to the 

complete data set – burrows, scats, and TCS were all strongly correlated with tortoise counts. At 

10% of the original data, burrows still maintained their strong correlation with tortoises, but TCS 

and especially scats were losing statistical significance. The number of significant correlation 

coefficients decreased as sample size decreased. Surprisingly, even at 2% of the original data 

half of the 10 analysis runs showed highly significant correlations of tortoises and their sign, 

including burrows, scats, and TCS! 

Graphical Representations of Desert Tortoises and Their Sign 

at the Four DWMAs, Calibration Plots, and 1998 Surveys 

Live tortoises found on transects were significantly correlated with burrows, scats, and TCS, but 

especially with burrows (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8). Correlations were commonly significant at the 

P<0.01 level. Nevertheless, the actual bivariate correlation coefficients were not particularly 

high, typically possessing values of 0.2 to 0.5. Correlations of this magnitude can be very highly 

significant when sample sizes are high. The reason for this is directly due to the reality that 

tortoise encounter rates on transects are very rare. Even in areas of the Mojave Desert that were 

known to possess “optimal” habitat and therefore tortoise densities, such as DWMAs and 

Calibration Plots, transect encounter rates were very low. Table 9 gives tortoise encounter rates 

along 2852 transects surveyed in the four DWMAs, Calibration Plots, and in the 1998 database. 

Note that more than three live tortoises were never encountered on a single transect, and three 

tortoises were only encountered a single time (0.035 percent), despite the total sample size of 

2852 transects. This translates to 4278 miles (6883 km) of search transects. Tortoises were not 

encountered in 91 percent of the surveyed transects, a single tortoise was found on only seven 

percent, while two tortoises were only encountered one percent of the time. 

The rarity of tortoise encounters on survey transects is well know among tortoise surveyors, and 

these results were not surprising. These results motivated the analysis and graphical 

representations presented in this section. 

 

 
16

Databases Year Number 

of 

Transects

Number of Tortoises Found on 

1.5 Mile Transects 

(Frequency in Percent) 

Sites 0 1 2 3 >3 Missing

Data

DWMAs 1999 

and 

2001 

1352 1264 

(93.5)

77 

(5.7)

11 

(0.8)

0 0 18 

(not 

included in 

total) 

Calibration 

Plots 

1998-

1999-

2001 

624 557 

(89.3)

57 

(9.1)

9 

(1.4)

1 (0.2) 0 0 

Unknown 1998 876 787 

(89.8)

76 

(8.7)

13 

(1.5)

0 0 0 

All All 2852 2608 

(91.4)

210 

(7.4)

33 

(1.2)

1 

(0.035) 

0 

Table 9. Encounter rates of live desert tortoises on 1.5 mile transects using three databases and 

based on three years of effort. Data cells are number of tortoises and frequencies (in percent) are 

in parentheses. Note that more than three tortoises were never encountered on a single transect, 

and three tortoises were only encountered a single time, despite the total sample size of 2852 

transects. 

 

Figures 3 to 11 show the relationship between live tortoise encounters and tortoise sign on 1.5 

mile survey transects. Figures 3 to 5 are data from the DWMAs and associate tortoises and 

burrows at Low and High TCS classes (Figure 3), and at a finer division of five TCS classes 

(Figure 4). Figure 5 associates tortoises and scats at five classes of burrow encounters. Figures 

6 to 8 show the corresponding representations for the Calibration Plot transects. Similarly, 

Figures 9 to 11 show the corresponding representations for the 1998 database. An inspection of 

Figures 3 to 11 clearly reveals that there is a consistent and reliable relationship between tortoise 

encounters and both burrows and scats on survey transects. These figures represent graphical 

depictions of the correlation analyses presented in the previous section (Tables 5, 6, 7). 

Figure 12 shows the relationship of tortoise and burrow encounter rates with Distance Sampling 

tortoise density estimates at the four DWMAs. The Distance Sampling data are from Figure 1. 

With the exception of the very high tortoise encounter rate at the Pinto Mountain DWMA, all 

three metrics are reasonably similar. The small sample size at Pinto Mountain was most likely 

responsible for the outlier datum. 
17

Figure 3. Relationship between tortoises and burrows at the four DWMAs, based on two 

classes of TCS counts. 

 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1999 & 2001 Data at Four DWMAs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

DWMAs:

Ord-Rodman

Pinto Mtn

Fremont-Kramer

Superior-Cronese

> 6

(154)

0-6

(1198)
18

Figure 4. Relationship between tortoises and burrows at the four DWMAs, based on five 

classes of TCS counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1999 & 2001 Data at Four DWMAs

2-3 4-6 7-9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(750) (278) (170) (88) (66)

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

DWMAs:

Ord-Rodman

Pinto Mtn

Fremont-Kramer

Superior-Cronese 0-1 > 9
19

Figure 5. Relationship between tortoises and scats at the four DWMAs, based on five classes 

of burrow counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1999 & 2001 Data at Four DWMAs

0 1 2 3 4-9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Scats/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(780) (326) (132) (72) (42)

Number of Burrows in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

DWMAs:

Ord-Rodman

Pinto Mtn

Fremont-Kramer

Superior-Cronese
20

Figure 6. Relationship between tortoises and scats at the Calibration Plots (see Table 6 for 

Calibration Plot identification), based on two classes of TCS counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998, 1999, 2001 Data at Calibration Plots

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

> 6

(236)

0-6

(388)
21

Figure 7. Relationship between tortoises and burrows at the Calibration Plots (see Table 6 for 

Calibration Plot identification), at five classes of TCS counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998-1999-2001 Data at Calibration Plots

2-3 4-6 7-9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(149) (108) (131) (93) (143)

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

0-1 > 9
22

Figure 8. Relationship between tortoises and scats at the Calibration Plots (see Table 6 for 

Calibration Plot identification), at five classes of burrow counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998-1999-2001 Data at Calibration Plots

0 1 2 3 4-13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Scats/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(211) (178) (107) (69) (59)

Number of Burrows in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)
23

Figure 9. Relationship between tortoises and burrows at 1998 survey transects (Sites not 

identified in database), at two classes of TCS counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998 Data 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

> 6

(214)

0-6

(662)
24

Figure 10. Relationship between tortoises and burrows at 1998 survey transects (Sites not 

identified in database), at five classes of TCS counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998 Data 

2-3 4-6 7-9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Burrows/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(308) (192) (162) (93) (120)

TCS in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)

0-1 > 9
25

Figure 11. Relationship between tortoises and scats at 1998 survey transects (Sites not 

identified in database), at five classes of burrow counts. 

Relationship Between Tortoises and Their Sign

1998 Data 

0 1 2 3 4-13

0

20

40

60

80

Scats/10 tran

Tortoises/100 tran

(363) (239) (143) (54) (76)

Number of Burrows in 1.5 Mile Transects

(sample sizes in parentheses)
26

Figure 12. Tortoise and burrow counts on transects compared to Distance Sampling tortoise 

density estimates at the DWMAs. 

Discussion and Conclusions 

Desert Tortoises and Their Sign 

Desert tortoises should be closely associated with their sign – burrows and scats. Desert tortoises 

possess relatively small home ranges even in highly productive years (averaging < 8 ha), and this 

home range dramatically decreases even further in a drought year (averaging < 3 ha) (Duda et al. 

1999). Within their home range they build 2-11 burrows/tortoise in a productive year, and 1-

6/tortoise in a drought year (Duda et al. 1999). Based on their dedication to small home ranges, 

and because tortoises spend a major portion of their lives in burrows, particularly during drought 

years and unfavorable weather conditions (Duda and Krzysik 1998), it is intuitive that tortoise 

signs (i.e. burrows and scats) have traditionally represented surrogates for actual live tortoises. 

Typically, desert tortoise surveys have summed burrow counts and “independent” scat counts to 

produce TCS, total corrected sign. 

Analysis of Variance 

Burrow counts were statistically similar at all DWMAs for both 1999 and 2001. Interestingly, 

when only high (>6) TCS transects were analyzed, Superior – Cronese had higher burrow counts 

than Fremont – Kramer. Pinto Mountain did not have any high TCS transects. 

Burrow and Tortoise Counts on Transects and 

Distance Sampling Density Estimates at DWMAs

Ord-Rod Pinto Mtn Fre-Kra Sup-Cro

0

5

10

15

20

Bur/10 tran

Tor/100 tran

DS Tor/sqkm

(129) (40) (410) (773)

.

2001 Data for Distance Sampling Estimates

1999 & 2001 Data for Transect Counts

(sample sizes for transect data in parentheses)
27

Scat and TCS counts produced similar results in ANOVA, because TCS is usually dominated by 

scat counts (Krzysik, data on file). Pinto Mountain had lower scat counts than the other 

DWMAs in 1999, and when considering only Low TCS transects. Pinto Mountain was not 

represented in 2001 nor in high TCS transects. In 2001, Superior – Cronese had higher scat 

counts than Fremont – Kramer. However, when high TCS transects were analyzed all DWMAs 

had similar scat counts. Detailed analysis results for both scats and TCS are presented in the 

Appendix. 

Live tortoise counts were statistically similar at all DWMAs, for both 1999 and 2001, and for 

both low and high TCS transects. However, statistical interpretation can be quite tenuous, 

because of the high variability and low sample sizes associated with finding tortoises on survey 

transects. 

Carcass counts were highest at Fremont – Cramer and Superior – Cronese. The following 

ranking of carcass counts were established by statistical significance: 

Fremont – Cramer > Superior – Cronese > (Ord – Rodman = Pinto Mountain) 

Ord – Rodman and Pinto Mountain had the highest Distance Sampling estimated tortoise 

densities. However, the ANOVA results of live tortoise and burrow encounters on surveys, and 

the significant overlap in standard error and 95% confidence intervals for the Distance Sampling 

estimates (Figures 1 and 2), strongly suggests that tortoise densities were similar at the four 

DWMAs. 

Correlation Analyses 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty of observing live desert tortoises on survey transects (Table 

9), and the very high variability of tortoise sign (burrows and scats) among transects, there was a 

highly significant correlation (P<0.01) of live tortoises with burrows, scats, and TCS for all three 

databases (DWMAs, Calibration Plots, and the 1998 data set), see respectively, Tables 5, 6, and 

7. When the data were further classified by the abundance of TCS counts (both into two and five 

classes), the results of the correlation analysis clearly showed that only burrows consistently 

provided a highly significant correlation with tortoise counts. Scat and TCS counts were 

inconsistently and unreliably correlated with live tortoises. Scat counts would occasionally 

produce significant negative correlations with tortoise counts, and this was observed in all three 

data sets. 

The effect of sample sizes on analyses results were explored by randomly sampling 2, 3, 5, 10, 

20, and 50 percent of the original data, and then conducting ten correlation analyses on each of 

the derived data sets. The motivation was to directly assess the relative effects that smaller 

sample sizes had on statistical significance and the original bivariate correlation analyses results. 

Once again, even with smaller sample sizes, burrows were more consistent and reliable 

correlates of tortoise counts than scats or TCS. The surprising result of this exercise was that 

analyses results were not as sensitive to sample sizes as first anticipated. Burrow counts 

produced highly significant and reliable correlations with tortoise counts when only 10 percent 

of the original data was used in the analyses (Table 8). These results provide compelling 

evidence that burrows are a more consistent and reliable surrogate for tortoise counts than scats 
28

or the combination of burrows + scats (TCS). The current analysis extends and reinforces the 

similar conclusions reached in the first two reports (Krzysik 2002a, 2002b). Additionally, 

Stepwise Linear Regression demonstrated that burrow counts were the only predictor variable 

necessary to explain the variability of tortoises on transects, and neither scat nor TCS counts 

contributed significant information to the regression (Krzysik 2002b). 

 

Carcass counts were not correlated with transect live tortoise counts. A priori, everything else 

being equal, one would expect that DWMAs with higher tortoises densities would also possess 

higher carcass densities (a significant positive correlation), assuming mortality rates are similar. 

DWMAs that suffered higher tortoise mortality should show a negative correlation between live 

tortoises and carcasses. The carcass correlation data suggest that BOTH tortoise densities and 

tortoise mortality rates are similar at the DWMAs. However, the ANOVA data suggest that 

carcass counts were higher at both Fremont – Cramer and Superior – Cronese. 

Graphical Representations of Desert Tortoises and Their Sign 

An inspection of Figures 3 through 11 clearly reveals a persistent pattern of the consistent 

relationship between tortoise transect encounters and both burrow and scat counts on surveyed 

transects, and directly reflects the quantitative results of the bivariate correlation analysis (Tables 

5, 6, and 7). There is a striking similarity in this pattern when one compares the three different 

databases. Figures 3, 6, and 9 demonstrate the close relationship between tortoises and burrows 

when transects are divided into Low and High TCS counts. Simply put, transects with high TCS 

counts also had higher burrow counts and were much more likely to encounter a live tortoise. 

The converse was noted for Low TCS count transects. This is not merely attributed to burrow 

counts influencing TCS, because TCS is primarily influenced by scat counts (Krzysik, on file 

data analysis). Therefore, transects with high scat counts, also possessed high burrow counts, 

and a greater likelihood of encountering the rare event of finding a tortoise. 

Figures 4, 7, and 10 demonstrate a similar comparison when the TCS counts are more finely 

classified into five TCS classes. In all three databases, a similar and consistent pattern emerges. 

Tortoise and burrow encounters are extremely rare on transects that possess either single or no 

TCS counts. When TCS counts increased, burrow and tortoise encounters BOTH increased in a 

comparable and parallel pattern. The increase in burrows and tortoises followed a particularly 

“linear pattern” at the Calibration Plots (Figure 7) and with the 1998 data (Figure 10). The 

DWMA sites almost depict a trimodal distribution with 0-1, 2-6, and >6 TCS counts (Figure 4). 

Figures 7 and 10 could also be “forced” into a trimodal distribution of TCS classes. 

Figures 5, 8, and 10 associate tortoise and scat encounters based on transects classified by 

burrow counts. Similarly, as in the previous two comparisons, the persistent pattern is retained. 

Transects where burrows were not observed possessed the lowest scat counts and tortoise 

encounters were very rare. As burrow counts on transects increased, so did the likelihood of 

encountering tortoises and observing higher scat counts. Two important insights were obtained 

from these last three figures. Even when burrows were not encountered on a transect, significant 

scat counts could be recorded. Also note that the increasing scat count histograms in these 

figures are “flatter” than the tortoise or burrow histograms in any of the nine figures discussed. I 

interpret these observations to suggest that scat counts are not as reliable as burrows in relating to 

tortoise counts. This is due to scats higher variability, both in space and in time, and in observer 

detection. 
29

References 

Day, R.W., and G.P. Quinn. 1989. Comparisons of treatments after an analysis of variance in 

ecology. Ecological Monographs 59:433-463. 

Duda, J.J., and A.J. Krzysik. 1998. Radiotelemetry study of a desert tortoise population: Sand 

Hill Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACERL Technical Report 98/39. 75pp. 

Duda, J.J., A.J. Krzysik, and J.E. Freilich. 1999. Effects of drought on desert tortoise movement 

and activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1181-1192. 

Fry, J.C. 1993. One-way analysis of variance. Pages 3-39 in Biological Data Analysis: A 

Practical Approach, J.C. Fry, ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 418pp. 

Harris, R.J. 1975. A Primer of Multivariate Statistics. Academic Press, New York, NY. 332pp. 

Harris, R.L. 1999. Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference. Oxford 

University Press, NY. 448pp. 

Johnson, D.H. 1995. Statistical sirens: The allure of nonparametrics. Ecology 76:1998-2000. 

Krzysik, A.J. 1998. Ecological design and analysis: Principles and issues in environmental 

monitoring. Pages 385-403 in Status and Conservation of Midwestern Amphibians, M.J. 

Lannoo, ed. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA. 507pp. 

Krzysik, A.J. 2002a. Statistical analysis of BLM desert tortoise surveys in support of the West 

Mojave Management Plan. Report I: Exploratory and initial data analysis. 1 May 2002. 35pp. 

Krzysik, A.J. 2002b. Statistical analysis of BLM desert tortoise surveys in support of the West 

Mojave Management Plan. Report II: Statistical comparison of DWMAs (1999 & 2001). 

19 June 2002. 19pp. 

Levene, H. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variance. Pages 278-292 in Contributions to 

Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. 

Milliken, G.A., and D.E. Johnson. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume I: Designed 

Experiments. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 473pp. 

Morgan, G.A., and O.V. Griego. 1998. Easy Use and Interpretation of SPSS for Windows: 

Answering Research Questions with Statistics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 276pp. 

Potvin, C., and D.A. Roff. 1993. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable 

alternatives to parametric statistics. Ecology 74:1617-1628. 

Shaw, R.G., and T. Mitchell-Olds. 1993. ANOVA for unbalanced data: An overview. Ecology 

74:1638-1645. 
30

Smith, S.M. 1995. Distribution-free and robust statistical methods: Viable alternatives to 

parametric statistics? Ecology 76:1997-1998. 

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th ed. Iowa State University 

Press, Ames, IA. 503pp. 

Sokal, R.R, and F.J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman, New York, NY. 887pp. 

SPSSa. 1999. SPSS analysis software package. Version 9.0.1 SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 

SPSSb. 1999. SPSS User’s Guide, Version 9.0. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL. 740pp. 

Stewart-Oaten, A. 1995. Rules and judgments in statistics: Three examples. Ecology 76:2001-

2009. 

Tufte, E.R. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, 

CN. 197pp. 

Underwood, A.J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

504pp. 

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 663pp. 

Zolman, J.F. 1993. Biostatistics: Experimental Design and Statistical Inference. Oxford 

University Press, New York, NY. 343pp. 
31

Appendix 

ANOVA results of DWMA comparisons. The column on the right provides statistical 

significance. NS = Not Statistically Significant (P>0.05). 

Scats 

1999 and 2001 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Ord – Rodman > Fremont – Kramer 0.028 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.006 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.55 

1999 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn <0.001 
32

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn 0.001 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.005 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.47 

2001 

All TCS Classes 

Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Cramer 0.002 

TCS 

1999 and 2001 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn 0.002 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.013 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.64 
33

1999 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn 0.007 

Ord – Rodman > Pinto Mtn 0.003 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.009 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.73 

2001 

All TCS Classes 

Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Cramer 0.002 

Burrows 

1999 and 2001 

All TCS Classes 

NS 0.13 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

NS 0.91 
34

TCS HIGH (>6) 

Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Cramer 0.023 

1999 

All TCS Classes 

NS 0.53 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

NS 0.97 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

Superior – Cronese > Fremont – Cramer 0.013 

2001 

All TCS Classes 

NS 0.078 

Tortoises 

1999 and 2001 

All TCS Classes 

NS >0.41 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

NS >0.27 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.63 
35

1999 

All TCS Classes 

NS 0.20 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

NS >0.36 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.60 

2001 

All TCS Classes 

NS >0.05 

Carcasses 

1999 and 2001 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese 0.005 

Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 0.001 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.046 
36

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior – Cronese 0.002 

Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 0.001 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.94 

1999 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman 0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn 0.002 

Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 0.021 

Superior – Cronese > Pinto Mtn 0.043 

TCS LOW (0-6) 

Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Pinto Mtn 0.002 

Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman 0.012 

TCS HIGH (>6) 

NS 0.89 
37

2001 

All TCS Classes 

Fremont – Kramer > Ord – Rodman <0.001 

Fremont – Kramer > Superior - Cronese 0.021 

Superior – Cronese > Ord – Rodman <0.001 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX L 

MISCELLANEOUS 

TORTOISE 

BACKGROUND DATA
Appendices 
Appendices 

MISCELLANEOUS TORTOISE BACKGROUND DATA 

 Appendix L presents a discussion of additional background material concerning the 

desert tortoise, field surveys, observations made during those surveys and other data that 

supports Chapter 3’s treatment of the tortoise. The appendix addresses the following topics: 

• Federal Lead Agencies and Tortoises Handled and Accidentally Killed 

• Tortoise Sign Counts 

• Revised Desert Tortoise Range Map (2002) 

• Symptoms of URTD and Shell Disease Observed During Sign Count Surveys 

• Carcass Observation Analysis 

• Relative tortoise Occurrence in Open Areas 

L.1 FEDERAL LEAD AGENCIES AND TORTOISES HANDLED AND 

ACCIDENTALLY KILLED 

Of the 133 biological opinions issued in California, 101 led to ground disturbance when 

projects were developed, resulting in the loss of 53 tortoises (LaRue and Dougherty 1998). 

Table L-1 summarizes the federal lead agencies associated with these 101 projects. 

Table L-1 

Federal Lead Agencies And Tortoises Handled And Accidentally Killed During 

Construction Of 101 Projects In California Between 1990 And 1995 

FEDERAL LEAD 

AGENCY 

PROJECTS TORTOISES 

HANDLED 

DEAD TORTOISES

Federal Energy Reg. Comm. 1 559 38 

BLM 50 317 9 

Fort Irwin 2 12 4 

Fed. Highway Admin. 5 9 1 

China Lake NAWS 4 3 1 

Farmer’s Home Administration 1 3 1 

Army Corps of Engineers 2 3 0 

Dept. of Education 1 1 0 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 1 5 0 

Edwards Air Force Base 27 10 0 

NASA 4 0 0 

National Park Service 1 0 0 

29 Palms Marine Corps Base 3 0 0 

Total 101 922 54 

There were at least 13 federal lead agencies funding, authorizing, or carrying out projects 

in tortoise habitat between 1990 and 1995 in California. One biological opinion was issued to 

the Farmer’s Home Administration, but that project had not been implemented as of the date of 

preparation of the 1995 report. The project, a 52-mile long water pipeline in the Copper 

Mountain Mesa area of San Bernardino County, was constructed late in 1995. One death was 

associated with construction and three tortoises were moved out of harm’s way (Circle Mountain 
Appendices 

Biological Consultants 1995). Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was 

responsible for only one project (the Mojave-Kern River Pipeline), that one project was 

responsible for 72% (38 of 53 tortoises) of the documented tortoise mortality. 

L.2 TORTOISE SIGN COUNTS 

L.2.1 Sign Count Surveys Since 1988 

Sign count surveys conducted since 1988 (see Map 3-6) provide the most recent, 

available data on the distribution of tortoise sign, which Dr. Anthony Krzysik (2002a, b, c; see 

Appendix K) has show to be positively correlated to incidence of tortoises. Over 8,100 transects 

have been surveyed on more that 6,300 square miles within the West Mojave planning area. 

These survey efforts are summarized in Table L-2. 

Table L-2 

Regional Tortoise Surveys Completed Since 1988

GEOGRAPHIC 

AREA 

DATE TRANSECTS SQUARE 

MILES 

LITERATURE 

CITATION 

Outside Fort Irwin 

(west, east, and south) 

1988 90 90 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988 

Fort Irwin and 

Goldstone 

1989 406 406 Woodman & Goodlett 1990, Krzysik 

1994 

California City, Rand 

Mountains, Fremont 

Valley, Spangler Hills 

1990 450 150 Berry et al. 1994 

China Lake Naval Air 

Weapons Station 

1990 270 270 Kiva Biological Consulting and 

McClenahan & Hopkins Associates, 

Inc. 1990 

Fort Irwin (including 

expansion areas) 

1990 468 468 Chambers Group, Inc. 1990 

Fort Irwin (including the 

North Alvord Slope 

proposed expansion 

area) 

1992 134 134 Chambers Group, Inc. 1994 

Edwards Air Force Base 1992 672 224 Mitchell et al. 1993 

Edwards Air Force Base 1994 315 105 Laabs et al. 1996 

Twentynine Palms 

Marine Corps Base 

1997 850 850 GIS database provided by Marine 

Corps, with no associated document 

West Mojave Survey 1998 875 856 Reported herein 

West Mojave - Fort 

Irwin Survey 

1999 1,553 1,291 Reported herein 

Remaining West Mojave 2001 – 

2002 

1,453 1,329 Reported herein 

Fort Irwin 2000 

Expansion Area 

2001 568 568 Karl 2002 

Totals 8,104 6,741 
Appendices 

L.2.2 Methodology 

Tortoise sign count data have historically been used to determine relative tortoise 

densities (Berry and Nicholson 1984; Chambers Group, Inc. 1990, 1994; Doak et al. 1994; 

Krzysik 1994; USFWS 1991b). For example, Berry and Nicholson (1984), using sign count data 

and other information, concluded that there were “...approximately 229,666 to more than 

426,361 tortoises...present in the Western Mojave Region” as of that date. It has been very 

common in the literature for tortoise densities to be categorized as follows: 0-20, 20-50, 50-100, 

100-250, and >250 tortoises/square mile. Berry’s 1984 tortoise range map (Berry and Nicholson 

1984) shows polygons of tortoise densities corresponding to the five categories. Results of sign 

count surveys have often been reported in terms of these density categories, for example 

(Chambers Group, Inc. 1990), “... the proposed [Fort Irwin] acquisition lands contained in this 

study comprise approximately 7.3 percent of all lands in the western Mojave with 21 to 50 

tortoises per square mile, 14.5 percent of all lands in the western Mojave with 51 to 100 tortoises 

per square mile, and 4.9 percent of all lands in the western Mojave with 101 to 250 tortoises per 

square mile.” 

The method developed (reported in Berry and Nicholson 1984) required the use of 

tortoise density estimates that were previously determined during 60-day surveys on BLM 

permanent study plots. The BLM employed experienced tortoise biologists to mark all tortoises 

encountered during the first 30-day survey period covering the entire square mile, then had them 

resurvey the same plot during a second 30-day period to recapture previously-marked animals. 

The Lincoln-Peterson Index was then used to determine the density of tortoises occurring on that 

square mile. 

As reported elsewhere, sign count surveys have been the primary means of assessing 

tortoise distribution and densities on regional scales since the mid-1970's. In each case, the 

tortoise biologists would survey a set of six 1.5-mile, equilateral transects on at least three of the 

permanent study plots, which until the early 1990's were surveyed (during the 60-day period) at 

about four-year intervals. Regression statistics applied to the resulting data required that the 

three plots include relatively low, medium, and high Total Corrected Sign (TCS) counts. In the 

planning area, these plots have traditionally included Fremont Peak (low), Kramer Hills 

(intermediate), and Lucerne Valley (high) plots. 

Table L-3 shows the data that were collected at these three study plots by three different 

surveyors (1st column) in support of the 2001-2002 surveys completed for the West Mojave Plan. 

 Each of the surveyors walked six 1.5-mile transects, along same compass bearings, and recorded 

Total Sign (outside the parenthesis in the following table) and Total Corrected Sign (inside the 

parenthesis). In this way, there can be direct comparisons among the surveyors to determine the 

relative abundance of tortoise sign (only scat and burrows are factored into TCS, although data 

on live animals and carcasses are recorded) on each of the plots. 
Appendices 

Table L-3 

 Total Sign and Total Corrected Sign of 

Tortoises Found on Three Permanent Study Plots in 2001-2002 in the WMPA

2001 FREMONT 

Surveyor North Northwest West South Southeast East Totals

Boland 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 3 (3) 

LaRue 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 2 (3) 

Vaughn 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 

2001 Kramer 

Surveyor North Northwest West South Southeast East Totals

Boland 6 (8) 6 (6) 4 (4) 3 (3) 9 (10) 2 (2) 30 (33) 

LaRue 5 (6) 6 (6) 8 (11) 6 (7) 4 (10) 10 (13) 39 (53) 

Vaughn 9 (10) 5 (5) 6 (7) 5 (6) 7 (7) 6 (7) 38 (42) 

2001 Lucerne 

Surveyor North Northwest West South Southeast East Totals

Boland 20 (36) 3 (3) 4 (5) 14 (17) 19 (28) 15 (20) 75 (109) 

LaRue 22 (39) 7 (10) 12 (21) 31 (43) 25 (37) 17 (23) 114 (173) 

Vaughn 26 (37) 10 (14) 9 (15) 28 (31) 10 (12) 8 (13) 91 (122) 

Although sign counts differed among surveyors, it should be apparent in the 8th column 

that there was relatively less sign on the Fremont plot (average of 2 TCS), an intermediate 

number on the Kramer plot (average of 36), and relatively more on the Lucerne plot (average of 

93). Given the inherent differences among surveyor’s finding abilities, these data were used to 

calibrate the surveyor to known densities of tortoises occurring on low, medium, and high 

density study plot areas. A resulting, unique calibration coefficient was assigned to each 

surveyor. Later, when transects were surveyed throughout the region in areas of unknown 

tortoise densities, these coefficients were applied to each surveyor’s field data (i.e., TCS), and 

used to estimate tortoise densities in those areas. 

L.2.3 Determining Tortoise Densities from Sign Count Data 

L.2.3.1 Use of Sign Count Data for West Mojave Planning Purposes 

Sign count surveys are one means of sampling tortoises but are not a means of censussing 

tortoises, where determining absolute numbers is the goal. Krzysik (1992) has concluded that 

the standard sign count transect effectively covers about 1.3% of a given square mile, and as 

given above, multiple transects (at least three) are needed on a given square mile before 

statistically meaningful density estimates can be determined. Given budgetary restrictions and 

the underlying intent of determining patterns of occurrence, surveys performed in support of the 

planning process were necessarily restricted to either one transect per square mile (1998, nonexpansion areas in 1999, and 2001-2001) or two/ square mile (1999 throughout the Fort Irwin 

expansion area). 
Appendices 

The planning team decided, early on, to avoid using sign count data from these surveys to 

estimate tortoise densities. Instead, the data have been used to depict relative “patterns of 

occurrence” for tortoises throughout the planning area (West Mojave Plan Team 1999). 

Similarly, above-average and below-average sign counts have been used as relative measures of 

tortoise occurrence when deciding where protective measures are most effectively applied. Such 

an approach avoids valid criticisms associated with estimating tortoise densities, but does not 

provide a clear, understandable means of determining the relationship between higher versus 

lower sign counts and tortoise occurrence. 

There is support in the literature for using the approach adopted by the planning team: 

“data are more valuable for determining the geographic distribution of tortoises” (National 

Ecology Research Center 1990); and, “It is important to obtain many positive and negative 

locality records because they best describe a species’ patterns of occurrence or absence: areas 

with high frequency of records may indicate preferred habitats and corridors between 

populations, and areas with an absence of tortoises may be unsuitable habitat or barriers to gene 

flow...Although total sign on transects is used to estimate the density of tortoises..., we mostly 

used these data to document the presence or absence of tortoises” (Bury et al. 1994). Finally, 

Krzysik (1996) wrote that although “...the use of surrogate measures to assess or monitor 

wildlife populations has universally been criticized on issues of relevancy, accuracy, or precision 

... statistical modeling revealed that both burrow and scat counts were strongly positively 

correlated with the occurrence of tortoises on survey transects.” 

L.2.3.2 2002 Analyses of 1998 Through 2002 Sign Count Data

Dr. Anthony Krzysik is a statistician who has worked with tortoise sign count data since 

1983 (Woodman et al. 1984), and has recently performed comparative analyses among different 

tortoise survey techniques for the USFWS. During 2002, he was contracted by the planning 

team to help analyze sign count data collected since 1998. He has provided three summary 

reports outlining his preliminary findings. In the second report, Krzysik’s emphasis (bold font) 

is maintained to show the points that he originally emphasized. The major findings of these 

three reports are given below; the reports are reprinted in their entirety in Appendix K. 

Krzysik, A. J. 1 May 2002. Statistical Analysis of BLM Desert Tortoise Surveys In Support of 

the West Mojave Management Plan: Report I: Exploratory and Initial Data Analysis (1998, 

1999, and 2001 Calibration Data).

• Despite the acknowledged difficulty of observing live desert tortoises on survey 

transects, and the very high variability of tortoise sign (burrows and scats) among 

transects, there was a highly significant correlation (P<0.01) of live tortoises with 

burrows, scats, and TCS. Although in most cases the actual correlation coefficient does 

not appear to be particularly high, the large sample sizes involved make the relationship 

highly statistically significant. These results can be interpreted in the following general 

ways: (a) Transects associated with live tortoises are typically also associated with 

appreciable sign counts; and (b) Live tortoises are found to a much smaller extent on 

transects possessing little or no tortoise sign. 
Appendices 

• A number of important patterns were evident from the correlation analyses: (a) The 

correlation analysis results were similar for all three data sets that were examined (i.e., 

Calibration Areas, 1998+1999+2001, 1998 tortoise survey areas, and 1999 tortoise 

survey areas), again possibly attributable to the high sample sizes; (b) Burrows had the 

highest correlation with tortoises, while scats had the lowest correlation; (c) Tortoises 

were not correlated with carcasses; (d) With a few exceptions, carcasses were not 

correlated with tortoise sign; and (e) As expected, TCS was strongly correlated with scat, 

because on a given transect, scat counts are usually much higher than burrow counts. 

• The result of this analysis [Step-Wise Linear Regression Model] clearly demonstrated 

that burrow counts were the only predictor variable necessary to explain the variability of 

tortoises on transects. Statistically, scats and TCS did not contribute significant 

information to the regression. 

 

• Desert tortoises should be closely associated with their sign (i.e., burrows and scats). 

Based on their dedication to small home ranges, and because tortoises spend a major 

portion of their lives in burrows, particularly in drought years and bad weather (Duda and 

Krzysik 1998), it is intuitive that tortoise sign represents a surrogate for actual live 

tortoises. 

Krzysik, A. J. 19 June 2002. Statistical Analysis of BLM Desert Tortoise Surveys In Support 

of the West Mojave Management Plan, Report II: Statistical Comparison of DWMAs (1999 & 

2001).

• Despite the acknowledged difficulty of observing live desert tortoises on survey 

transects, and the very high variability of tortoise sign (burrows and scats) among 

transects, there was a highly significant correlation (P<0.01) of live tortoises with 

burrows, scats, and TCS for the total DWMA data set and in each of the two years [1998 

and 1999]. 

• However, when the data were classified by the abundance of TCS, the results of the 

correlation analysis became interesting. On transects with high (>6) TCS, only burrows 

were significantly correlated with live tortoises. When the TCS counts were further 

delineated into five classes, burrows consistently for all five classes were significantly 

correlated with tortoise counts, while scat counts and TCS were inconsistent and 

unreliable. 

• Scat counts were very unreliable, and even demonstrated NEGATIVE significant 

correlations with tortoises with TCS classes of 2-3 and 7-9. These results are very 

critical and interesting, because the majority of transects in any tortoise survey data set 

contain low sign counts, and high sample sizes may mask interesting details among 

gradients of sign densities. 

• Carcass counts were not correlated with transect live tortoise counts. A priori, everything 
Appendices 

else being equal, one would expect that DWMAs with higher tortoises densities would 

also possess higher carcass densities (a significant positive correlation), assuming 

mortality rates are similar. DWMAs that suffered higher tortoise mortality should show a 

negative correlation between live tortoises and carcasses. The carcass data suggest that 

BOTH tortoise densities and tortoise mortality rates are similar in the four DWMAs 

analyzed. 

• The result of this analysis [Stepwise Linear Regression Model] clearly demonstrated that 

burrow counts were the only predictor variable necessary to explain the variability of 

tortoises on transects. Statistically, scats and TCS did not contribute significant 

information to the regression. As in the correlation analysis, Stepwise Linear Regression 

reinforces the validity in using burrow counts as a surrogate for tortoise counts. 

• The data presented here and other evidence suggest that tortoise burrows appear to be a 

better surrogate for comparisons of tortoise distribution and relative abundance patterns 

than either scats or TCS. 

• Burrow counts (densities) were similar in all DWMAs and for both 1999 and 2001. 

Interestingly, when only high (>6) TCS transects were analyzed, Superior - Cronese had 

higher burrow counts than Fremont - Kramer. Pinto Mountain did not have any high 

TCS transects. 

• Pinto Mountain had lower scat counts than the other DWMAs in 1999, and when 

considering only Low TCS transects. Pinto Mountain was not represented in 2001 nor in 

high TCS transects. In 2001, Superior - Cronese had higher scat counts than Fremont - 

Kramer. However, when high TCS transects were analyzed, all DWMAs had similar scat 

counts. 

• Live tortoise counts were similar at all DWMAs, for both 1999 and 2001, and for both 

low and high TCS transects. However, statistical interpretation can be quite tenuous, 

because of the high variability and low sample sizes associated with finding tortoises on 

survey transects. 

• Carcass counts were highest at Fremont - Kramer and Superior - Cronese. Depending on 

the specific comparisons, these two DWMAs were either similar or the former had higher 

carcass counts than the latter. Ord - Rodman and Pinto Mountain had lower carcass 

counts than the two above DWMAs, and they were similar to each other. 

• Based on the available data and sample sizes, the four DWMAs appear to be similar to 

one another in their tortoise and sign counts, and therefore, of similar value as desert 

tortoise conservation areas. Although there were some statistical differences with 

specific comparisons of scat and carcass counts, these parameters may not be important 

in elucidating actual tortoise densities. 

• An interesting outcome of the ANOVA analyses was that burrow counts (i.e., densities) 
Appendices 

were higher at Superior - Cronese than at Fremont - Kramer for the high TCS transects. 

This suggests that either Superior - Cronese tortoises possess a higher burrow/tortoise 

ratio, or tortoises are more abundant at this DWMA. 

Of the many conclusions given above, for this discussion, Krzysik’s findings that tortoise 

sign counts are a relatively good estimator of tortoise abundance is considered sufficient 

evidence to (a) continue to use above-average sign counts as an indicator of relatively high 

tortoise abundance and (b) the data are useful in determining relative tortoise occurrence, even 

though they are not being used as a means to estimate tortoise densities. 

L.3 REVISED DESERT TORTOISE RANGE MAP 

Survey data were used to produce an updated range map of current tortoise distribution 

(See Map 3-9). The 1984 range map identified approximately 11,255 mi2

 (7,203,107 acres) of 

tortoise habitat, whereas 11,134 mi2 (7,125,842 acres) are identified in the 2002 Tortoise Range 

Map, which represents a reduction of about 121 mi2

. Each of these figures over-estimates 

occupied tortoise habitat, as dry lake playas, elevations above about 4,500 feet, and other 

marginal or unsuitable habitats are included within both range lines. They do not imply anything 

about the relative densities occurring in the older and more recent ranges. Map 3-9 depicts three 

regions within the 2002 tortoise range: reduction areas, expansion areas, and areas requiring 

more surveys. 

Map 3-9 depicts three regions within the 2002 tortoise range: reduction areas, expansion 

areas, and areas requiring more surveys. The range reduction areas occur to the south and 

southwest, where presence-absence data suggest tortoises have been extirpated from about 1,092 

mi2

 between Lucerne Valley and the Antelope Valley. Not all extirpations are recent. There are 

no available data to suggest that the southern and western portions of Antelope Valley supported 

tortoises when they were included in the 1984 range map. However, 1995 aerial photography 

clearly shows that most of the area is active or fallow agriculture, and therefore not suitable 

habitat. This does not represent a range reduction since 1984, but does provide a relatively 

accurate picture of historically occupied habitats that are no longer occupied. 

The range expansion area is primarily to the north on Fort Irwin, China Lake, and on 

BLM-managed lands to the west and northwest. These are not new regions that have become 

occupied since 1984; they were likely occupied then as well. Data collected in the 1970’s, 1988 

on China Lake, and in 1999 up to Rose Valley along Highway 395 clearly show that some 

evidence of tortoise has been found north of the 1984 range line. In 2002, tortoise biologists 

(i.e., Peter Woodman, Dave Silverman, and Denise LaBerteaux) and land managers (i.e., Mickey 

Quillman of Fort Irwin, Tom Campbell of China Lake, and Bob Parker of Ridgecrest, BLM) 

were shown maps with available sign count data, 1984 range line, 20% slopes, and various other 

GIS coverages. Each provided comments that helped LaRue refine the northern boundary. 

The areas needing more survey occur north of Rose Valley in Inyo County, north of 

Highway 138 in the Antelope Valley of Kern County, and in the vicinity of Pioneertown, northnorthwest of Yucca Valley in San Bernardino County. As the name implies, there is some 

potential for tortoises to occur in these areas, but more focused surveys are needed before a 

relatively accurate range line can be delineated. 
Appendices 

Alternative A’s No Survey Areas within the 2002 range line are recently or historically 

occupied areas that apparently no longer support tortoises, based on the best available data. 

Presence-absence survey data, digitized structures from 1995 aerials, and personal knowledge 

(LaRue, pers. comm.) were the primary sources of information used to delineate these areas, 

particularly to the south. Agricultural fields were excluded, which affected substantial regions 

around Barstow, Hinkley, and the region bounded by Interstates 15 and 40, east to Troy Dry 

Lake. Non-vegetated portions of playas, delineated from 1995 aerial photography, are included 

in this designation. 

Alternative A’s Survey Areas occur both inside and outside proposed DWMAs. In most 

cases, sign count data were used inside DWMAs and other regions (i.e., BLM open areas, public 

lands in the ITA, etc.), and presence-absence data were used for urbanizing areas and less 

developed regions in all four counties. Areas needing more survey are included, but there is no 

evidence that tortoises occur. Otherwise, there is an assumption that tortoises may be found 

throughout designated Survey Areas. 

L.4 SYMPTOMS OF URTD AND SHELL DISEASE OBSERVED DURING SIGN 

COUNT SURVEYS 

During sign count surveys in the fall and winter of 1998 through 2002, disease symptoms 

were observed in 7 of the 275 (2.5%) tortoises inspected. During distance sampling surveys in 

the spring of 2001 and 2002 in the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese DWMAs, 6 of the 216 

(2.8%) tortoises inspected showed clinical evidence of disease. These very similar, 

independently derived results (i.e., 2.5% versus 2.8% of the tortoises observed) are summarized 

in Table L-4. 
Appendices 

Table L-4. Symptoms of URTD and Shell Disease Observed During Sign Count Surveys 

(1998-2001) and Distance Sampling Surveys (Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese in 

2001-2002) 

TORTOISES 

OBSERVED 

SURVEY TYPE 

& YEAR 

Gender Age Class 

DISEASE 

TYPE1

COMMENTS 

Sign Count 1998 Male Adult URTD Nares damp, eyes moist, chin glands enlarged 

Sign Count 1999 Male Adult URTD Puffy eyelids 

Sign Count 2001 Male Adult URTD Labored breathing, swollen eyelids 

Sign Count 2001 Male Adult URTD Nose clear, but wheezy 

Sign Count 2001 Male Adult URTD Wet around the eyes 

Dist. Samp. 2001 Male Adult URTD Exudate in left nare 

Dist. Samp. 2001 Female Adult URTD Raspy breathing 

Dist. Samp. 2002 Male Adult URTD Chin glands and eyes swollen 

Dist. Samp. 2002 Male Adult URTD Included in “nose discharge” in spread sheet 

Sign Count 1999 Male Adult Lesions Severe lesions on 60% of the carapace; no URTD 

Sign Count 1998 Female Adult Lesions Lesions on gular 

Dist. Samp. 2002 Female Adult Lesions Trauma and dyskeratosis slight 

Dist. Samp. 2002 Female Adult Lesions Appears that tort has been chewed on, but it could 

be from shell disease as well. Damage not severe. 

8 MALE 

1 Female 

9 Adults URTD 

TOTALS 

1 MALE 

3 

FEMALE 

4 Adults Lesions 

L.5 CARCASS OBSERVATION ANALYSIS 

L.5.1 Overview 

Carcass data were collected during the 1992 – 2002 sign count surveys and distance 

sampling surveys (2001 and 2002 in Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese DWMAs). The 

results are summarized below. 

Age Class of Carcasses: Sign count data included 1,033 carcasses. Age class was 

determined for 966 (94%) and could not be determined for 67 (6%). Of the 966 carcasses where 

age class was given, 809 (84%) were adults and 157 (16%) were subadults. Distance sampling 

data included 764 carcasses, where age class was given for 460 (60%) and not given for 304 

(40%)2

. Of the 460 carcasses where age class was given, 387 (84%) were adults and 73 (16%) 

 

1 The comments given in the field notes are included in the 5th column. One distance sampling male was listed in the 

Excel spread sheet in the “nose discharge” column, but no comments were included. There were also nine distance 

sampling animals in 2001 under the spread sheet column called “Lesions.” Comments included, “lesions due to 

trauma,” “pitting scutes on carapace and plastron, mites, and ticks,” and “some scutes peeling,” etc. Dyskeratosis 

was not specifically mentioned, so none of these nine animals is included. 2 The 2002 distance data were substantially affected by a higher incidence of unknown age classes recorded. 

Whereas, age class was unknown for only 36 of 283 (13%) carcasses found in 2001, age class was not recorded for 

268 of 481 (56%) carcasses found in 2002. Consequently, percentages of both adult (i.e., 40% of 481 found) and 

subadult (i.e., 4%) carcasses were significantly lower in 2002 distance data than the other two data sets. For 

comparison, sign count data included 78% adult and 15% subadult carcasses, and 2001 distance data included 69% 

adult and 18% subadult carcasses. This survey artifact was accounted for in the text by reporting only the 

percentages of adult and subadult carcasses for those animals where age class was given. 
Appendices 

were subadults. Combined, there were 1,196 (84%) adult and 230 (16%) subadult carcasses 

among the 1,426 carcasses where age class was recorded. Of the 1,426 carcasses where age class 

was given, 1,196 (84%) were adults and 230 (16%) were subadults, a carcass adult-to-subadult 

ratio of 5.2:1. 

 Although sign count surveys detected tortoises differentially based on season and gender, 

determination of age class was not affected. Lower detection of subadults likely resulted in 

under-estimating the subadult component of the population, as previously described. Given these 

factors, live adults comprised 87% of the 275 tortoises detected, and adult carcasses comprised 

84% of those where age class could be determined. Subadults comprised 13% of the live 

animals and 16% of the carcasses where age class was given. These data indicate that the 

number of adult and subadult carcasses found is proportionate to the number of adult and 

subadult tortoises encountered. This suggests that tortoise mortality of adults and subadults is 

proportionate to numbers of adult and subadult tortoises observed. 

L.5.2 Cause of Death 

Cause of Death: Cause of death was given for 104 of 1,033 (10%) carcasses found 

between 1998 and 2002 throughout the planning area. Cause was given for 44 (6%) of the 764 

carcasses observed in the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese distance sampling surveys of 

2001 and 2002. As such, 1,779 carcasses were found during the two survey efforts, and cause 

of death was given for 148 (8%) of them. These data are summarized in Table L-5. 

Table L-5 

Carcass Information Derived from 

Sign Count Data (1998-2001) & Distance Sampling Data (2001-2002) 

 CAUSE OF DEATH GIVEN 

SURVEY 

TYPE 

NO 

OBS 

Major Causes of Identifiable Mortality Minor Causes of Identifiable Mortality 

 Mammal 

Predation 

OHV Raven Gun 

Shot 

Tank Mine 

Shaft 

Camp Pet Gallst

one 

Sign 

Count 

104 53 

51% 

28 

27% 

10 

9% 

8 

8% 

3 

3% 

0 

0% 

1 

1% 

1 

1% 

0 

0% 

Distance 

Sampling 

44 23 

52% 

14 

32% 

3 

7% 

1 

2% 

0 

0% 

2 

3% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

2% 

TOTAL 148 76 

51% 

42 

28% 

13 

9% 

9 

6% 

3 

2% 

2 

1% 

1 

<1% 

1 

<1% 

1 

<1% 

The major causes of identified mortality occurred in the same descending order of 

prevalence for both survey efforts: Mammalian Predation > Vehicle Crushing > Raven 

Predation > Shotgun. With the exception of shotgun, relative occurrences of these four factors 

were strikingly similar for sign count and distance sampling: 51% vs. 52% for Mammalian 

Predation, 27% vs. 32% for Vehicle Crushing, and 9% vs. 7% for Raven Predation. Evidence of 

gunshot was observed in relatively more carcasses for sign count surveys (8%) than distance 

sampling (2%). 

Cause of Death Relative to DWMAs, Tortoise, and Vehicle Impact Areas: Of the 
Appendices 

148 carcasses where cause of death was given, GIS-based spatial locations are used for 1423 of 

them. Therefore throughout the text, the numbers of carcasses with cause of death given relative 

to DWMAs, higher tortoise areas, and higher impact areas are relative to 142 (96%) rather than 

148 carcasses actually found. 

Table L-6 summarizes the distribution of 142 carcasses where cause of death was given, 

relative to locations surveyed inside or outside DWMAs, higher tortoise areas, and higher impact 

areas. Since sign count and distance sampling data are combined, it is important to remember 

that all distance sampling was restricted to DWMAs, so there was relatively more survey effort 

inside compared to outside DWMAs. Spatial distribution of these carcasses in and adjacent to 

the three DWMAs is shown on Map 3-15. The map depicts 139 of 142 carcasses (98%), 

excluding two mammal-predated and one raven-predated carcass in the vicinity of Pinto 

Mountain; these three carcasses are included in the tabulated data. 

Table L-6 

Incidence of 142 Carcasses where Cause of Death Was Given 

In DWMAs, Higher Tortoise Areas, and Higher Vehicle Impact Areas

 MORTALITY FACTORS 

WHERE CAUSE OF DEATH GIVEN 

Area of Comparison Mammal 

Predation 

Vehicle 

Crushed 

Raven 

Predation 

Gunshot Tank 

Crushed 

Found in 

Mine Shaft 

Inside DWMA 48 24 10 8 1 0 

Outside DWMA 25 18 3 1 2 2 

Inside Vehicle Impact Area 13 13 3 4 N/A 0 

Outside Vehicle Impact Area 60 29 10 5 N/A 2 

Inside Higher Tortoise Area 12 7 6 2 N/A 0 

Outside Higher Tortoise Area 61 35 7 7 N/A 2 

Total for mortality factors 73 42 13 9 3 2 

Interestingly, one of the three carcasses identified as being crushed by a tank was one 

mile south of the boundary of Fort Irwin, and two were within one mile north of the UTM 9-0 

line on the installation. There were also 7 of 42 (17%) vehicle-crushed animals, 1 of 13 (8%) 

raven-predated, and 2 of 73 (3%) mammal-predated carcasses found on Fort Irwin. These 13 

data points are dropped from the following analysis, as the intent is to characterize regions of 

BLM-managed lands. Two tortoises were found in the same mine shaft near the southern 

boundary of Edwards Air Force Base. A single data point provides no insight into how often 

throughout the region tortoises may fall into mining pits and miscellaneous excavations. 

These values are useful in showing the raw data, but cannot be compared until the linear 

miles of survey effort are considered. In Table L-6, the 129 carcasses (i.e., 142 above minus 13 

Fort Irwin carcasses) are divided by the number of transects surveyed inside and outside each of 

the three areas, as shown in the second column. The resulting values in the third column are the 

 

3 Spatial data were not available for 3 sign count carcasses, each of which was associated with mammalian predation. 

 There were three carcasses where the cause of death was questionable: 1 with a gallstone, 1 at a campsite, and 1 

captive release. As such, these six carcasses are excluded, and discussion is relative to the remaining 142 carcasses, 

as described in the text. 
Appendices 

average number of each disturbance observed on transects within the region of comparison. To 

facilitate comparison, the larger number is divided by the smaller, to indicate the occurrence 

within one area relative to the other. 

Table L-6. Relative Incidence Of 129 Carcasses Where Cause Of Death Was Given: In 

DWMAs, Higher Tortoise Areas, And Higher Vehicle Impact Areas

MORTALITY FACTORS 

WHERE CAUSE OF DEATH GIVEN 

No. Carcasses/No. Transects Surveyed in Area of Comparison 

(Higher Sum/Lower Sum = Prevalence in Higher Area) 

Area of Comparison No. Transects 

Surveyed 

Mammal 

Predation 

Vehicle 

Crushed 

Raven 

Predation 

Gunshot 

Inside DWMA 1,572 48 24 10 8 

Outside DWMA N/a 23 11 2 1 

Inside Vehicle Impact Area N/a 13 13 3 4 

Outside Vehicle Impact Area N/a 58 22 9 5 

Inside Higher Tortoise Area N/a 12 7 6 2 

Outside Higher Tortoise Area N/a 59 28 6 7 

Total for mortality factors N/a 71 35 12 9 

Cause of Death Relative to Gender and Age Class: Table L-7 summarizes tortoise 

gender and age class for 104 sign count carcasses relative to the mortality factors given in the 

first column. Percentages in the first column are relative to 104 carcasses; percentages in the 

other columns are relative to each mortality factor. 

Table L-7. Gender and Age Classes of 104 Sign Count Carcasses Where the Cause of 

Death Was Given 

 GENDER AGE CLASS 

Cause MALE Female Unk Adult SUBADULT 

Predation (53) 

51% 

8 

15% 

19 

36% 

26 

49% 

31 

58% 

22 

42% 

OHV (28) 

27%

6 

21% 

9 

32% 

13 

47% 

23 

85% 

4 (1 unk) 

15% 

Ravens (10) 

9%

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

10 

100% 

0 

0% 

10 

100% 

Gunshot (8) 

8%

5 

62% 

1 

13% 

2 

25% 

6 

75% 

2 

25% 

Tanks (3) 

3%

0 

0% 

1 

3% 

2 

4% 

2 

67% 

1 

33% 

Captive Release (1) 

1%

1 

5% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

100% 

0 

0% 

Camp Site (1) 

1% 

0 

0% 

1 

3% 

0 

0% 

1 

100% 

0 

0% 

104 20 

19% 

31 

30% 

53 

51% 

64 

62% 

39 (1)

38% 

 

One sees from these data that: 
Appendices 

• Although about 1.5 times more carcasses were identified as females (30%) than males 

(19%), gender was not determined for 51% (i.e., 53 of 104). As such, results are 

inconclusive in demonstrating differential mortality between males and females. 

• Vehicle crushing was identified for 27 carcasses, including 23 (85%) adults and 4 (15%) 

subadults. The age class for one crushed carcass could not be determined. 

• Evidence of gunshot was identified for 8 carcasses, including 6 (75%) adults and 2 (25%) 

subadults. 

• Raven predation was only observed in subadult carcasses. 

• The one carcass of a released captive and one carcass found at a campsite provide too 

little data to suggest that only adults would be affected by these mortality factors. The 

carcass at the campsite may have been collected rather than killed, as the surveyor 

recorded no evidence of trauma. 

Time Since Death: Carcasses may persist for as many as 20 years (Kristin Berry, pers. 

comm.). However, they wear in such a way that the relative time since death can be estimated 

with some accuracy up to four years (Berry and Woodman 1984). The diagnostic key developed 

by Berry and Woodman allows biologists to estimate the time since death as being less than one 

year, between one and two years, between two and four years, and greater then four years. 

Pertinent observations are given in Table L-8. 

Table L-8 

Patterns Observed In Carcasses That Were Fractured Or Predated 

CAUSE OF DEATH OBSERVATIONS INTERPRETATION 

Mammalian Predation 47 of 53 (89%) died <4 years 

6 of 53 (11%) died >4 years 

Evidence for mammalian predation likely diminishes 

over time 

OHV Crushing 21 of 28 (75%) died <4 years 

7 of 28 (25%) died >4 years 

Straight-line fractures persist over time, and may be 

more identifiable >4 years of death 

Raven Predation 9 of 10 (90%) died <1 year 

1 no time since death given 

Detection diminishes with time; mammalian predators 

may scavenge carcasses 

Gunshot 7 of 8 (88%) died <4 years 

1 of 8 (12%) died >4 years 

Concoidal fractures persist over time; may be less 

identifiable >4 years of death 

Of the 99 carcasses included in these four categories, 84 (85%) were newer (four or less 

years old) carcasses, 14 (14%) older (more than four years old) carcasses, and 1 (1%) where time 

since death was not given. This suggests that diagnostic evidence for these mortality factors is 

more obvious in newer carcasses and diminishes with increased exposure. 

Of the 84 newer carcasses, 47 (56%) were attributed to mammalian predation (or 

scavenging), 21 (25%) to crushing, 9 (11%) to raven predation (or scavenging), and 7 (8%) to 

gunshot. It is noteworthy that all nine raven-predated tortoises had died within one year of being 

found. This may suggest that mammalian scavengers wholly or partially consume subadult 

carcasses within a year or two of death. If raven-predated carcasses generally do not persist for 

more than a year or two, the prevalence of raven predation given herein would underestimate the 

relative impact. 

Of the 14 older carcasses, 6 (43%) were attributed to mammalian predation, 7 (50%) to 

crushing, and 1 (7%) to gunshot. Evidence for these forms of mortality is persistent. Mammals 
Appendices 

often leave chew marks on the carcasses, or if freshly eaten, footprints may be seen in the soil 

around the carcass. 

Both vehicle crushing and gunshot wounds result in shell fractures. Such fractures are 

the most persistent, although they would not be observable on extremely old carcasses, which 

may resemble a pile of chalk. This persistence is suggested by the relatively high percentage of 

older carcasses that were crushed (25%) compared to other categories (i.e., gunshot was next 

highest at 12%). However, between the two, concoidal gunshot fractures are much more 

difficult to see than are straight-line fractures associated with crushing. 

Limitations Interpreting Carcass Data: One must be very careful interpreting and 

reporting these data for the following reasons. Primarily, the cause of death was not given for 

1,636 carcasses, or about 92% of the 1,797 carcasses found. It is important that identified 

mortality factors are only relative to a small proportion of carcasses observed during each survey 

effort. Cause of death was given for 10% of the sign count carcasses, 6% of the distance 

sampling carcasses, and only 8% of carcasses observed during both survey efforts. One correct 

conclusion would be, “27% of identified tortoise mortality [i.e., 148 of 1,797 (8%) carcasses 

found] was attributed to vehicle crushing;” it would be incorrect and misleading to 

conclude,“27% of tortoise mortality was attributed to vehicle crushing.” 

Limitations Interpreting Mammalian Predation: The relative occurrence of 

mammalian predation reflected in these data is likely overestimated for the following reasons. 

Carcasses were mostly identified as being predated, rather than scavenged. Evidence such as 

teeth marks on marginal scutes, chewed-off gular horns, etc. was most often interpreted as 

predation, when in fact scavenging leaves behind the same or similar marks. The data indicate 

that mammalian predation was mostly observed in fresher carcasses. Fresher carcasses are far 

more likely to be scavenged than older ones. 

Limitations Interpreting Vehicle Crushing: These data may result in over-estimates of 

current impacts, but would be more indicative of the spatial location, relative to other factors. 

The data suggest that carcasses are relatively long lasting (i.e., compared to raven-predated 

carcasses, and some evidence of mammal predation). If they persist for 20 years, as suggested, 

older and new carcasses would accumulate and tend to over-estimate the current impacts. The 

cumulative information is important to show where such impacts have occurred for up to 20 

years, and still occur. It is likely more reflective of impact distribution than any of the other 

mortality data. 

If undisturbed, a tortoise carcass will naturally fall apart within a year or two. Bones 

separate at natural divisions called “sutures,” which is particularly true for bone plates in the 

carapace (top) and plastron (bottom) of the tortoise shell. Trauma to living and dead tortoises 

results in readily identifiable shell fractures and fragments. Fragments will often adhere together 

when a living animal is crushed, but not always. Even very small fragments often have straightline edges that are readily differentiated from the small, jagged edges of bone that has fallen 

apart naturally. In general, these and other diagnostic characteristics significantly minimize 

surveyor subjectivity. Vehicles are the most likely objects in the desert to crush tortoises, 
Appendices 

although cattle trampling and tank crushing do occur. Therefore, it is important to consider the 

region in which crushed carcasses were found. 

For vehicle crushing, mammalian predation, and raven predation there is the common 

issue of whether a living versus a dead animal was affected. In the case of crushing, which is 

relatively easy to identify due to straight-line fractures, the difference is not so critical. In either 

case, a tortoise was crushed. 

Limitations Interpreting Raven Predation: These data likely underestimate the 

relative impact, are useful in identifying areas where predation has recently occurred, and do 

not show the regional distribution. Raven predation is diagnostic; occurrences under nests and 

perch sites facilitate positive identification. Data indicate that no older carcasses were found; all 

nine were estimated as occurring within one year. This shortened detection period would lend to 

underestimating the relative impact. Some actual raven predation may be obscured by 

subsequent mammalian predation. These data do not show regional distributions, which would 

require focused surveys for nests and indicate how many of them have evidence. However, in 

spite of small sample size and these other limitations, it is compelling that 75% of 12 ravenpredated carcasses occurred within higher density areas, where 43% of all subadults were 

observed. 

L.5.3 Distribution of Carcasses where Cause of Death Is Known 

Fremont-Kramer DWMA: Some of the 129 carcasses with cause of death given were 

found within die-off regions; both sign count and distance sampling data are used (see Table 

L.9). Of the 129 carcasses, 14 (11%) occurred within Fremont-Kramer die-off regions. 

Table L-9. Occurrence of 14 Carcasses where Cause of Death Was Given In the FremontKramer Older and Newer Die-off Regions

REGION 

NO. & NAME 

AGE OF 

DIEOFF 

NO. CARCASSES FOR EACH 

IDENTIFIED MORTALITY FACTOR 

 Mammal 

Predated 

Vehicle 

Crushed 

Raven 

Predated 

Gunshot Other 

OLDER REGIONS NORTH OF HIGHWAY 58 

FK1. DTNA Older 4 1 0 0 N/A 

FK2. Cuddeback Older 1 0 0 0 N/A 

FK3. California City Older 0 0 0 0 1 carcass of pet tortoise 

FK4. NE Kramer Jct Older 0 0 0 0 N/A 

TOTALS 5 1 0 0 1 pet 

NEWER REGION BISECTED BY AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 58 

FK5. N of HWY 58 Newer 2 3 1 1 N/A 

FK6. S of HWY 58 Newer 0 0 0 0 N/A 

FK7. Edwards Bowl Newer 0 0 0 0 N/A 

TOTALS 2 3 1 1 N/A 

Superior-Cronese DWMA: Of the 129 carcasses, 26 (20%) occurred within SuperiorCronese die-off regions (see L-10). 
Appendices 

Table L-10 

Occurrence of 26 Carcasses where Cause of Death Was Given 

In the Superior-Cronese Newer and Older Die-off Regions

REGION 

NO. & NAME 

AGE OF 

DIEOFF 

NO. CARCASSES FOR EACH 

IDENTIFIED MORTALITY FACTOR 

 Mammal 

Predated 

Vehicle 

Crushed 

Raven 

Predated 

Gunshot Other 

SC1 Newer 1 1 0 1 N/A 

SC2 Newer 1 1 0 0 1 with gallstone 

SC3 Newer 2 0 0 0 N/A 

SC4 Newer 0 0 0 0 N/A 

SC5 Newer 0 0 2 0 N/A 

SC6 Newer 6 2 0 1 1 crushed by tank 

SC7 Newer 3 2 0 0 N/A 

SC8 Older 0 0 1 0 N/A 

TOTALS 13 6 3 2 2 others 

Summary of All Carcass Observations: A summary of sign count carcasses segregated 

by die-off region is presented in Table L-11. Region-wide, there were of 420 mi2

 of die-offs, 

including 279 mi2

 (66%) of newer die-offs and 141 mi2 (34%) of older die-offs; given the 

overlap of 29 mi2

, there were a total of 391 mi2 affected by both newer and older die-offs. This 

indicates that about 3.5% of the 2002 tortoise range (391 of 11,134 mi2

), or 11.6% of the 

surveyed area (391 of 3,362 mi2

), were within older and newer die-off regions. 

 A total of 600 carcasses was found within the die-off regions (59% of the 1,011 carcasses 

where coordinate information was available), including 388 (65%) newer carcasses and 212 

(35%) older carcasses. This is a significant finding, indicating that tortoises are continuing to die 

throughout the planning area, particularly in the Superior-Cronese DWMA, and probably since 

about 1990. Newer die-off regions were characterized by 317 (85%) newer carcasses and 54 

(15%) older carcasses; older die-off regions were characterized by 158 (69%) older carcasses 

and 71 (31%) newer carcasses. These latter findings suggest that tortoises continue to die in 

older die-off regions, even though older carcasses were twice as likely to be found as newer 

ones. 
Appendices 

Table L-11. Sign Count Carcasses Segregated By Die-Off Region* 

REGION DIE-OFF AREA (MI2) TOTAL 

CARCASSES 

NEW 

CARCASSES 

OLD CARCASSES 

Fremont-Kramer 

FK1 Newer 13 30 13 (43%) 17 (57%) 

 Older 50 72 14 (19%) 58 (81%) 

FK2 Newer 5 11 7 (64%) 4 (36%) 

 Older 36 53 12 (23%) 41 (77%) 

FK3 Newer 5 5 5 (100%) 0 

 Older 22 21 0 21 (100%) 

FK4 Newer 6 7 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 

 Older 15 24 8 (33%) 16 (67%) 

FK5 Newer 32 37 29 (78%) 8 (22%) 

FK6 Newer 19 26 25 (96%) 1 (4%) 

FK7 Newer 4 4 4 (100%) 0 

Superior-Cronese 

SC1 Newer 27 29 23 (79%) 6 (21%) 

SC2 Newer 22 24 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 

SC3 Newer 11 13 12 (92%) 1 (8%) 

SC4 Newer 10 13 12 (92%) 1 (8%) 

SC5 Newer 23 35 30 (86%) 5 (14%) 

 Older 5 8 4 (50%) 4 (50%) 

SC6 Newer 56 99 85 (86%) 14 (14%) 

 Older 7 26 15 (58%) 11 (42%) 

SC7 Newer 16 27 25 (93%) 2 (7%) 

SC8 Older 6 8 1 (13%) 7 (87%) 

Ord-Rodman 

OR1 Newer 7 9 8 (89%) 1 (11%) 

OR2 Newer 5 4 4 (100%) 0 

OR3 Newer 18 15 12 (80%) 3 (20%) 

Total 

 Newer 279 

Older 141 

420 

Newer 388 (65%) 

Older 212 (35%) 

600 (59%) of 1,011 

Newer 317 (85%) 

Older 54 (15%) 

371 (62%) of 600 

Newer 71 (31%) 

Older 158 (69%) 

229 (38%) of 600 

L.6 RELATIVE TORTOISE OCCURRENCE IN OPEN AREAS 

There are eight BLM open areas within the planning area, including Johnson Valley, 

Stoddard Valley, El Mirage, Spangler Hills, Jawbone Canyon, Dove Springs, Rasor, and 

Olancha. Of these, Johnson, Stoddard, El Mirage, and Spangler Hills are located well within the 

2002 tortoise range. The boundary of the range bisects Jawbone Canyon and Dove Springs, with 

most of Jawbone west of the range. Rasor is on the eastern edge of the range, but tortoise habitat 

occurs east of there. The Olancha Open Area is outside the range. 

Previously Documented Impacts: Stow (1988) assessed vehicle impacts in the 

Stoddard Valley, Johnson Valley, and Rasor open areas by comparing aerial photographs taken 

in 1977 and again in 1988. He found that Stoddard Valley had the greatest percent area 

disturbed and the greatest percent increase in OHV disturbances among the three areas. He 

reported that Stoddard Valley was used predominantly for competitive events. In the Johnson 

Valley Open Area, he found that competition, recreation, pitting, and camping were concentrated 
Appendices 

to the southwest (in the vicinity of Anderson Dry Lake, east of the Cinnamon Hills), and that 

northeastern portions were relatively inaccessible and little used. He indicated that, in 1988, 

about 94% of both the Stoddard Valley and Johnson Valley open areas had been disturbed by 

OHV activities, which represented a 25% increase since 1977. 

Sign Count Surveys in Open Areas: Portions of the six open areas were surveyed 

between 1998 and 2002 for tortoise sign and human disturbances. The acreage, square miles 

surveyed, and percentage of each open area surveyed are given in Table L-11. 

Table L-11. Portions of BLM Open Areas Surveyed Between 1998 and 2002

OPEN AREA TOTAL ACREAGE 

(SQUARE MILES) 

AREA SURVEYED 

(SQUARE MILES) 

PERCENT OF OPEN AREA 

SURVEYED 

Johnson Valley 294 231 79% 

Spangler Hills 97 75 77% 

Stoddard Valley 85 63 74% 

Rasor 35 26 74% 

Dove Springs 6 3 50% 

El Mirage 40 16 40% 

Jawbone 13 0 0% 

Regional Occurrence of Tortoises in Open Areas and DWMAs: There are four higher 

density tortoise areas in the Johnson Valley Open Area. Two of these are contiguous to the OrdRodman DWMA. Higher density areas are also found throughout much of the northern part of 

the Stoddard Valley Open Area. These are contiguous to higher density areas east of Highway 

247, along Lenwood Wash and south. There are no other overlaps, although several square 

miles of higher density areas were found immediately northwest of Spangler Hills. Table L-12 

compares the number of tortoises observed within each open area, and the associated encounter 

rates4

. Results observed in adjacent DWMAs are given for comparison. 

Table L-12. Relative Numbers Of Sign Count Tortoises Observed in Six BLM Open Areas 

and Three Adjacent DWMAs 

Tortoises in Open areas TORTOISES IN ADJACENT DWMAS 

OPEN 

AREA 

LINEAR 

MI 

No. 

Live 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

DWMA LINEAR 

MI 

NO. 

LIVE 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

Johnson 

Valley 

346.5 8 0.023 43.3 

Stoddard 

Valley 

94.5 9 0.095 10.5 

OrdRodman 352.5 29 0.082 12.1 

El Mirage 24.0 3 0.125 8.0 

Spangler 

Hills 

112.5 2 0.018 56.2 

FremontKramer 858.0 46 0.054 18.6 

 

4 Linear miles in the 2nd column were derived by multiplying the total number of transects by 1.5 (i.e. each transect 

was 1.5 miles long). Encounter rates indicate the number of live animals observed relative to the linear miles 

surveyed. These calculations indicate the number of tortoises observed per linear mile of transect. The “MI TO 

SEE” column was determined by dividing the linear miles of survey (2nd columns in open area and DWMA 

subsections) by the number of tortoises observed along those transects. 
Appendices 

Dove 

Springs 

4.5 0 N/A N/A 

Rasor 39.0 0 N/A N/A SuperiorCronese 1,083.0 79 0.073 13.7 

Total 520 22 0.042 23.6 Total 2,293.5 154 0.067 14.9 

The number of animals observed in a given area is not meaningful until the relative level 

of survey effort is factored in, which is shown in the “Encounter Rate” and “MI TO SEE” 

columns. No tortoises were observed in the Dove Springs and Rasor open areas, however the 

transect lengths were relatively small. These data do not indicate that tortoises are absent in these 

two open areas. Rather, they indicate that a surveyor would need to walk more than 4.5 miles in 

Dove Springs and more than 39 miles in Rasor to encounter a tortoise. 

Encounter rates are given so that sign count surveys in DWMAs can be compared with 

distance sampling surveys of 2001. In 2001, distance sampling encounter rates were 0.111 

tortoises per linear mile surveyed in the Ord-Rodman, 0.090 in the Fremont-Kramer, and 0.071 

in the Superior Cronese DWMAs. The encounter rate for sign count surveys in the SuperiorCronese DWMA was the same as that observed during distance sampling (i.e., 0.073 and 0.071). 

 The other two distance sampling rates are somewhat higher for the Ord-Rodman (0.111 versus 

0.082, 1.3 times higher) and Fremont-Kramer (0.090 versus 0.054, 1.7 times higher) DWMAs. 

Another comparison is provided for in the “MI TO SEE” column, which uses sign count 

data. This column reports the distance a surveyor had to walk to see the number of tortoises 

indicated in the third column for both open areas and adjacent DWMAs. The figure given for El 

Mirage (8.0 miles to see one tortoise) is not reflective of higher tortoise densities because only 

24 linear miles were surveyed. The sample size (i.e., transect length) is too small for this 

number to be meaningful. One interpretation is the limited number of transects surveyed 

occurred in an area of relative tortoise abundance, although no higher density areas were 

identified using methodologies previously described. Sample sizes were sufficiently large for 

Johnson Valley, Stoddard Valley, and Spangler Hills to make the following comparisons 

meaningful. 

Tortoise encounters were the highest in the Stoddard Valley Open Area, where on 

average one tortoise was observed for every 10.5 miles walked. This may be reflective of the 

higher density tortoise areas that were observed in much of the northern portion of this open 

area. Eight tortoises were found within or adjacent to these higher density areas, including one 

subadult to the north, which suggests recruitment. 

Data for the Johnson Valley Open Area indicate that a surveyor had to walk four times 

farther, compared to Stoddard Valley (i.e., 43.3 miles versus 10.5 miles), to see one tortoise. 

Data suggest that there are relatively fewer tortoises per square mile in the Johnson Valley than 

in the Stoddard Valley open area. These data corroborate numerous other observations that 

tortoises are relatively less common in the Spangler Hills open area, compared to Johnson 

Valley, Stoddard Valley, and El Mirage. 

The final comparison is between open areas and adjacent DWMAs. When combined, 
Appendices 

one sees that tortoises were encountered about 1.6 times more often in DWMAs than in open 

areas (i.e., one tortoise observed every 14.9 miles in DWMAs versus one every 23.6 miles in 

open areas). The data suggest that tortoises are somewhat less frequently encountered in the 

Fremont-Kramer DWMA compared to the other two. However, the relatively low variability 

among the three DWMAs (i.e., 12.1, 13.7, and 18.6 miles to see one tortoise) suggests that they 

are relatively similar. Dr. Krzysik (2002a, b, c), in fact, concluded that population densities in 

these three DWMAs were not significantly different. 

For comparison, the variability among open areas (i.e., from 8.0 to 56.2 miles to see a 

tortoise) suggests that population levels may be substantially different. Too few data are 

available to indicate the relative abundance in the El Mirage Open Area. However, the data do 

suggest that tortoises may be relatively more common, per unit area, in the Stoddard Valley 

Open Area than in the three DWMAs. Unlike the Fremont-Kramer and Superior-Cronese 

DWMAs where die-offs have decimated local and regional populations, no such die-off was 

found at Stoddard Valley. If die-offs were in response to URTD, the data suggest that tortoises 

in the Stoddard Valley are relatively disease-free. It may be significant that, like the OrdRodman DWMA, this open area is physically separated from populations that may have crashed 

due to disease. 

The data suggest the following descending order of tortoise abundance in the four open 

areas: Stoddard Valley > Johnson Valley > El Mirage > Spangler Hills. 

 

Relative Occurrence of Carcasses in Open Areas and DWMAs: The same types of 

comparisons and methodologies reported above for live tortoises were also applied to the sign 

count carcass data. Comparisons are given in Table L-13. 

Table L-13. Relative Numbers Of Sign Count Carcasses Observed In Six BLM Open 

Areas And Three Adjacent DWMAs 

CARCASSES IN OPEN AREAS CARCASSES IN ADJACENT DWMAS 

OPEN 

AREA 

LINEAR 

MI 

NO. 

DEAD 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

DWMA LINEAR 

MI 

NO. 

DEAD 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

Johnson 

Valley 

346.5 66 0.190 5.25 

Stoddard 

Valley 

94.5 11 0.116 8.59 

OrdRodman 352.5 51 0.145 6.91 

El Mirage 24.0 5 0.208 4.8 

Spangler 

Hills 

112.5 9 0.080 12.5 

Dove 

Springs 

4.5 0 N/A N/A 

FremontKramer 858.0 324 0.378 2.65 

Rasor 39.0 0 N/A N/A SuperiorCronese 1,083.0 359 0.331 3.02 

Total 520 91 0.175 5.71 Total 2,293.5 734 0.320 3.13 

Overall, carcasses were much more commonly observed than live animals. These are not 

data sets that were independently collected (i.e., as with distance sampling versus sign count 

data); 275 live animals and 1,033 carcasses were found along the same transects. One might 

suggest that the prevalence of carcasses over live animals is due to the longevity of carcasses, 
Appendices 

which may persist up to 20 years. However, tortoises are also long-lived animals, with 

individuals that are known to live for more than 20 years in the wild5

. 

There were 91 carcasses found in open areas and 734 found in DWMAs. When the 

relative survey effort is considered, there were about two times as many (i.e., 1.82) carcasses 

found in DWMAs as in open areas. For comparison, surveyors walked an average of 5.7 miles 

in an open area to find one carcass, compared to 3.1 miles in the three DWMAs. This may be 

due to catastrophic die-offs in DWMAs, which have not been observed in open areas. 

Among open areas, the data indicate that there are relatively more carcasses found in the 

Johnson Valley, followed by Stoddard Valley, and Spangler Hills. Not enough linear miles of 

transects were surveyed in El Mirage for it to be compared among these three, where sample 

sizes were relatively large. 

There is an inverse relationship between the number of tortoises and carcasses observed 

in DWMAs. Tortoises were more often encountered in the Ord-Rodman (i.e., one tortoise for 

every 12.1 miles of survey), followed by Superior-Cronese (i.e., one per 13.7 miles), and 

Fremont-Kramer (i.e., one per 18.6 miles). An opposite pattern was observed for carcasses: one 

carcass encountered per 2.65 miles in Fremont-Kramer, one per 3.02 miles in Superior-Cronese, 

and one per 6.91 miles in Ord-Rodman. This suggests that tortoises were most likely to be 

encountered in a DWMA where fewer carcasses were found. The converse conclusion is that 

fewer tortoises were found where there were more carcasses. 

 

Although this may seem like a trivial point, it is not. It is entirely likely that carcasses 

may be more common in places where live animals are more common. Relatively more 

carcasses were seen in the western part of Johnson Valley Open Area, in the northwest part of 

the Ord-Rodman DWMA, and in the Water Valley/Mud Hills area. However, each of them was 

associated with a higher density tortoise area; carcasses were relatively less common than in 

identified die-off regions. 

Table L-14 shows an inverse relationship between tortoise and carcass encounters 

between Stoddard Valley and three DWMAs, a relationship not observed in Johnson Valley. 

 

5

 Boarman (pers. comm.) found one report of a pet tortoise that was more than 60 years old. There is at least one 

animal marked at one of the DTNA study plots in 1979 that was still alive in 2002 (M. Connor, pers. comm.). He 

did not indicate if it was an adult in 1979, but this animal is at least 23 years old. Except for anecdotal accounts, 

there are no data to indicate the average longevity of tortoises at the population level. It is reasonable to assume that 

many adult tortoises live substantially longer in the wild than 20 years. 
Appendices 

Table L-14. Tortoise and Carcass Encounters in Open Areas and DWMAs 

AREA OF COMPARISON ONE TORTOISE 

OBSERVED EVERY 

ONE CARCASS 

OBSERVED EVERY 

Stoddard Valley 10.5 mi 8.59 mi 

Ord-Rodman DWMA 12.1 mi 6.91 mi 

Superor-Cronese 13.7 mi 3.02 mi 

Fremont-Kramer 18.6 mi 2.65 mi 

Johnson Valley 43.3 mi 5.25 mi 

These observations suggest that carcass abundance decreases in the following manner: 

Fremont-Kramer > Superior-Cronese > Ord-Rodman > Stoddard Valley 

The pattern of relatively more tortoises where there are relatively few carcasses was not 

seen in the Johnson Valley Open Area. It took about four times as much effort to find a tortoise 

than in Stoddard Valley Open Area (i.e., the easiest place) and twice as long as in the FremontKramer DWMA (i.e., the next hardest place). This indicates that the tortoise population – on a 

regional level – is relatively sparse, with denser areas to the west, adjacent to the Ord-Rodman 

DWMA. No recent or older die-offs were detected, nor do the data indicate why the population 

is less dense now than previously. 

Dr. Berry documented a 77% decline between 1980 and 1994 on the Johnson Valley 

study plot, which is within the open area. All other such declines have occurred in the FremontKramer and Superior-Cronese DWMAs. The two study plots showing the smallest declines 

were Lucerne Valley (i.e., 30% decrease between 1980 and 1994) and Stoddard Valley (5% 

between 1981 and 1991). All three of these areas are located west of Interstate 15. 

Carcass encounters in Johnson Valley was intermediate between Ord-Rodman and 

Fremont-Kramer. As such, Johnson Valley may be inserted into the previous formula, which is 

given in descending order of carcass abundance: 

Fremont-Kramer > Johnson Valley > Superior-Cronese > Ord-Rodman > Stoddard Valley 

If disease has spread through tortoise populations west of Interstate 15, it would not 

spread to the tortoise populations east of the interstate (unless facilitated by unauthorized 

translocation). Although this has conservation benefits, the relatively small sizes of tortoise 

concentration areas in the Ord-Mountain also places them at heightened risk. Should they 

become extirpated, the sparse population in the Johnson Valley may provide for limited natural 

repatriation. The tortoises in the open area are likely to be more heavily impacted as the human 

population (and recreation) increases, which would further minimize emigration potential. 

In summary, the data suggest the following descending order of relative tortoise 

abundance: 

Stoddard Valley > Ord-Rodman DWMA > Superor-Cronese > Fremont-Kramer > Johnson 

Valley 
Appendices 

Compared to the following ascending order of relative carcass abundance: 

Stoddard Valley < Ord-Rodman < Superior-Cronese < Johnson Valley < Fremont-Kramer 

These relationships become much more significant when one considers the relative area 

within each of these regions that was surveyed, and therefore reflective of the above 

comparisons.

Local Occurrence of Tortoises in the Fremont-Kramer DWMA: These comparisons 

are on a regional level, and suggest that outside the Johnson Valley Open Area, the most difficult 

place to find tortoises is in the Fremont-Kramer. However, the population within that DWMA is 

not homogenous in terms of tortoise distribution. Both current data and older data support the 

conclusion that there have been significant population declines in the northern and northwestern 

portions of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA. 

For these reasons, comparisons similar to those given above for the five larger regions 

are given in Table L-15 areas north and south of Highway 58 in the Fremont-Kramer DWMA. 

Table L-15 

Relative Numbers of Tortoises and Carcasses 

Observed in the Fremont-Kramer DWMA 

North and South of Highway 58 

TORTOISE DATA CARCASS DATA 

AREA LINE

AR 

MI 

NO. 

DEAD 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

AREA LINEAR 

MI 

NO. 

DEAD 

ENCOUNTER 

RATE 

MI TO 

SEE 

North North 

South South

Total Total 

Characteristics of Vehicle Impact Areas: The types and intensity of impacts 

associated with each region are listed in Tables L-16, L-17 and l-18 and discussed below. 

 

Recreational Impact Regions – BLM Open Areas: Open areas compared in the following 

table include Dove Springs/Jawbone Canyon (combined), Johnson Valley, Stoddard Valley, 

Spangler Hills, and El Mitage.. There are five columns for each of the seven types of 

disturbance data collected on sign count surveys, 1998-2002; where there are only four columns, 

the total mi2 to the left applies. Data include (1) “Total mi2

,” which are all square miles surveyed 

within the impact region. (2) “Mi2

 Obs., which is the subset of square miles wherein the given 

disturbance was observed. (3) “Sum,” is the total number of disturbances observed. (4) 

“Average” is the Sum/Mi2

 Obs. (5) “Range” indicates the lowest and highest value for a given 

disturbance. Except where “0” is entered, the lower range limit is always 1, since there must be 

at least one observation for the transect to be included. For example, in Johnson Valley, there 

were 296 mi2 surveyed, with a sum of 49,394 vehicle cross-country tracks, occurring on 296 mi2

, 

for an average of 180 tracks/ mi2

, ranging from as few as 1 track up to 1,625. As in other places, 

numbers of square miles equates to the number of transects surveyed. 
Appendices 

Table L-16. Open Area Vehicle Impact Regions 

Area Total 

mi2

Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range 

TRAILS TRACKS 

Dove/Jawbone 24 24 370 15.4 4-52 22 406 18.5 1-180 

Spangler 131 121 2336 19.3 1-103 127 12140 95.6 2-2665 

El Mirage 21 19 322 16.9 1-51 19 2294 120.7 2-418 

Stoddard 119 99 1186 12.0 1-76 105 14675 138.9 1-4000 

Johnson Valley 296 231 5203 22.5 1-250 275 49394 179.6 1-1625 

Total 591 494 9417 19.1 1-250 548 78909 144.0 1-4000 

LITTER DUMPS 

Dove/Jawbone 24 22 381 17.3 1-63 0 0 0 0 

Spangler 131 121 4734 39.1 1-525 0 0 0 0 

El Mirage 21 20 437 21.9 1-75 0 0 0 0 

Stoddard 119 115 4132 35.9 1-700 0 0 0 0 

Johnson Valley 296 271 11135 41.1 1-1080 0 0 0 0 

Total 591 549 20819 37.9 1-1080 0 0 0 0 

TARGET HUNTING 

Dove/Jawbone 24 16 281 17.6 1-142 1 1 1.0 1 

Spangler 131 56 1006 18.0 1-110 12 13 1.1 1-2 

El Mirage 21 12 136 11.3 1-32 6 14 2.3 1-5 

Stoddard 119 30 310 10.3 1-97 21 64 3.0 1-18 

Johnson Valley 296 99 1723 17.4 1-325 21 34 1.6 1-6 

Total 591 213 3456 16.2 1-325 61 126 2.1 1-18 

CAMPING 

Dove/Jawbone 24 2 5 2.5 1-4 

Spangler 131 7 18 2.4 1-6 

El Mirage 21 2 2 1.0 1 

Stoddard 119 28 52 1.9 1-5 

Johnson Valley 296 27 84 3.1 1-25 

Total 591 66 161 2.4 1-25 
Appendices 

Recreational Impact Regions – Higher OHV Use Areas: The following table compares 

vehicle impacts at California City to Rand Mountains, Edwards Bowl, and East Sierra de facto 

open areas. 

 

Table L-17. Higher OHV Use Vehicle Impact Regions 

Area Total 

mi2

Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range 

TRAILS TRACKS 

Cal City/Rands 168 110 878 8.0 1-35 156 8162 52.3 1-585 

Edwards Bowl 14 12 66 5.5 1-14 14 599 42.8 7-80 

East Sierra 31 6 10 1.7 1-2 14 142 10.1 1-76 

Total 213 128 954 7.4 1-35 184 8903 48.3 1-585 

LITTER DUMPS 

Cal City/Rands 168 156 3295 21.1 1-159 0 0 0 0 

Edwards Bowl 14 13 216 16.6 2-53 0 0 0 0 

East Sierra 31 30 1429 47.6 3-305 0 0 0 0 

Total 213 199 4940 24.8 1-305 0 0 0 0 

TARGET HUNTING 

Cal City/Rands 168 76 498 6.5 1-36 19 28 1.5 1-4 

Edwards Bowl 14 3 5 1.7 1-2 6 11 1.8 1-3 

East Sierra 31 19 150 7.8 1-53 0 0 0 0 

Total 213 98 653 6.7 1-53 25 39 1.6 1-4 

CAMPING 

Cal City/Rands 168 14 21 1.5 1-3 

Edwards Bowl 14 1 1 1.0 1 

East Sierra 31 0 0 0 0 

Total 213 15 22 1.5 0-3 
Appendices 

Residential Impact Regions: The following residential impact areas are compared in the 

table below: Silver Lakes, Hinkley, and Coyote Corner. 

Table L-18. Residential Vehicle Impact Regions 

Area Total 

mi2

Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range Mi2

Obs 

Sum Ave Range 

TRAILS TRACKS 

Silver Lakes 37 22 74 3.4 1-22 34 435 12.8 1-49 

Hinkley 31 13 66 5.1 1-18 26 387 14.9 1-101 

Coyote Corner 39 14 51 3.6 1-10 34 1939 57.0 2-341 

Total 107 49 191 3.9 1-22 94 2761 29.4 1-341 

LITTER DUMPS 

Silver Lakes 37 35 1178 33.7 1-300 1 1 1.0 1 

Hinkley 31 24 2492 103.8 1-1000 0 0 0 0 

Coyote Corner 39 38 2004 52.7 1-725 5 6 1.2 1-2 

Total 107 97 5674 58.6 1-1000 6 7 1.2 0-2 

TARGET HUNTING 

Silver Lakes 37 25 154 6.2 1-37 10 33 3.3 1-8 

Hinkley 31 4 7 1.8 1-3 8 14 1.8 1-3 

Coyote Corner 39 19 713 37.5 1-525 5 8 1.6 1-4 

Total 107 48 874 18.2 1-525 23 55 2.4 1-8 

CAMPING 

Silver Lakes 37 2 2 1.0 2 

Hinkley 31 4 7 1.8 1-4 

Coyote Corner 39 4 7 1.8 1-3 

Total 107 10 16 1.6 1-4 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX M 

MOJAVE GROUND SQUIRREL 

BACKGROUND DATA
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX M 

MOHAVE GROUND SQUIRREL 

BACKGROUND DATA 

M.1 STATUS OF MGS 

The current, 2002 status of the MGS, in terms of numbers of individuals and amount of 

occupied habitat, cannot be assessed based on the limitations of available data. For example, 

Laabs (1998) indicated that determining the status of the MGS is confounded by aspects of its 

biology. The species is inactive throughout much of the year, and the period of surface activity 

varies from year to year. Trapping success decreases dramatically when temperatures rise above 

approximately 98 °F (37 °C) (Aardahl and Roush 1985). He cautioned that live-trapping studies 

must be scheduled carefully and cannot necessarily establish the absence of the species from a 

site. 

Current Habitat Characteristics Where MGS Has Been Previously Observed: In 

1998, BLM provided 7.5’ USGS quad maps showing both specific locations (the 19 Aardahl and 

Roush sites) and general locations (most often within a 160-acre quarter section) for a total of 

102 MGS records, including those of Aardahl. For reasons discussed in the 1999 evaluation 

report (BLM 1999), these locations are likely more indicative of where the MGS has been 

observed rather than a good indicator of where the MGS actually resides. For example, these 

records rarely indicated if the animal was an adult (and likely to be resident) or a juvenile (and 

potentially only dispersing through the area). 

Even so, both home range areas and dispersal areas are important to the species, and 

there have been few attempts to revisit historic locations to characterize the plant communities. 

Even in that, one must exercise caution. Many of the data were collected in the 1970’s (and 

earlier), and there may have been natural or human-induced alterations in the plant communities, 

so that what we see now is not necessarily indicative of the plant community when the MGS was 

observed. As already stated, it would appear that about 11% of the historic localities have been 

since converted to agricultural and urban uses. In spite of these and other limitations, the 102 

transects were situated in what were considered the best available habitats as of 1993 (in terms of 

known occurrence and representative distribution throughout the range). In fact, LaRue had nine 

confirmed MGS observations (auditory, visual, and a combination of the two) while walking 

transects in 1998. 

1998 Vegetation Surveys Within the Known Range: In 1998, a total of 344 transects 

was surveyed by LaRue (237 transects), botanists Dave Fleitner (87), Dave Silverman (7), and 

R.T. Hawke (3), and by biologist Dave Roddy (10) (Map 3-19). Each transect consisted of a 3⁄4-

mile, equilateral triangle, where all perennial plant species within one meter of the transect were 

counted. Transect locations included 102 places where the MGS was previously observed (i.e., 

CNDDB, Debi Clark records, and 19 of 22 sites surveyed by Aardahl and Roush (1985), and 208 
Appendices 

locations in “High” and “Medium” quality habitats. The 208 transects were systematically 

(rather then randomly) located at about two-mile intervals within the 1993 polygons that CDFG 

and others identified as “High” and “Medium” quality habitats (although those designations have 

since been dismissed; see BLM 2000). Thirty-four (34) transects were also surveyed in the OrdRodman area, which is located east, south, and northeast of the known range. 

Surveys were performed on 17 days between May 1 and May 29, and on 11 days between 

June 8 and June 25 of 1998. Data included observer name, date, beginning and ending times and 

temperatures, soil description, landform, plant community, perennial plant species on transect, 

numbers of winterfat and hopsage observed off the transect, annual plant species observed on 

and off the transect, special-status animal species, and occurrences of five human disturbances 

(OHV tracks, roads, shot gun/rifle shells, and “Other”). Data were entered into an Excel spread 

sheet, and later geo-referenced using GIS, Arc Info software. 

Surveyors only recorded presence or absence of observable human disturbances; the 

abundance of a given disturbance was not recorded. These data were limited to several 

“observable” human impacts that recently occurred, and may be affected by temporal factors. 

For example, roads and dumps may remain for more than a hundred years, but domestic dog sign 

and single-pass motorcycle tracks disappear in a matter of months or years. The variability 

associated with multiple surveyors is somewhat minimized by the fact that LaRue surveyed 237 

(69%) of the 344 transects and Fleitner surveyed 87 (25%), so that 94% of the transects were 

surveyed by two of the five surveyors. 

Comparison of 1998 and 1985 Survey Results: Table M-1 summarizes the findings of 

the 1998 vegetation surveys (LaRue, 1998 unpublished data) for 19 of the 22 sites trapped for 

MGS by Aardahl and Roush (1985). The numbers of MGS trapped in 1985 are given in the 

second column, and listed in descending order of the number trapped. The vegetation data in the 

remainder of the table were collected in 1998. 

Table M-1 

Comparisons Of Aardahl-Roush’s 1985 MGS Trapping Results 

With Data From The 1998 Plant Surveys 

SITE NO. 

MGS 

NO. 

PERENNIAL/ 

COMMUNITY 

NO. AND 

DOMINANT 

PERENNIAL 

NO. 

ANNUAL 

PLANTS 

WINTERFAT HopSAGE ATRIPLEX

AR7 

Golden 

Valley 

68 8 

Creosote 

169 

Ambrosia dumosa 

12 5 3 0 

AR3 

CDFG 

Reserve 

34 9 

Saltbush 

269 

Atriplex spinifera 

33 4 5 271 

AR13 

Steam Well 

32 9 

Creosote 

124 

Ambrosia dumosa 

20 1 3 0 

AR 6 

Fremont E 

25 11 

Saltbush 

194 

Atriplex spinifera 

29 15 24 0 

AR 6 

Fremont W 

25 10 

Saltbush 

294 

Atriplex spinifera 

28 0 6 220 

AR 2 22 5 824 25 0 0 294 
Appendices 

Bowman S Creosote Ambrosia dumosa 

AR 2 

Bowman N 

19 8 

Creosote 

1056 

Ambrosia dumosa 

21 0 3 0 

AR 9 

Aqueduct S 

19 11 

Creosote 

556 

Ambrosia dumosa 

16 4 1 0 

AR10 

Pilot Knob N 

19 12 

Creosote 

225 

Ambrosia dumosa 

? 1 18 0 

AR 14 

Superior E 

18 10 

Saltbush 

121 

Ambrosia dumosa 

26 77 12 179 

AR 9 

Aqueduct N 

17 11 

Creosote 

633 

Ericameria cooperi 

26 0 3 0 

AR 4 

DTNA 4 

15 10 

Creosote 

99 

Ambrosia dumosa 

19 0 5 0 

AR11 

Rand W 

12 5 

Creosote 

83 

Ambrosia dumosa 

20 0 0 0 

AR11 

Rand E 

7 9 

Creosote 

160 

Larrea tridentata 

21 0 0 0 

AR14 

Superior W 

5 12 

Saltbush 

235 

Ambrosia dumosa 

31 36 35 135 

AR8 

Kramer Hills 

4 9 

Creosote 

185 

Ambrosia dumosa 

19 0 0 141 

AR1 

Bird Springs 

E 

4 10 

Blackbush 

248 

Coleogyne 

ramosissima 

12 8 111 0 

AR1 

Bird Springs 

W 

4 12 

Blackbush 

656 

Hymenoclea salsola 

14 0 72 0 

AR4 

DTNA 14 

1 3 

Creosote 

94 

Ambrosia dumosa 

17 0 0 0 

3-12 

9 

TOTALS 350 

12 creosote 

5 saltbush 

2 blackbush 

12 Ambrosia 

dumosa 

3 Atriplex spinifera 

1 Larrea tridentata 

1 Ericameria 

cooperi 

1 C. ramosissima 

1 Hymenoclea 

salsola 

12-33 

22 

0-77 

8 

0-111 

16 

0-294 

65 

Limitations of Existing MGS Records for Determining Current Status: The WMP 

data base of year 2000 included 260 known records of the MGS throughout its known range. 

Except for the studies performed at Coso and several studies at Fort Irwin, no trapping efforts 

have persisted at a given site for more than a few seasons. Krzysik (1994) reports that a total 51 

different sites had been trapped for rodents on Fort Irwin: 38 sites were sampled in only a single 

year, 7 were sampled in 2 different years, 1 site for 3 years, 1 site for 4 years, 2 sites for 5 years, 

and 2 sites for 6 years. 

Although the available information provides a wealth of data points for MGS occurrence, 

itσ usefulness is significantly limited in several ways. In the absence of trapping efforts over 

multiple, consecutive years, one cannot know if trapped squirrels were resident or dispersing 

through the area when they were caught. Additionally, adult animals are more likely to be 
Appendices 

resident than juveniles, but most of the records do not indicate the ages of captured squirrels. 

(Laabs 1998) 

The absence of data points does not indicate absence of the MGS, but likely indicates that 

focused studies were not performed in those areas. For example, many MGS records are 

associated with roadways, where MGS may be occasionally observed from a vehicle, found 

crushed, or observed during surveys of proposed utility right of ways adjacent and parallel to the 

road. Many MGS records are clustered in areas where extensive surveys have been performed, 

leaving a false impression of relative abundance. Such focused trapping efforts have occurred at 

Edwards AFB (Laabs et al. 1994), the Indian Wells Valley (Rempel and Clark 1990), the Coso 

region (Leitner’s study sites), and on the Coolgardie Mesa, where Tom and Debi Clark made 

many observations. 

Brooks and Matchett (2001) reported that the MGS had been detected at 264 sites 

between 1886 and 2000. Maps showing the distribution of these historic records collected over a 

114 year period do not represent the current status of the MGS. However, they are useful in 

depicting the historically occupied range. These data allowed us, for example, to determine how 

much of the known range is now occupied by urban and agricultural development. 

Plant Community Surveys: In 1992, biologists Debi Clark and Tom Clark, and botanist 

Denise LaBerteaux, mapped vegetation communities over approximately 90% of the WMPA. 

Following an unspecified amount of field reconnaissance, they plotted vegetation communities 

on 7.5’ and 15’ USGS quad maps, then further refined community boundaries using 1:24,000 

aerial photography, dated 1989 (Source memorandum from Debi Clark to Larry Foreman, dated 

15 May 1996). These data were later digitized and provided as a GIS (Arc Info) coverage. 

They mapped 42 different plant communities as occurring in the WMPA. 

M.2 PREVALENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THREATS 

Human Disturbances Observed During 1998 Vegetation Studies: During the 1998 

Survey, biologists collected information on human disturbances observed along each transect, 

including those located near previous MGS reports (102 transects) and those located in high and 

medium quality habitats (208 transects). Table M-2 displays the prevalence of disturbance types 

found along these transects6

. 

Table M-2 

 

6 "OHV” refers to cross-country vehicle tracks, which were created by trucks, motorcycles, and all-terrain 

vehicles. “Road” includes trails, and usually included routes passable by trucks. Sheep, cow, and dog sign was 

usually feces. “Guns” does not differentiate between legal activities (e.g., hunting, regulated target practice, etc.) 

and illegal ones (e.g., shooting glass and articles at dump sites). “Dumps” generally required a vehicle to off-load 

the materials, so does not include litter. “Mines” may have included pits and adits, exploratory excavations, borrow 

pits, etc. “Ord.” refers to military ordnance, which typically included spent cartridges and clips from aircraft. Two 

transects occurred in areas previously burned. 
Appendices 

Prevalence of 10 Types of Disturbances 

Observed within the Known Range of the MGS 

During the 1998 Survey

TRANSECTS DISTURBANCE TYPES 

Total Disturbances 

None Yes 

OHV Road Shee

p 

Gun Dump Cow Dog Mine Ord. Burn Total 

310 168 142 145 116 56 23 20 20 12 6 3 2 403 

% of 310 transects 47% 37 18 7 6 6 4 2 <1 <1 

% of 403 disturbances 36% 29 14 6 5 5 3 1 <1 <1 

Surveyors found one or more disturbance categories on 142 (46%) transects, and none of the 

disturbances on 168 (54%) transects. The three most prevalent disturbances were cross-country 

travel on 145 (47%) of the 310 transects, roads on 116 (37%) transects, and sheep sign on 56 

(18%) transects. 

Agricultural Development: By the early 1990’s, about 39,000 acres (61 square miles) 

of MGS habitat had been lost to agricultural development (Gustafson 1993). About 4% of 

historic MGS occurrences are found in agricultural areas (LaRue, 1998 unpublished data). 

Grazing: Grazing occurs on both public lands managed by the BLM and private lands, 

but mostly on BLM managed allotments. There is little information available to show variable 

use areas. Sheep are grazed inside and outside BLM allotments. Cattle may wander up to 

several miles beyond designated allotment boundaries. Not all land within allotments is suitable 

or occupied MGS habitats. Mountainous areas, playas, and other unsuitable substrates may exist 

(Aardahl and Roush 1985 reported the MGS was somewhat less prevalent on desert pavement). 

Resident animals prefer substrates associated with lower bajadas and valley floors. Juveniles, 

however, may disperse through rockier habitats. As such, we have not dismissed the potential 

importance of mountainous areas for MGS dispersal. 

On private lands, woolgrowers, or landowners giving them permission, are required to 

obtain federal Section 10(a) permits if their activities are likely to result in the take of tortoises. 

To date, there have been no such permits issued for sheep grazing. There is no discretionary 

action required by county or city jurisdictions for grazing on private lands, so consequently there 

is no clear means of regulating this impact on private lands outside sheep allotments. 

When combining the acreage of BLM lands within sheep allotments (897,820 acres) with 

the acreage of private land given above (619,442 acres), we find that there are a total of 

1,517,262 acres (2,370 square miles) of BLM sheep allotments within the known range that are 

actively being grazed. 

There are no region-wide data to show the incidence of sheep grazing that is not 

associated with BLM allotments. However, because there exists the potential to graze in these 

areas, the total sheep grazing area given above likely underestimates actual sheep grazing within 

the known range. 
Appendices 

Hybridization Between Round-tailed Ground Squirrels and the MGS: As shown in 

Map 3-17, the contact line between ranges of the MGS and round-tailed ground squirrel runs 

between Fort Irwin and Victorville along the Mojave River. Thus far, the only occurrences of 

hybrid (Wessman 1977) and suspected hybrid (Krzysik 1994; LaRue, 1997 pers. obs.) ground 

squirrels have been in the areas of Fort Irwin and Helendale. Gustafson (1993) reported that 

hybridization likely occurred in these areas due to ecological and behavioral changes in one or 

the other species that resulted from agricultural disturbances in the Helendale area and military 

maneuvers at Fort Irwin. 

Dr. Recht (2001 pers. comm.) has recently trapped the round-tailed ground squirrel in the 

Superior Valley, 10 or more miles inside the known range of the MGS. This suggests that there 

is potential for hybridization to occur well into the known range, and not just along the edges. 

No information was found on the dispersal abilities of round-tailed ground squirrels. If it 

is similar to that of the MGS, juvenile round-tails could to travel from one to several miles into 

the MGS range, assuming substrate conditions and other factors are favorable. 

Military Maneuvers: The prevalence of MGS on a given installation is dependent on 

the occurrence of installations within the known range, naturally unsuitable habitats, types of 

military maneuvers, impacts associated with support facilities (e.g., cantonment areas, logistical 

areas), and other factors. 

Extensive areas on south-central and southwestern Edwards AFB are comprised of small, 

clay-pan playas may constitute suitable habitats, but extensive trapping surveys conducted in 

1994 failed to trap any animals throughout the large region (Laabs et al. 1994). Unlike Edwards, 

both China Lake and Fort Irwin have extensive mountainous areas (greater than 20% slope) that 

are not likely suitable for resident MGS, although there is some potential for dispersing juveniles 

to use the lower slopes of such areas. 

Military maneuvers and their observable impacts vary dramatically between Fort Irwin 

(severe impacts) and either Edwards or China Lake (localized impacts). Edwards has 

cantonment areas west of Rogers Dry Lake, and logistical support facilities occur west of Rogers 

and east of the northern end (Leuhman Ridge facilities) that have been resulted in MGS habitat 

loss. China Lake has no cantonment area (Ridgecrest serves that function), and support facilities 

have resulted in minimal impacts to either the northern or southern ranges. Given that both 

installations practice air-to-ground maneuvers, with limited day-to-day ground disturbance, most 

of the habitats are still intact and potentially occupied. 

Fort Irwin entertains 10 training rotations each year, where numerous mechanized 

vehicles and ground troops create new ground disturbances during each exercise (albeit in 

previously degraded areas). At Fort Irwin, Gustafson (1993) reported that military training had 

affected approximately 130,000 acres (203 square miles) in the known range. Most of the 

impacts are limited to areas below about 20% slope (LaRue and Boarman, in prep.), which 
Appendices 

coincides with the substrates most preferred by the MGS, where about 90% of 102 MGS records 

have occurred (LaRue, 1998 unpublished data). Krzysik (1991) noted heavy shrub losses from 

the main maneuver corridors at Fort Irwin. Many of the impacts identified for cross-country 

OHV use also pertain to impacts at Fort Irwin, except that impacts at Fort Irwin are far more 

intense. 

Off-Highway Vehicles: Off highway vehicle impacts are concentrated in (a) BLMdesignated vehicle open areas, (b) lands adjacent to open areas, and (c) heavy use areas that are 

not necessarily associated with either of the first two. 

There is anecdotal evidence that the MGS may be killed on both paved and dirt roads, 

although it has been suggested that they are too quick for this to happen. For example, during 

tortoise surveys conducted near Water Valley, northwest of Barstow, in 1998, LaRue crushed a 

juvenile male MGS on a dirt road as it attempted to cross in front of his truck. In 1997, LaRue 

observed a juvenile male (likely a hybrid) as it was crushed on National Trails Highway, several 

miles north of Helendale. One of the nine MGS observed in 1998 (LaRue, unpublished data) 

darted into burrows that were located in the berms of a dirt road. The juvenile female was 

observed for about 20 minutes eating cryptantha alongside the road, and later using two different 

burrows located in berms on opposite sides of the road. Recht (1977) also observed MGS 

feeding on Russian thistle that was congregated along shoulders of roads in northeastern Los 

Angeles County. 

Goodlett and Goodlett (1993) have shown, in the Rand Mountains, that the heaviest 

vehicle impacts occur immediately adjacent to both open and closed routes. It is plausible, then, 

that individual MGS using resources adjacent to roads are more likely to be in harm’s way than 

those animals occurring in roadless areas. It is also plausible that juvenile MGS, which are most 

likely to travel longer distances than adults, are somewhat more susceptible to vehicle impacts 

than adults. Although adults may still be susceptible to vehicle impacts within their somewhatfixed home ranges, dispersing juveniles are likely to encounter more roads than an adult living 

within a fixed region. 

The potential to crush squirrels likely increases as the prevalence and use of roads 

increases in a given region. Given the relatively higher incidence of cross-country travel in open 

areas (1998-2001 WMP data), vehicle impacts are more likely to occur in open areas and other 

places with similar densities of cross-country tracks, depending on resident and dispersing 

populations of the MGS. Gustafson (1993) reported that four BLM open areas “...occupy over 

103,000 acres [161 square miles] within the range of the squirrel, although not all of the habitat 

in that acreage has been destroyed.” 

Data collected within the known range during tortoise surveys (1998, 1999, and 2001) 

show that vehicle impacts are heaviest inside and adjacent to designated open areas. This is not 

surprising, in that these areas are designated for vehicle recreation both on and off roads. 

Two of the 23 sites trapped for the MGS in 2002 included the El Mirage and Spangler 
Appendices 

Hills open areas (Leitner, pers. comm. 2002). However, the absence of squirrels cannot be 

attributed to vehicle use in those two areas. El Mirage is located south of Highway 58, where no 

MGS were captured on eight of the nine trapping grids, including the one in the open area. Nor 

were any of the high concentrations of winterfat and hopsage identified in 1998 (LaRue, 

unpublished data) associated with either open area. 

Data show that there is a “spill-over” effect from the open areas, where relatively higher 

incidences of vehicle impacts were found in adjacent areas, compared to non-adjacent lands. The 

prevalence of cross-country vehicle tracks north of El Mirage Open Area will probably be 

reduced due to boundary fencing installed in the late 1990’s. Other areas, adjacent to Jawbone 

and Spangler Hills, remain susceptible to open area-related impacts as no fences have been 

installed. 

Vehicle-based impacts may be prevalent in areas that are not adjacent to open areas. 

Within the MGS conservation area, these areas include lands within the Rand Mountains, west of 

Silver Lakes, within Kramer Hills, north of Hinkley, and southwest of Fort Irwin. Smaller areas 

also exist east and northeast of Fremont Peak, Fremont Valley, Iron Mountains north of Silver 

Lakes, Superior Valley (one 4-mile region), and southeast of Harper Lake. 

Urban Development: The MGS has been reported near urban and in rural sites outside 

the MGS conservation area south of Highway 138, near Pinyon Hills, and a second occurred 

near an aerospace industrial complex located adjacent to Palmdale (Becky Jones, pers. comm. 

2002). In the first case, the site and adjacent lands are comprised of extensive tracts of 

undeveloped lands and those with relatively light rural development. At the second site, there 

are about five to six contiguous square miles of relatively undeveloped land, but the entire area is 

surrounded by urban and agricultural development. 

The MGS has also been observed in residential backyards in Inyokern (Peter Woodman, 

2000 pers. com.), and may be seen foraging on the golf course at China Lake (Tom Campbell, 

pers. comm.). In 1991, Laabs (Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1991) tentatively identified an 

MGS burrow in the edge of an agricultural field in northeastern Lancaster. One squirrel was 

recently trapped at the proposed Hundai facility south of California City, where the consultant 

had identified habitats as being marginal (Michael Connor, pers. comm. 2002). In these latter 

cases, the sightings are adjacent to extensive areas of undeveloped lands. 

Given these observations, the only certain areas of MGS extirpation within the range are 

those that have been physically developed. Such areas include, but are not limited to, paved 

roads and parking lots; residential, commercial, and industrial sites occupied by buildings, 

graded areas, and other areas where vegetation has been mechanically removed; solar facilities at 

Kramer Junction and Harper Lake; and large mined areas (U.S. Borax, Rand Mining Company, 

portions of the Shadow Mountains located east of Edwards AFB). Degraded habitats typify 

lands adjacent to cities and unincorporated communities. Site-specific data exist in consultant 

reports, which for the most part are inaccessible. 
Appendices 

M.3 CURRENT MGS MANAGEMENT AREAS 

 Table M-3 identifies those managements areas that have been designated by the BLM’s 

CDCA Plan that provide some form of management protection for the Mohave ground squirrel. 

Table M-3 

MGS Management Areas Identified In The BLM’s CDCA Plan 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

DESCRIPTIONS 

SIERRA 

MOJAVE 

TECHACHAPI 

ECOTONE 

ROSE 

VALLEY 

DESERT 

TORTOISE 

NATURAL 

AREA 

WESTERN 

MOJAVE 

CRUCIAL 

HABITAT 

SUPERIOR 

VALLEY 

Acreage 162,000 18,000 26,000 512,000 55,000 

Species Status Information 

Target Species MGS MGS Tortoise 

MGS 

Tortoise 

MGS 

Tortoise 

MGS 

Special Wildlife Habitat Yes ND7 ND Yes Yes 

Federally Listed Species8 No No No No No 

State Listed Species MGS MGS MGS MGS MGS 

BLM Sensitive Species No No Tortoise Tortoise ND 

Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

Yes9

 No Yes No No 

Special Area Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Habitat Management Plan 2-5 years 2-5 years Complete 2-5 years 5-7 years 

Other Designation 

Sikes Act Agreement Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Specific Management Actions Requiring Immediate Implementation (1-3 years) 

Control Vehicle Access Yes No No Yes No 

Establish a Cooperative 

Agreement 

Yes No No Yes No 

Increase Surveillance Yes No Yes Yes No 

Restrict Camping and/or 

Parking 

Yes No No Yes No 

General Long Term Goals 

Land Acquisition No No Yes Yes No 

Change Livestock Grazing 

Practices 

Yes No No Yes No 

 7

 ND = Not designated by the CDCA Plan for the expressed purpose of managing for MGS. 

8

 In 1980 the tortoise was not federally listed, but rather designated as a BLM Sensitive Species. 

9

 Jawbone-Butterbredt ACEC 
Appendices 

MANAGEMENT AREA 

DESCRIPTIONS 

SIERRA 

MOJAVE 

TECHACHAPI 

ECOTONE 

ROSE 

VALLEY 

DESERT 

TORTOISE 

NATURAL 

AREA 

WESTERN 

MOJAVE 

CRUCIAL 

HABITAT 

SUPERIOR 

VALLEY 

Protect, Stabilize, Enhance 

Values 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Table M-4 list the acreage of 18 wilderness areas for those portions that are inside and 

outside the MGS range. Those areas with a single asterisk are partially within the range; 

Malpais Mesa is outside the planning area, but partially within the range. 

Table M-4 

Locations and Acreage of 18 Wilderness Areas 

Relative to the Range of the Mohave Ground Squirrel 

WILDERNESS AREAS (MI2

) 

 TOTAL INSIDE RANGE OUTSIDE RANGE 

INSIDE THE RANGE 

Black Mountain 33 mi2 33 mi2 All inside 

Coso Range 82 82 All inside 

Darwin Falls 13 13 All inside 

El Paso Mountains 38 38 All inside 

Golden Valley 57 57 All inside 

Grass Valley 51 51 All inside 

Argus Range 100 20 80 

Kiavah 134 45 89 

Malpais Mesa 50 18 32 

Owens Peak 116 43 73 

Sacatar Trail 78 30 48 

Totals 752 mi2 430 mi2 Inside 322 mi2 Outside 

OUTSIDE THE RANGE 

Bighorn Mountain 42 mi2 All outside 

Bright Star 13 All outside 

Cleghorn Lakes 62 All outside 

Newberry Mountains 43 All outside 

Rodman Mountains 54 All outside 

San Gorgonio 85 All outside 

Sheephole Valley 53 All outside 

Total Outside 352 mi2 
Appendices 

APPENDIX O 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX O 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

O.1 SHEEP GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES 

Antelope Valley: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 7,871 acres comprised of 

510 acres of private land and 7,361 acres of public lands. The allotment has 1,048 acres of noncritical desert tortoise habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing 

is authorized. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations 

and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment.

Bissell: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 48,889 acres comprised of 43,293 

acres of private land and 5,596 acres of public lands. This allotment has 5,596 acres of noncritical desert tortoise habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing 

is authorized. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations 

and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment.

Boron: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 82,892 acres comprised of 72,024 

acres of private land and 10,868 acres of public lands. This allotment has 10, 868 acres of noncritical desert tortoise habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing 

is authorized. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations 

and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment. 

Buckhorn Canyon: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 27,053 acres 

comprised of 14,689 acres of private land, and 12,364 acres of public land. Most of this 

allotment is within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise, and has not been grazed by 

sheep since 1987. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing is authorized 

in non-critical habitat, however due to the lack of contiguous public land outside of critical 

habitat it is unlikely that future sheep grazing would occur. 

Cantil Common: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 555,421 acres comprised 

of 236,472 acres of private land and 318,949 acres of public lands. This allotment has 240,913 

acres of non-critical desert tortoise habitat, and 78,035 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. In 

years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing is authorized in non-critical 

habitat. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations and can 

be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment. 

Goldstone: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 11,061 acres of public lands. 

This allotment has 11,061 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. This allotment is currently an 

inactive, vacant ephemeral sheep allotment and has not been grazed by sheep since 1987. The 

1991 Biological Opinion and extensions disallowed ephemeral sheep grazing in critical desert 

tortoise habitat. The entire allotment is on lands transferred by Congress to the Department of 

the Army in December 2001 (within the Fort Irwin expansion area).
Appendices 

Gravel Hills: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 230,165 acres comprised of 

94,621 acres of private land and 135,544 acres of public lands. This allotment has 0 acres of 

non-critical desert tortoise habitat and 135,544 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. This 

allotment is currently inactive and has not been grazed by sheep since 1988. The 1991 biological 

opinion and extensions disallowed ephemeral sheep grazing in critical desert tortoise habitat. 

Hansen Common: The CDCA Plan authorizes both cattle grazing and sheep grazing 

and/or trailing on the stock driveway. In areas of the allotment where ephemeral sheep grazing 

is authorized, ephemeral cattle grazing is not authorized. Sheep grazing occurs on this allotment 

during ephemeral years only. (See also discussion below for cattle allotments.) 

Johnson Valley: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 118,320 acres comprised 

of 9,134 acres of private land and 109,186 acres of public lands. This allotment has 118,320 

acres of non-critical desert tortoise habitat and 0 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. In years 

of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing is authorized. Ephemeral forage is 

found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations and can be moved as sheep are 

herded through the allotment. This allotment is currently inactive, vacant, and has not been 

grazed by sheep since 1992. 

Lava Mountains: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 20,902 acres of public 

lands. This allotment has 18,757 acres of non-critical and 2,145 acres of critical desert tortoise 

habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing is authorized in both 

non-critical and a small portion of critical habitat. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. 

Water is hauled to temporary locations and can be moved as sheep are herded through the 

allotment.

Monolith Cantil: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 47,553 acres comprised 

of 9,782 acres of private land and 37,771 acres of public lands. This allotment has 7,939 acres of 

non-critical and 29,846 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral 

forage production, sheep grazing is authorized in non-critical habitat. Ephemeral forage is found 

on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations and can be moved as sheep are herded 

through the allotment.

Rudnick Common: The CDCA Plan authorizes both cattle grazing and sheep grazing 

and/or trailing on the stock driveway. In areas of the allotment where ephemeral sheep grazing 

is authorized, ephemeral cattle grazing is not authorized. Sheep grazing occurs on this allotment 

during ephemeral years only. (See discussion below regarding cattle allotments.) 

Shadow Mountain: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 121,677 acres 

comprised of 69,419 acres of private land and 52,258 acres of public lands. This allotment has 

86,664 acres of non-critical desert tortoise habitat and 35,013 acres of critical desert tortoise 

habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep grazing is authorized in noncritical habitat. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary locations 
Appendices 

and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment. 

Spangler Hills: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 69,141 acres comprised of 

11,446 acres of private land and 57,695 acres of public lands. This allotment has 54,143 acres of 

non-critical desert tortoise habitat. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, sheep 

grazing is authorized. Ephemeral forage is found on large flats. Water is hauled to temporary 

locations and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment.

Stoddard Mountain: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 312,045 acres 

comprised of 121,859 acres of private land and 190,186 acres of public lands divided into three 

use areas. This allotment has 126,202 acres of non-critical desert tortoise habitat and 112,772 

acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. The West Stoddard Use Area is entirely within critical 

habitat and sheep grazing is not authorized. In years of adequate ephemeral forage production, 

sheep grazing is authorized in non-critical habitat located in the Middle and East Use Areas. 

Ephemeral forage is found on large flats and foothills. Water is hauled to temporary locations 

and can be moved as sheep are herded through the allotment.

Superior Valley: This is an ephemeral allotment consisting of 236, 316 acres comprised 

of 67,116 acres of private land and 169,200 acres of public lands. This allotment has 0 acres of 

non-critical desert tortoise habitat and 169,200 acres of critical desert tortoise habitat. This 

allotment is currently an inactive and has not been grazed by sheep since 1988. The 1991 

biological opinion and extensions disallowed ephemeral sheep grazing in critical desert tortoise 

habitat. In December 2001, Congress transferred about one third of the allotment to the 

Department of the Army as part of the Fort Irwin expansion.

Tunawee Common: The CDCA Plan authorizes both cattle grazing and sheep grazing 

and/or trailing on the stock driveway. In areas of the allotment where ephemeral sheep grazing 

is authorized, ephemeral cattle grazing is not authorized. Sheep grazing occurs on this allotment 

during ephemeral years only. (See discussion below regarding cattle grazing allotments.) 

Warren: This is a perennial allotment consisting of 556 acres of public land. The 

season of use is February 15 through May 31. The grazing that occurs on this allotment consists 

mostly of drift from the surrounding private land around the allotment. 
Appendices 

O.2 CATTLE GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES 

Cady Mountain: The Cady Mountain Allotment is located between I-15 and I-40 in the 

western Mojave Desert and the allotment comprises 231,897 acres. The period for grazing is 

yearlong. The Mojave River runs through the extreme northern portion of the allotment and 

contains extensive areas of riparian habitat. The majority of grazing use occurs in the western 

and central portions of the allotment in association with the active wells, and in the Afton 

Canyon area. The allotment is within 160,104 acres of desert tortoise non-critical habitat. An 

AMP was approved for this allotment in 1983, and a Rangeland Health Assessment was 

completed in 2000.

Cronese Lake: The Cronese Lake Allotment is located approximately 30 miles 

northeast of Barstow and just north of I-15. The season of use is yearlong. Water is supplied by 

one well on public land. Approximately 55 percent of the allotment is within critical habitat for 

the desert tortoise. This allotment has an AMP approved in 1983. A Rangeland Health 

Assessment was completed for this allotment in 2000. 

Darwin: The Darwin allotment is entirely located inside the Lacey-Cactus-McCloud 

Allotment. It is classified as a horse allotment. The allotment has been vacant since 1993, and it 

is unlikely that it will be grazed again. 

Double Mountain: This allotment has not been grazed since 1990, and has been vacant 

since 1992. It is unlikely that this allotment will be grazed again. It is bordered on all sides by 

private land.

Hansen Common: The Hansen Common Allotment consists of 72,102 acres comprised 

of 37,254 private land and 34,848 acres of BLM lands. Approximately 3,549 acres of the 

allotment is non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. This allotment does not have a grazing system 

based on pasture rotation. Most grazing occurs on private land with cattle drifting onto BLM 

land at various periods, depending on available forage and water. Cattle use is authorized on 

BLM land for 10 months. Ephemeral forage on this allotment is located in areas typically grazed 

by sheep rather than cattle when adequate ephemeral forage production occurs.

Harper Lake: The Harper Lake Allotment is located 15 miles northwest of Barstow. 

Cattle use occurs all yearlong. Approximately 65 percent (21,194 acres) of this allotment is 

within desert tortoise critical habitat and in the northern pasture while the remaining 35 percent 

(5,120 acres) of desert tortoise non-critical habitat is located in the southern pasture. In the past, 

there has been a lack of developed water and boundary fencing in the northern pasture resulting 

in cattle drift off the allotment. The recent development of stock water on private land in the 

northern pasture has more evenly distributed grazing use. Until development of water in the 

northern pasture, past grazing use has been confined to the southern pasture. An AMP was 

approved for this allotment in 1984, and a Rangeland Health Assessment was completed in 1999. 

Lacey-Cactus-McCloud: The Lacey-Cactus-McCloud allotment consists of 421,791 
Appendices 

acres, comprised of 2,375 acres of private land, 257,696 acres of Military land, and 7,644 acres 

of State land, and 158,532 acres of public land. The Lacey-Cactus-McCloud allotment utilizes a 

rotational grazing system comprised of pastures that utilize fences and topographic barriers as 

boundaries. Several of the pastures located on the China Lake NAWS have been closed to 

grazing for many years. In addition, China Lake NAWS canceled grazing use on their portion of 

the allotment in June 2000. There is approximately 18,025 acres of non-critical habitat for desert 

habitat. 

Oak Creek: The Oak Creek allotment has been vacant for more than ten years, and it is 

unlikely that it will be used again. 

Olancha Common: The Olancha Common Allotment consists of 15,877 acres 

comprised of 1,410 acres of private land and 391 acres of State land, 18 acres of United States 

Forest Service (USFS) land and 13,900 acres of public land. The allotment utilizes a two pasture 

rotational grazing system. 

Ord Mountain: The Ord Mountain Allotment is located south of I-40, approximately 8 

miles southeast of Barstow. The season of use is yearlong. The allotment is 154,848 acres in 

size of which 102,141 acres is in desert tortoise critical habitat and 34,047 acres is in desert 

tortoise non-critical habitat. A small number of domestic horses are authorized to graze this 

allotment. Most of the grazing use on public land occurs in the western portion of the allotment 

where most of the developed water is located. An AMP was approved for this allotment in 1985, 

and a Rangeland Health Assessment was completed in 1999. 

Pilot Knob: The Pilot Knob Allotment consists of 45,498 acres comprised of 1,720 acres 

of private land, 146 acres of State land, 4,727acres of military land, and 38,906 acres of public 

land. The allotment has been in non-use since 1996. It is unlikely that it will be grazed again. 

Rattlesnake Canyon: The Rattlesnake Canyon Allotment is located at the base of and 

within the Bighorn Mountain Range. The season for cattle use is yearlong. The allotment is 

topographically divided into the desert pasture, Rattlesnake Canyon, and the mountain pasture. 

Pasture use is primarily seasonal, with most of the grazing use in the winter and spring occurs in 

the desert pasture while summer and fall grazing use occurs in the mountain pasture. 

Rattlesnake Canyon is primarily used to trail cattle between the desert and mountain pastures. 

The desert pasture has 12,800 acres of desert tortoise non-critical habitat, where desert tortoise 

densities are probably low. Rattlesnake Canyon within the allotment is a wide, five-mile long 

canyon with steep walls and a rocky to sandy bottom. The canyon stretches from the desert floor 

and rises in elevation to over 5,500 feet. Several populations of Parish’s daisy have been 

identified within the allotment boundaries. This allotment has no approved AMP. A Rangeland 

Health Assessment was completed for this allotment in 1999. 

Round Mountain: The Round Mountain Allotment is located on the north face of the 

San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 30 miles south of Barstow. There are 15,565 acres of 

public land and 2,525 acres of private land within the allotment. There are no known listed 
Appendices 

species on this allotment. There has been no grazing on this allotment since 1998 due a wildfire 

in 1999. The stocking rate for this allotment has averaged 100 head. This allotment has no 

approved AMP, nor has a Rangeland Health Assessment been completed. 

Rudnick Common: The Rudnick Common allotment consists of 236,184 acres, 

comprised of 86,030 acres of private land and 150,154 acres of public land. There is 62,503 

acres of non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. There are two lessees in the Rudnick Common 

Allotment. One lessee grazes only in the Cane Canyon and Pinyon Well pastures. These 

pastures have no desert tortoise habitat and the lessee is not affected by the proposed action or 

alternatives. The second lessee grazes in the rest of the allotment, which has 62,503 acres of 

non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. This allotment utilizes a rotational grazing system 

comprised of pastures that utilize fences and topographic barriers as boundaries. Choice, timing, 

and duration of use for each pasture are dependent on several factors including plant phenology, 

climatic conditions, and past use. 

Tunawee Common: The Tunawee Common allotment consists of 55,931 acres 

comprised of 4,202 private land and 51,729 acres of public land. Approximately 1,800 acres of 

the allotment is non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. Cattle have not grazed the allotment 

since 1993. From 1994 to the present, sheep have grazed the allotment. 

Walker Pass: The Walker Pass Common Allotment consists of 96,974 acres, comprised 

of 8,816 acres of private land and 88,158 acres of public land. Approximately 32,058 acres of 

the allotment is non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. Three lessees graze cattle on the Walker 

Pass Common Allotment. The lessees can graze on the allotment for an eight-month period. 

The southern use area consists of 14,791 acres, comprised of 847 acres of private land and 

13,941 acres of BLM land. There is 6,865 acres of non-critical habitat for desert tortoise. The 

lessee of the southern use area (lessee 1) uses water availability to promote proper distribution 

and movement of cattle in the use area. Lessee 1 typically removes cattle from the allotment by 

February 28. 

The middle use area consists of 48,163 acres, comprised of 5,626 acres of private land, 

47 acres of state land, and 42,702 acres of public land. There is 6,387 acres of non-critical 

habitat for desert tortoise. The lessee of the middle use area (lessee 2) uses fences, and 

topographic features to distribute cattle in this use area. Lessee 2 typically removes cattle from 

the allotment around June 30. When ephemeral forage is sufficient the lessee typically make use 

of the eastern portion of the allotment where the ephemeral forage is most productive. 

The northern use area consists of 33,635 acres, comprised of 950 acres of private land, 

385 acres of state land, and 32,300 acres of public land. There is 15,885 acres of non-critical 

habitat for desert tortoise. The lessee of the northern use area (lessee 3) typically removes cattle 

from the allotment around June 30. When ephemeral forage is sufficient the lessee typically 

make use of the eastern portion of the allotment where the ephemeral forage is most productive. 

Whitewater Canyon: This allotment is discussed in detail in the Coachella Valley 
Appendices 

Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Table O-1 lists past livestock use for all the grazing allotments in the Planning Area: 

Table O-1 

Past Livestock Use 

GRAZING YEAR AUM’S 

CONSUMED 

GRAZING 

PERIOD 

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF CATTLE & SHEEP 

BLM Barstow Field Office 

Buckhorn Canyon 

1980 526 3/01 to 6/30 1,500 (S) 

1982 218 4/03 to 5/31 700 

1983 291 3/23 to 5/31 800 

1986 472 3/27 to 5/31 1,400 

1987 257 3/16 to 5/16 800 

Goldstone 

1987 250 3/23 to 5/08 815 

Gravel Hills 

1980 1,632 4/01 to 6/01 8,000 

1981 139 4/11 to 5/31 800 

1982 1,855 3/26 to 6/15 8,800 

1983 4,441 3/15 to 6/15 14,790 

1985 975 3/19 to 5/31 3,040 

1986 1,450 3/15 to 5/15 5,315 

1987 3,297 3/18 to 5/31 9,610 

1988 957 3/09 to 5/31 3,750 

Johnson Valley 

1992 75 4/27 to 5/15 600 

Shadow Mountain 

1992 234 3/28 to 5/09 800 

1993 379 3/30 to 5/09 1,600 

1995 295 3/23 to 4/25 1,443 

1998 958 3/09 to 6/11 2,100 

Stoddard Mountain 

1988 288 3/13 to 5/06 800 

1991 2,575 4/13 to 6/21 7,935 

1992 1,405 3/25 to 6/15 4,000 

1993 1,392 3/28 to 6/18 3,200 

1995 1,389 3/21 to 6/17 3,931 

1998 1,976 3/12 to 6/19 3,100 

2001 736 3/27 to 5/09 2,800 

Superior Valley 

1980 2,264 3/22 to 6/09 6,095 

1982 1,465 3/13 to 6/01 13,390 

1983 1,855 2/12 to 6/11 12,625 

1985 1,835 3/17 to 6/01 15,450 

1986 1,699 3/09 to 5/19 6,225 
Appendices 

GRAZING YEAR AUM’S 

CONSUMED 

GRAZING 

PERIOD 

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF CATTLE & SHEEP 

1987 2,887 3/21 to 5/31 7,725 

1988 570 3/15 to 5/31 1,350 

Cady Mountain 

1993 98 3/01 to 2/28 10 (C) 

1994 300 3/01 to 2/28 25 

1995 360 3/01 to 2/29 30 

1996 393 3/01 to 2/28 33 

1997 800 3/01 to 2/28 66 

1998 1,372 3/01 to 2/28 114 

1999 1,831 3/01 to 2/28 152 

2000 1,274 3/01 to 2/28 106 

2001 1,374 3/01 to 2/28 114 

Cronese Lake 

1995 283 3/01 to 2/29 23 

1996 365 3/01 to 2/28 30 

1997 365 3/01 to 2/28 30 

1998 365 3/01 to 2/28 30 

1999 418 3/01 to 2/28 40 

2000 419 3/01 to 2/28 40 

2001 403 3/01 to 2/28 34 

Harper Lake 

1989 69 3/01 to 2/28 50 

1990 69 3/01 to 2/28 50 

1991 224 5/19 to 2/28 25 

1992 72 3/01 to 5/31 25 

1993 170 6/01 to 2/28 20 

1994 285 3/01 to 2/28 25 

1995 242 3/01 to 2/28 21 

1996 228 3/01 to 11/30 25 

1997 456 3/01 to 2/28 40 

1998 571 3/01 to 2/28 50 

1999 571 3/01 to 2/28 50 

2000 571 3/01 to 2/28 50 

2001 571 3/01 to 2/28 50 

Ord Mountain 

1990 2,883 3/01 to 2/28 308 

1991 2,892 3/01 to 2/28 309 

1992 3,285 3/01 to 2/28 345 

1993 3,630 3/01 to 2/28 385 

1994 3,047 3/01 to 2/28 279 

1995 2,706 3/01 to 2/28 259 

1996 2,889 3/01 to 2/28 280 

1997 1,808 3/01 to 2/28 170 

1998 1,875 3/01 to 2/28 182 

1999 1,307 3/01 to 2/28 145 

2000 2,854 3/01 to 2/28 232 
Appendices 

GRAZING YEAR AUM’S 

CONSUMED 

GRAZING 

PERIOD 

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF CATTLE & SHEEP 

2001 3,906 3/01 to 2/28 326 

Rattlesnake Canyon 

1990 1,037 3/01 to 2/28 96 

1991 1,037 3/01 to 2/28 96 

1992 1,040 3/01 to 2/29 96 

1993 432 3/01 to 2/28 40 

1994 1,037 3/01 to 2/28 96 

1995 1,037 3/01 to 2/28 96 

1996 1,035 3/01 to 2/28 96 

1997 1,044 3/01 to 2/28 87 

1998 1,044 3/01 to 2/28 87 

1999 1,044 3/01 to 2/28 87 

2000 1,044 3/01 to 2/28 87 

2001 536 3/01 to 2/28 46 

Round Mountain 

1992 398 12/01 to 3/31 100 

1993 398 12/01 to 3/31 100 

1994 454 12/01 to 4/17 100 

1995 398 12/01 to 3/31 100 

1996 298 12/01 to 3/31 75 

1997 605 12/01 to 6/02 100 

1998 1,192 12/01 to 7/15 150 

Valley Well 

1990 24 3/01 t0 2/28 2 

1991 24 3/01 to 2/29 2 

1992 24 3/01 to 2/28 2 

1993 24 3/01 to 2/28 2 

1994 24 3/01 to 2/28 2 

1995 24 3/01 to 2/28 2 

1996 24 3/01 to 2/28 2 

1998 12 3/01 to 8/31 2 

2001 6 3/25 to 6/28 2 

BLM Ridgecrest Field Office 

Antelope Valley 

1980 278 3/1 to 7/31 4300 

1981 278 3/1 to 7/31 4300 

1982 519 3/25 to 6/30 3000 

1985 74 4/1 to 5/20 820 

1991 109 9/11 to 9/21 1500 

1992 164 4/20 to 9/1 2400 

1998 60 4/15 to 4/26 1400 

Bissell 

1983 324 3/20 to 5/20 800 

1986 165 3/15 to 4/15 800 

1988 453 3/7 to 5/31 800 

1991 118 4/13 to 6/15 800 
Appendices 

GRAZING YEAR AUM’S 

CONSUMED 

GRAZING 

PERIOD 

AVERAGE NUMBER 

OF CATTLE & SHEEP 

1992 683 3/30 to 6/1 1650 

1993 149 3/25 to 6/3 800 

1995 452 3/22 to 6/15 800 

1996 7 3/20 to 5/20 800 

1998 389 3/18 to 5/30 800 

2001 479 4/10 to 5/30 1600 

Boron 

1988 603 3/19 to 5/1 1550 

Cantil Common 

 Not Available 

Darwin 

 Not Available 

Double Mountain 

 Not Available 

Hansen Common 

1980 354 3/1 to 2/28 38 

1981 354 3/1 to 2/28 38 

1982 354 3/1 to 2/28 38 

1983 45 3/1 to 2/28 35 

1984 31 3/1 to 2/28 30 

1985 65 3/1 to 2/28 68 

1991 77 6/5 to 12/15 50 

1992 127 3/1 to 2/28 40 

1994 93 4/5 to 10/25 58 

1995 100 3/30 to 8/30 79 

1996 159 3/2 to 1/15 90 

1997 180 3/10 to 10/2 106 

1998 53 12/1 to 2/28 72 

1999 195 3/1 to 2/28 92 

2000 244 3/1 to 9/30 111 

2001 195 3/1 to 9/30 111 

Lacey-Cactus-McCloud 

Lava Mountain 

Monolith-Cantil 

Oak Creek 

Olancha 

Pilot Knob 

Rudnick Common 

Spangler Hills 

Tunawee Common 

Walker Pass Common 

Warren 

Not Available 

O.3 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL OPINION MEASURES 

O.3.1 Measures for Cattle Grazing Activities in Desert Tortoise Habitat 
Appendices 

1. Utilization of key perennial forage species shall not be exceed 40 percent from February 15 to 

October 14. No averaging of utilization data among perennial key forage species or key areas 

shall occur. When utilization approaches authorized limits in any key area, steps shall be taken 

to redistribute or reduce cattle use for that key area. Monitoring of perennial vegetation such as 

utilization and trend would occur with methods detailed and prescribed in BLM manuals, 

handbooks, and plans. Grazing use shall be curtailed to protect perennial plants during severe or 

prolonged drought. These steps may include removal of cattle or, where feasible, turning off 

water at troughs (especially when livestock are not present) to reduce adjacent grazing use. 

2. Cattle shall be evenly dispersed throughout their area of use, and herding shall be limited to 

shipping and animal husbandry practices. Grazing use shall be managed according to grazing 

regulations, allotment management plans, CDCA Plan, and current biological opinions. Grazing 

use would be managed to improve trends for native perennial and annual plants where site 

potential permits. Galleta grass shall be a key forage species wherever it is found. Feeding of 

roughage, such as hay, hay cubes, or grains to supplement forage quantity, is prohibited. 

3. All cattle carcasses found within 300 feet of any road shall be removed and disposed of in an 

appropriate manner, and no prior notification to the BLM is necessary if off-road vehicle use is 

required, but permission from the authorized officer is required to remove animals within 

wilderness. The authorization to use temporary, non-renewable perennial forage above permitted 

use shall be for no longer than three-month increments in non-DWMA desert tortoise habitat. 

4. Authorization for ephemeral forage (annual grasses and forbs) in non-DWMA desert tortoise 

habitat shall occur when 230 pounds or more by air dry weight per acre of ephemeral forage is 

available. Ephemeral production data shall be collected when necessary if requests are made for 

ephemeral grazing use. Any cattle authorized to use ephemeral forage shall be removed 

whenever the thresholds for curtailing ephemeral grazing is reached. The authorization to use 

temporary, non-renewable perennial forage above permitted grazing use shall be authorized for 

no longer than three-month increments in non-DWMA desert tortoise habitat. 

5. All proposed range improvements would receive NEPA and FWS review as needed. For all 

construction, operation, and maintenance of range improvements involving land disturbance in 

desert tortoise habitat the following requirements apply: 

A. Surface disturbance during construction of range improvements shall occur on previously 

disturbed sites and disturbing soil in habitat shall be minimized whenever possible. 

Routine vehicle use shall be limited to existing roads and disturbed areas, and off-road 

vehicle activity shall be held to a minimum. Construction of new roads shall be 

minimized. After completion of the project, the disturbed soil shall be blended and 

contoured into the surrounding soil surface. To reduce attraction of desert tortoise 

predators, debris and trash created during construction or maintenance of a facility will 

be removed immediately. 

B. Range improvement construction, operation, and maintenance shall be modified as 
Appendices 

necessary to avoid direct impacts to desert tortoises and their burrows e.g., construction 

of fences or pipelines near tortoise burrows shall be avoided. All proposed range 

improvement projects shall be designed and flagged to avoid impacts to tortoises and 

their burrows. Pre-construction desert tortoise surveys of project sites shall be conducted 

by a qualified biologist. Existing access and areas of disturbance shall be utilized when 

trenching a section of new pipe or during performance of maintenance. Any hazards to 

desert tortoises that may be created, such as auger holes and trenches, shall be monitored 

by biological monitor at least twice daily for desert tortoises that become trapped. These 

hazards will be eliminated before workers leave the site. 

C. Prior to land-disturbing activities, a field contact representative (FCR) will be designated 

to ensure compliance with protective measures stipulations for the desert tortoise and will 

be responsible for coordinating with the Service. A FCR will have the authority and 

responsibility to halt activities in violation of the Service stipulations. 

D. Only authorized personnel are permitted to handle desert tortoises. If construction or 

maintenance of a range improvement endangers the life of a desert tortoise then 

authorized persons may move the animal a short distance away or hold the animal 

overnight to release it in the same area the next day. 

E. All construction and maintenance workers shall strictly limit their activities and vehicles 

to areas flagged or cleared by persons authorized by the Service. When off-road use with 

equipment is required, the lessee is to notify the BLM two working days prior to 

construction or maintenance of a facility. 

O.3.2 Measures for Sheep Grazing Activities in Desert Tortoise Habitat 

1. Turnout of sheep shall not occur until production of 230 pounds air dry weight (ADW) per 

acre of ephemeral forage is available. The lessee shall remove sheep from an area of use or the 

entire allotment if ephemeral forage production falls below 230 pounds ADW per acre. 

2. Sites where sheep are bedded and watered shall be changed daily. Bedding or watering sites 

are to be at least 1⁄4 mile from any previous site. Sheep are to be watered on or adjacent to 

existing dirt roads (within 25 feet) or existing disturbed or open areas cleared of shrubs from past 

uses. 

3. No grazing is authorized except as approved through grazing application. All herders shall 

have a copy of the current use authorization in their possession and a copy posted at the herder’s 

camp site. When sheep are trailed outside of the allotment, all herders are required to have a 

copy of the trailing authorization in their possession. 

4. When lambs are with ewes, a band of sheep is limited to no larger than 1,000 adult sheep with 

an approximately equal number of lambs. 

5. Sheep are to be widely scattered or in a loose pattern when grazing through an area, and 

grazing sheep are to graze/move through an area only once during the grazing season. 
Appendices 

6. Stopping and parking of vehicles, and vehicular camping along routes of travel, is limited to 

within 50 feet of all routes, except in OHV open areas, in multiple-use Class “L” and ”M” as 

described in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. 

7. A herder’s camp site or camp trailer shall not remain in the same location for more than seven 

days. Establishment of a camp shall be at least one mile from any previous camp location. To 

eliminate or reduce scavenging of trash by desert tortoise predators, trash and garbage shall be 

removed from each camp site each day and no trash or garbage shall be buried at the camp site. 

All sheep carcasses within 300 feet of a road would be removed and disposed of in an 

appropriate manner as soon as discovered and/or livestock operator is notified. Cross-country 

vehicle travel to gather sheep carcass(es) must have prior approval from the BLM except in 

designated Open Areas for OHV use. 

8. Within 15 days of the close of the authorized grazing period, the lessee shall submit to the 

field office a BLM-supplied map to delineate areas of daily grazing use within the allotment. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX P 

MINERALS
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX P 

MINERALS

P.1 IMPORTANCE OF MINERAL DEVELOPMENT TO 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Both the current and past history of mining within the California Desert provide ample 

evidence of its importance as a source of mineral resources that are necessary for the State and 

national needs along with its contribution to the world market as well. Several factors indicate 

that this area will play a much more important role than it has in the past in supplying mineral 

resources for future needs which include: the need to replenish diminishing reserves currently 

being depleted; the necessity to find nearby sources of low-value mineral resources to supply 

local industry; a necessity to provide the mineral resources required for an expanding local and 

national population; the need to identify raw material sources that will satisfy the increasingly 

stringent specifications which industry demands; and to meet the new demands imposed by 

technological changes which are rapidly occurring. (Davis, J.F. & Anderson, T.P., 1980, 

"Mineral Resources of the California Desert-An Overview" in Geology and Mineral Wealth of 

the California Desert, Sough Coast Geological Society, p. 122-127). 

Many of the desert's mineral commodities, such as cement and gypsum, are needed in the 

local California economy, especially in the greater Los Angeles and southern California area. 

Boron and rare earth elements produced from the desert are considered "world class" deposits. 

Other important commodities are zeolites and specialty clays used in sewer filtration systems, 

chemical refining, ceramics, drill mud, and specialized chemical research. 

In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in gold exploration and production 

from the desert area. Annual production has accelerated immensely from 5,000 ounces of gold 

in 1980 to 400,000 ounces by 1990. At 1990 gold prices ($385 per ounce) the gross value of this 

production is $154 million per year. This compares with a value of $396 million for the state. 

 

Sand and gravel, cement and other mineral commodities used for construction materials 

are the very foundation of our standard of living. The demand for industrial minerals, 

particularly sand and gravel, from the California Desert is tremendous because of the needs of 

over 18 million people in southern California. The metropolitan areas of southern California 

recently experienced a growth rate estimated at 10 percent and, as the sand and gravel deposits in 

urban areas are depleted, BLM expects a large increase in demand for the desert's undeveloped 

resources. During fiscal year 1990 alone, sales contracts and free-use permits for nearly 60 

million tons of mineral materials with an estimated royalty value to the U.S. of $29 million were 

processed by BLM from public lands in the California Desert District. (Free-use permits are 

granted to nonprofit organizations and certain government agencies without charge.) 

The desert's mineral commodities support local industries that employ thousands of 

people in southern California, generate millions of dollars in wages and taxes, and support other 
Appendices 

industries, e.g. construction, agriculture, and chemical plants. According to the California 

Department of Economic Development, in 1989 there were 41,600 persons employed in mining 

jobs within the state, of which an estimated 20,000+ were in the five county area comprising the 

CDCA. These figures do not include those jobs that provide support services to the mining 

industry, nor those jobs which provide support services to employees of the mining industry, or 

jobs that result from manufacturing or fabrication of product refined from minerals. As with any 

industry, mining supports an economic base broader than just the individuals that it employs. 

There are both direct and indirect effects. 

In late 1987, Dr. Shirley C. Anderson of California State University, School of Business 

Administration & Economics, conducted a study ("Mineral Resources of the California Desert 

and Their Significance to California's Economy" in Compendium, The California Desert Mineral 

Symposium, 1989, BLM, p. 7-46) to determine the actual economic impact of the then $1.3 

billion mineral industry of the CDCA. In her study, Dr. Anderson solicited information from 

mineral producers. This data was then statistically analyzed by the Regional Science Research 

Institute of Rhode Island with a computer based input-output model to determine the total 

economic impacts of mining across 82 sectors of the local economy. Mineral receipts pay for 

products and services provided to the mining industry. These sales create jobs and the need for 

other products and services. Wages paid to miners are in turn spent on other goods and services 

that create additional jobs. Manufactures that use minerals produced from the CDCA provide 

jobs and need still other products and services from other businesses. 

Assuming that the `multiplier' is accurate for 1989, the mining industry operating within 

the CDCA produced an estimated $1.75 billion worth of mineral commodities contributing to a 

net benefit of $3.09 billion to the southern California economy. These figures are based upon 

production values reported by the U.S. Bureau Of Mines. In the last official estimate (1986), the 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis determined a direct contribution of $5.93 billion from mining 

to the $533.8 billion Gross State Product for California. 

According to the late U.S. Bureau of Mines, California has ranked first in the Nation in 

the production of non-fuel mineral resources since 1989. In 1986, approximately $1.1 billion of 

the $2.3 billion California non-fuel mineral commodities came from production within the 

California Desert. Over 65 mineral commodities are known to occur in the desert, some of 

which are vitally important in national and international markets. According to the late Bureau 

of Mines, these include 100 percent of nation's borates, about 97 percent of the domestic rare 

earth metals, 15 percent of the talc, 10 percent of the gypsum, and 6 percent of the metallic 

minerals. 

California also leads the nation in the production of geothermal energy. Production at 

Coso benefits the NWC by offsetting the need to produce energy using fossil fuels, thereby 

decreasing noxious emissions and “greenhouse gases.” 
Appendices 

P.2 PUBLIC LANDS MINERAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

Federal laws and regulations allow access and development of minerals on public lands 

managed by the United States. In the planning area, approximately 160 exploration and mining 

plans of operation are active. Activity under these authorizations is limited to approximately 25 

mining operations and one to two significant exploration operations at any one time. 

Locatable Minerals: In the CDCA, minerals are disposed from public lands under 

federal laws, and guided by regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws. In the planning 

area, most exploration and development activity on public lands, and associated with occupation 

and use of the surface resources are guided and authorized under the General Mining Law of 

1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq). This law allows prospecting and development of valuable mineral 

deposits through a location/appropriation system. The law allows use of surface resources, 

qualified by compliance with appropriate Federal and state laws and rules. Regulations 

developed pursuant to FLPMA and contained in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Subparts 3802 and 3809, guide the Bureau in managing surface operations under the mining laws 

for purposes of preventing undue or unnecessary degradation to public land. 

Introduction and definitions: Earth-disturbing operations authorized by the Mining Law 

of 1872 are managed under the “Surface Management” regulations of Title 43, Subpart 3809 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 3809). In essence, these regulations distinguish 3 

levels or categories of operation. These include: 

• (1) Casual use operations are those activities having no or negligible effect on public 

resources, such as mineral-collecting or small-scale placer operations. “Casual use” 

operations do not require notification to, or approval from the BLM. 

• (2) Notice-level operations are those surface-disturbing exploration activities, disturbing 

5 acres or less, which require prior notification to the BLM, but do not require BLM 

approval. A Notice is not a federal undertaking for purposes of NEPA review. The 

liability for compliance with these Acts rests with the party that submits the Notice. 

• (3) An approved Plan of Operations is required for mining operations and those activities 

that do not meet the requirements for casual use or notice level operation. The BLM’s 

approval of such Plans is subject to FESA, the Archaeological Protection Act, and other 

pertinent federal laws. All operators are required to conduct activities to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands or resources, and must perform 

reclamation, whatever the size of their operation. A financial guarantee (a reclamation 

bond) is required for any operation greater than casual use to ensure that reclamation has 

been completed (43 CFR 3809.500). 

The 1980 CDCA plan and subsequent amendments were developed under the surface 

management regulations effective January 1, 1981. On January 20, 2001 (amended in October 

2001), the surface management regulations were amended to improve, clarify, and better 
Appendices 

organize the regulations. The West Mojave plan is being developed under the amended 

regulations. 

Casual use activities commonly occur on all BLM-administered public lands within the 

planning area. However, the surface management regulations specify that a prior-approved plan 

of operations (not merely a Notice) is required for any activity greater than casual use that 

removes more than 1,000 tons of presumed ore for testing, disturbs over five acres of public 

lands, or is within any of the following: 

• Lands classified as Multiple Use Classes C or L under the CDCA Plan; 

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; 

• Lands known to contain Federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or 

their proposed or designated critical habitat, unless BLM allows for other action under a 

formal land-use plan or endangered species recovery plan; 

• National Wilderness Preservation System lands; 

• Lands designated “closed” to off-road vehicle use per 43 CFR 8340.0-5; and, 

• National Monuments or National Conservation Areas. 

All Notices filed with the BLM prior to January 20, 2001, expire on January 20, 2003. 

Any operator can renew his/her operation at that point, but any renewal must now be subject to 

the current regulations. This renewal includes a reclamation bond (the BLM did not bond 

Notices prior to January 20, 2001). The current regulations also state that the BLM may no 

longer accept Notices in areas identified by USFWS as critical tortoise habitat (43 CFR 

3809.11), unless or until a land-use plan specifically allows it. Under part 3809.332, a notice 

filed after January 20, 2001 remains in effect for 2 years unless extended under part 3809.333. 

Currently, several notice-level operations still exist in the Multiple Use Class M portions 

of the planning area already designated as critical tortoise habitat (such as Fremont-Kramer). 

After January 2003 these operators must either submit a Plan of Operations for BLM approval to 

continue operations, or complete and reclaim their operation(s). 

Leasable Minerals: Oil and gas, coal, sodium and potassium minerals, phosphate, 

asphalt, and geothermal resources located on public land were made subject to permit and lease 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq) and the Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq). Exploration and development is guided by approved operating 

plans under the direction of regulations at 43 CFR 3100 to 3500. Most of the exploration and 

development of leasable minerals in the CDCA are within dry lake basins for solid leasable 

minerals, and geothermal development in steam fields in the northwestern China Lake area. 

BLM field offices review applications for mineral leases and if issuance will not cause 
Appendices 

unnecessary or undue degradation, recommendations to lease are made to the BLM’s California 

State Office for issuance. A lessee must submit a notice or application to the appropriate field 

manager prior to conducting operations on the ground. BLM staff analyzes the proposed action 

and prepares an environmental document as required by NEPA. Approvals consider impacts to 

endangered species, cultural resources, and other public land resources. Other environmental 

issues are considered as appropriate. The field manager includes reclamation and mitigation 

measures in his/her approval of the proposed action. 

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended, (84 Stat, 1566; 30 U.S.C. 1001-1025) 

provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to lease public lands and other federal 

lands, for geothermal exploration and development. This authority has been delegated to the 

Bureau of land Management. Geothermal leases are issued through competitive bidding for 

federal lands within a Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA), or noncompetitively for 

federal lands outside of a KGRA. Two KGRA areas are identified within the plan boundaries, 

both of which are in Inyo County - one at Coso, and the other at Randsburg. Energy production 

from geothermal resources is currently taking place in the Coso area where approximately 240 

MW are currently online. 

Wilderness or wilderness study areas are withdrawn from leasing. No current leases exist 

in any wilderness in the planning area. If any public lands were already leased at the time of 

inclusion, such leases would be accorded valid existing rights, as appropriate. Mineral leases 

can be issued in lands classified as L, M and I by the CDCA Plans, or for unclassified lands. 

Mineral Material Disposals (Sales or Permits for Construction Material): Common 

mineral materials on public lands, such as sand and gravel, clays, cinders, pumice, and building 

stone, are disposed of by BLM by contract or permit under the authority of the Materials Act of 

1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. 701 et seq). Activities are guided by the regulations at 43 CFR 

3600, and include requirements for authorization of exploration and approval of mining plans of 

operation. Activities are conducted to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation. Contracts or 

permits can only be issued if the disposal is in the public interest and the net benefits of disposal 

outweigh the net aggregate damage from activity, as examined through NEPA review and 

directed by regulation. In the CDCA, about one current operation out of eight is over 10 acres in 

size. These operations are most likely to occur in habitat areas. Because the value of the deposit 

is related to proximity to market demand, many areas where these deposits occur have or are 

being disturbed by other activity (e.g., existing roads, residential or commercial development). 

A BLM Field Manager may dispose of mineral materials upon receipt of a written 

request, or upon his/her own initiative. Sale Contracts, Free Use Permits (to public agencies or 

non-profit organizations) and Community Pits (for small sales to the general public) are the 

means by which such disposals are accomplished. A written request includes a mining plan that 

describes how the material will be removed and how the site will be reclaimed. 

After a request is received, BLM staff prepares a NEPA document. All such actions are 

subject to FESA, the Archaeological Protection Act, and pertinent environmental laws. 
Appendices 

Reclamation and bonding may be required as conditions of the contract or permit. Mineral 

material disposals are discretionary. That is, the field manager has discretion to decide whether 

a sale or permit serves the public good. All such sales or permits are subject to the pertinent 

BLM land use plan (43 CFR 3601.11). 

 No mineral material disposals are allowed in wilderness or wilderness study areas. The 

CDCA Plan allows disposal of mineral materials from lands outside wilderness area, subject to 

federal regulations. Disposals may be permitted from ACECs if the ACEC land management 

plan does not prohibit it. 

P.3 PRIVATE LAND OPERATIONS 

Private land development, whether stand alone or in conjunction with public land 

authorizations, are developed through permits issued by the state lead agency, usually the 

county, as authorized by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 (California 

Public Resources Code, Chapter 4, Division 2nd, Section 2710). Where combined private and 

public land operations are proposed, the BLM may coordinate review of the operation with the 

state lead agency under an existing 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or by a site 

specific MOU or agreement. Under SMARA the threshold for filing a Reclamation Plan (for 

operations on federal lands) or a Site Approval (for private land) is 1,000 cubic yards of removal 

or disturbance over one acre. In most cases the county is the lead agency. However, if the 

activity is within city limits, the city becomes the lead agency. 

P.4 COOLGARDIE MESA MINING CLUBS 

Members of at least four recreational prospecting and mining clubs frequent the area, 

with most activity conducted on weekends in the late spring and fall when the weather is not 

overly hot and the soil is fairly dry. The larger clubs may have a membership of 400 families. 

On an average day during the dry-washing season the number of club members at the site may 

vary from three to thirty persons. Activity includes the use of both battery and gasoline-powered 

dry washers. Air from a bellows powered by a hand crank or small motor blows the lighter 

material up, leaving gold trapped on the board’s ridges. Occasionally, someone will recirculate 

water in a large tub for operating a wet sluice operation. 

Club members refer to themselves as “small-scale miners” and seek an escape from the 

city to a desert environment where they can pursue their hobby of gold prospecting and recovery. 

 The activity brings with it the opportunity to make a little money, sometimes more than a little. 

The recovered gold varies from “dust” or “colors” to nuggets generally up to the size of a matchhead. It has been reported that the small-scale miners find up to a quarter of an ounce of gold 

per day. Recovery is believed to be about 50 percent, which explains why there is still some 

gold left after over a hundred years of activity. Most of these individuals are operating under 

casual use and may continue to do so as long as they reclaim their hand-dug pits and the 

cumulative disturbance does not cause more than “negligible” disturbance. Club members police 

themselves so as to not to cause unnecessary or undue degradation. One person lives at the site 
Appendices 

in a trailer and is operating under a plan of operations. Another operator at Williams Well, to the 

northeast and outside of the proposed conservation area, uses a backhoe and is also under a plan 

of operations. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX Q 

UTILITIES: 

EXISTING BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS
Appendices 
Appendices 

UTILITIES: EXISTING BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS 

Q.1 PIPELINES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological opinion for on-going maintenance activities on 

Four Corners Pipeline Company’s crude oil pipelines in California (2880/6840 CA060.27 (CA-932)) (1-8-94-F-27). Memorandum from Acting Field Supervisor, 

Ecological Services - Ventura Field Office, Ventura, CA to State Director, Bureau of 

Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Two (2) desert tortoises per year in the form of direct mortality or 

injury through accidental death or injury during pipeline maintenance and repair activities, 

including use of access roads. 

Terms and Conditions: 

• Class I - Regular operation and maintenance with no habitat disturbance. (a) Reporting 

foreseeable projects at beginning of each year. (b) Education program. (c) Use only 

existing rights of travel. (d) Speed limit of 10 mph. (e) Check under vehicles. (f) Litter 

free work place. (g) No firearms. (h) Remove equipment at end of activity. (i) Alert 

supervisor and/or biologist to any tortoise sign; personnel not to handle tortoises. 

• Class II - Activities resulting in minimal surface disturbance. (a) Designate Field 

Contact Representative. (b) Confine activities to ROW. (c) Survey areas for tortoises 

ahead of maintenance activities. (d) Hire biologist if take is possible. (e) Maintain 

biologist with each maintenance crew where tortoises may be affected; biologist 

maintains records; follows protocols. (f) Expanded work areas need pre-activity surveys. 

 (g) Personnel report all tortoise sightings to biologist. (h) Avoid tortoise entrapment in 

pits and other excavations. (i) Cap pipes to prevent tortoise entry. (j) Report dead or 

injured tortoises. (k) Complete restoration to ...assist in the re-establishment of original 

native plant communities within the disturbed ROW. (l) Avoid creating new raven 

nesting sites; secure salvage permits if nest found. 

• Class III - Activities that result in major surface disturbance. (a) Prior authorization 

before expanding the ROW. (b) Reporting. 

• Class IV - Activities that extend outside existing ROWS. (a) Require independent review 

by BLM; new construction beyond scope of BO. (b) Measures for emergency spills, 

including reporting. (c) BLM suspends ROW permit if terms and conditions not 

implemented. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Biological opinion for the construction and maintenance
Appendices 

of an underground crude oil pipeline extending from the Western Mojave Desert to the 

Los Angeles basin, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties, California (6840/2880 

CDD-00-F-93-6 (CA-060.27)) (1-8-93-F-9). Memorandum from Field Supervisor, 

Ecological Services - Ventura Field Office, Ventura, CA to State Director, Bureau of 

Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Eight (8) desert tortoises in the form of direct mortality or injury 

through accidental death or injury during pipeline maintenance and repair activities, including 

use of access roads. (b) An unknown number of desert tortoises in the form of harassment 

through the excavation of active burrows or the moving of desert tortoises out of harms way 

during construction activities. (c) Two (2) desert tortoises per year in the form of direct 

mortality or injury through accidental death or injury during pipeline maintenance activities, 

including use of access roads. (d) Four (4) desert tortoises per year in the form of harassment 

through the excavation of active burrows or the moving of desert tortoises out of harms way 

during maintenance activities. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Provide authorized biologist; authority to halt activities. (b) 

Maintain litter free workplace. (c) No firearms. (c) Check under vehicles for tortoises. (d) Preactivity surveys within 48 hours; unavoidable burrows excavated and tortoises moved out of 

harms way. (e) 50-foot buffer from tortoise burrows outside the ROW; erect temporary 

tortoise-proof fence, removed at the end of the activity. (f) Education program. (g) Stake 

boundaries and restrict activities to that area. (h) Minimize unauthorized personnel by using 

fences or gates. (i) Clear minimum ROW width possible. (j) Stockpile soils and brush for 

revegetation; salvage spoil materials separately. (j) Biological guidance on handling tortoises. 

(k) Proper disposal of dead or injured tortoises. (l) Insofar as possible, restrict construction and 

maintenance activities to between October 15 and February 28. (m) Speed limit of 20 mph. (n) 

Avoid entrapping tortoises in excavations. (o) Revegetate all disturbed desert tortoise habitat to 

pre-disturbance conditions, implementing site-specific revegetation plans approved by the 

USFWS, BLM, and CDFG. Subject to the owners approval, a site-specific revegetation plan 

shall also be used on private lands. (p) Guidelines for seeding; only native species used. (q) 

Biologist present during revegetation activities. (r) Reporting. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Biological opinion for the maintenance of a right-of-way 

for an underground gas transmission pipeline in the Eastern Mojave Desert, San 

Bernardino County, California (6840/2880 CDD-00-F-93-02 (CA-060.27)) (1-8-93-F-9). 

 Memorandum from Field Supervisor, Ecological Services - Ventura Field Office, 

Ventura, CA to State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) One (1) desert tortoise in the form of direct mortality or injury 

through accidental death or injury during line maintenance activities, including use of access 

roads. (b) An unknown number of desert tortoises in the form of harassment through the 

excavation of active burrows or the moving of desert tortoises out of the project area. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Biologists performs pre-activity survey; present during all 
Appendices 

ground disturbing activities. (b) Place water bars so as to avoid impacts to tortoises. (c) 

Guidance for handling tortoises. (d) Speed limit of 20 mph, and restrict travel to existing roads. 

(e) Litter free workplace. (f) No surface disturbance outside ROW; storage and parking 

restricted to ROW. (g) Fill for washouts obtained from appropriate offsite location. (h) 

Education program. (i) Check under vehicle. (j) No firearms or pets. (k) Procedures for 

reporting tortoise mortality. (l) Biologist maintains records of tortoises; authority to halt 

activities; close-out report. (m) BLM revoke Southern California Gas Companys ROW permit 

if terms and conditions not being implemented. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Biological opinion for the maintenance of an 

underground gas transmission pipeline in the Eastern Mojave Desert, San Bernardino 

County, California (6840/2880 CDD-00-F-93-01 (CA-060.27)) (1-8-93-F-6). 

Memorandum from Acting Field Supervisor, Ecological Services - Ventura Field Office, 

Ventura, CA to State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Two (2) desert tortoises per year in the form of direct mortality or 

injury through accidental death or injury during line maintenance activities on all three 

segments, including use of access roads. (b) Four (4) desert tortoises in the form of harassment 

through the excavation of active burrows or the moving of desert tortoises out of the project area. 

Terms and Conditions: During pipeline maintenance the following measures shall be 

implemented to minimize disturbance to native habitats and the desert tortoise: (a) Flag and stay 

with ROW. (b) Stockpile in disturbed areas. (c) Erect temporary fencing or gates to minimize 

unauthorized use. (d) Vehicle travel restricted to existing routes. (e) Litter free workplace. (f) 

Speed limit of 20 mph. (g) Avoid entrapment. (h) No firearms. (i) No pets. (j) Check under 

vehicles. (k) Report sightings to biologist. (l) Pre-activity surveys; biologist present at all times 

take may occur; maintain records; personnel do not handle tortoises; minimum of one biologist 

per maintenance activity; handling guidelines; authority to halt project. (m) Education program. 

 (n) Off-site compensation for lost habitat. (o) Post project assessment. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Biological opinion for the repair of a natural gas 

pipeline, Edwards Air Force Base, California (XAE) (1-6-91-F-26). Memorandum from 

Field Supervisor, Southern California Field Station, Laguna Niguel, CA to Gregory 

Spencer, P.E., Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) One (1) desert tortoise in the form of direct mortality through 

accidental death during construction. (b) Ten (10) desert tortoises in the form of harassment 

through the excavation of burrows occupied by desert tortoises and the removal of desert 

tortoises found above ground in the project area during construction activities. (c) 

Approximately 1.5 acres of desert tortoise habitat will be permanently or temporarily disturbed. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Authorized biologists can handle tortoises only. (b) 

Preconstruction and construction activities monitored. (c) Avoid entrapment. (d) 10 mph speed 

limit. (e) Stake boundary, restrict impacts to ROW. (f) Education program. (g) Construction 
Appendices 

restricted to between October and February. (h) Litter free workplace. (i) Escape ramps in 

trenches every 150 meters apart. (j) Revegetate pipeline ROW. (k) Preconstruction surveys. (l) 

Guidance for burrow avoidance and excavation, and tortoise handling. (m) No construction 

between dusk and dawn in native vegetation. 

Q.2 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Biological opinion for minor electrical utility actions in 

Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, California (6840 

CA-063.50) (1-8-94-F-53). Memorandum from Acting Field Supervisor, Ecological 

Services - Ventura Field Office, Ventura, CA to State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Two (2) desert tortoises per year in the form of direct mortality or 

injury resulting from maintenance and construction activities. (b) Twenty (20) desert tortoise 

per year in the form of harassment through moving desert tortoises from harms way during 

construction and maintenance activities. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Designate FCR. (b) Education program. (c) Authorized 

biologists handle tortoises, only. (d) Survey and monitor all construction activities. (e) 

Guidance for handling tortoises, marking them, and recording data. (f) Stockpile in existing 

disturbed areas. (g) Existing routes of travel. (h) Check under vehicles. (i) No firearms or pets. 

 (j) Litter free workplace. (k) Salvage permits for removing raven nests. (l) Annual reporting. 

(m) Habitat disturbance is limited to no more than five acres per year. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Biological opinion for the proposed Meade/McCulloughVictorville/Adelanto transmission line (CA-932.5) (1-6-90-F-46). Memorandum from 

Field Supervisor, Southern California Field Station, Laguna Niguel, CA to State 

Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Five (5) tortoises in the form of direct mortality through accidental 

death during construction. (b) One hundred (100) tortoises in the form of harassment through 

the excavation of active burrows or through the removal of tortoises found above ground in the 

construction area during construction activities [Note: This 100-animal harassment level was 

exceeded, and the BO amended to allow for more animals to be handled.]. (c) Approximately 

1,100 acres of habitat. (d) Five (5) tortoises in the form of direct mortality through accidental 

death by crushing during routine inspection and emergency situations for the life of the 

project. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Suspend ROW grant if terms and conditions not followed. 

(b) Designate FCR. (c) Biological monitoring; avoid entrapment. (d) No permanent widening or 

upgrading of existing access roads will be undertaken in areas of biological concern. (e) New 

access roads follow landform contours. (f) Close all access roads not needed for maintenance. 
Appendices 

(g) Place towers to minimize ground disturbance. (h) Education program. (i) Preconstruction 

surveys; handling guidelines; tortoise relocation and burrow excavation; personnel report 

sightings. (j) Park in previously disturbed areas. (k) Existing routes. (l) Blade only where 

necessary. (m) Litter free workplace. (n) No firearms. (o) 25 mph speed limit. (p) Close-out 

report. (q) 1,603 acres in California (Category I or II habitats) and 274 acres in Nevada. (r) 

Construct tortoise-proof fence around substation. (s) Pay $63,224.40 in compensation funds to 

Clark County, prior to initiating construction. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Biological opinion for the proposed Kramer-Victor 220 kV 

transmission line project by Southern California Edison, San Bernardino County, 

California (CART 310 2800 (CA-068.23)) (1-6-91-F-8). Memorandum from Field 

Supervisor, Southern California Field Station, Laguna Niguel, CA to State Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) One (1) tortoise in the form of direct mortality through accidental 

death during construction of the transmission line. (b) Ten (10) tortoises in the form of 

harassment through the excavation of active burrows or through the removal of tortoises found 

above ground within the right-of-way during construction activities for the transmission line. 

(c) Five (5) tortoises in the form of direct mortality through collisions with vehicles during 

routine maintenance activities for the life of the project (30 years). (d) Approximately 111 

acres of habitat (107 acres of temporary impact and 4 acres permanent). 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Suspension of permit if conditions not implemented. (b) 

Biological preconstruction surveys and monitoring. (c) No tower placement or permanent 

widening of existing access roads in areas with biological concerns. (d) Follow landform 

contours for new access roads. (e) Minimize impacts. (f) Education program. (g) Designate 

FCR. (h) Handling and excavation guidelines. (i) Park in previously disturbed areas. (j) Flag 

designated areas, restrict activities to flagged areas. (k) Construct routes of travel without 

blading to promote resprouting of native shrubs. (l) 25 mph speed limit. (m) Monitoring plan to 

evaluate raven use along Highway 395. (n) Close-out report. (o) Compensation for 107 acres 

temporary and 4 acres permanent impacts. (p) Develop road closure plan. (q) No firearms or 

dogs. 

Q.3 FIBER OPTIC CABLES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Biological opinion for an American Telephone and 

Telegraph Victorville to Bakersfield fiber optic cable line (1-8-93-F-12). Memorandum 

from Field Supervisor, Ecological Services - Ventura Field Office, Ventura, CA to State 

Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) Four desert tortoises in the form of direct mortality resulting from 

project construction, operation, and maintenance. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) Stockpile in disturbed areas. (b) Confine impact to smallest 
Appendices 

practical area, flag boundaries, restrict activities. (c) Existing routes of travel. (d) Litter free 

workplace. (e) Avoid post-construction erosion. (f) No domestic dogs, unless restrained. (g) 

Stabilize soils. (h) No firearms. (i) Escape ramps in trenches at intervals of no more than a 

quarter mile. (j) Education program. (k) Minimize blading to promote resprouting; revegetate 

all impact areas off of roads. (l) Designate FCR. (m) Authorize handling only. (n) Monitors 

with each construction crew; maintain records. (o) Remove flagging and other markers upon 

completion. (p) Post-construction report. (q) On-site inspection by regulatory agencies, if 

requested by the USFWS. (r) Preconstruction surveys; avoid burrows; handling guidelines; 

records and data. (s) Check under vehicles. (t) Acquire compensation lands (281.4 acres) in 

BLM Category I Habitat. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Biological opinion for the proposed Contel fiber optics 

line from Bishop to Inyokern, California (6840 (CA-063.50)) (1-6-91-F-13). 

Memorandum from Field Supervisor, Southern California Field Station, Laguna Niguel, 

CA to State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA. 

Incidental Take: (a) One (1) desert tortoise in the form of direct mortality through 

accidental death during installation of the fiber optic cable. (b) Five (5) desert tortoises in the 

form of harassment through the removal of desert tortoises found above ground within the rightof-way during installation activities for the fiber optic cable. (c) One (1) desert tortoise in the 

form of excavation of its burrow in the event it cannot be avoided during construction. (d) One 

(1) desert tortoise in the form of direct mortality through collision with a vehicle during routine 

maintenance activities for the life of the project. (e) Approximately 16 acres of habitat lost. 

Terms and Conditions: (a) BLM suspends ROW permit if terms and conditions not 

followed. (b) Construction monitored by biologist. (c) Confine vehicles and equipment to 

previously disturbed areas. (d) Bury cable in center of unpaved roads and along bare shoulders 

of paved roads. (e) Will be patrolled periodically to repair eroded areas. (f) Preconstruction 

surveys. (g) Education program. (h) Designate FCR. (i) Avoid entrapment. (j) Tortoise 

handling guidelines; burrow excavation. (k) Park in disturbed areas. (l) Existing routes of 

travel. (m) Litter free workplace. (n) 20 mph speed limit. (o) Avoid tortoises and burrows 

during maintenance; surveys prior to maintenance and repair activities by biologist. (o) Closeout report. 
Appendices 

APPENDIX R 

MOTORIZED VEHICLE ACCESS 

ROUTE DESIGNATION
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX R 

MOTORIZED VEHICLE ACCESS 

ROUTE DESIGNATION

R.1 DATA MANAGEMENT 

In order to establish a record of each recommendation that was reached during the 

off road vehicle designation process, a system to track the process was developed. This 

system employed several steps, which are listed below: 

• Each route was tracked by assigning to it a specific alphanumeric code. This code 

employed a standardized numbering convention that included one or two letters 

followed by 4 digits. The letters would represent the first letter of the sub region 

(e.g. Middle Knob = MK, Superior = S). The four digits that followed were 

broken down into the first digit represent the MAZ in which the route either began 

or ended, followed by next three digits that actually represented the route number 

in that MAZ. 

• As each route was evaluated for designation, an electronic record with a number 

of variables specific to that route was established. The variables included 

information such as the following: 

o UTM coordinates indicating the approximate location of the route 

o The Decision Tree code denoting recommended designation, which would 

indicate the “leg” or “branch” of the Decision Tree which was followed in 

arriving at the decision. 

o A short note on the reason(s) for the final decision 

o The final recommendation of open or closed 

o The date 

o The persons responsible for the final recommendation 

• These electronic records were entered utilizing ACCESS software, which 

established a database that allowed the recommended designations to be 

collectively integrated or joined with the existing route inventory GIS database. 

This “joining” of the two databases then allowed for the production of maps that 

integrated the recommended decisions with the route inventory. 
Appendices 

 

R.2 OFF ROAD VEHICLE DESIGNATION SUBREGIONS 

 One of the first steps in the off road vehicle designation process for the West Mojave was 

the identification of 20 “subregions” (see also Tables 2-20 and 2-21), which were geographic 

subdivisions of lands outside of wilderness areas, open areas and ACECs. With the exception of 

certain BLM Class M lands in Inyo County and in and around the Cady Mountains, and scattered 

parcels elsewhere, all public lands for which route designations have been recommended are 

within one of the subregions. The subregions, therefore, constitute the “building block” of the 

motorized vehicle access network. The following discussion provides a general overview of 

each subregion, and describes the recreational values present in each. 

R.2.1 Bighorn Subregion 

General description: The Bighorn subregion consists of public and private lands found 

to the southwest of State Highway 247 as it makes a wide arc roughly between its intersection 

with Camp Rock Road and the community of Yucca Valley, California. The subregion is 

composed mainly of BLM-managed public lands, with private lands and the San Bernardino 

National Forest to the west, and primarily private lands to the south. The Bighorn Mountains 

Wilderness is located within and to the west of the subregion. 

The rugged Bighorn Mountains are the eastern foothills of the San Bernardino 

Mountains. Visitors can experience the rare ecological transition that occurs here, going from 

yucca and Joshua trees on the desert floor to stands of Jeffrey pine at higher elevations. Mule 

deer, mountain lions, bobcats, and golden eagles are prominent wildlife of the area. Resident and 

migratory birds rest along Rattlesnake Canyon Creek, which flows through the wilderness and 

northward to Johnson Valley. Elevations within the Bighorn subregion range from 3,100 to 

6,600 feet. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the subregion are cattle grazing, powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, 

communication sites, wildlife habitat, mining and recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway 

vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. The area is a popular destination for National 

Forest-related recreation to the west, and has been an historical off-highway vehicle destination 

on the south side. 

The designated routes provide for vehicle access to the following subregion features: 

Rattlesnake Canyon and the San Bernardino National Forest, to the south and east. In addition, 

the designated routes provide for access to the boundary of the Bighorn Mountains wilderness. 

Vehicles are not permitted in wilderness, but hiking, camping, and horseback riding are 

encouraged. 

R.2.2 Coyote Subregion 
Appendices 

General Description: The Coyote subregion, located approximately 20 miles northeast 

of Barstow, California, is defined by the Fort Irwin Military Reservation (National Training 

Center) on the north, Interstate-15 on the south, the Calico Mountains on the southwest, and the 

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA) on the east. The extensions of this subregion 

consist primarily of public lands on either side of the Soda Mountains WSA. 

Coyote Dry Lake, Alvord Mountain, and a portion of the Calico Mountains are found 

within the subregion. Elevations range from 1,700 to 3,600 feet. 

 The Calico Early Man Site is found at the south end of the subregion. This National 

Register Property was designated as an ACEC by the 1980 CDCA Plan. A management plan 

was prepared in 1984. The plan designated a network of vehicle access routes, a network 

designed to protect the evidence of ancient human occupation. This ACEC is located within the 

Superior-Cronese tortoise DWMA 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, wildlife habitat, 

cattle grazing, recreational mining, rockhounding, hiking, upland gamebird hunting, and offhighway vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. The recommended route network 

provides vehicle access for all of these, as well as for access to each block of non-federal land 

within the area. 

R.2.3 East Sierra Subregion 

General Description: The East Sierra subregion, located approximately 10 miles west 

of Ridgecrest, is defined by Highway 14 on the east; Highway 178 on the south; the Bakersfield 

BLM Field Office and Sequoia National Forest boundaries on the west; and the Class L and 

Class M boundary in the Coso Junction and Rose Valley area on the north. The Owens Peak and 

Sacatar Trail wilderness areas (49,009 and 33,132 acres) are located within this sub-region. 

 All or parts of three ACECs are found within the East Sierra subregion: Fossil Falls, Sand 

Canyon and Last Chance Canyon. Route designation for Fossil Falls and Sand Canyon was 

designated by their management plans and is not changed by the West Mojave Plan. For the 

Last Chance Canyon ACEC, Alternative A would adopt the 1985-87 route designations, except 

for the east access to Mesa Springs, which was recommended for closure by the 1982 ACEC 

management plan. This network would be effective on an interim basis, until the completion of 

a collaborative and community-based program to develop a revised motorized vehicle access 

network for the El Paso Mountains, including all of the Last Chance Canyon ACEC outside 

wilderness. Participants in this effort would include the City of Ridgecrest, Kern County, BLM 

and interested stakeholders. When completed, the revised network for the El Paso Mountains 

would be incorporated into the CDCA and West Mojave Plans through an amendment. 

The region consists primarily of the eastern face of the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Elevations range from 2,400 feet along Highway 14 to 8,453 feet above sea level on top of 

Owens Peak. The mountainous terrain has deep, winding, open and expansive canyons, many of 
Appendices 

which contain springs with extensive riparian vegetation. This area is a transition zone between 

the Great Basin, Mojave Desert and Sierra Nevada ecoregions. Vegetation varies considerably 

with a creosote bush scrub and Joshua tree woodland community on the bajadas, and cottonwood 

and willow riparian vegetation in the canyons at lower elevations. Above 5,000 feet, the canyons 

and ridges are dominated by pinyon-juniper woodland with sagebrush and grey pine. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are: domestic sheep and cattle grazing, mineral exploration, 

utility and aqueduct corridor maintenance, communication site maintenance, recreational vehicle 

touring/sightseeing, dispersed hiking and camping, rock climbing, upland gamebird and deer 

hunting, bird watching, wildflower viewing, rock hounding, mountain biking and equestrian use. 

Much of this sub-region is designated as wilderness. 

Biological values of special concern include habitat for desert tortoises, bats, Mohave 

ground squirrels, special status plants, and raptors (both nesting and foraging areas). The area 

has a number of special habitats (extensive riparian corridors and desert washes and springs). 

Cultural resources are significant in the area, especially in the canyon bottoms. 

The proposed route designations provide for vehicle access to the following features: 

Owens Peak Wilderness, Sacatar Trail Wilderness, Short Canyon, Sand Canyon, Ninemile 

Canyon, the LADWP Aqueduct, No Name Canyon, and Indian Wells Canyon. They also 

provide for vehicle access to dispersed camping throughout the Eastern Sierra. The designations 

provide access to hiking trailhead opportunities along the boundary of the Owens Peak and 

Sacatar Trail Wildernesses, Short Canyon, Sand Canyon and No Name Canyon. The 

designations provide access to staging areas for mountain bike and equestrian recreation 

throughout the subregion. 

The proposed designations provide for vehicle access to and through the subregion’s 

prime chukar, Gambel’s quail, and deer hunting areas. Vehicle access to popular rock hounding 

sites and historic Depression-Era mining sites in Indian Wells Canyon are provided. Also, 

vehicle access for livestock operations is provided. 

The proposed designations provide for vehicle access to every known active mineral 

exploration area, and provide access along each authorized utility and aqueduct corridor within 

the area. Vehicle access to all authorized communication sites are also provided for. 

 R.2.4 El Mirage Subregion 

General Description: The El Mirage subregion, located northwest of the community of 

Adelanto and due north of BLM’s El Mirage Off-Highway Vehicle Area is defined by Edwards 

Air Force Base to the north and west, State Highway 395 to the east, and the El Mirage OffHighway Vehicle Area immediately to the south. The western boundary is not well defined, 

consisting of private and Federal lands. The subregion is located in both Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino Counties. 
Appendices 

The Shadow Mountains, in the southwestern corner, trend northwest-to-southeasterly, 

and have a maximum elevation of 3,996 feet. The greater area is characterized by bajadas, dry 

lakebeds, washes, rugged hills, and desert mountains. Vegetation consists of three basic types, 

creosote bush scrub, saltbush scrub and alkali sink scrub, all of which are typical of the western 

Mojave Desert. Creosote bush scrub is by far the dominant vegetative type. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, rockhounding, 

cattle grazing, recreational mining, upland gamebird hunting, hiking and camping, wildlife 

habitat, and off-highway vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. 

Particular designated routes provide access to various blocks of non-federal land within 

the area. 

R.2.5 El Paso Subregion 

General Description: The El Paso subregion, located approximately 10 miles southwest 

of Ridgecrest, is defined by the El Paso Mountains wilderness area and “old” U. S. 395 to 

Inyokern on the north, U.S. Highway 395 on the east, the Garlock Road and Red Rock Canyon 

State Park on the south, and Highway 14 on the west. The subregion is 83,474 acres in size, 

with 92% federal land (76,998 acres) managed by the BLM and 8% private and state land (6,475 

acres). Numerous landowners own the private lands. The El Paso Mountains wilderness is 

surrounded by this subregion on three sides. 

The region consists of prominent volcanic peaks (El Paso Mountains), broad valleys, 

rolling foothills, badlands, sloping bajadas, braided washes, and narrow canyons. Elevations 

range from 2,000 feet on the southern boundary to 5,244 feet above sea level on top of Black 

Mountain. Creosote bush scrub and saltbush acrub are the predominant plant communities in the 

lowlands, with numerous desert washes, remnant stands of native perennial bunchgrasses on the 

mountain tops, scattered Joshua tree woodland, and small riparian plant communities at a few of 

the widely spaced springs. 

The El Paso Mountains contain three West Mojave endemic plants: Red Rock poppy, 

Red Rock tarplant and Charlotte’s phacelia. They are well known as a raptor nesting area and 

support abundant populations of upland game birds. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary resource uses occurring in 

this subregion are: domestic sheep grazing, mineral exploration, utility corridor maintenance, 

communication site maintenance, and various recreational activities. The BLM’s CDCA Plan 

identified four sites within the subregion with excellent potential for interpretation and 

education: Burro Schmidt’s Tunnel; the El Paso Mountains; the Garlock Fault; and the Goler 

Grabben. 
Appendices 

In particular, the El Paso Mountains are heavily used for a variety of recreational 

activities. The area contains excellent opportunities for upland game bird hunting (chukar and 

Gambel’s quail) and rock and mineral collecting. Other activities include recreational vehicle 

touring/sightseeing, dispersed hiking and camping, mountain biking, and equestrian recreation. 

The subregion is also used for commercial 4-wheel drive and dual sport motorcycle tours and 

competitive equestrian endurance rides. 

R.2.6 Fremont Subregion 

General Description: The Fremont subregion is located approximately 30 miles 

northwest of Barstow, California. U.S. Highway 395 provides access to the Fremont subregion 

from the west, and State Highway 58 from the south. Several public roads are located within the 

subregion including Harper Lake Road, Santa Fe Avenue, and Lockhart Road. The Grass Valley 

Wilderness and the Red Mountain subregion (within BLM’s Ridgecrest Resource Area) bound 

the subregion to the north, State Highway 58 to the south, the Black Mountain Wilderness and 

Superior subregion to the east, and U.S. Highway 395 to the west. The Fremont subregion 

encompasses a total of approximately 222,750 acres, which includes 52% (116,274 acres) 

Federal land managed by the BLM, and 47% (105,494 acres) private and State land. 

The southern portion of the Fremont subregion includes Water Valley, a relatively large, 

open and flat area with scattered low rolling hills. This area also includes about half of Harper 

Dry Lake, which is the lowest point of the subregion at 2,018 feet. A portion of Harper Lake is 

within a BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), in support of the birds and 

wildlife in that area. Vegetation in the Water Valley consists mainly of creosote bush scrub and 

saltbush scrub, and some scattered Joshua trees. A large number of unimproved roads cross the 

valley along with public infrastructure facilities that include high voltage transmission lines, 

wood pole power lines, and telephone lines. In addition, the valley includes intermixed grazing 

and ranching lands with associated fences and structures. 

The northwest portion of the subregion includes primarily flat terrain, undulating slightly 

with some prominent rocky buttes. Vegetation is limited to creosote bush scrub, typical of that 

found throughout the Western Mojave. U.S. Highway 395 bounds this area to the west, and 

Fremont Peak to the east. Fremont Peak is located within the northern portion of the subregion, 

and rises abruptly to 4,584 feet above the flat valley surrounding it. The creosote bush scrub 

community in this area is limited to the bajada and foothills, extending only about one-third of 

the way to the top of Fremont Peak. The higher elevations of Fremont Peak are rocky hillsides 

with widely scattered plants of the Mojave mixed woody scrub community. Old mines and OHV 

tracks are located throughout the Fremont Peak area. 

East of Fremont Peak, the northern portion of the subregion includes the Gravel Hills. 

This topographically varied area consists of low rolling mountains with vegetation limited to 

typical low desert shrubs found throughout the West Mojave. The far northeast portion of the 

subregion borders the Black Mountain Wilderness Area, and includes a portion of the Black 

Mountain ACEC, established for the protection of sensitive cultural resources. The foothills 
Appendices 

surrounding Black Mountain provide varying topography and areas of sharp relief. 

 The Barstow woolly sunflower ACEC is located within the Fremont subregion. This 

ACEC protects a rare West Mojave endemic plant which is found on shallow soils throughout 

the subregion. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary resource uses occurring in the 

subregion include cattle grazing, power line and pipeline rights-of-way, wildlife habitat, mining 

and recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. 

The Fremont subregion includes all or portions of four grazing allotments. These include 

the following: 

· Gravel Hills Allotment (ephemeral designation) 

· Harper Dry Lake Allotment (ephemeral/perennial designation) 

· Superior Valley Allotment (ephemeral designation) 

· Monolith Cantil Allotment (ephemeral designation) 

 Mineral resources in the subregion include leaseable economic mineral resources 

(energy, geothermal, oil and gas), primarily at the southeast portion. Small areas in the northern 

portion of the subregion have the potential for locatable energy and other strategic mineral 

resources. 

 Limited areas of known high and very high cultural resource sensitivity occur within the 

western portion of the subregion. These mostly represent the remains of mining activity and 

historic travel. The prehistoric remains include a wide range of site types. Areas within the 

eastern portion of the subregion include known locations of high and very high cultural resource 

sensitivity/significance, located primarily within the Black Mountain ACEC (established for the 

protection of prehistoric and Native American resources). The extremely high diversity of site 

types in this area range from complex to simple, as well as a number of sites listed within a 

National Register District. Many of the sensitive resources in this area represent historic 

activities, mostly mining and travel. The prehistoric resources represent habitation, extractive 

activities, and lakeside adaptations. 

 The suggested vehicle route network provides recreational OHV enthusiasts access to 

popular OHV areas at Cuddeback Lake and the Fremont Valley, and also maintains a substantial 

portion of the dual-sport network that runs throughout the subregion. The suggested routes also 

provide motorized access for rockhounding, recreational mining, equestrian recreation, 

recreational vehicle touring/sightseeing, and game bird hunting. 

R.2.7 Granite Subregion 

General Description: The Granite subregion, is defined by State Highway 247 on the 

east, the Stoddard Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area on the north, private lands on the west, and 
Appendices 

private lands on the south. The Granite Mountains, Sidewinder Mountain, North Lucerne Valley, 

and Stoddard Ridge are all found within this subregion. Elevations range from 3,000 feet to 

4,900 feet. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are cattle and sheep grazing, powerline and pipeline rights-ofway, rockhounding, communication sites, hiking, camping, wildlife habitat, mining and 

recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. 

Some designated routes provide access to many blocks of non-federal land within the 

area. 

R.2.8 Juniper Subregion 

General Description: The Juniper subregion, located east of Hesperia and south of 

Apple Valley, is defined by a large block of BLM-managed public lands with the San 

Bernardino National Forest on the south and private lands on the east, west, and the north. 

Juniper Flats is a diverse landscape of mountains, canyons, impressive boulder fields and 

washes. Elevations range from 3,000 feet to 6,000 feet. 

Within the subregion is an ACEC for the Juniper Flats Cultural Area. The ACEC 

contains springs and riparian habitat in a dense stand of junipers and was an important Native 

American habitation and special use site. 

 The Willow fire in 2000 burned over the entire region, leading to a temporary closure of 

the ACEC until vegetative recovery had begun. This closure has expired. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are cattle grazing, powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, 

equestrian riding, wildlife habitat, recreational mining, hiking, hunting, and off-highway vehicle 

use restricted to open routes of travel. Within Juniper Flats ACEC, open recreational travel 

routes are posted with markers installed at intervals. Off-highway vehicle touring is appropriate 

here. Several routes in the Juniper subregion have been closed to vehicle travel to protect 

riparian habitat and cultural sites. 

There are equestrian riding opportunities in the subregion as well as hiking opportunities. 

 Equestrian use is extensive, though staging areas and parking areas for horse trailers are limited. 

The washes provide good hiking trails for experiencing natural conditions and for bird watching. 

 A BLM-contracted bird survey in 2001 detected 61 species in Grapevine Canyon and 73 species 

in Arrastre Canyon. Mountain and California quail were abundant breeding gamebirds, and the 

canyons were used extensively by neotropical migrants. Tracks were seen of mountain lions in 

upper Arrastre Canyon, and badger, deer and bobcat were observed in the two canyons. Several 

species of reptiles were also observed (Laymon, 2001). The Juniper subregion also provides 

habitat for the San Diego horned lizard and the gray vireo, two unlisted species proposed for 
Appendices 

protection in the West Mojave Plan. 

Visitors can camp at Bowen Ranch, a private facility, and at locations throughout the 

National Forest to the south. Many visitors access Deep Creek Hot Springs in the National 

Forest from the Juniper Flats area. Equestrians access other areas of the National Forest from 

Grapevine Canyon and utilize a network of trails near Arrastre Canyon and Round Mountain. 

 Route designations for the Juniper subregion were revised from the draft EIR/S as a 

result of public comment. The recommended network adopts and modifies designations done in 

1988 for the Juniper Flats ACEC and in 1985 and 1987 for the entire Barstow Resource Area. It 

also incorporates the on-the-ground inventory performed in 2003. The resulting network is 

intended to provide additional protection for the riparian area in Arrastre Canyon, elimination of 

noise and nuisance around the Milpas Highlands community and increased single track loop 

routes which can connect to the Forest Service system routes. 

R.2.9 Kramer Subregion

 General Description: The Kramer subregion is located south of State Highway 58, 

between the cities of Hinkley and Kramer Junction. State Highway 58 and Edwards Air Force 

Base bound the subregion on the north, State Highway 395 on the west, and private lands to the 

east and south. The Kramer subregion encompasses a total of approximately 133,129 acres, 

which consists of 84,020 acres (63 percent) federal land managed by the BLM, and 49,109 acres 

(37 percent) private and State land. 

The Kramer subregion is largely an area of alluvial soils and low rolling hills incised by 

braided, seasonal washes draining toward the Mojave River. Elevations range from 2,273 feet to 

3,021 feet. The Kramer Hills, Iron Mountain, and Buckthorn Wash are found within the 

subregion. The Kramer Hills provide the most topographically varied portion of the subregion, 

and consist of low-lying, rolling hills composed of a complex of sedimentary and volcanic rocks. 

Iron Mountain, located in the northeastern portion of the subregion, also provides prominent 

areas of topographic relief. Most of the subregion is covered with creosote bush scrub and 

saltbush scrub plant communities. Joshua trees are scattered throughout the Kramer Hills and 

upper washes, in association with creosote and cholla. 

State Highway 58 on the north and U.S. Highway 395 on the west provide access to the 

subregion. Several public roads are located within the subregion including Shadow Mountain 

Road, Harper Lake Road, and Helendale Road. 

 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Current land uses include routes for 

several power lines and gas pipelines, as well as scattered homesteads. Recreational uses within 

the subregion include primarily OHV activity, and rockhounding in the Kramer Hills. Primary 

recreation activities and other resource uses occurring in the subregion are power line and 

pipeline rights-of-way, wildlife habitat, mining, hunting, and off-highway vehicle use restricted 

to open routes of travel. 
Appendices 

The Kramer subregion includes portions of two grazing allotments. The majority of the 

subregion falls within the Stoddard Mountain grazing allotment. The southernmost portion of the 

subregion includes a small portion of the Buckhorn Canyon Allotment. 

Mineral resources within the subregion are located primarily within Iron Mountain and 

the Kramer Hills. Gold has been produced at the Kramer Hills, which also includes occurrences 

of uranium, magnesite and feldspar. Considerable exploration of uranium occurred in the Kramer 

Hills during the 1970s. At Iron Mountain, limestone, marl, quartzite, and asbestos have been 

produced. In addition, there are occurrences of clay, copper, and mica in this area. The U.S. 

Geological Survey has classified the subregion as prospectively valuable for sodium, potassium, 

oil, and gas. Mining and homestead sites established in the late 19th and early 20th century exist 

in the area, some of which may have historical significance. 

The suggested route network provides for vehicle access to the Kramer Hills, Iron 

Mountain, and other areas located throughout the Kramer subregion; provides access to sites 

appropriate to recreational target shooting; provides opportunities for general dispersed camping 

and back country touring; provides access through each of the primary upland gamebird hunting 

areas; provides access to popular rockhounding locations; provides access to known areas 

important for recreational mining; provides motorized access facilitating mountain bike 

recreation throughout the subregion; maintains vehicle access for a variety of terrain, a variety of 

trip lengths and access to remote areas for the equestrian community; provides the recreational 

OHV enthusiasts a variety of opportunities from which to choose, and it maintains a substantial 

portion of the dual-sport network (for on-street/off-street motorcycles) which runs throughout 

the subregion. 

R.2.10 Middle Knob Subregion 

General Description: The Middle Knob Subregion, located approximately 40 miles 

southwest of Ridgecrest, is defined by Highway 14 on the east; Highway 58 on the south; the 

CDCA boundary on the west; and the Jawbone Butterbredt ACEC on the north. Numerous 

landowners own the private lands. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the subregion are recreational vehicle touring/sightseeing (such as in 

the proposed Middle Knob ACEC), camping and hiking (such as within the proposed Middle 

Knob ACEC and the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail), hunting, domestic sheep and cattle 

grazing, utility corridor maintenance, communication site maintenance, wind energy, and 

mineral exploration. 

In addition, the subregion has a variety of special habitats (pavement plains, vernal pool, 

springs and grey pine woodland) and artificial waters (small game guzzlers). Biological values 

of special concern include habitat for desert tortoises, Mohave ground squirrels, raptors (nesting 

and foraging areas), and special status plants. Further, cultural resources are significant in the 
Appendices 

subregion. 

R.2.11 Morongo Subregion 

General Description: The Morongo Subregion is located east of Highway 62 and west 

of Joshua Tree National Park. Much of the subregion is located in the Little San Bernardino 

Mountains. Elevations in the area range from 1700 feet on the canyon floor to 5000 feet at the 

ridge tops. 

The area is noted as a breeding location for many riparian birds, the site of the 

endangered triple-ribbed milkvetch, and a critical watering area for bighorn sheep and mule deer 

that live in the region. 

The subregion has a desert climate with hot, dry summers and moderate winters. Rainfall 

is scarce, with an average annual total of only 8 inches. Big Morongo Creek emerges from the 

mountains northwest of Morongo Valley and flows intermittently on the surface of the creek bed. 

The water percolates quickly into sandy soils as it crosses the Morongo Basin, but as it enters 

Big Morongo Canyon it encounters alternating layers of sandy and cemented rock. The harder 

layers bring the water to the surface in a series of perennial springs, whose waters disappear into 

the sandy layers farther downstream. Within the Subregion are some of the oldest rocks in the 

state of California, dated at almost two billion years. They consist of former granitic rocks that 

have been altered by heat and pressure to form gneisses and schists. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Within the subregion there exists 

habitat qualities which have earned much of the area both national and international reputation 

among bird watchers. Big Morongo Canyon is a desert oasis with perennial surface water in 

springs and streams that support an extensive willow and cottonwood forest. 

Big Morongo Canyon ACEC, located within the subregion, is a 28,274 acre wildlife 

refuge and National Watchable Wildlife Site. Preserve programs and displays seek to provide 

educational opportunities for children, youth, and adults to further their understanding of desert 

and marsh ecosystems, and the function and importance of a preserve on local, regional, and 

global levels. Numerous trails, including boardwalk trails through the marsh and stream habitats, 

meander through the Preserve, which is managed by the BLM. 

R.2.12 Newberry-Rodman Subregion 

General description: The Newberry/Rodman subregion, located just south of Newberry 

Springs, California, is defined by Interstate-40 on the north, the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps 

Base and the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area on the south, and Camp Rock Road on 

the west. The subregion is 81,585 acres in size, with 73.6% Federal land (60,012 acres) managed 

by the BLM and 26.3% private and State land (21,481 acres). Catellus Development 

Corporation is the primary private landowner. 
Appendices 

The general region consists of two small rugged mountain ranges and the surrounding 

foothills, valleys, sloping alluvial fans, washes, lava flows, and canyons. The entire area shows 

evidence of volcanic geologic activity, which provides for dramatic views. Elevations range 

from 1,800 feet to 5,100 feet in the Newberry Mountains. Creosote bush scrub is the 

predominant plant community in the lower elevations, with a desert willow-dominated plant 

community found in the dry desert washes, and remnant stands of perennial bunchgrasses in the 

higher elevations. Joshua tree woodland and small, riparian plant communities may also be 

found here in select locations. Many raptor nesting sites are found in the region. Kane Wash, 

which runs in a southwesterly to northeasterly direction, bisects the subregion, separating the 

Newberry Mountains wilderness and the Rodman Mountains wilderness. Access to this 

subregion is from Interstate-40, a power line road to the southeast, and Camp Rock Road on the 

west side. 

A wide diversity of cultural site types are found here, some of which are associated with 

a National Register District. The Serrano tribe lived in the region, resulting in rock art and other 

cultural sites. Parts of the Rodman Mountains are designated as an ACEC to protect cultural 

resources. Most of this area is within the Rodman Mountains Wilderness. In addition to the 

desert tortoise, the prairie falcon and the golden eagle are found in the subregion, and the area is 

a potential reintroduction area for bighorn sheep. The Ord Mountain grazing allotment is located 

in the subregion. Much of the area is highly scenic in character, and both hiking/backpacking 

and upland gamebird hunting opportunities are plentiful. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and other 

resource uses occurring in the subregion are cattle grazing, mineral exploration/production, 

utility corridor maintenance (2 major utility corridors), communication site maintenance, 

recreational vehicle touring/sightseeing, dispersed hiking and camping, equestrian recreation, 

upland gamebird hunting, and rockhounding. 

The Ord grazing allotment is located within this subregion. This allotment consists of 

154,848 acres, of which 14,820 are private. 

In regards to mineral values in the subregion, construction materials (crushed rock, sand 

and gravel) are being produced from the northwest area of the Newberry Mountains (Cal West 

Quarry). There has been production of placer gold at the Camp Rock mine. Cinders have and 

are being produced from Pipkin cinder cone (Malpais Crater) in the south-central part of the 

subregion. Borates (Fort Cady Minerals) and specialty clays (Rheox) are being produced in the 

eastern part of the subregion. BLM classified the western portion of the subregion as having a 

moderate to high potential for the occurrence of copper, silver, lead, tungsten and gold based on 

past exploration and production. The eastern portion of the subregion has a high potential for 

borate minerals and clay deposits. 

A utility corridor runs along the northern boundary of the subregion, while another utility 

corridor crosses from north to south. 
Appendices 

Excellent hiking/backpacking and upland game hunting opportunities exist in the 

Newberry and Rodman Mountains. There are three highly rated interpretive sites within the 

subregion, the Newberry Mountain Caves, Pipkin Cinder Cone, and the Rodman Mountain 

petroglyphs. Other federal plans relating to this subregion include the Johnson Valley OffHighway Vehicle Area Management Plan. 

The suggested route network provides for vehicle access for these resource uses and 

recreational activities. Further, they provide access to each block of non-federal land within the 

subregion. 

R.2.13 North Searles Subregion 

General Description: The North Searles subregion, is located approximately 28 miles 

northeast of Ridgecrest, immediately north of Pioneer Point and the community of Trona. Slate 

Range Crossing on the north, the crest of the Slate Range on the east, the Inyo-San Bernardino 

County line on the south, and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) boundary on 

the west define the subregion. Numerous landowners own the private lands. The Great Falls 

Basin ACEC, Argus Mountains wilderness and the Great Falls Basin Wilderness Study Area are 

surrounded by this subregion on three sides. 

The general region consists of the upper part of Searles Valley, part of the ancient 

lakebed above Searles Lake. It is encircled by two prominent mountain ranges on the west, and 

east and north - the Argus and Slate ranges, respectively. The area is made up almost entirely of 

gravel, sand, and silt lakebed sediments. Elevations start as low as 1600 feet on the southern 

Inyo-San Bernardino County boundary, climbing to more than 5300 feet above sea level to the 

west in the Argus Range and to 4950 feet above sea level in the east along the crest of the Slate 

Range. Due to its location along the highway to Death Valley National Park (Highway 178) and 

close proximity to the community of Trona, visitation is generally high throughout the year, 

especially in the cooler months. Mojave saltbush and creosote bush scrub are the predominant 

plant communities in the lowlands, with rabbitbrush dominating communities in the washes. 

Joshua trees are found in sparse stands at a few locations at upper elevations in the Argus and 

Slate ranges. Small riparian communities exist at isolated seeps and springs throughout the 

Argus Range. These communities, made up mostly of willow and baccharis, comprise the sole 

critical habitat for a threatened species, the Inyo California towhee. This is a subspecies of 

towhee endemic only to the southern Argus Range. The many small seeps and springs also 

attract upland game hunters, as well as more casual visitors from the surrounding local area. 

 In the fall of 1999, the BLM initiated a series of yearly cleanups of a popular party place 

at the base of the falls in Great Falls Basin with volunteers from several Trona community 

service organizations and local businesses. Volunteers picked up trash, sifted for glass, 

dispersed fire rings, sandblasted graffiti, rehabilitated hill climbs, and donated more than 

$20,000 worth of boulders, heavy equipment and equipment operators to block off further 

vehicle trespass to Austin Springs, the base of the falls, and to various unauthorized hill climbs 

in the immediate vicinity. To date, the project has been very successful in implementing the 
Appendices 

many provisions of the ACEC plan for the area. Vehicle access also has been restricted at 

several other springs in the area, notably North Ruth, Nadeau, and Christmas to prevent 

overnight camping within 200 yards of a wildlife watering source per California State Fish and 

Game regulations (California Administrative Code 730(6)(b)). Fence exclosures have been built 

around other springs in the area to protect towhee critical habitat from damage by wild burros. 

 

 The subregion contains the Indian Joe Canyon Ecological Reserve, a Department of Fish 

and Game property protecting significant riparian habitat. 

Access to this subregion is from Highway 178 and its extension, the Trona-Wildrose 

road. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Casual OHV recreational use 

involving dune buggies, quads, and motorcycles takes place within the subregion. The majority 

of these users are local residents. They come from Trona and the associated communities of 

West End, Argus, and Pioneer Point, or from Homewood Canyon. Gem and mineral collecting 

also occurs throughout the Argus and Slate Ranges. In October, the Searles Valley Gem and 

Mineral Society puts on a Gem and Mineral Show. The subregion is also used for interpretative 

museum and commercial 4-wheel drive, dual sport motorcycle and equestrian tours, as well as 

for equestrian competitive endurance rides. 

Numerous dispersed camping opportunities exist along the route network. Vehicles are 

generally permitted to pull off within 300 feet of any route in the area to make camp with one 

exception. California State Fish and Game Code regulations specifically prohibit overnight 

camping within 200 yards of a wildlife-watering source. While some staging areas off of 

Highway 178 exist, most off road vehicle enthusiasts stage from their own homes in the adjacent 

communities of West End, Argus, Trona, Pioneer Point, and Homewood Canyon. There are 

many unmaintained dirt roads that directly connect these communities to the route system in the 

area. For these users, there is no need to go on pavement except to cross the Trona-Wildrose 

road occasionally to access routes on the opposite (east) side of Highway 178. Virtually all trails 

in this subregion are full-size 4x4 as opposed to single-track routes. Many of these trails offer 

challenges requiring strong 4x4 driving skills, particularly in rocky and mountainous stretches of 

the Slate and Argus Ranges. 

Other uses occurring within the subregion are birdwatching, climbing, equestrian rides, 

hiking, target shooting, hunting, and rockhounding. The Kerncrest Audubon Society participates 

in regular bird censuses of Indian Joe Canyon and the Great Falls Basin is popular with 

backpackers, including the Sierra Club and Desert Survivors. 

R.2.14 Ord Subregion 

General Description: The Ord subregion, located southeast of Barstow, California, is 

defined by State Highway 247 on the west, the U.S. Marine Corps Firing Range on the north, 

Camp Rock Road on the east, and greater Lucerne Valley on the south. The Newberry 
Appendices 

Mountains Wilderness lies immediately to the northeast, the Johnson Valley and Stoddard 

Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Areas to the southeast and northwest respectively, and private land 

of Lucerne Valley to the south. 

Apart from the portion north of Power Line Road and a small portion to the south, the 

subregion consists of the BLM’s Ord Mountain Route Designation Pilot Planning Unit. The 

Planning Unit consists of approximately 126,000 acres, located between the Stoddard Valley and 

Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Areas. As such, it is a popular connector between the two. 

In early 1995, the Ord Mountain Pilot Project was initiated as an opportunity to conduct OHV 

route planning and vehicle access planning for the West Mojave Plan. 

The subregion includes three important desert peaks in close proximity to one another, 

Ord Mountain, East Ord Mountain, and West Ord Mountain; as well as Daggett Ridge and 

portions of East Stoddard Valley and North Lucerne Valley. Elevations in the area range from 

2,500 feet to 6,309 feet above sea level. 

The Ord Mountain area consists of valleys, rolling and jagged hills, sloping bajadas, 

braided washes, and barren playas. 

The creosote brush scrub plant community is the dominant vegetative assemblage found within 

the subregion. Plant species within this community include creosotebush, burrobush, Mormon 

tea, allscale saltbush, golden cholla, and beavertail cactus. A BLM sensitive species, the Mojave 

monkeyflower, is found here. 

Reptile fauna found in the area include desert tortoise, desert banded gecko, desert 

horned lizard, rosy boa, and Mojave rattlesnake. Notable avian species include golden eagle, 

prairie falcon, roadrunner, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike. Mammalian fauna include 

desert woodrat, antelope ground squirrel, black-tailed jackrabbit, kit fox, and coyote. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are cattle grazing, powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, 

rockhounding, rock climbing, communication sites, camping, hiking, wildlife habitat, mining 

and recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. 

The Ord Planning Unit consists of a precise vehicle network, restricting access to only 

essential routes of travel; all other historical routes are either closed or are limited to access by 

certain individuals for specific reasons, such as maintenance crews and ranch operators. 

The recommended route network provides for vehicle access to the following features. 

Stoddard Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area, to the west, and Johnson Valley Off-Highway 

Vehicle Area, to the southeast. In addition to these, the historic Ord Mountain Road and the 

Daggett Wash Road are accessible by four-wheel-drive vehicles and motorcycles. Mining 

operators used these two historic roads to haul their ore to the railhead in Daggett, California. 

Hercules Rock, on the south of the subregion, is a popular destination for rock climbers. 

In addition, the network provides for access to the boundary of the Newberry Mountains 
Appendices 

wilderness, to the east; vehicular travel is not permitted within wilderness, but hiking, camping, 

and horseback riding are encouraged. 

Many visitors to this area take advantage of the many hunting opportunities for small 

game birds found here. Hunting is enhanced in the region by a variety of water sources to be 

found here, including springs and guzzlers. 

The recommended route network also provides access to various blocks of non-federal 

land within the area. 

R.2.15 Pinto Subregion 

General Description: The Pinto Mountain subregion, located immediately southeast of 

Twentynine Palms and north of Joshua Tree National Park, is defined by State Highway 62 to 

the north, and Joshua Tree National Park, to the east, west, and south. 

The smaller, north-south-trending Twentynine Palms Mountains are located in the 

western portion of the region and the larger, east-west-trending Pinto Mountains cover its 

southern half. Historic mines associated with the Old Dale Mining District cover the eastern half 

of the area. Sand dunes are found to the northeast of the subregion, the greater part of which is 

within the Sheephole Valley Wilderness. The Bullion Mountains are located directly to the 

north. 

Most of the area is dominated by steep but generally routed hills, vegetated with the 

creosote bush scrub community. Vegetation becomes more diverse in the washes, consisting of 

smoke tree, catclaw and desert willow. Stands of Mojave yucca exist within many of the interior 

valleys. Elevations range from 1,300 to 4,500 feet. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in the area are cattle grazing, powerline and pipeline rights-of-way, 

wildlife habitat, rockhounding, mining and recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway 

vehicle use restricted to open routes of travel. 

Some of the designated routes provide access to each block of non-federal land within the 

area. 

R.2.16 Red Mountain Subregion 

General Description: The Red Mountain subregion, located approximately 20 miles 

southeast of Ridgecrest, is defined by U.S. Highway 395 and the Kern County line on the west; 

the Spangler Hills Off-Highway Vehicle Management Area on the north; the China Lake Naval 

Air Weapons Station B Range on the east; and the Barstow Field Office management boundary 

on the south. 120,199 acres in size, the area is 82% (98,043 acres) Federal land managed by the 

BLM and 18% (22,156 acres) private and State land. Numerous landowners own the private 

lands. The subregion borders the Golden Valley and Grass Valley wilderness areas. 
Appendices 

Elevations in the subregion range from 2,568 feet on the Cuddeback Playa to 5,260 feet 

on Red Mountain. Creosote bush and Mojave saltbush are the predominant plant communities in 

the lowlands, with cheesebush-dominated plant communities found in the washes, remnant 

stands of native perennial bunch grasses on the mountaintops and scattered Joshua tree 

woodland. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: The subregion is used for commercial 

4-wheel drive and dual sport motorcycle tours and competitive equestrian endurance rides. 

Further, additional activities in the subregion include commercial filming, mineral exploration, 

utility corridor maintenance, recreational vehicle touring/sightseeing, dispersed hiking and 

camping, and upland game bird hunting. 

Superior Valley, Monolith Cantil, Lava Mountains, and Pilot Knob are grazing 

allotments located within the subregion. The first three are ephemeral sheep allotments, and the 

Pilot Knob Allotment is an ephemeral cattle allotment, which is currently leased to the Desert 

Tortoise Preserve Committee. Sheep grazing is not currently allowed in the majority of tortoise 

critical habitat. 

The BLM’s mineral resource potential classification shows a moderate potential for the 

occurrence of placer gold deposits in the Randsburg and Atolia mining districts. A high 

potential for lode and placer gold occurs immediately outside the south boundary of the 

subregion. There are no active mining operations in the Red Mountain Subregion based on 

reports from the California Division of Mines and Geology filed under the California Surface 

Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). BLM records show, as of March 2001, there 

are eight lode-mining claims north and west of Randsburg, and two lode claims located on some 

older workings on a small hill west of the Black Hills. 

There are approximately 246 placer mining claims in the subregion. The placer claims 

are clustered in the center of the subregion, with dense clusters in the Atolia mining district and 

at the Summit Diggings area south of the Summit Range. Small clusters of placer claims are 

also located in the center of the subregion near Blackhawk Well. Most of the placer mining 

claims are association placers, each aggregating about 160 acres. As of March 2001, there were 

five plans of operation and eleven notice level operations authorized by BLM in the subregion 

pursuant to 43 CFR 3809. Most were approved for small placer operations in the Summit 

Diggings area or assessment work in the remaining area of the subregion. 

A utility corridor crosses the western portion of the subregion, running parallel to 

Highway 395. The corridor contains existing facilities. 

Various opportunities for outdoor recreation are present in the subregion. Some of the 

best upland game bird hunting in the eastern Kern and San Bernardino Counties is available in 

the Lava Mountains, Red Mountain and Blackwater Well areas. During years when winter 

rainfall is suitable, seasonal wildflower displays are exceptional in the Golden Valley and Grass 
Appendices 

Valley areas. Red Mountain Spring (formerly called Squaw Spring) and Steam Well are two 

cultural heritage sites in the subregion. Both of these sites contain rock art. A route proposed 

for the California Statewide Discovery Trail crosses from south to north. 

Other recreational opportunities and experiences available in the Red Mountain 

subregion include dispersed camping; four wheel drive and motorcycle touring; target shooting; 

rock hounding; hiking in the Golden Valley wilderness and climbing Red Mountain; mountain 

biking and equestrian recreation; and land sailing on Cuddeback Dry Lake. Several outfitters 

also use the area for recreational activities operated under recreation use permits including 

equestrian endurance rides, dual sport events and jeep tours. 

Commercial filming in the subregion occurs primarily on \Cuddeback Dry Lake where an 

average of 15 permits a year is issued for advertising and motion picture projects. 

R.2.17 Ridgecrest Subregion 

General description: The Ridgecrest subregion, located south and east of the city of 

Ridgecrest, is defined by U.S. Highway 395 and the boundary of the Spangler Hills Open Area 

on the south; the city of Ridgecrest and the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station on the north 

and west; and BLM Route RM 138 on the east. 22,465 acres in size, the area is 94% (21,115 

acres) Federal land managed by the BLM and 6% (1,350 acres) private land. Numerous 

landowners own the private lands. 

The general region consists of the rolling Rademacher and Spangler Hills. Sloping 

bajadas, braided washes, and narrow canyons characterize the general topography. Elevations 

range from 1,900 feet at the northeastern point of the subregion, to over 3,400 feet above sea 

level in the hills directly south of the City of Ridgecrest in the western portion of the subregion. 

Creosote bush scrub is the predominant plant community in the subregion, with cheesebushdominated plant communities found in the washes, remnant stands of native perennial bunch 

grasses on the mountain tops and scattered Joshua trees. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: The subregion contains two livestock 

grazing allotments. The Spangler Hills Allotment is located in the eastern-most portion of the 

subregion. This allotment is identified by the 1980 Desert Plan as an ephemeral allotment 

requiring a minimum of 200 pounds of dry vegetation per acre before the livestock are turned out 

to graze. The Cantil Common Allotment, an ephemeral grazing allotment, covers the remainder 

of the subregion. Sheep grazing occurs in the area in the spring when the annual vegetation 

meets the minimum requirements. The northern portion of the subregion contains a portion of the 

Centennial Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area. 

The BLM’s Mineral Resource Potential Classification identifies most of the subregion as 

having a moderate potential for the occurrence of placer and lode gold deposits, with a high 

potential for placer, principally hydrothermal lode gold deposits, identified in the western area of 

the subregion (Rademacher Mining District). In addition, there is a high potential for 
Appendices 

construction aggregates (sand and gravel) in the western portion of the subregion, with 

aggregates mined at the Bowman and Inyokern pits outside the western boundary. There are no 

active mining operations in the subregion filed under the California Surface Mining and 

Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA), based on reports from the California Division of Mines and 

Geology. Some interest has been expressed in the far western portion of the subregion as 

evidenced through mining claim locations. BLM records show, as of March 2001, that there are 

six lode-mining claims and six placer mining claims in this portion of the subregion in the 

Rademacher Hills. There is one plan of operation and one pending (April 2001) notice level 

operation in the Rademacher Hills area of the subregion filed pursuant to the regulations at 43 

CFR 3809. There are no aggregate resources being developed within the subregion, and the 

subregion is not valuable, prospectively or otherwise, for Leasing Act minerals.

A utility corridor crosses the northern portion of the subregion, in an east/west direction. 

This corridor contains existing facilities. 

The Ridgecrest Subregion supports a wide variety of recreation opportunities and 

experiences including, but not limited to, four wheel drive and motorcycle touring, hunting and 

target shooting, paintball, stargazing, photography, exploring mining sites, social gatherings, 

rockhounding, hiking and running, limited dispersed camping, mountain biking and equestrian 

recreation.

The most prominent recreation feature in the subregion is the Rademacher Hills, located 

south of the City of Ridgecrest. The Rademacher Hills offer a 12.5-mile network of trails open 

to hiking, jogging, horseback riding and mountain biking. This area forms the backdrop for the 

City of Ridgecrest and provides an urban-public land interface that is fast becoming a popular 

recreation site for local residents. Motorized trails through the Rademacher Hills provide access 

from the City of Ridgecrest to the 57,000 acre Spangler Hills OHV Area. A link to the 

Statewide Motorized Discovery Trail is proposed to connect the trail to the City of Ridgecrest 

through the Rademacher Hills. 

The subregion is also used by a variety of recreation permit holders who use the public 

lands for mountain bike races, ultra-marathon running events, high school cross country running 

competitions, equestrian trail rides and endurance events, dual sport motorcycle tours, jeep tours, 

and other activities.

The area is used for commercial 4-wheel drive and dual sport motorcycle tours and 

competitive equestrian endurance and mountain bike events. 

R.2.18 Sleeping Beauty Subregion 

General Description: The Sleeping Beauty subregion, located approximately 3 miles 

west of Ludlow, California, is defined by Interstate-40 on the south by the northern edge of the 

public land Multiple Use Class L (limited) boundary on the north 
Appendices 

The northern half of the subregion includes Sleeping Beauty Mountain, a part of the 

southern Cady Mountains. The southern half is a large, sweeping bajada sloping southward to 

Interstate 40. The larger washes draining the southern Cady Mountains support disjunctr 

occurrences of white-margined beardtongue, a rare plant. Elevations within the subregion range 

from 1,300 to 3,980 feet. Access to this subregion is generally from Interstate 40, via Lavic offramp.

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and 

resource uses occurring in this subregion are cattle grazing, power line and pipeline rights-ofway, wildlife habitat, hiking and camping, recreational prospecting and mining, vehicle touring, 

utility corridor maintenance, and mineral exploration. 

R.2.19 South Searles Subregion 

General Description: The South Searles subregion, is located approximately 8 miles 

northeast of Ridgecrest, immediately north of Randsburg Wash Road and the Spangler Hills 

Open Area. Randsburg Wash Road defines the subregion on the south, the China Lake Naval 

Air Weapons Station (NAWS) boundaries on both its east and west sides, and by the Inyo-Kern 

County line on the north. Numerous landowners own the private lands. The Trona Pinnacles 

National Natural Landmark and ACEC is surrounded by the subregion on all four sides. 

The general region consists of the lower part of Searles Valley surrounding Searles Lake 

It is encircled by two prominent mountain ranges, the Argus and Slates, on the west and east, and 

by the Spangler Hills on the south. The area abuts the upper half of Searles Valley above Searles 

Lake to the north - an area covered by the North Searles Subregion. The area is made up almost 

entirely of gravel to sandy to silty lakebed sediments. Elevations within this subregion are 

generally quite low, keeping to within 1600-2500 feet on the valley floor, to more than 2800 feet 

at selected high points in the Argus Range. Visitation is generally high, particularly in cooler, 

winter months, due to the presence of the Trona Pinnacles, and the subregion’s general location 

along a highway to Death Valley National Park (Highway 178) and close proximity to the 

communities of Trona and Ridgecrest. Mojave saltbush and creosote bush scrub are the 

predominant plant communities on the valley floor, with rabbitbrush dominating plant 

communities in upper elevation washes. 

Access to this subregion is primarily from Highway 178 and its Trona-Wildrose 

extension. The subregion can also be accessed from the Randsburg-Wash road, north of the 

Spangler Hills Open Area. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: In general, the area absorbs a lot of 

casual OHV recreational use involving dune buggies, quads, and motorcycles. Most of these 

users are local residents. They come from Trona and the associated communities of West End, 

Argus, and Pioneer Point, or from Homewood Canyon. Some gem and mineral collecting also 

occurs, primarily in the foothills of the Argus Range on the western edge of the subregion. In 

October, the Searles Valley Gem and Mineral Society put on a Gem and Mineral Show. The 
Appendices 

subregion is also used for interpretative museum and commercial 4-wheel drive, dual sport 

motorcycle and equestrian tours. 

Vehicles are permitted to pull off within 300 feet of a route to make camp in the 

subregion, except in the vicinity of the Pinnacles where visitors are asked to camp only in 

already impacted sites. Laws and regulations prohibit camping or staying within 200 yards of 

waters, which includes the natural seeps and springs in the Argus Range. Currently, all access 

routes on public land in this subregion comply with applicable law. 

Most trails in the subregion are full-size 4x4 as opposed to quad or single-track routes, 

which exist only in the extreme southwestern corner of the subregion. While some staging areas 

off of Highway 178 exist, most off-road vehicle enthusiasts probably stage from campsites 

within the Trona Pinnacles or from various campsites within the Spangler Open Area just outside 

the subregion. Local people most likely enter this area directly from their homes in West End, 

South Trona, and Argus. For access to good riding areas, they must cross highway 178, 

traveling approximately 7 miles south of town to reach the Pinnacles or more than 12 miles to 

reach the Spangler Open Area. 

The area offers very few opportunities for backcountry touring and sightseeing outside of 

the Trona Pinnacles National Natural Landmark. Climbers have not been observed in great 

numbers within the subregion. Equestrian use is tied to spring sources or in the case of 

organized, commercial and/or competitive events to regular vehicle routes for staging the 

necessary water and periodic veterinarian checks. Most people who hike in the area are locals 

who are simply exploring their own backyards. 

Access to hunting areas is limited within the subregion. Hunting thus requires a good 

deal of hiking in the subregion. Hunters are known to pursue chukar over steep rocky terrain for 

long distances. Chukar and California quail are the primary targets although jackrabbits and 

mourning dove are hunted as well. 

Non-motorized trails for mountain bikers do not exist in the area. However, mountain 

biking is popular along Highway 178 and with campers at the Pinnacles. 

Rockhounding occurs throughout the area, in specific localities, mostly in the foothills of 

the Argus and Slate Ranges. During October’s Gem and Mineral Show, the Searles Valley Gem 

and Mineral Society offers information about and several tours to various collecting and other 

sites of local interest in the valley. 

Target shooting occurs throughout the area and is generally permitted wherever the 

terrain offers a safe backstop. However, the ACEC Plan for The Trona Pinnacles specifically 

prohibits target shooting anywhere within the vicinity of the National Landmark. 

R.2.20 Superior Subregion 
Appendices 

General Description: The Superior subregion, located north of Barstow, is bounded by 

Fort Irwin (National Training Center) and China Lake Naval Weapons Center on the north, the 

Fremont subregion and Black Mountain Wilderness on the west, and private lands and 

Interstate-15 on the south. The subregion is 271,528 acres in size, with 192,877 acres (72 

percent) of Federal land managed by the BLM, and approximately 77,359 acres (28 percent) 

either private or State owned land. The major private landowner is the Catellus Development 

Corporation. 

The Superior subregion encompasses numerous features that include Mount General, the 

Waterman Hills, Mud Hills, Fossil Canyon, Owl Canyon, and the Inscription Canyon area, 

known for its great quantity of rock art. The northern portion of the Superior subregion includes 

the Superior Valley, an area characterized by low-lying, flat open areas containing two dry lakes: 

an unnamed, small dry lake at the western edge and the larger Superior Dry Lake at the eastern 

boundary. The central portion of the subregion includes the Black Mountain Lava Flows, Lane 

Mountain, and the Paradise Range. 

The Rainbow Basin, located in the south-central portion of the subregion, is an ACEC 

and is not included in the Superior subregion. Access to areas within the Rainbow Basin (which 

include the Mud Hills, Fossil Canyon, Owl Canyon campground, and the Rainbow Basin 

National Natural Landmark) is obtained via the Superior subregion. The southern portion of the 

subregion encompasses Mud-Water Valley, Waterman Hills, and outlying areas of Barstow. 

Elevations range from approximately 2000 feet in the southeast to 4,522 feet at the peak of Lane 

Mountain in the central-eastern portion of the subregion. 

Vegetation in the northern portion of the subregion is similar to other areas in the West 

Mojave. In the Lane Mountain area, vegetation consists of creosote/mixed desert scrub 

association with scattered Joshua Trees and golden cholla. The Paradise Range in the northeast 

include a series of volcanic, rocky hills that exhibit little vegetation on the slopes, with the 

exception of scattered creosote. Vegetation is similarly sparse within the Black Mountain Lava 

Flows at the central portion of the subregion. The vegetative cover in the southern portion of the 

subregion generally is sparse, and includes occasional Joshua Trees. 

The Superior subregion is criss-crossed by a number of roads, mainly unimproved. 

Access from population centers to the Superior Valley in the north is provided via Copper City 

Road, an improved road via Fort Irwin Road, and a paved highway. Due to these access routes, 

the Superior Valley is easily reached, as demonstrated by the noticeable presence of recreational 

visitors in this portion of the subregion. Access to the subregion from the south is obtained from 

Interstate 15, State Route 58, and Irwin Road. 

Recreation Activities/Resource Uses Overview: Primary recreation activities and other 

resource uses occurring in the subregion are rockhounding, camping, picnicking, powerline and 

pipeline rights-of-way, mining and recreational mining, hunting, and off-highway vehicle use. 

Excellent opportunities for both hiking and backpacking exist in the Black Mountains, 
Appendices 

Opal Mountains, and Calico Mountains. Major activities include camping, rockhounding, 

hunting, and motorcycle free play. The hard, smooth surfaces of two dry lakes in the Superior 

Valley provide excellent conditions for land sailing. The OHV community also utilizes this 

portion of the subregion, although the flat terrain is less than ideal for their activities. 

The suggested vehicle route network provides the recreational OHV enthusiast an 

expansive variety of opportunities from which to choose. Routes vary from long, flat graded 

utility corridor routes or the flats of Superior Valley; technical jeep routes in the Calico 

Mountains; technical single-track motorcycle routes in the Mud Hills; lengthy remote touring 

routes around the Black Mountain wilderness or through the Grass Valley wilderness corridor; 

short quickly accessible routes into the Mitchell Range or Waterman Hills; and those that 

provide a loop opportunity to those that are "dead-ends". 

Additionally, the suggested route network provides access to a variety of destinations 

ranging from historic mining sites (e.g. Calico Mountains), prehistoric cultural zones (e.g. 

Inscription Canyon), upland springs (e.g. Sweet Water Spring), geologically unusual areas (e.g. 

Rainbow Basin), rock-hounding areas (e.g. Opal Mountain), recreational mining (e.g. Coolgardie 

area); and mountain bike recreation throughout the subregion. 

R.3 ROUTE DESIGNATION MAPS 

 Maps of the route network can be found on the attached compact disk (CD Rom). Maps 

are full color, 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic quads; where applicable, the route number is 

attached for easy cross-referencing to the tables presented in Section R.5. Maps can be viewed 

using the Adobe reader on your home or local library computer. You will find that this will 

enable you to view any section of the route network at a variety of scales, and to print your own 

maps from the attached files. Subregion and motorized access zone boundaries are indicated. 

 There are two complete sets of maps on the CD Rom, each consisting of approximately 

90 quads. One set is for the Proposed Action (Alternative A) and the other set is for the No 

Action alternative (Alternative G). Each set presents a complete set of quads for all of the public 

lands within the western Mojave Desert. Maps are numbered sequentially. Thus, proposed 

action map 25 can be found in the file labeled “FEIS_pr_25.pdf”, while No Action Alternative 

map 44 can be found in the file labeled “6.30.03_44.pdf”. 

Please note that two index maps are provided. Each index map presents a map of the 

western Mojave Desert, together with the location of each numerically labeled quad map. The 

proposed action index map is labeled “FEIS_pr_index_map.pdf”, while the No Action 

Alternative index map is labeled “6.30.03_index_map.pdf”. Also note that a composite map for 

the proposed Juniper subregion is provided, labeled “FEIS_pr_juniper.pdf”. 

R.4 DECISION TREE 

 The route designation decision tree is presented on the next page, followed by tables 
Appendices 

showing changes from the draft West Mojave Plan and EIR/S. 

R.5 ROUTE DESIGNATION TABLES 

 The tables presented on the following pages address each of the changes made in the 

route network from the draft West Mojave Plan and EIR/S. The most extensive changes were 

made in the Juniper subregion. The tables identify, for each route, the following: 

• The route subregion, 

• The route number, 

• The original decision tree code (when the decision tree process was applied to a 

particular route, and the decision branch followed to its end, a distinctive code was 

assigned to that end point, allowing the documentation of the thought process that led to 

the final recommendation.) (some of these designations were changed in response to 

comments received on the draft West Mojave Plan and EIR/S), 

• Whether the route is recommended as open or closed, and 

• Reasons for the open or closed recommendation. 
Appendices 

Route Designation Decision Tree 

Yes No 

2. Does the route impact sensitive species 

or occupied habitat of sensitive species? 

3. .Does the route provide commercial, 

administrative or private land access?

Yes No Yes No 

4. Is there an alternative route(s) that could 

serve the same purpose and reduce impacts to 

sensitive species or their habitat?

Open 

PO-1 

*1

Yes No 

Designate route as limited, develop 

a new route or portion thereof that 

avoids or mitigates the impact PC-1

Open

PO-2

*1

5. Is route closure likely to 

lead to increased conservation 

of sensitive species?

6. Is route closure likely to lead 

to increased conservation of 

sensitive species?

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

9. Does this route 

contribute to recreational 

opportunities, dispersed 

use (i.e. thereby reducing 

impacts, e.g. soil erosion), 

connectivity, public safety, 

etc.? 

7. Does most of the route 

impact occupied habitat of 

sensitive species? 

8. Would this route closure mitigate other 

cumulative habitat impacts and/or help 

maintain more/larger contiguous blocks 

of habitat which might aid in the 

recovery of sensitive species? 

10. Would this route 

closure mitigate other 

cumulative habitat 

impacts and/or help 

maintain more/larger 

contiguous blocks of 

habitat which might aid 

in the recovery of 

sensitive species? 

Yes No Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

11. Are the 

commercial or 

private uses of this 

route adequately 

met by another 

route(s) that avoid 

or minimize the 

impact to occupied 

habitat of sensitive 

species? 

Open 

SO-1 

*1

12. Does this route 

contribute to 

recreational 

opportunities, 

dispersed use (i.e. 

thereby reducing 

impacts, e.g. soil 

erosion), 

connectivity, public 

safety, etc.?

Open

SO-2

*1

13. Is this 

contribution 

already provided 

for by other routes 

within the 

Motorized Access 

Zone? 

Closed 

SC-1 

*1

14. Does this route 

contribute to recreational 

opportunities, dispersed 

use (i.e. thereby reducing 

impacts, e.g. soil erosion), 

connectivity, public safety, 

etc.? 

Yes 

No Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Close 

SC-2 

*1

Open 

SO-4 

*1

Close

SC-3 

*1

Close

SC-4 

*1

Close

SC-5 

*1

Open

SO-5

*1

15. Is this contribution 

already provided for by 

other routes within the 

Motorized Access Zone? 

16. Is this contribution already 

provided for by other routes 

within the Motorized Access 

Zone?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Close 

SC-6 

*1

Open 

SO-6 

*1

Close 

SC-7 

*1

Open

SO-7

*1

Open

S0-3 

*1

1. Is the route a commercial right-of-way, officially recognized or maintained or serve as a regional route that serves more than on 

sub-region or represents a principal means of connectivity within a sub-region? 
Appendices 

West Mojave Route Designation Tree Footnotes 

1. Question 2: Evaluate and take into account: 

• both season and intensity of use as it relates to impacts to sensitive species or their 

habitat; 

• the number of sensitive species and/or the amount of sensitive habitat potentially 

impacted; 

• Other areas already designated or set aside or other measures that may be already 

contributing to the conservation of these species (e.g. Wilderness Areas and raptor nests, 

bat grates, etc.) 

2. Question 3: E.g. utility, military, mining, ranching facilities; monitoring sites; guzzlers). 

3. Questions 8, 10: I.e. Would this route closure likely lead to a reduction of those indirect 

impacts suspected of leading to a significant decline in habitat quality (e.g. litter, 

poaching, harassment, plinking, etc.) or lead to a decline in impacts that directly 

negatively impact sensitive species? 

4. Questions 11, 13, 15, 16: When evaluating the duplicity of this route take into 

consideration the quality of this route, particularly as it relates to public safety. 

5. *1: 

• Are there any other special circumstances that would warrant reconsideration? 

(e.g. unusual public safety issues, Section 106 considerations, current or future 

community growth/zoning issues, current or reasonably foreseeable land 

acquisitions or trades (e.g. for mitigation as part of this planning effort or by other 

resource organizations/agencies), special permits (e.g. Mining Plan of 

Operations), environmental benefits of a route (e.g. facilitating the maintenance of 

a guzzler), legal easements, user conflicts, neighboring uses, etc.). 

• Should a limited designation be used in lieu of either an open or closed 

designation in order to mitigate for impacts? 
Appendices 

Juniper Subregion Route Designation Table 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ1001 O PO2 Japatul Rd from A.V. to Powerline 

RJ1002 O SO7 Loop rt provides access to scenic views and hang gliding areas 

RJ1003 O SO7 MC access to JF area from residential area 

RJ1004 O PO2 Connection from 1001 to 1002 and quarry 

RJ1005 O SO5 MC rt will replace the use that was formerly on 1057 through Cottonwood Sp. 

RJ1006 O SO3 Access to overlook and camping 

RJ1007 O SO7 Provides access to hang gliding areas 

RJ1008 O SO7 Provides access to hang gliding areas 

RJ1009 O SO7 Provides access to hang gliding areas 

RJ1010 O SO7 Provides access to hang gliding areas 

RJ1011 O SO3 Spur rt provides access to mining area and camping 

RJ1012 O SO7 Spur rt provides access to Cottonwood Spr parking 

RJ1013 O SO7 Short connector improves accessibility of rt system 

RJ1014 C SC5 Parallel to 1002 

RJ1015 C SC5 Connector rt duplicates access provided by 1002 and 1004 

RJ1016 C SC5 Duplicate rt parallel to 1006 

RJ1017 C SC5 Duplicate rt parallel to 1005 and offers similar rec opp 

RJ1018 C SC5 Duplicate rt parallel to 1005 

RJ1019 O PO2 Powerline rd from Bowen Ranch to west 

RJ1020 C SC1 Parallel rt to 1019 and 2010 

RJ1021 C SC1 MC rt parallels Bowen Ranch Rd and promotes trespass on private property 

RJ1022 C SC1 Parallel MC provides no additional rec opp 

RJ1023 C SC1 MC rt promotes trespass onto private property 

RJ1024 C SC5 Unnecessary short rt connects parallel rts and crosses private land 

RJ1025 C SC5 Unnecessary short rt connects parallel open rts 

RJ1026 C SC1 

Rt proliferation behind fence in unstable soils. Provides no access or 

connectivity 

RJ1027 C SC1 

Rt proliferation behind fence in unstable soils. Provides no access or 

connectivity 

RJ1028 C SC1 Rt behind locked gate with no other access 

RJ1029 C SC1 

Rt proliferation behind fence in unstable soils. Provides no access or 

connectivity 

RJ1030 C SC1 Short rt from private land. Access provided by 1001 

RJ1031 C SC4 Short mc rt provides little rec opp 

RJ1032 C SC4 MC rt with similar access to 1003 

RJ1033 C SC4 Infrequently used mc rt onto private land 

RJ1034 C SC4 Provides similar access as 1003 

RJ1035 C SC4 Access is provided by rts 1001 and 1003. Erosion prone area 

RJ1036 C SC4 Short mc rt is redundant with 1001 

RJ1037 C SC4 Short mc rt is redundant with 1001 

RJ1038 C SC1 Dead end rt provides no apparent rec opp 

RJ1039 C SC5 Short secondary single track dead ends 
Appendices 

Juniper Subregion Route Designation Table (cont.) 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ1040 L NA Access to county water tank 

RJ1041 C SC7 Parallel to 1042 

RJ1042 O SO6 Provides scenic views along the length of the rt 

RJ1043 C SC5 Short, dead end rt provides little rec opp 

RJ1044 O SO2 Continuation of public rd to scenic view 

RJ1045 C SC5 Very short redundant rt 

RJ1046 C SC5 Short dead end rt parallel to a similar rt 

RJ1047 C SC5 Short dead end rt parallel to a similar rt 

RJ1048 C SC5 Short loop off 1011 provides little rec and no access 

RJ1049 L NA Access to private property 

RJ1050 L NA Access to guzzler 

RJ1052 C SC4 Gated rt to trespass dwelling 

RJ1053 O SO7 Series of short rts around quarry 

RJ1054 C SC1 Rt accesses Stone Spring. Foot access from nearby rt is possible 

RJ1055 C Rt does not exist 

RJ1056 O SO5 Rt will help preserve a single track network in this area 

RJ1057 O SO5 Part of MC network helps provide access from AV to FS 

RJ1058 C SC4 New rt endangers riparian areas, sensitive species, and cultural sites. 

RJ1059 O SO5 Part of MC network helps proved access from AV to FS 

RJ1060 C SC4 

Rt accesses Cottonwood Spring. Increased use or misuse of this rt would 

result in unacceptabl 

RJ2001 C SC1 Short cut MC route cuts corner on powerline road (1019) 

RJ2002 C SC4 

Rough light, infrequently used rd provides access off powerline road to hill 

climbs. 

RJ2003 O SO5 Route provides MC access between RJ1019 and RJ2004 

RJ2004 O SO7 Graded road provides access to scenic vista S of powerline road 

RJ2005 C SC1 MC Route in parallel to 2004 

RJ2006 C SC1 MC route is parallel to 2004, 5,7 and promotes access to a closed rd in SBNF 

RJ2007 C SC1 MC route is parallel to 2004,5,6 and promotes access to a closed rd in SBNF 

RJ2008 C SC1 Three short routes provide access to closed portion of SBNF 

RJ2009 C SC1 Short spur route leads to hill climb 

RJ2010 C SO5 Bowen Ranch Road 

RJ2011 C SC1 Short loop rt provides access to no rec opp and enters closed portion of SBNF 

RJ2012 C SC1 Short route provides access to Closed portion of SBNF 

RJ2013 C SC1 Short duplicative route 

RJ2014 C SC1 Duplicative route provides access to closed portion of SBNF 

RJ2015 O SO5 MC Route provides rec access to Warm Springs Parking Area. 

RJ2016 C SO5 

Long distance backcountry vehicle rt also provides vehicle access to the Warm 

Springs lower pa 

RJ2017 C SC1 Short short cut route 

RJ2018 C SC1 Short route provides access to two hill climb locations 

RJ2019 C SC1 Short cut route between 2024 and 2016 

RJ2020 C SC1 Cuts corner 

RJ2021 C SC7 Rt is parallel to major rt 2024 
Appendices 

Juniper Subregion Route Designation Table (cont.) 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ2023 O SO5 MC rt contributes to a larger single track network in the area 

RJ2024 O SO5 Rt provides connectivity through area 

RJ2025 O SO7 MC rt is redundant and unnecessary 

RJ2026 O SO5 Rt from Bowen Ranch to camping area 

RJ2027 C SC1 Access to closed FS land 

RJ2027 C SC1 Access to closed FS land 

RJ2028 O SO5 Access to cattle water at Round Mtn Spring 

RJ2029 O SO5 

Route provides MC access from Round Mtn Spring to RJ2031 and connectivity 

to route system 

RJ2030 O PO1 Loop through area provides private prop access and connectivity 

RJ2031 O SO5 MC rt provides large loop for rec 

RJ2032 C SC4 Leads to spring complex and private prop, dead ends 

RJ2033 C SC5 Rt cuts a corner short. Other access available 

RJ2033A C SC5 Rt cuts a corner short. Other access available 

RJ2034 C SC5 Parallel rt unnecessary 

RJ2035 C SC5 Rt cuts a corner short. Other access available 

RJ2036 O SO5 Provides connectivity through area for 4X4 vehicles 

RJ2037 C SC7 Rt complex is redundant with 2031/36 

RJ2038 C SC1 Rt dead ends and offers no apparent rec opp 

RJ2039 C SC4 MC rt leads onto private property 

RJ2040 C SC7 Rt dead ends on one side and leads to private property on other 

RJ2041 C SC4 

Rt to spring and riparian area. Parking area and trailhead should be est. on 

2030 

RJ2042 C SC4 Short loop route provides no unique rec experience 

RJ2043 C 

RJ2044 C SC7 Dead end MC rt 

RJ2045 O SO5 Rt provides connectivity to network between RJ2030 and Coxey Truck Trail 

RJ2046 C SC4 Rt does not provide unique rec exp or connectivity 

RJ2047 C SC4 Redundant with Coxey 

RJ2048 O SO5 Access to FS open rt 

RJ2049 O SO5 

Long distance backcountry vehicle rt also provides vehicle access to the Warm 

Springs lower parking lot 

RJ2050 C SC5 Short rt is redundant with 2024 

RJ2051 C SO5 Rec loop for vehicular touring 

RJ2052 C SC1 Dead end off of powerline rd 

RJ2053 L NA Access to powerline tower 

RJ2054 C SC4 Short redundant rt onto private property 

RJ2055 O SO5 Short dead end rt to scenic overlook 

RJ2056 O SO7 Both ends of rt on private proterty. Powerline access 

RJ2057 O 

RJ2058 C 

RJ2059 C 

RJ2060 C 
Appendices 

Juniper Subregion Route Designation Table (cont.) 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ2062 C SO5 

Long distance backcountry vehicle rt also provides vehicle access to the Warm 

Springs lower pa 

RJ2063 C SO5 Provides connectivity through area for 4X4 vehicles 

RJ2064 C SO5 

Long distance backcountry vehicle rt also provides vehicle access to the Warm 

Springs lower pa 

RJ2065 C 

RJ3001 O PO2 Coxey Truck Trail 

RJ3002 C PO2 

Powerline road will provides primary east/west access through front country 

area. Access rts t 

RJ3003 C SC1 

Secondary mc rt begins on private property N of powerline terminating under 

powerline. 

RJ3004 C SC1 

Shortcut rt leaves powerline at private property and re-enters public just before 

private property 

RJ3005 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3006 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3007 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3008 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3009 O SO5 Part of MC network provide connectivity in Maz 3 

RJ3010 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3011 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3012 O SO5 MC touring route begins on Coxey Truck Tr and ends at powerline. 

RJ3012A C SO5 Protection of riparian habitat 

RJ3013 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3014 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3015 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3016 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3017 C SO5 Dead end into closed route 

RJ3018 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3019 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3020 C SC1 Short MC routes is redundant with 3012 

RJ3021 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3022 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3023 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3024 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3025 O SC1 MC touring route. 

RJ3026 C SC1 MC route leads to the USFS in a closed area 

RJ3027 C SC1 MC route leads to the USFS in a closed area 

RJ3028 O SO5 MC route connects northern system with southern system. 

RJ3029 O SO5 Access to VP Mine 

RJ3030 O SO5 Rt provides unique rec opportunity 

RJ3031 C SC4 Infrequently used mc rt is parallel to 4002 

RJ3032 C SC1 Parallel rt to 3012 is unnecessary 

RJ3033 C SC5 Short loop off 3033 

RJ3034 O S07 Rt provides connectivity and mc rec opportunity 
Appendices 

Juniper Subregion Route Designation Table (cont.) 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ3035 C SC1 Rt would encourage unauthorized hillclimbs 

RJ3036 O SO7 Steep mc rt allows for access. MUST BE MONITORED FOR EROSION 

RJ3037 C SC1 Semi-hillclimb not on suitable soils 

RJ3038 C SC4 Similar rec opp provided on nearby rts 

RJ3039 C SC4 Rt accesses mine that is limited use 

RJ3040 C SC1 Short rt leads to other closed rts that access mine and springs 

RJ3041 C SC4 Rt is a short loop parallel to 3012 

RJ3042 C SC1 Unwanted rt through private property 

RJ3043 O SO7 Access to public lands for local residents 

RJ3044 C SC1 Rt provide no unique rec opp or connectivity. Cuts corner short 

RJ3045 C SC1 All rts that cut powerline rd short are unnecessary (9 rts) 

RJ3046 L NA Limited access to power lines 

RJ3047 L NA Rt is behind locked gate. Access to limited to claimholder 

RJ3048 L SC1 Rt begins on private prop and accesses county water tank 

RJ3049 C SC1 Rt begins on private prop and accesses county water tank 

RJ3050 C SC4 Rt is redundant with open rt 3034 

RJ3051 C SC1 Rt begins on private property 

RJ3052 C SC1 Rt begins on private property 

RJ3053 C SC1 Rt begins on private property 

RJ3054 C SC1 Secondary motorcycle route begins on private property north of powerline 

RJ3055 C SC2 Secondary motorcycle route begins on private property north of powerline 

RJ3056 C SC1 Rt begins on private property 

RJ3057 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3058 O SO5 Part of MC network provide connectivity in Maz 3 

RJ3059 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3060 O SO5 Part of MC network provide connectivity in Maz 3 

RJ3061 O SO5 Connects MC network to primary route network 

RJ3062 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3063 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3064 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3065 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ3066 C SC1 MC route is closed to protect unique riparian values. 

RJ4001 O PO1 Grapevine Cyn Rd. Provides access to comm. sites and FS land 

RJ4002 O SO5 Provides rec connection to MAZ 3 (upper Rattlesnake area) 

RJ4004 C SC1 Grapevine Canyon trailhead, closed after parking area 

RJ4005 C SC1 Short rt is parallel and redundant to 4001 

RJ4006 C SC4 Short mc rt leads to hillclimbs 

RJ4007 C SC4 Rt up drainage has no rec opp; dead end 

RJ4008 O SO5 Leads to scenic overlook 

RJ4009 C SC4 MC rt is parallel and redundant to 4001 

RJ4010 C SC4 Steep and eroded rt leads into sensitive riparian habitat 
Appendices 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comments 

RJ4011 C SC1 Dead end rt leads to hill climbs 

RJ4012 C SC1 Short rt offers no unique rec opp 

RJ4014 C SC4 Rt shortcuts 4001 

RJ4015 C SC4 Rt is parallel to 4001 and reaches hilltops that can easily be reached on foot 

RJ4016 C SC1 Minute two pronged rt dead ends 

RJ4017 C SC4 Rt cuts the corner of 4019 and 4023 

RJ4018 C SC1 Rt is impassible after short distance 

RJ4019 O SO5 Leads to scenic overlook 

RJ4020 C SC4 Impassible mc rt leads into Grapevine Cyn and is on unstable soil 

RJ4021 C SC1 Minute rt shortcuts corner 

RJ4022 C SC4 Rt dead ends quickly and offers no apparent rec opp 

RJ4023 O SO5 Rt provides access to scenic drive and overlook 

RJ4024 C SC4 Enters USFS land in an unauthorized location 

RJ4025 C SC1 Accesses spring with riparian habitat 

RJ4026 C SC4 Access is provided by other nearby rts 

RJ4027 C SC4 Rt access springs with riparian habitat 

RJ4028 C SC1 Short connector rt is unnecessary 

RJ4029 O SO5 Rt provides access from private land 

RJ4030 O PO1 Paved road access large mine 

RJ4031 C 

RJ4032 C SC4 Access is provided by other nearby rts. Near cultural areas 

RJ4033 O SO5 Tech 4WD rt provide scenic rec opp 

RJ4034 C SC4 Rt is redundant with 4033 

RJ4035 C SC4 Short rt accesses spring 

RJ4036 C SC4 Enters USFS land in an unauthorized location 

RJ4037 C SC4 Enters USFS land in an unauthorized location 

RJ4038 C SC4 Tech 4WD rt dead ends 

RJ4039 C SC4 Enters USFS land in an unauthorized location 

RJ4040 O SO5 Provides rec access from private land 

RJ4041 O SO5 Scenic driving rt 

RJ4042 O SO1 Access to private land 

RJ4043 C SC4 Enters private land at unwanted location through unstable soils (hillclimb) 

 
Appendices 

Coyote, Fremont, Red Mountain and Superior Subregions 

Route Designation Table 

Routes Changed from Draft Plan and EIR/S 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comment (Reason for Change) 

C1072 0 SO4 Connector route serving BLM and private land. 

F2053 C SO5 Response to 190-SS 

RM1005 C SO3 Redundant and ends at a closed gate. 

RM1021A C SO7 Redundant routes 

RM1069A C PO2 Redundant route 

RM1127 C SO5 Redundant route, partly in a wash 

RM1206 C SO7 Redundant route 

RM1215 C SO7 Redundant route, high TCS area 

RM1241A C SO5 redundant; formerly RM1241 

RM1263 C SO7 Redundant route 

RM1337 C SO5 Redundant route, partly in a wash 

RM1339 C SO7 Redundant route 

RM2002 C SO7 Redundant, ends in wilderness, lightly used 

RM2005 C SO7 Redundant, ends in wilderness, lightly used 

RM2006 C SO7 Redundant, ends in wilderness, lightly used 

RM2007 C SO7 Barely there (not a route) 

RM2016 C SO4 Redundant route 

RM2018G C PO2 Redundant route 

RM2034 C SO7 Not really a route 

RM2035 O SO4 Recreation opportunity 

RM2047A C SO5 High TCS, sensitive cultural area 

RM2047C C SO7 High TCS, sensitive cultural area 

RM2048 C SO5 Redundant route 

RM2049 C SO7 High TCS, redundant to RM2047 

RM2051 C SO7 Access to culturally sensitive area (National Register D 

RM2051B C SO7 High TCS, sensitive cultural area 

RM2051C C SO7 Access to culturally sensitive area (National Register D 

RM2051D C SO7 Access to culturally sensitive area (National Register D 

RM2052 C SO5 Redundant route 

RM2056 C SO7 Not really a route, on fall line of hill 

RM2056A C SO7 Not really a route, on fall line of hill 

RM2067 C SO3 Dead end route 

RM2080 C SO5 Lightly used; high TCS area 

RM2080A C SO5 Lightly used; high TCS area 

RM2080B C SO5 Lightly used; high TCS area 

RM2080C C SO5 Lightly used; high TCS area 

RM2135 C SO7 

RM2137 C SO7 

RM2158C C SO5 Dead end into Closed route 

RM3168 O SO5 Important connectivity 

RM3190 O SO5 Important connector route 
Appendices 

Route 

Number Designation 

Original 

Decision 

Tree Comment (Reason for Change) 

RM3250 O SO5 Good connectivity 

RM6123 O SC5 Offers loop touring opportunity 

SU3084A C SO4 LMM habitat 

SU5023 C SO4 LMM habitat 

SU5042 C SO7 LMM habitat; response to 190 

SU5048 C SO7 LMM habitat; response to 190 

SU5061 C SO7 LMM habitat; response to 190 

SU5071A C SO7 LMM habitat 

SU5072 A C SO7 LMM habitat, no connectivity 

SU5073 A C SO7 LMM habitat 

SU5076 A C SO7 LMM habitat 

SU5077 C SO7 LMM habitat 

SU5077 A L SO7 LMM habitat, mining access 

SU5096 C SO4 LMM habitat; other access to 

SU5200 L SO5 LMM habitat, access to mining 

SU5200 A C SO5 LMM habitat 
Appendices 

Routes Outside Subregions 

Route Designation Table 

Routes Changed from Draft Plan and EIR/S 

Route 

Number Designation Comment (Reason for Change) 

U C Carb. ACEC; changed from Open 

0 (Trona 

area) L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Public 

AM12 L 

AM15 L 

AM17 L 

AM19 O 

AM20 O Utility road 

AM3 L 

AM8 L 

C-1 O Enhanced loop touring opportunities 

C-3 O Enhanced loop touring opportunities 

C-4 O Enhanced loop touring opportunities 

C-5 O Enhanced loop touring opportunities 

C-6 O Enhanced loop touring opportunities 

CS1001 O Provides access from Trona to Spangler Open 

CS1002 O Provides access between railway and borrow pit 

CS1002A O Provides access between railway and borrow pit 

MP0430 L allows access to claims 

MP091 C Occupied habitat for Little SB Mtns. Gilia; 

MP2021 L Habitat for Little SB Mtns. Gilia 

MP232 L Barstow Field Office request 

MP363 C Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP371 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3710 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3712 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3713 C Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3714 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3716 C Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3720 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3721 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3722 C Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3723 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP3724 C Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP373 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP441 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP443 L Carb. ACEC; formerly Open 

MP455 O BFO request 

MP456 O BFO request 
Appendices 

Route 

Number Designation Comment (Reason for Change) 

NS1001 L Route serves active permitted mines 

RM01158 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM01159 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Public 

RM01161 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM01162 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02130 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02131 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02132 O Provides mining access 

RM02160 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02163 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02164 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02165 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02166 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02167 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02167 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02168 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM02169 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM03147 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM03151 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM03152 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly OPen 

RM04155 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly OPen 

RM06174 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM06176 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM06177 L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

RM1116 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM1117 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM11210 C Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM1122 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM118 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM1272 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6123 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6124 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6125 C Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6126 O Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6127 C optional - offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6128 C optional - offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6129 C optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6130 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6131 C Offers loop touring opportunity 

RM6132 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6133 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6134 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RM6271 C Optional loop touring opportunity 

RMO1161 U Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Public 

RMO8229 O 

SV0610 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV0611 C Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 
Appendices 

Route 

Number Designation Comment (Reason for Change) 

SV0621 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV0622 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV0623 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV063 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV065 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV069 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SV069 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

SVO6022 L Carbonate habitat; formerly Open 

UK C BFO request 

UK (Trona 

area) L On IMCC Mining Area; formerly Public 

UK(Trona 

area) L Part of IMCC Mining Area; formerly Open 

 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX S 

CARBONATE HABITAT RECLAMATION 

AND REVEGETATION STANDARDS

The Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy is Provided on the CD Included with 

the Proposed West Mojave Plan and Final EIR/S 
Appendices 
Appendices 

Guidelines and Success Criteria for Revegetation and Carbonate Plant Introductions 

The following guidelines and success criteria have been developed to provide consistency in 

revegetating lands disturbed by mining activities in carbonate habitat within the Carbonate 

Habitat Management Zone. The intent is to provide specific guidelines and success criteria for 

revegetation of native plants and habitats and introduction of Carbonate Plants in conjunction 

with mining reclamation. These guidelines and success criteria were prepared for incorporation 

into the CHMS, and would also be incorporated into the West Mojave Plan. “Carbonate Plants” 

means any or all of the four threatened or endangered plant species: Cushenbury buckwheat, 

Cushenbury milkvetch, Cushenbury oxytheca and Parish’s daisy. 

 (a) Collection and salvage requirements. Where revegetation includes introduction of 

Carbonate Plants to mining-reclamation surfaces, the following requirements pertaining to the 

collection of listed species must be followed. Where collection, salvage, and/or planting of these 

species occurs as part of a mining plan, additional standards will apply, as specified under the 

ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permits issued for this purpose. 

(i) Seed collection. Seed collections of listed species from public land will be at the 

discretion of the USFWS. Unless other arrangements are made, collections on BLM or Forest 

Service land will be made under the authority of the 10(a)(1)(A) permit and all conditions in the 

permit will apply. Collection methods will be designed to capture the majority of the genetic 

variation found in the sampled populations, by collecting seed systematically throughout the site 

and avoiding focusing only on certain plants due to size or location. Collections must avoid 

harming the source population’s long-term viability. At no time will seeds derived from different 

natural populations be intermingled in revegetation activities. Detailed field information will be 

recorded at the time of seed collection, including estimated population size, number of 

individuals sampled, collecting strategy employed, apparent viability of the seed, global 

positioning satellite (“GPS”) coordinates of the collecting location, California Natural Diversity 

Database element occurrence number (if any), and a photocopy of a USGS topographic map with 

the collection site identified. Seed collection data will be kept in permanent files and duplicated 

on the package where the seed is stored. 

 (ii) Collection of cuttings. No more than five percent of any individual plant will be 

collected. No more than five percent of any individuals within a population will be sampled 

from. Collections will be made systematically throughout the site to capture the majority of the 

genetic variation found in the sampled populations. At no time will seeds or plants collected 

from different natural populations be intermingled in revegetation activities. Individual cuttings 

will be labeled with numbered metal tags corresponding to collection sites, as described above 

for seed collections. The tag numbers will be kept in permanent records and will be kept with the 

cuttings as they are incorporated into an off-site nursery or on-site revegetation sites for longterm monitoring. Tags need not identify every individual cutting, but should identify the source. 

(iii) Plant salvage. On sites where plants and seeds will be disturbed or destroyed by 

authorized activities, the limitations above will not apply. Up to 100% of plants or seed may be 

salvaged for use in concurrent or future reclamation. Maximum effort should be made to salvage 
Appendices 

listed carbonate plants from sites where mining or other disturbance is approved, and initial 

clearing and soil removal should be scheduled to allow for seed salvage at the end of at least one 

growing season. 

(iv) Plant and seed return. Plants and seeds will be returned to the same general vegetation 

zone where they were collected (e.g. blackbush scrub), within no more than 1000 ft. elevation 

and 5 miles of the collection site, in order to ensure gene pool and ecotype integrity. Where 

individual plants are introduced onto a reclamation site (e.g., salvaged plants, or plants grown 

from seed or cuttings off-site), they will be labeled with metal tags for future growth and 

survival monitoring. The tag numbers will be kept in permanent records. Tag numbers need not 

identify every individual plant, but will identify their original source and the year they are 

planted. Where seed is introduced onto a reclamation site, the amount (weight) and seed 

collection data (above) will be kept in similar records. 

(v) Documentation. Methods of Carbonate Plant introduction and progress of the 

introduction effort must be monitored and reported to the BLM, Forest Service or County in 

accordance with the monitoring requirements of Section (c), below. Operators are encouraged to 

enhance the introduction sites (e.g. irrigation, fertilization, weeding, supplemental planting, or 

seeding; collectively, “manipulation”) during the first few years after planting. As provided in 

Section (b) below, however, revegetation success criteria will not be deemed to have been met 

until the end of a minimum 3-year period without manipulation. 

(b) Carbonate Plant success criteria. At the end of a minimum 3-year period without 

manipulation, the introduced Carbonate Plants occurrences must be documented to show: 

 (i) Successful reproduction, indicated by seed production, seedling establishment, and 

survival of seedlings to reproductive state so that the total number of living and reproductively 

mature plants is at least two times the number originally planted; 

(ii) A demographic pattern over the minimum 3-year period in which recruitment to 

reproductive maturity is greater than or equal to mortality, indicating a stable or growing 

population; 

(iii) Expansion of the introduction area, indicated by the presence of progeny of the 

introduced plants at least 10 meters beyond the bounds of the original seeded or planted area; 

(iv) Within the introduction area, density (plants/acre) of the Carbonate Plants no less than 

one standard deviation below the mean density of the same species in natural populations, as 

documented in BLM, Forest Service or County data; and 

(v) Demonstration of least one quantitative measure of ecosystem function; applicable 

measures include, but are not limited to, soil respiration, mycorrhizal hyphal mass in soil, 

glomilin assays, pollinator visitation, and wildlife utilization. 

(c) Monitoring. The following monitoring and associated documentation are required 

annually to determine successful introduction of Carbonate Plants. Introduction sites will also be 

subject to the revegetation monitoring described in Section (e)(iv) below. Under this Section, for 
Appendices 

the first 3 years following planting, introduction sites shall be monitored at least annually to 

document survivorship and reproduction. After the initial 3-year period, qualitative monitoring 

and reporting will be done on 3-year intervals. 

(i) Marking: Parish’s daisy and Cushenbury buckwheat. These are perennial plants, woody 

at their bases, and therefore capable of being tagged. Each monitoring cycle, each new plant will 

be tagged and numbered to indicate the year it was detected. Each previously-existing plant will 

be examined, and its tag number (if present) and condition will be recorded using the following 

categories: 

(A) Healthy/reproductive (i.e., flower or seed); 

(B) Healthy/non-reproductive; 

(C) Living but evidently unhealthy; 

(D) Dead; or 

(E) Missing. 

After the first monitoring cycle, new plants (not previously tagged) will be considered “progeny” 

of the plants initially introduced onto the site. Plants will not be tagged if they are too small to 

physically support the tags or if tagging is likely to damage them. Plants will be considered 

“established” when they are large enough to tag. 

(ii) Marking: Cushenbury milk vetch and Cushenbury oxytheca. These species cannot be 

tagged due to their life histories. Instead, areas of occupied habitat will be identified using GPS 

and markers on the ground to define polygons containing a specified number of individual 

Carbonate Plants. For these species, parents and progeny will not be distinguished, and 

demographics will be inferred by total counts of individuals within the defined polygons. 

(iii) Mapping, all four species. The bounds of occupied habitat will be marked with 

colored flagging and recorded with a GPS unit. These data will be collected and recorded 

following the SBNF data and mapping standards. During the monitoring period or later in the 

year, as appropriate, a small sample of seed from introduced plants on the site will be collected 

and examined for apparent viability (“fill”). 

(e) Reporting. Following each monitoring period, a report will be prepared to include data 

tables of all plants examined, GPS coordinates of the occupied habitat’s boundaries, 

representative photographs of the overall site and selected individual plants, and (after 6 years) 

demographic analysis of the occurrence. The demographic analysis shall consist of (i) assembly 

and graphing of monitoring data to show survivorship rates of plants initially introduced onto the 

site and their progeny; (ii) calculation of the estimated half-life for each cohort; and (iii)

calculation and comparison of recruitment rates and death rates. 

In addition to the formal monitoring and reporting described here, introduction sites should 

be qualitatively monitored at least annually. Qualitative monitoring should document general 
Appendices 

survival and reproductive success of the Carbonate Plants and should document potential 

problems, such as erosion, excessive herbivory, or damaged irrigation systems. 

(d) Reclamation guidelines. The following revegetation guidelines are in addition to, or more 

specific than, the revegetation requirements of the Plan of Operations or Reclamation Plan. 

The specific objectives of revegetation as addressed here are to approximate the target 

vegetation (defined below) as closely as practicable and to promote the reintroduction of listed 

plant species to reclaimed sites (where applicable). Because revegetation practice continues to 

evolve, practitioners should remain current with the literature and advances in the field. They 

also should contact BLM, the Forest Service or County for recommendations on revegetation 

practice. 

(i) Target vegetation. The “target vegetation” for each revegetation site will be selected 

based on existing reference data for the appropriate vegetation zone or site-specific sampling 

(collectively, the “Baseline Data”), at the agreement of the applicant and the applicable 

permitting jurisdiction. Reference data within the carbonate habitat management zone were 

derived from plot-based vegetation sampling taken across more than 600 plots between 1990 and 

1998. Future sampling may result in an update and revision to these data. These data will be 

made available upon request by the Mountaintop District Botanist on the SBNF. 

(ii) Soil inventory. Soil resources (all available topsoil or “growth medium”) will be 

inventoried for volume and reclamation suitability during the planning stages, and soils 

inventory results will be included in the revegetation plan. To avoid the need for extended soil 

stockpiling, the use of soil salvaged from a new quarry site for reclamation of another (closed) 

quarry or waste dump will be encouraged. 

(iii) Success criteria. All reclamation plans will be required to meet the success criteria 

required under the Plan of Operations or Reclamation Plan and provide documentation. The 

following additional criteria must be met to meet the standards of the West Mojave Plan for the 

carbonate habitat management zone. Success thresholds for quantitative measures (B)—(E) will 

be based on the Baseline Data for each site. 

(A) Reclamation. Meet or exceed all reclamation requirements under the mining and 

reclamation plan for the site and under the applicable reclamation regulations, and maintain the 

mining operation in full compliance with the mining plan. 

(B) Cover. Achieve a mean native vegetation cover percentage of at least 50% of the 

mean native cover value specified in the Baseline Data. 

(C) Density. Achieve a mean density of each of three climax/dominant species for that 

vegetation zone that is at least 50% of the specified mean densities for those species in the 

Baseline Data. 

(D) Richness. Achieve a mean species richness (average species count per 0.1 acre 

sample plot or other unit area as applicable, depending on sample methods) that is at least 50% 

that of the value specified in the Baseline Data. 
Appendices 

(E) Non-native species cover. Non-native species cover will be no more than (3× its 

cover in the Baseline Data, and annual monitoring data will show a downward trend, 

documented by a declining regression coefficient (negative b value) over the monitoring period. 

(F) Aggressive/invasive weeds. On the date of approval by the applicable jurisdiction, 

no species identified on the SBNF list of highly invasive exotic species (below), will occur 

within the revegetated site. These species must be documented and removed upon detection, and 

the reports required in Section (f)(iv)(B) below must document any removal and confirm that all 

these species are absent from the site. Such removal may be performed at any time without being 

regarded as manipulation that is otherwise prohibited during certain periods. The list of 

particularly aggressive or invasive non-native weeds will be prepared and maintained by the 

SBNF in cooperation with BLM, the County and appropriate stakeholders, including the mining 

industry. It will be limited to non-native species which show the potential to spread rapidly and 

will exclude native vegetation in some or all habitats of the carbonate habitat management zone, 

but which have not yet become broadly established within the zone. Thus, tamarisk (Tamarix

spp.), castor bean (Ricinus communis), giant reed (Arundo donax), and Spanish broom (Spartium 

junceum) would be appropriate for inclusion on the list. Brome grasses (Bromus spp.), weedy 

mustards (Brassica spp., Sisymbrium spp., Hirschfeldia incana), and Russian thistle (or 

tumbleweed, Salsola spp.) would not be appropriate. 

In applying the foregoing criteria, only the habitat patches that meet the criteria shall be 

regarded as revegetated. The operator’s final monitoring report will provide quantitative data 

that will determine whether or not the foregoing success criteria have been met. The final 

monitoring data will generally be submitted ten years following initiation of revegetation, though 

an operator may choose to finalize the work earlier or later, depending on individual 

circumstances. Regardless of the date of final monitoring, the revegetated site shall not be 

subject to manipulation (subject to the exception specified under criterion (F)) during a minimum 

three years prior to the final data collection. 

(iv) Monitoring and revegetation reporting requirements. Each mining reclamation plan 

must include a revegetation plan. This plan will specify target vegetation, reference data, acres 

that will undergo active revegetation, and a revegetation schedule. To document progress under 

the revegetation plan, annual monitoring and periodic reporting will be required. Phased plans 

may compile these reports into a combined report where an area covered under a single mine 

plan has revegetation ongoing at different stages. 

(A) Annual monitoring. Operators will monitor revegetation sites annually, making each 

of the following observations and measures, which will be recorded and provided to the 

applicable permitting jurisdiction in periodic monitoring reports (see subsection (B) below): 

(1) Survival of container plantings (where applicable); 

(2) Germination of seeded species, noting distribution and abundance; 

(3) List of native “volunteer” species, noting distribution and abundance; 
Appendices 

(4) Measurements of vegetation cover, target species density, total species richness 

(list), and wildlife observations; 

(5) Signs of erosion/soil loss; 

(6) List of non-native species, with descriptions of abundance, distribution, and 

measures to control/eradicate; and 

(7) Recommendations for any other needed remedial action (e.g., repairs to 

irrigation system, re-seeding, erosion control, or other). 

(B) Reporting. On large revegetation sites, quantitative data collected and presented in 

the “threshold” and final monitoring reports must be randomly sampled with sufficient 

replication to analyze and document the data with 90% confidence intervals about the mean 

values, and with a maximum confidence interval width of 20% of the mean value. For smaller 

sites, an alternate sampling protocol may be used so that the total sampling area is at least 50% 

of the area revegetated. 

The following three reports, to be submitted to the BLM or County, with a copy 

provided to the Forest Service, are required to document the monitoring and status of 

revegetation: 

(1) Initial report. This report shall include: (aa) detailed site plan, (bb) planting 

palette, (cc) propagule (seed, cutting, and container plant) inventory, and (dd) soil inventory 

(where applicable). This report must be prepared and submitted within one year of initiating 

revegetation. 

(2) Final minus 3 report. This report shall be made at the initiation of the final 3-

year no-manipulation period and shall mark the initiation of that period. This report shall 

summarize the monitoring data that is collected annually. It must include status of revegetation 

and qualitative and quantitative measures each success criterion, and it must specify any 

remediation prescribed. It shall also include a propagule and soil inventory update. This report is 

generally prepared during year 7, although may be earlier or later, depending on individual 

circumstances. If the operator prefers to delay initiating the 3-year period without manipulation 

beyond year 7 of the revegetation effort, then a substitute “Year 7" report should be submitted, to 

include the contents described above and an explanation of the operator’s plans for remediation 

and eventual completion of the revegetation. 

(3) Final report. This report shall be prepared and submitted with the application 

for bond release. It shall have the same format and content requirements as the “final minus 3 

report” described in subsection (2) above. Regardless of the date of final monitoring, the 

revegetated site shall have had no manipulation during a minimum three years prior to the final 

data collection (subject to the exception specified under subsection (iii)(F) above for weed 

control). This report shall document the extent to which the revegetation is successful and shall 

be used, along with field checks, by the applicable permitting jurisdiction to determine whether 

or not the success criteria set forth in subsection (iii) above have been met. 
Appendices 

(e) Authorized loss of revegetated areas. Upon issuance of a favorable CHMS Biological 

Opinion, losses of Carbonate Plants within the management zone where Carbonate Plants have 

been introduced by operators or claimholders shall be authorized under the terms and conditions 

described below. The authorization provided pursuant to this Section provides relief only from 

the provisions of the ESA and does not relieve an owner or claim holder from any requirements 

of the reclamation regulations with respect to reclaimed or revegetated areas. This authorization 

also does not relieve the applicant from NEPA, CEQA, or other environmental review of any 

proposed new land use. 

 (i) Conditions to authorized loss. Occupied habitat that occurs as a result of revegetation 

efforts on reclaimed land within the management zone may be taken as necessary to carry out 

mining activities without any compensation requirement if the following conditions are met: 

(A) The introduction effort, including a precise description of the location, has been 

reported to the applicable permitting jurisdiction in advance of the introduction work itself. 

(B) The introduction effort proposed to be lost has complied with all of the seed 

collection and salvage requirements described in Section (a) above. 

(C) The introduction site to be lost must not be the only remaining living material 

salvaged (as seed, cuttings, or whole plants) from an occurrence lost to previous land use 

changes unless a second salvage effort (from the introduced occurrence proposed to be lost) has 

been approved by the applicable permitting jurisdiction. Where operators salvage plant material 

from sites to be developed as quarries, waste areas, or other facilities, they should carefully plan 

the locations where these salvaged materials are introduced. 

 (ii) Coverage provided When all of the conditions set forth in subsection (i) above are 

satisfied, the following coverage under the CHMS Biological Opinion shall apply: 

(A) Any future impacts or proposed impacts to the Carbonate Plants occurring as a 

consequence of introductions carried out in compliance with this Section (f) will not be subject 

to review or enforcement action under the ESA and will not be subject to any compensation 

requirement. 

(B) Collection of seed from living plants for purposes of revegetation activities will be 

permitted on public or private land, in compliance with USFWS permits, as applicable. 

(C) All occurrences of Carbonate Plants discovered within a revegetation site shall be 

treated as resulting from the introduction. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX T 

RECREATION 
Appendices 

T.1 VISITOR USE AND NATURE OF VISITOR USE 

Table T-1 presents data regarding visitor use of a number of popular sites throughout the 

West Mojave planning area. The information is based on data gathered during fiscal year range 

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2002. 

Table T-1 

Visitor Use in the West Mojave Planning Area 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Afton Canyon 

Afton Canyon Campground Camping 1,835 2,692 

 Picnicking 19 3 

 

Afton Canyon Natural Area Hiking/Walking/Running 704 117 

 Horseback Riding 35 9 

 Hunting – Small Game 35 9 

 Nature Study 2,111 352 

 Photography 246 21 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 296 74 

 Viewing – Other 704 59 

 Viewing – Wildlife 1,232 205 

 

Afton Group Area Camping 1,167 1,845 

 

Dispersed – Afton Canyon Environmental Education 301 54 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 602 208 

 Horseback Riding 301 75 

 Hunting – Small Game 150 38 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 301 100 

 Nature Study 602 115 

 OHV – ATV 150 38 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 451 75 

 Photography 752 63 

 Picnicking 301 25 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 1,354 451 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 75 19 

 Viewing – Other 1,204 301 

 Viewing – Wildlife 1,204 301 

 

Mojave Road (Afton Canyon) Horseback Riding 58 10 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 3,649 608 

 Picnicking 58 5 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 58 5 

 

Amargosa/Grimshaw 

Amargosa Canyon Backpacking 54 18 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 3,115 519 

 Horseback Riding 54 22 

 Nature Study 161 40 

 OHV-ATV 4,016 669 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 535 134 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 268 45 

 OHV – Motorcycle 535 89 

 Photography 107 9 

 Picnicking 535 45 

 Viewing – Other 54 4 

 Viewing – Wildlife 3,554 592 

 

Dispersed – Amargosa/Grimshaw Camping 817 1,271 

 Driving for Pleasure 1,284 214 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 233 39 

 Horseback Riding 233 58 

 Hunting – Small Game 233 78 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 233 58 

 Nature Study 233 39 

 OHV-ATV 1,051 472 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,868 623 

 OHV – Motorcycle 1,284 321 

 Photography 350 29 

 Picnicking 584 49 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 817 204 

 Target Practice 233 39 

 Trapping 117 49 

 Viewing – Other 1,051 88 

 Viewing – Wildlife 1,634 272 

 

Grimshaw Lake Driving for Pleasure 4,311 359 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 652 109 

 Photography 1,956 163 

 Viewing – Wildlife 4,185 349 

 

Barstow 

Barstow Office Headquarters Staging/Comfort Stop 4,544 189 

Calico Early Man Site Photography 121 10 

 Picnicking 242 20 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 4,028 336 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 4,028 336 

 

Dispersed - Barstow Bicycling – Mountain 21,145 7,048 

 Camping 179,822 285,097 

 Climbing – Mountain/Rock 102 201 

 Driving for Pleasure 74,008 12,335 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 52,863 8,810 

 Horseback Riding 10,573 3,120 

 Hunting – Small Game 40,306 10,076 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 48,015 16,005 

 Interpretive Programs 155 6 

 Model Airplane/Rocket 325 158 

 Nature Study 24,018 3,437 

 OHV – ATV 42,290 10,573 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 339,242 112,834 

 OHV – Motorcycle 95,833 33,079 

 Other Motor Land Sport/Event 147 104 

 Pack Trips 10 25 

 Photography 53,379 4,689 

 Picnicking 75,728 6,403 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 39,437 9,859 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 15,177 5,092 

 Spectator Sport 698 457 

 Staging/Comfort Stop 4 0 

 Target Practice 74,008 12,335 

 Trapping 10,573 1,762 

 Viewing – Other 21,145 5,286 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 750 33 

 Viewing – Wildflowers 71 3 

 Viewing – Wildlife 63,445 21,146 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 10,573 441 

 

Juniper Flats Camping 537 860 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 537 90 

 Horseback Riding 753 188 

 Hunting – Small Game 403 101 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 403 101 

 Nature Study 343 41 

 OHV – ATV 269 45 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 940 235 

 OHV – Motorcycle 1,350 225 

 Photography 269 22 

 Picnicking 3,089 257 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 1,209 101 

 Viewing – Other 1,746 145 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Viewing – Wildlife 2,552 213 

 

Lucerne Dry Lake OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 259 11 

 Picnicking 259 22 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 259 43 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 356 269 

 Spectator Sport 176 88 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 52 2 

 

Mojave Road (Barstow) OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,593 266 

Desert Discovery Center 

Desert Discovery Center Environmental Education 1,099 165 

 Nature Study 1,648 69 

 Photography 476 20 

 Viewing – Wildlife 951 40 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 9,323 539 

 

Dispersed – Desert Discovery Center Viewing – Other 22 2 

Dumont Dunes 

Dispersed – Dumont Dunes Camping 183,808 375,405 

 OHV – ATV 141,402 94,273 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 32,590 12,068 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 34,338 20,031 

 OHV – Motorcycle 19,516 4,879 

 Photography 30,537 2,546 

 Picnicking 10,935 947 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 105 67 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 16,159 4,040 

 Sand Boarding 20 17 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 835 888 

 Spectator Sport 4,636 3,203 

 Staging/Comfort Stop 213 18 

 Viewing – Other 213 18 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 325 27 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 30,299 2,525 

 

Salt Creek Hills ACEC Nature Study 2,039 170 

 Photography 1,223 102 

 Picnicking 815 68 

 Staging/Comfort Stop 5,485 114 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 4,892 408 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Viewing – Wildlife 4,892 612 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 3,150 131 

 

El Mirage 

Dispersed – El Mirage Camping 173,850 272,022 

 Driving for Pleasure 23,909 3,985 

 Hang-Gliding/Parasailing 4,782 1,002 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 2,391 398 

 Horseback Riding 2,391 797 

 Land/Sand Sailing 11,955 3,985 

 Model Airplane/Rocket 3,551 592 

 OHV – ATV 88,464 22,116 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 27,985 7,756 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 4,782 1,594 

 OHV – Motorcycle 96,725 32,343 

 Other Motor Land Sport/Event 367 349 

 Photography 7,294 1,688 

 Picnicking 132,414 11,512 

 Racing – Auto Track 3,449 2,485 

 Racing – Motorcycle 370 185 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 7,327 3,535 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 38,007 13,026 

 Spectator Sport 8,729 11,577 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 2,930 122 

 Viewing – Wildflowers 132 6 

 

Rasor 

Dispersed – Rasor Camping 18,690 27,378 

 Hunting – Small Game 652 163 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 435 109 

 OHV – ATV 14,132 6,142 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/ SUVs 3,113 1,184 

 OHV – Motorcycle 1,739 756 

 Photography 51 34 

 Picnicking 319 53 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 544 272 

 

Mojave Road (Rasor) OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,593 266 

Stoddard/Johnson 

Anderson Dry Lake Camping 3,927 5,707 

 OHV-ATV 1,704 529 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 7,731 3,663 

 OHV – Motorcycle 8,856 4,258 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Photography 945 91 

 Picnicking 3,343 413 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 151 65 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 2,645 1,492 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 410 17 

 Viewing – Wildflowers 65 3 

 

Cougar Buttes Camping 3,500 5,096 

 OHV – ATV 455 214 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 2,055 167 

 OHV – Motorcycle 4,294 2,163 

 Other Motor Land Sport/Event 127 63 

 Photography 1,010 270 

 Picnicking 4,445 2,131 

 Racing – Motorcycle 913 1,125 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 3,667 2,671 

 Spectator Sport 1,499 1,548 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 950 51 

 

Dispersed – Stoddard/Johnson Camping 82,850 134,057 

 Driving for Pleasure 14,717 2,555 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 6,764 841 

 Horseback Riding 3,874 1,291 

 Hunting – Small Game 2,236 559 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 2,236 745 

 Nature Study 2236 373 

 OHV – ATV 34,468 19,992 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 53,760 30,469 

 OHV - Motorcycle 38,664 22,069 

 Other Motor Land Sport/Event 1,434 717 

 Photography 6,964 1,393 

 Picnicking 40,535 4,396 

 Racing – Auto Track 493 329 

 Racing – Motorcycle 2,953 1,528 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 318 153 

 Re-enactment Events/Tours 135 168 

 Rock Crawling – 4WD 399 532 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 6,708 2,385 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 25,126 14,251 

 Spectator Sport 16686 11,700 

 Staging/Comfort Stop 184 63 

 Target Practice 6,708 1,118 

 Viewing – Other 12,374 3,094 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 8,549 453 

 Viewing – Wildflowers 407 21 

 Viewing – Wildlife 15,207 5,069 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Means Dry Lake Camping 718 1,020 

 OHV – ATV 154 77 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 2,998 531 

 OHV – Motorcycle 2,494 1,222 

 Photography 571 58 

 Picnicking 2,723 132 

 Racing – Motorcycle 244 122 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 2,467 432 

 Spectator Sport 2,038 1,030 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 2,214 92 

 

Sidewinder Road Camping 6,138 8,207 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 109 5 

 OHV – ATV 2,620 1,092 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 3,483 894 

 OHV – Motorcycle 6,308 2,940 

 Photography 1,405 275 

 Picnicking 3,161 10,162 

 Racing – Auto Track 1,292 861 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 98 41 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 1,096 319 

 Spectator Sport 5,213 2,357 

 Viewing – Scenery/Landscapes 109 5 

 

Slash-X Camping 1,520 2,603 

 OHV – ATV 5,251 2,392 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 2,250 700 

 OHV – Motorcycle 6,001 3,100 

 Photography 150 13 

 Picnicking 450 38 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 900 225 

 Spectator Sport 1,500 750 

 

Soggy Dry Lake Camping 5,209 7,825 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 91 8 

 OHV – ATV 3,507 1,877 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 183 76 

 OHV – Motorcycle 10,478 5,212 

 Photography 91 15 

 Picnicking 1,282 115 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 685 399 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 129 32 

 Spectator Sport 55 14 

 

The Rockpile Camping 6,165 6,049 

 OHV – ATV 1,581 847 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 147 49 

 OHV – Motorcycle 8,910 5,373 

 Photography 652 295 

 Picnicking 6,270 971 

 Racing – Motorcycle 271 135 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 4,965 3,310 

 Spectator Sport 503 252 

 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Superior/Rainbow 

Dispersed – Superior/Rainbow Camping 4,233 6,794 

 Driving for Pleasure 3,267 817 

 Environmental Education 584 68 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 2,800 700 

 Horseback Riding 1,400 583 

 Hunting – Small Game 1,867 467 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 1,867 622 

 Land/Sand Sailing 966 438 

 Nature Study 1,867 622 

 OHV – ATV 1,867 467 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 7,967 1,325 

 OHV – Motorcycle 2,800 467 

 Photography 940 79 

 Picnicking 2,833 242 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 1,867 467 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 500 197 

 Target Practice 2,334 389 

 Trapping 467 233 

 Viewing – Other 2,800 933 

 Viewing – Wildlife 4,200 700 

 

Harper Dry Lake Environmental Education 204 34 

 Nature Study 204 34 

 Viewing – Wildlife 3,668 611 

 

Owl Canyon Campground (DA) Camping 2,996 4,237 

 Climbing – Mountain/Rock 93 15 

 Environmental Education 309 51 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 154 26 

 Nature Study 124 21 

 Photography 154 13 

 Picnicking 247 41 

 

Owl Canyon Group CG Camping 1,361 2,132 

 Horseback Riding 1,542 642 

 Nature Study 272 91 

 Picnicking 399 33 

 

Rainbow Basin Natural Area Bicycling – Mountain 38 6 

 Driving for Pleasure 151 25 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 1,095 274 

 Horseback Riding 113 47 

 Nature Study 264 44 

 OHV – ATV 38 6 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 76 13 

 OHV – Motorcycle 76 13 

 Photography 302 25 

 Picnicking 491 82 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 227 57 

 Trapping 38 19 

 Viewing – Other 340 57 

 Viewing – Wildlife 529 88 

 

Table T-2 presents visitor use data for many of the same sites as those discussed in Table 

T-1, for the 1998 to 2000 time period. The information is based on data gathered during fiscal 

year range October 1, 1998 to September 30, 2000. The data in this table, as compared to that in 

Table Q3.7a, shows particular trends for the covered areas and recreational activities. Please 

note that the data presented in these two tables do not show a 40-year trend, but they do show 

trends over a range of several years. 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Afton Canyon 

Afton Canyon Campground Camping 2,591 2,374 

 Picnicking 26 4 

 

Afton Canyon Natural Area Hiking/Walking/Running 490 82 

 Horseback Riding 23 6 

 Hunting – Small Game 23 6 

 Nature Study 1,468 245 

 Photography 171 14 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 147 37 

 Viewing – Other 490 41 

 Viewing – Wildlife 856 143 

 

Afton Group Area Camping 879 806 

 

Dispersed – Afton Canyon Environmental Education 867 216 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 1,731 722 

 Horseback Riding 867 216 

 Hunting – Small Game 433 108 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 867 289 

 Nature Study 1,731 577 

 OHV – ATV 433 108 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,299 216 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Photography 2,165 180 

 Picnicking 867 72 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 3,896 1,299 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 216 54 

 Viewing – Other 3,464 866 

 Viewing – Wildlife 3,464 866 

 

Mojave Road (Afton Canyon) 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 2,903 484 

 

Amargosa/Grimshaw 

Amargosa Canyon Backpacking 23 7 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 1,634 272 

 Horseback Riding 23 9 

 Nature Study 66 16 

 OHV-ATV 1,634 272 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 218 54 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 109 18 

 OHV – Motorcycle 218 36 

 Photography 45 4 

 Picnicking 218 18 

 Viewing – Other 23 2 

 Viewing – Wildlife 2,176 363 

 

Dispersed – Amargosa/Grimshaw Camping 622 569 

 Driving for Pleasure 975 163 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 177 30 

 Horseback Riding 177 44 

 Hunting – Small Game 177 59 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 177 44 

 Nature Study 177 30 

 OHV-ATV 798 266 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,421 473 

 OHV – Motorcycle 975 244 

 Photography 265 22 

 Picnicking 444 37 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 622 155 

 Target Practice 177 30 

 Trapping 89 37 

 Viewing – Other 798 67 

 Viewing – Wildlife 1,243 207 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 

Grimshaw Lake Driving for Pleasure 4,156 346 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 462 77 

 Photography 1,386 115 

 Viewing – Wildlife 4,617 385 

 

Barstow 

Calico Early Man Site Camping 18 15 

 Photography 122 10 

 Picnicking 242 28 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 2,431 203 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 4,046 337 

 

Dispersed - Barstow Backpacking 84 84 

 Bicycling – Mountain 7,020 2,381 

 Camping 59,809 54,618 

 Driving for Pleasure 24,144 4,024 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 17,334 2,904 

 Horseback Riding 4,174 1,912 

 Hunting – Small Game 20,696 5,174 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 20,696 6,898 

 Nature Study 10,346 2,587 

 OHV – ATV 13,796 3,449 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 111,111 37,283 

 OHV – Motorcycle 31,879 10,591 

 Photography 17,805 1,607 

 Picnicking 24,576 2,084 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 10,346 2,587 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 8,605 3,547 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 349 348 

 Target Practice 24,144 4,024 

 Trapping 3,448 575 

 Viewing – Other 6,898 1,725 

 Viewing – Wildlife 20,696 6,898 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 3,448 144 

 Unspecified 258 22 

 

Juniper Flats Camping 459 460 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 459 77 

 Horseback Riding 230 57 

 Hunting – Small Game 344 86 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 344 86 

 Nature Study 459 77 

 OHV – ATV 230 38 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 806 201 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 OHV – Motorcycle 574 96 

 Photography 230 19 

 Picnicking 2,643 220 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 1,034 86 

 Viewing – Other 1,493 124 

 Viewing – Wildlife 2,183 182 

 

Mojave Road (Barstow) OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,410 235 

Desert Discovery Center 

Desert Discovery Center Environmental Education 715 60 

 Nature Study 1,071 45 

 Photography 357 15 

 Viewing – Wildlife 715 30 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 6,999 292 

 

Dumont Dunes 

Dispersed – Dumont Dunes Camping 96,652 85,665 

 OHV – ATV 72,794 48,530 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 7,668 3,032 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 17,679 10,313 

 OHV – Motorcycle 2,080 520 

 Photography 21,363 5,107 

 Picnicking 15,996 2,233 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 12,894 10,745 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 8,319 2,080 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 12,951 11,028 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 58 39 

 Spectator Sport 13,166 10,972 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 15,599 1,300 

 Unspecified 13,645 1,137 

 

Salt Creek Hills ACEC Nature Study 1,130 94 

 Photography 678 56 

 Picnicking 453 38 

 Viewing – Cultural Sites 2,712 226 

 Viewing – Wildlife 2,712 339 

 Viewing – Interpretive Exhibit 226 9 

 

El Mirage 

Dispersed – El Mirage Camping 166,141 149,829 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Driving for Pleasure 22,012 3,669 

 Hang-Gliding/Parasailing 4,402 1,468 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 2,202 367 

 Horseback Riding 2,202 734 

 Land/Sand Sailing 11,071 3,711 

 OHV – ATV 81,539 20,422 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 17,611 5,870 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 4,402 1,468 

 OHV – Motorcycle 88,203 29,446 

 Photography 8,261 3,172 

 Picnicking 127,475 12,485 

 Racing – Auto Track 19,493 12,374 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 15,324 10,263 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 34,412 11,935 

 Spectator Sport 2,006 1,178 

 Unspecified 16 1 

 

Rasor 

Dispersed – Rasor Camping 24,151 22,138 

 Hunting – Small Game 853 213 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 570 142 

 OHV – ATV 18,470 6,156 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/ SUVs 3,694 923 

 OHV – Motorcycle 2,274 758 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 283 71 

 

Mojave Road (Rasor) OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,691 282 

Stoddard/Johnson 

Anderson Dry Lake Camping 3,302 3,006 

 OHV-ATV 1,262 250 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 4,372 1,458 

 OHV – Motorcycle 7,193 2,865 

 Photography 320 51 

 Picnicking 2,394 399 

 Racing – Auto Track 214 143 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 1,620 1,137 

 Spectator Sport 3,190 1,064 

 

Cougar Buttes Camping 305 265 

 OHV – ATV 184 61 

 OHV – Motorcycle 1,298 680 

 Photography 92 25 

 Picnicking 347 58 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 191 111 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 86 50 

 Spectator Sport 25 13 

 

Dispersed – Stoddard/Johnson Camping 39,008 40,815 

 Driving for Pleasure 3,433 286 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 3,433 572 

 Horseback Riding 1,716 572 

 Hunting – Small Game 1,716 429 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 1,716 572 

 Nature Study 1,826 323 

 OHV – ATV 26,564 8,969 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 26,659 11,485 

 OHV - Motorcycle 32,277 12,036 

 Photography 4,480 1,575 

 Picnicking 21,361 2,559 

 Racing – Auto Track 5,932 4,187 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 5,151 2,146 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 8,655 5,198 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 400 321 

 Spectator Sport 4,525 3,255 

 Target Practice 5,151 858 

 Viewing – Other 12,018 3,005 

 Viewing – Wildlife 15,452 5,151 

 Unspecified 92 8 

Means Dry Lake Camping 1,712 1,587 

 OHV – ATV 448 280 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 698 401 

 OHV – Motorcycle 2,877 1,637 

 Photography 129 45 

 Picnicking 1,423 237 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 1,692 1,129 

 

Sidewinder Road Camping 4,932 4,258 

 OHV – ATV 1,787 745 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 1,531 511 

 OHV – Motorcycle 3,957 1,319 

 Photography 775 164 

 Picnicking 1,929 336 

 Racing – Auto Track 1,632 1,088 

 Racing – OHV Cars/Trucks/Buggies 1,298 865 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 2,773 1,806 

 Spectator Sport 1,915 798 

 Unspecified 8 5 

 

Slash-X Camping 3,623 3,021 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

 Driving for Pleasure 221 111 

 OHV – ATV 4,730 2,041 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 3,226 1,522 

 OHV – Dunebuggy 1,170 779 

 OHV – Motorcycle 5,064 2,120 

 Photography 93 9 

 Picnicking 3,607 579 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 4,422 2,574 

 Spectator Sport 892 446 

 Unspecified 962 80 

 

Soggy Dry Lake Camping 1,324 1,212 

 OHV – ATV 992 661 

 OHV – Motorcycle 3,030 1,515 

 Picnicking 109 18 

 Specialized Sport/Event (Non-Motor) 56 14 

 

The Rockpile Camping 4,540 3,591 

 OHV – ATV 1,051 565 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 92 31 

 OHV – Motorcycle 6,611 4,046 

 Photography 338 119 

 Picnicking 3,810 635 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 4,019 2,568 

 Spectator Sport 318 212 

 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Superior/Rainbow 

Dispersed – Superior/Rainbow Camping 5,040 4,620 

 Driving for Pleasure 3,920 980 

 Environmental Education 1,122 187 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 3,361 840 

 Horseback Riding 1,679 700 

 Hunting – Small Game 2,241 560 

 Hunting – Upland Bird 2,241 747 

 Land/Sand Sailing 1,122 467 

 Nature Study 2,241 747 

 OHV – ATV 2,241 560 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 9,520 1,587 

 OHV – Motorcycle 3,361 560 

 Photography 1,122 93 

 Picnicking 3,361 280 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 2,241 560 

 Social Gathering/Festival/Concert 558 187 

 Target Practice 2,800 467 

 Trapping 558 280 

 Viewing – Other 3,361 1,120 

 Viewing – Wildlife 5,040 840 

 

Harper Dry Lake Environmental Education 124 21 

 Nature Study 124 21 

 Viewing – Wildlife 2,242 374 

 

Owl Canyon Campground (DA) Camping 3,827 3,509 

 Climbing – Mountain/Rock 119 20 

 Environmental Education 395 66 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 198 33 

 Nature Study 158 26 

 Photography 198 16 

 Picnicking 315 53 

 

Owl Canyon Group CG Camping 1,084 992 

 Horseback Riding 1,227 511 

 Nature Study 217 72 

 Picnicking 318 26 

 
Appendices 

AREA ACTIVITY NUMBER 

OF VISITS 

NUMBER OF 

VISITOR 

DAYS 

Rainbow Basin Natural Area Bicycling – Mountain 54 9 

 Driving for Pleasure 220 37 

 Hiking/Walking/Running 1,594 398 

 Horseback Riding 165 69 

 Nature Study 385 64 

 OHV – ATV 54 9 

 OHV – Cars/Trucks/SUVs 110 18 

 OHV – Motorcycle 110 18 

 Photography 439 37 

 Picnicking 715 119 

 Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 329 82 

 Trapping 54 27 

 Viewing – Other 495 82 

 Viewing – Wildlife 769 128 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX U 

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX U 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Barstow Field Office area includes nine subregions for route designation. Table U-1 

lists the cultural resources potentially affected by proposed open routes. 

Table U-1 

BLM Barstow Field Office 

Cultural Resource Data 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

Adobe Mt. No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Alvord Mt. East C1083, C3040, C3045 

C3045 

C3024, C3032, C3030 

C3008, C3032, C3066 

C3115 

C3155 

AF232 

SBR4272H road 

SBR2223 lithic reduction, SBR7694H power transmission line 

SBR2223 lithic reduction 

CHL577/SBR4411H Mormon Trail 

SBR7694H power transmission line 

SBR3175/H lithic reduction 

SBR3695 lithic scatter 

Alvord Mt. West C1077 

C2001 

C2005, C1116 

C1029 

C1063, C1064, C2010 

C1072 

C2034, C1002 

C3047, C3046, C2001, 

C3045, C1002, UK 

SBR6493H mining 

PSBR45H road 

SBR884 lithic reduction 

SBR871 lithic reduction 

SBR848 lithic reduction 

SBR6435, SBR6436 lithic reduction, SBR6438 camp 

SBR893 lithic reduction 

SBR853 camp, SBR7694H power transmission line 

Ash Hill No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Astley Rancho No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Apple Valley North No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Bagdad SW No data 

Barstow No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Barstow SE SV275 SBR562, SBR3184, SBR3617 

Big Bear City T3N R2E Section 21 SBR4038 Terrace Springs 

Bighorn Canyon T3N R4E Section 27 

T3N R4E Section 23 

T3N R4E Section 26 

SBR560 camp, SBR7075 pottery scatter 

SBR7074 rock art/food processing 

SBR135 rock art 

Bird Spring F3003 SBR518, SBR5658, SBR2579, SBR5673, SBR5670, SBR2577, 

SBR5672, SBR2748, SBR2749, SBR2750 rock art sites 

Bitter Spring C2001 

C3156 

AF331 

IA2042-3 lithic, NRHP-E-SBR7694H power transmission line, 

SBR3138 lithic reduction, SBR2162 lithic quarry/habitation 

SBR434 lithic quarry 

SBR2162 lithic quarry/habitation, SBR6503 lithic quarry/stone 

circle 

Blackwater Well No recorded cultural resources impacted. 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

Boron NE F4002 PSBR-39H power transmission line, NRHP-E-SBR4347/H lithic 

scatter/town site 

Bristol Lake SW No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Broadwell Lake AF1512 

AF327 

AF152 

AF0710, AF077, AF055 

MH731 

SBR170 village 

SBR2340H RR, SBR6404H road 

SBR2340H Road, IA1783-17, 18, 19 

SBR6404H Road 

SBR2340H RR 

Buttes, The F5002 P2083-1 lithic reduction site 

Cave Mt. AF313 

AF326 

AF2511 

AF311 

SBR7400 food processing 

SBR3033H/CHL963 Mojave Rd. 

SBR3534 lithic reduction 

PSBR52 trail 

Clarks Pass No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Cleghorn Lakes No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Cougar Buttes No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Coyote Lake 

Coyote Lake (cont.) 

C2004 

C2005 

C2002 

C1042 

SBR2170, SBR2165 lithic reduction 

SBR2172 lithic reduction 

SBR7420H structure 

SBR7185, SBR2167 rock shelters 

Cronese Lakes AF331 SBR248 pottery scatter, SBR2160 food processing, SBR5558H 

ranching, SBR2157 habitation/cremation 

Crucero Hills AF271 

AF2421 

AF327 

AF325 

UK 

SBR1910H RR 

PSBR2033-2 habitation 

SBR 2340H RR, SBR143 prehistoric village 

SBR3033H/CHL963 Mojave Rd. 

SBR143 village 

Dale Lake MP252 

MP351, MP352, MP354, 

MP355, MP356, MP357, 

MP359, MP3510 

SBR1809 lithic reduction 

CHL985 Desert Training Center – CA-AZ Maneuvering Area 

Dunn AF232 

C3032 

C3079 

C3032, C3008 

AF232 

AF192 

C4002 

SBR1910H RR, SBR3033/H/CHL963 Mojave Road, IA2043-2H 

glass bottle, SBR84/H structure, SBR2152/H cemetery 

NRHP-E-PSBR38H Hoover Dam to LA transmission lines 

SBR434 lithic quarry 

SBR4714 lithic scatter, SBR3608 lithic reduction 

SBR2152/H camp site 

SBR2150 lithic quarry, SBR3588 lithic scatter 

SBR4707 trail 

Various pending trails, habitation, lithics 

E of Langford Well No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

East of Valley Mt. MP258 SBR5181 fire hearth 

Fairview Valley T5N R2W Section 14 

T5N R2W Section 4/9 

T5N R2W Section 4 

T5N R2W Section 4 & 

T6N R2W Section 33 

SBR3401 homestead 

SBR6971, SBR6972 lithic reduction 

SBR6973 lithic scatter 

SBR2135 lithic reduction 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

Fawnskin No data. 

Freemont Peak F3002 

F4196 

F4095, F4102 

IA2082-2 lithic 

P2092-2 

P2082-1 

Goat Mountain No recorded cultural resources impacted. No routes shown on 

map. 

Grandview Mine T6N R2E Section 7 SBR1569 rockshelter 

Harvard Hill C2001, C2035, C3008, 

C3046 

C3008 

C3002, C3004 

C2002 

C3008 

C2001, C2035, C2036 

NRHP-E-SBr7694H power transmission line 

P1802-9 lithic reduction 

SBR223 lithic reduction 

SBR7419 lithic scatter, SBR7418 lithic reduction 

SBR2821 lithic reduction 

SBR2100, SBR3168 lithic quarry 

Helendale SV215 

0 (off SV214) 

IA1581-1 flaked tool 

P1581-1H mining site 

Hidden Valley East AF122 SBR6289 fire hearth 

Hidden Valley West AF122 

AF325 

P1792-9H mining 

SBR3033H/CHL963 Mojave Rd. 

Hinkley No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Hodge 

Hodge (continued) 

SV266 

SV266, SV261 

SV261 

SV275 

CO34 

EF2663 

CO34 

SBR7374, SBR7306 trails, SBR8081 

SBR8311 Stone Circle 

PSBR63H communication line, SBR9361H Road 

PSBR63H communication line 

NRHP-E-OHP3926 National Old Trails Highway, SBR2910H 

road 

PSBR62H power transmission line, SBR2910H 

SBR3033H/CHL963 Mojave Road, SBR719 lithic scatter 

Humbug Mt. No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Jackrabbit Hill No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Joshua Tree South No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Kramer Hills K2107 

F2230, F1002, F1002A 

SBR5357 lithic quarry/camp 

NRHP-E-SBR6693H AT&F RR 

Kramer Junction No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Landers T3N R5E Section 30 

T3N R5E Section 29 

SBR1604/H mining/prehistoric village 

IA1293-1 ground stone 

Lane Mt. SU5096, SU5004, SU5005, 

SU5061, SU5089, SU5081

SU5005 

SU5004 

NRHP-E-[80-5] Goldstone Historic Mining District 

SBR6430 lithic scatter; SBR6434, SBR6432, SBR6433 food 

processing; SBR6431 camp 

SBR6490H mining 

Langford Well No data. 

Lavic Lake T7N R6E Section 2, 10, 11

T7N R6E Section 1 

T8N R6E Section 36 

T8N R6E Section 35/36 

T8N R6E Section 31 

SBR420/H mining/lithic quarry 

SBR2328/H lithic quarry/historic camp 

SBR2328/H 

NRHP-E-CHP3926/SBR2910H National Old Trails Highway 

SBR5801, SBR5798 lithic scatter; SBR5800 lithic reduction 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

T7N R7E Section 4 SBR4165H RR & cemetery 

Lead Mt. SW No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Lockhart EF454, F3036, F1045B, 

DF461, F4003, EF373, 

F1036, C283, F3003 

F3028 

F2007 

SBR193 habitation including multiple rock art sites. 

SBR27H structure 

SBR3502 lithic scatter 

Lucerne Valley No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Ludlow T8N R8E Section 32 

T7N R8E Section 5 

Section 5/8 

Section 17 

Section 20 

Section 19 

Section 28 

T8N R7E Section 26, 27, 

28, 33, 34, 35 

T7N R7E Section 10 

SBR6404H road, IA1532-2 flaked lithic 

P1532-3H military site 

P1532-2H Ludlow town site 

P1532-1H railroad 

SBR6530H RR, SBR6529H mining 

SBR5802 lithic scatter 

SBR3594H town site (Ragtown) 

SBR2792 lithic quarry & rock shelters 

SBR3496 lithic scatter, IA1532-1 flaked lithic 

Ludlow SE No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Manix SBR3033H/CHL963 Mojave Rd. 

NRHP-E-PSBR38H power transmission line 

Melville Lake No recorded cultural resources impacted. No routes plotted on 

map. 

Minneola NR1001B, NR1001C SBR7694H Boulder Transmission Lines 1, 2, 3 & structure; 

SBR3169 lithic reduction 

Morgans' Well No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Morongo Valley MP071, MP075 SBR2212, SBR2372 

Mud Hills 

Mud Hills (continued) 

SU3084 

C111 

SU3024, SU3010, SU1433, 

SU3003, SU3004, SU3070, 

SU3067, SU3025, SU3066, 

SU3068, SU3013, SU3016, 

SU3065, SU3017, SU3029, 

SU3019, SU3022, SU3020 

SU3030, SU3033, SU3031, 

SU3058A, SU3038, 

SU3079, SU3070, SU3012, 

SU3073 

SBR3136 lithic scatter 

SBR8001H airplane crash site 

NRHP-E-[80-5] Goldstone Historic Mining District 

Nebo SU4031 

CO53 

CO63 

CO613 

CO614 

CO615 

CO616 

SU1217 

SBR4677H camp 

SBR4085H RR 

SBR4100H mining 

SBR4099H mining 

P36-061555, IA1812-6 

SBR4087H water storage 

SBR4082H town site, SBR4109 lithic reduction, SBR4084H 

telegraph line 

SBR4848, SBR4847, SBR4846/H, SBR4845, SBR4844, 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

SU1221, SU1216 SBR4842 lithic reduction; SBR4843 lithic scatter 

SBR1968 habitation 

New Dale No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Newberry Springs NR2060 

NR2051 

SBR502 rock shelter 

SBR125 rock art 

Old Woman Springs T4N R3E Section 31 SBR118 village near Old Woman Spring (SBR25). 

Onyx Peak No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Opal Mt. SU2036 

SU2059 

F3003 

SU2048 

SU2071 

SU2072 

SU2049 

SU2048 

SU2037 

SBR6116 lithic scatter/rock art, SBR281 rock art, SBR4348 lithic 

scatter/rock art 

SBR1800 lithic quarry, SBR1925 rock art, SBR7643/H food 

proc./rock art/historic graffiti 

SBR330 camp/rock art, SBR1919 & SBR2006 rock art, SBR329 

camp 

SBR1918 lithic reduction, SBR994 lithic scatter, SBR995 lithic 

reduction, SBR1951 rock art 

SBR282 lithic quarry 

SBR109 village 

SBR103 camp/rock art, SBR6724 camp, SBR104 lithic scatter, 

SBR106 lithic quarry 

SBR7640/H structure/rock art/food processing, SBR5632/H rock 

art/graffiti/structure 

P2072-90/H, 96/H, 97/H, 98/H historic graffiti 

Paradise Range C1010, C1009 

C205 

SBR4525H road 

P2061-1 habitation 

Pinto Mts. No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Rattlesnake Canyon T2N R3E Section 15 

T3N R3E Section 19 

SBR1882 food processing, SBR4280 pottery scatter 

SBR4039 food processing (Rattlesnake Spring) 

Red Buttes K2001 

K3089 

EM1082 

EM1022 

SBR7204, SBR7205, SBR7206 lithic reduction 

SBR7667 lithic reduction 

SBR2256 lithic quarry, rock shelter 

SBR2246 trail 

Red Pass Lake NE No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Rimrock T2N R5E Section 19 

T2N R4E Section 36 

T2N R4E Section 35 

T2N R4E Section 33/34 

T2N R4E Section 33 

T2N R4E Section 32 

T1N R4E Section 4 

SBR4948 habitation, SBR149 rock art (adjacent to T2N R4E 

Sec.24) 

SBR6161 lithic scatter 

SBR6154 

SBR1958 rock shelter 

IA1041-1 flaked tool 

SBR1817 camp site 

SBR6146 lithic scatter 

Saddleback Mt. F5150 

F2011 

NRHP-E-PSBR-39H power transmission line 

SBR5731H RR 

San Bernardino Wash No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Shadow Mts. EM1126 IA1591-1 flaked tool 

Silver Bell Mine NR3067 

NR3063 

NR2054 

SBR4158H mining 

SBR4157H mining 

SBR5053, SBR306 rock shelter, rock art; SBR159 rock art 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

Sleeping Beauty AF053, UK 

AF298 

AF059 

AF055 

AF064, AF069, AF0610, 

AF0611 

SBR4558H mining 

NRHP-E-SBR6693H ATS&F RR 

SBR5797 lithic scatter 

SBR6896, SBR6900 lithic scatter; SBR6897, SBR6898, 

SBR6899, SBR6941, SBR6942 lithic reduction; IA1794-2, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 9 flaked lithic; SBR2792 lithic quarry, rock shelter 

SBR6900 

Slocum Mt. SU2009, SU2012 NRHP-E-[80-5] Goldstone Historic Mining District 

(Note: lithics, ground stone, camps, mining, cairn, stone circle, 

rock art types of sites present in Naval Weapons Center) 

Stoddard Well SV181 SBR181 Stoddard well 

Sunfair MP2022 P1022-1 fire hearth 

Sunshine Peak T7N R5E Section 2 

T8N R5E Section 34 

T8N R5E Section 33/28 

IA542-4 flaked lithic 

IA542-2H glass bottle 

SBR7111H refuse disposal 

Superior Lake SU2020 

SU3080 

SU3089 

SU2040 

SU3095 

SU2016 

IA2071-2 ground stone 

P2071-6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 lithic scatters; SBR517 lithic quarry; 

SBR131 rockshelter, rock art 

P2071-1, 3, 4, 6, SBR1928 rock art 

SBR99 habitation 

SBR6473H mining 

SBR3872 camp, IA2324-3 sherd, IA2324-2 flaked lithic 

Superior Valley No recorded cultural resources impacted. (Note: similar types of 

sites as Slocum Mt. In Naval Weapons Center). 

Troy Lake AF129 

AF125 

AF031 

AF0453 

AF0450 

AF0451 

NR2030 

SBR2082 lithic reduction 

SBR127 lithic reduction 

NRHP-E-SBR6693H ATS&F RR, SBR5793 lithic reduction, 

SBR6522/H lithic scatter/RR, SBR6954 camp site 

SBR6954 

IA1804-6, IA1804-7, IA1804-8 flaked lithic; P1804-1 lithic 

reduction 

SBR2084 lithic reduction 

SBR6893, SBR6894 lithic reduction; IA1804-10, 11, 12, 13 

flaked tool, flaked lithic 

Turtle Valley SV267 

SV2225 

CO76 

SV181 

SV262 

SBR9090H homestead 

SBR9357 stone circle 

NRHP-E-SBR7694H Boulder Dam to LA power lines 

CHL577/SBR4411H Mormon Trail 

SBR9361H trail 

Twelve Gauge Lake No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Twenty-Nine Palms MP221 P1021-3 lithic scatter 

Valley Mountain No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Victorville T6N R4W Section 20 

T6N R4W Section 33 

T6N R4W Section 33/26 

PSBR62H power transmission line 

SBR7694H power transmission line 

SBR4411H/CHL577H Mormon Trail 

Victorville NW EF1550 IA1582-9 flaked lithic, SBR7683 lithic scatter, SBR7685 lithic 

reduction, SBR7085 lithic quarry, SBR7684/H lithic 
Appendices 

QUADRANGLE ROUTE CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY 

IMPACTED 

EF157 

reduction/refuse disposal 

SBR8267 stone circle, lithic reduction 

W of Broadwell Mesa AF157 

AF1512 

AF122 

AF327 

AF329 

P1782-1 lithic quarry 

SBR1552 lithic quarry, SBR170 village, SBR2340H RR 

SBR2340H RR 

SBR2215 habitation 

SBR3590 habitation 

W of Soda Lake C4034 

C4002 

NRHP-E-PSB38H power transmission line, SBR1066, SBR1065 

stone alignments, SBR1068 trail 

SBR7689H road 

Water Mt. No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

White Horse Mt. T6N R1W Section 15 SBR2336 habitation 

Wild Crossing EF212 

EF191 

K4084 

SBR720 lithic quarry 

SBR4862 lithic scatter, IA1834-18 flaked lithic, IA1834-10 flaked 

tool 

SBR5354 lithic scatter, cairn 

Williams’ Well SU5004, SU5005, SU5096, 

SU5063 

NRHP-E-[80-5] Goldstone Historic Mining District 

Yermo CO744 

CO76, C2006, C2001, 

C074, C1001, C2036, 

CO72 

CO760, CO745 

CO753 

CO749, C2007, CO62, 

CO625 

C2006, C2007 

C2007, C0744 

CO76, C2036, C1001, 

CO74, CO744 

CO760, CO753 

CO745, CO760 

C2028, C029, C2007 

SBR2827/H refuse disposal, PSBR45H Road 

SBR2827/H refuse disposal 

SBR4908/H refuse disposal 

NRHP-E-SBR7694H Boulder transmission line 1, 2, 3 

SBR4193H mining & CPHI-SBR54 Borate-Calico Hills 

SBR2829 lithic quarry 

SBR2828 lithic reduction 

SBR2827/H lithic quarry 

SBR3171 

SBR4908/H camp 

SBR2831 lithic quarry 

Yucca Valley North No recorded cultural resources impacted. 

Yucca Valley South No recorded cultural resources impacted. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX V 

CEQA 

SCOPING COMMENTS
Appendices 














































































Appendices 

APPENDIX W 

CALTRANS 

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX W 

CALTRANS MAINTENANCE ACITIVITIES

W.1 PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROADS 

Some of the existing county maintained unpaved roads may be paved within the existing 

roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental conditions warrant. In addition, safety 

improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within Public/Quasi-Public Lands 

are covered activities. Guidelines are provided below that would minimize and avoid impacts to 

sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the existing roadway. 

Necessary operation and maintenance activities conducted for safety purposes would be 

permitted within Public/Quasi-Public Lands. These activities include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Signage - The installation and maintenance of signs to control traffic for the purposes of 

regulation, warning or guidance. 

• Traffic Control Devices - The installation and maintenance of official traffic control 

devices, including, but not limited to, signing, street lights, striping, pavement markings, 

flashing beacons, and traffic signals in order to control, regulate, and provide guidance to 

traffic movements and to clearly identify potentially hazardous conditions. 

• Guardrails and Fences - The installation, replacement and maintenance of guardrails 

and fences solely for vehicle and pedestrian safety. 

• Pavement Repairs - Pothole repair, chip seal, skin patching, slurry sealing, and 

resurfacing of roadways performed for the purpose of reducing roadway hazards and 

maintaining the useful life of the road. 

• Accident Response - The removal and clearance of debris and spills related to traffic 

accidents, including the repair and/or restoration of any damaged roadway facilities. 

• Tree Trimming - Routine tree and shrub trimming within the road rights-of-way to 

improve sight distance and eliminate potential traffic hazards. 

• Natural Disaster Damage/Restoration of Emergency Access - Clearance of debris, and 

other natural material from roadways that results from natural disasters such as flooding, 

earthquake, and fire. Such actions necessary for public safety, especially in providing 

vehicular movement during emergency operations. 
Appendices 

• Storm Damage - Clearance of mud and debris accumulated on the roadway due to a 

storm event. Road crews will complete these projects as soon as possible following the 

end of a storm event, and may use the excess mud, dirt, and rock on the roadway as fill 

material. 

• Weed Control - Control of vegetation within road rights-of-way (including graded 

shoulder areas and open or closed channels) by means of mowing, discing, hand labor, or 

herbicide application in order to control weed populations and eliminate sight distance 

problems, roadway hazards, prevent fires, and provide proper drainage. This includes the 

control of weeds and grasses in revegetated mitigation areas and landscaped areas in 

order to allow plant establishment by the methods outlined above. 

• Grading Shoulders - Shoulder grading up to 12 feet from the edge of paved or unpaved 

roadways in order to reduce accident potential and improve safety. Additional fill 

material may be needed to restore the original grade at the edge of the pavement; such 

material may consist of dirt, gravel, decomposed granite, or rip rap. 

• Grading Existing Dirt Roadways - Grading of existing County-maintained dirt 

roadways in order to reduce accident potential and improve safety. 

• Dust Stabilization - The placement of dust stabilizers on the soil including, but not 

limited to, magnesium chloride, permazion, penetration and gravel, in order to prevent 

erosion, provide dust control and improve site distance when traffic visibility is reduced 

due to dust clouds. 

• Culverts/Drop Structures - Construction, replacement, and cleaning out of 

culverts/drop structures in areas where flooding hazards may arise. This includes the 

clearing of brush, sand, sediment, debris, and other obstructions to flow. 

• Curbs/Gutters/Sidewalks - Construction, replacement and repair of curbs, gutters and 

sidewalks as necessary in order to reduce vehicular and pedestrian accident potential, 

improve safety and prevent storm damage. 

• Roadway Widening - Minor widening of an existing roadway that does not add through 

travel lanes, but may add turn lanes at intersections or paved shoulders as necessary for 

safety reasons. 

• Berms - Construction of berms within the road right-of-way as part of a resurfacing 

project to control drainage. 

• Roadway Resurfacing - Grinding the pavement surface, paving, and grading of dirt 

shoulders, including chipseals, slurry seals, micro and macro paving. 
Appendices 

• Ditch Clearing -Clearing of ditches and stabilization of the banks of drainage courses 

along roadways. 

• Landscape Maintenance - Maintenance and repair of irrigation systems, landscape 

plantings, and associated facilities. 

• Bridge Maintenance - Removal of vegetation, debris, sand, silt, sediment, and other 

obstructions to flow. 

• Roadway Reconstruction - Removing existing paving to regrade, base and pave an 

existing roadway. 

• Roadside Maintenance - Litter and debris removal, sign lighting, mechanical sweeping 

of shoulders and/or centerline, and graffiti removal. 

• Best Management Practices - To meet NPDES permit work, includes but limited to; 

drainage Inspection, roadside stabilization, erosion control, illicit connections, illegal 

discharges, water quality structural treatments and ground water treatment facilities. 

• Traffic Control Devices - (needs to include) pavement markers, roadside markers and 

vehicle energy attenuators. 

• Snow and Ice Control - Snow removal, drift prevention, ice control, installation and 

maintenance of snow fences, snow pole installation, repair and removal, maintenance and 

control of tire chain installation points. 

W.2 Guidelines for Safety Improvements for Existing Roadways Within Public/QuasiPublic Lands: 

Maintenance and operation activities conducted for safety purposes, as described above, are 

subject to following guidelines. 

• Timing of construction activities shall consider seasonal requirements for breeding birds 

and migratory non-resident species. Habitat clearing shall be avoided during species 

active breeding season defined as March 1 to June 30. 

• Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed to minimize the 

transport of sediments off-site. Sediment and erosion control measures shall be 

implemented until such time soils are determined to be successfully stabilized. 

• The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access 

to sites shall occur on pre-existing access routes. 
Appendices 

• Equipment storage, fueling and staging areas shall be sited within existing ROW or on 

non-sensitive upland habitat types with minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian 

areas or other sensitive habitat types. 

• Exotic species removed during safety improvements shall be taken off-site to prevent 

sprouting or regrowth. 

• Construction, maintenance and operation activities may be restricted within and adjacent 

to wetlands, vernal pools, restoration areas and sensitive wildlife habitat (e.g., during the 

breeding season) at the discretion of the Reserve manager. 

• Fencing or other barriers shall be used to restrict access to sensitive areas during 

construction, operation and maintenance activities. 

• Vegetation removed from the site shall not be stockpiled in any channel, streambed, lake 

or on the banks. Spoil sites shall not be located within-a channel, basin, stream, or lake 

where spoil or debris can be washed back into the channel or basin or a stream/lake, or 

where it will cover aquatic or riparian vegetation. 

• The selection and application of (herbicides and rodenticides) shall comply with all 

applicable local, State and Federal permitting or licensing requirements or regulations. 

• All debris, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, silt, cement, concrete, or washings thereof, 

asphalt, paint, or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any other 

substances resulting from project-related activities which could be hazardous to aquatic 

life or waters of the State, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil and/or entering 

the waters of the State. None of these materials shall be allowed to enter into or be placed 

within or where they may enter or be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the 

State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed 

from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the high water mark 

of any channel, basin, stream or lake. 
Appendices 

APPENDIX X 

BIOLOGICAL TRANSITION AREAS 

DROPPED FROM FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX X 

BIOLOGICAL TRANSITION AREAS 

DROPPED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

X.1 Background 

In the very earliest planning stages, the biological evaluation team (Bureau of Land 

Management 1999) identified three different tortoise management areas: Desert Wildlife 

Management Areas (DWMAs) for tortoise conservation, Incidental Take Areas (ITAs) for 

authorized development, and Managed Use Areas for remaining lands. Following the September 

1999 publication of the Biological Evaluation during public meetings, the Managed Use Area 

concept was dropped in favor of Biological Transition Areas, or “BTAs.” 

During these meetings, various BTA boundaries were discussed. Two original BTAs 

were subsequently merged into respective DWMAs: north of Silver Lakes into the FremontKramer DWMA and south of Highway 62 into the Pinto Mountain DWMA. 

During the public review of the Draft EIR/S, both the BLM and the counties expressed 

concern that the BTA concept was highly complex, would be very difficult to implement and 

offered little in the way of additional conservation for desert tortoises. As result of the concerns 

expressed, the West Mojave Team re-evaluated each BTA on an individual basis to determine 

the values that each area was anticipated to provide. Those areas with important conservation 

values were added to the adjacent tortoise DWMA, while those areas that were judged to have 

minimal contribution to the overall conservation design were deleted. 

The 11 BTAs designated for the desert tortoise were depicted in Map 2-1 of the Draft 

EIR/S (foldout map in Volume 1). Table X-1 presents an overview of these 11 areas, including 

the county in which the BTA is located, and the acres of public and private lands included within 

the BTA. There was no differentiation between State-owned lands and other private ownership. 

 Percentages following BLM acreage are relative to the total size of the associated BTA. Public 

lands accounted for 34% of the total, while 66% of the BTAs were in private ownership. Most 

of the private land BTA acreage (i.e., 59,223 of 79,664 acres, or 74%) was found in San 

Bernardino County. BLM lands accounted for as little as 5% of the BTA in the Edwards Bowl 

area and as high as 72% in the area between Highway 395 and the Kern County line. 
Appendices 

 Table X-1 

Characteristics of the 11 Biological Transition Areas Associated With DWMAs.

Generic BTA Name County GIS-Based Acreage (acres) 

Private BLM Total 

1. Desert Tortoise Natural Area Kern 20,441 3,615 (15%) 24,056 

2. HWY 395 to Kern Co. line San Berdo 5,980 14,840 (72%) 20,820 

3. East of Harper Lake San Berdo 2,920 905 (24%) 3,825 

4. Southeast of Harper Lake San Berdo 5,712 1,279 (18%) 6,991 

5. West of Calico Mountain San Berdo 3,441 2,596 (43%) 6,037 

6. West of Newberry Springs San Berdo 4,423 4,130 (48%) 8,553 

7. East of Newberry Springs San Berdo 1,370 104 (7%) 1,474 

8. Edwards Bowl area San Berdo/L.A. 22,341 1,252 (5%) 23,593 

9. North of Adelanto San Berdo 7,796 1,305 (14%) 9,101 

10. Northern Lucerne Valley San Berdo 3,791 7,719 (67%) 11,510 

11. Twentynine Palms San Berdo 1,449 2,424 (63%) 3,873 

Totals N/A 79,664 (66%) 40,169 (34%) 119,833 

X.2 Findings 

The Draft EIS/R referred to a heightened review of projects occurring within BTAs. 

However, it failed to list project types that would be incompatible with tortoise conservation. 

Nor did the Draft EIR/S attempt to identify what “heightened review” entailed. Such a 

heightened review was not identified for DWMAs, which are intended to be the main location 

for tortoise conservation. Eliminating BTAs would not increase the area of incidental take, as 

BTAs were already designated as part of the Incidental Take Area (ITA). With or without 

BTAs, the counties would continue to consider projects in the context of CEQA, and would need 

to determine potential significant impacts to rare and endangered species. Similarly, the BLM 

would be required to complete Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements 

for all projects, including those in BTAs. Given this information, there appears to be little 

difference in tortoise conservation with or without BTAs. 

The primary function of BTAs was to prevent “spillover” impacts from projects located 

within the BTA onto the adjacent DWMA. Post-Draft analysis revealed that there really was no 

proximate urban interface to the following BTAs: 1, 2, 6, and 7. In several cases (BTAs 2 and 

10), they are mostly comprised of public lands managed by the BLM, so there is little chance 

they would be used for residential, agricultural, and several other types of development. Six of 

the BTAs are situated between DWMAs and adjacent areas that are actively being developed: 

BTA 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. These six areas are where BTAs would most likely have provided a 

protective function, and these could be the focal areas for alternative means to accomplish 

similar protection. 

Given the findings of this analysis, it was determined that eliminating BTAs would not 

substantially reduce tortoise conservation. DWMA boundaries were expanded in 7 of the 11 

areas to facilitate tortoise conservation in critical habitat and on BLM lands (see Table 2 below). 
Appendices 

 Additional protective measures were identified for potential application in 6 of the 11 areas (see 

Table X-2 and point 13 at the end of this appendix). 

Many of the considerations given above also apply to Mohave ground squirrel 

conservation. Some of the impacts associated with urbanizing areas are expected to affect 

tortoises but there is no evidence they would affect Mohave ground squirrels. For example, 

tortoises in adjacent areas are often affected by the following threats, for which there is no 

available information showing a similar threat to Mohave ground squirrels. Increased dumping, 

feral dogs, common ravens, pet collection, vandalism, poaching, etc. are examples of threats to 

tortoises that are not known to affect Mohave ground squirrels. Given this and the above 

information, it was determined that elimination of BTAs associated with the Mohave Ground 

Squirrel Conservation Area would not significantly detract from conservation for that species. 

BTAs adjacent to the MGS CA were eliminated without modifying the conservation area. 

X.3 Recommendations for BTAs Adjacent to DWMAs 

Given biological and political constraints, the Final EIR/S reflects two basic changes to 

the conservation strategy in response to eliminating tortoise BTAs adjacent to DWMAs. The 

modifications are intended to replace the function of BTAs by protecting DWMAs from adjacent 

impacts. The two changes included (1) modifying DWMA boundaries where appropriate and (2) 

identifying other protective measures for specified DWMAs to minimize impacts from adjacent 

Incidental Take Areas. Table X-2 summarizes the changes that were made. The rationales for 

the changes are described following the table. 
Appendices 

Table X-2 

BTA Elimination and DWMA Modifications 

Generic BTA Name Actions Taken

1. Desert Tortoise Natural Area A total of 7,410 acres added to Fremont-Kramer; connect DTNA fence with MojaveRandsburg fence; minimize OHV and sheep grazing impacts.

2. HWY 395 to Kern Co. line BTA eliminated with no DWMA modification; MGS CA protections apply to 15,650 

acres or 75% of former BTA. 

3. East of Harper Lake Superior-Cronese DWMA expanded by 3,835 acres to include entire BTA; may 

require installation of fence between cattle allotment and DWMA; may need other 

protective measures1

4. Southeast of Harper Lake Superior-Cronese DWMA expanded by 1,778 acres to include the northern portions 

of the BTA; remaining area becomes part of ITA; may need other protective 

measures. 

5. West of Calico Mountain Superior-Cronese DWMA expanded by 3,111 acres, including 2,392 acres of BLM 

lands, located in the north part of the BTA; remaining areas to the south become part 

of ITA 

6. West of Newberry Springs Ord-Rodman DWMA expanded by 8,553 acres. 

7. East of Newberry Springs BTA eliminated with no DWMA modification. 

8. Edwards Bowl area Fremont-Kramer DWMA expanded by 11,898 acres to include critical habitat not 

included in Draft’s boundary configuration; remaining BTA would become ITA; 

SEATAC would provide similar function for lands in L.A. County; may need other 

protective measures 

9. North of Adelanto BTA eliminated with no DWMA modification; may need other protective measures 

10. Northern Lucerne Valley Ord-Rodman DWMA expanded by 9,927 acres; may need other protective measures, 

particularly along south boundary 

11. Twentynine Palms BTA eliminated with no DWMA modification; may need other protective measures 1

 “Other protective measures” are listed below in point 13. 

The primary function of the BTAs was to protect the integrity of the adjacent DWMAs. 

Rationale is provided below for DWMA modifications that were intended, in part, to 

functionally replace BTAs where appropriate. 

 (1) BTA1 – Desert Tortoise Natural Area. One can see in Table X-1 that 85% of 

proposed BTA1 at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area would have been comprised of private lands. 

 Although this could be interpreted as an increased threat of human development, the necessary 

infrastructure (i.e., sewer, utilities, etc.) is lacking. There is little likelihood that residential 

development would occur, although other development, such as a new prison, is possible. In 

February 2004, the Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee provided a map showing proposed 

revised boundaries for the Desert Tortoise Natural Area. These modified boundaries were 

discussed with the CDFG relative to the then-proposed Hyundai test track. They would 

strengthen conservation for both the desert tortoise and Mohave ground squirrel in spite of 

eliminating BTA1. 

The expanded DWMA encompasses several square miles that the Desert Tortoise 

Preserve Committee recently purchased that were not included in the Alternative A DWMA 

boundary shown in Map 2-1 in the Draft EIR/S. Since DTPC’s mission is to conserve the 

tortoise in important habitats, it was appropriate that the boundary be modified to include lands 
Appendices 

they already own, and others that are identified for eventual acquisition and conservation. The 

northwestern part of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA is located north of Highway 58 and west of 

Highway 395. It is bounded to the south by hundreds of square miles of private land in 

California City and Kern County. Relatively mountainous areas with some good remaining 

populations (i.e., Little Dixie Wash, Indian Wells Valley, etc.) are still found to the north. This 

is a very important area in terms of managing OHV use and sheep grazing, much of which 

occurs in an unregulated manner on private lands. The new configuration helps “thicken” the 

conservation area at its most narrow point, between Koehn Lake and the east-central boundary of 

the Desert Tortoise Natural Area. The realignment along the Mojave-Randsburg Road makes for 

a more defensible boundary than the one proposed in the Draft EIR/S. Perimeter fences already 

exist around the Desert Tortoise Natural Area and along the Mojave-Randsburg Road that would 

facilitate DWMA management of this important area. The perimeter fence around the natural 

area already functions, in part, as a BTA by minimizing OHV and sheep grazing impacts, which 

are prevalent in adjacent areas. For these reasons, modifying the DWMA boundaries as shown 

in Map 2-1 is considered to provide relatively more conservation value than would have been 

provided by designating the BTA. 

(2) BTA2 – Highway 395 West to Kern County Line. About 72% of this area is managed 

by the BLM, so there is somewhat less a threat of residential development. When conditions 

permit, woolgrowers use this area extensively. Its inclusion in the Fremont-Kramer DWMA 

would necessarily mean eliminating sheep grazing from this 21,820-acre (+/- 31-mi2

) area. The 

area was identified as being available for sheep grazing when grazing was effectively eliminated 

from the east side of Highway 395 in the early 1990’s. It would require a fence along the county 

line to restrict sheep grazing from this area if it were managed as a DWMA. The current 

proposal is to fence Highway 395 to minimize vehicle impacts to tortoises. This would 

effectively create a fragmented block of habitat on the west side of Highway 395. The northern 

15,650 acres (i.e., 75% of former BTA2) would be designated as part of the Mohave Ground 

Squirrel Conservation Area under the Proposed Action. Management prescriptions in the 

MGSCA would protect these habitats in the absence of the BTA designation. The BTA was 

dropped without modifying the adjacent DWMA. 

(3) BTA3 – Harper Lake. West Mojave Plan records indicate that there are few 

structures in the eastern part of the BTA, proximate to Hinkley. The 940 acres of BLM land 

occur on the western portions of the BTA. In its comment letter, CDFG recommended that the 

DWMA be expanded in this area to ensure good connectivity among conservation lands to the 

east and west. The Harper Lake cattle allotment is immediately west of this area. There is no 

allotment fence along the western boundary to preclude cattle from entering the expanded 

DWMA. Tortoise surveys would be performed for future development, including single-family 

residences, and heightened Best Management Practices would apply. Impacts would be included 

in the BLM’s and county’s 1% Allowable Ground Disturbance. Thickening the narrow band of 

conserved habitat in this area is considered important to tortoise conservation. The SuperiorCronese DWMA boundary has been changed to include all of BTA3. 

(4) BTA4 – Southeast of Harper Lake. For the reasons given above in BTA3, the change 
Appendices 

was made to include the northern three miles of BTA4 within the Superior-Cronese DWMA to 

thicken the conservation land bridge southeast of Harper Lake. This habitat connector may be 

important to conservation of the MGS, particularly if the dry lake is an impediment to dispersal 

along a north-south axis. Inclusion of these two former BTAs into the Superior-Cronese DWMA 

would expand the DWMA, and the MGS CA, by 5,613 acres. 

(5) BTA5 – West of Calico Mountain. There is no imminent urban threat from the west 

that would justify the configuration of BTA5. BLM currently manages approximately 2,400 

acres in the northern portion of this BTA, with the remaining southern portion in private 

ownership. The change was made to expand the Superior-Cronese DWMA into the northern 

portion of the BTA, which includes 2,392 acres of BLM land and 719 acres of private land. 

Remaining areas to the south would be managed as an ITA and remain within the designated 

tortoise Survey Area. 

(6) BTA6 – West of Newberry Springs. The 8,553 acres comprising BTA6, half of which 

is composed of public lands, is not directly threatened by a proximate urban interface. Tortoises 

are more likely to be affected by mining than other forms of development. The modification is 

intended, in part, to enlarge the DWMA, which at 388 square miles is still about 600 square 

miles smaller than what the recovery plan recommended. The importance of the Ord-Rodman 

DWMA cannot be over-emphasized, particularly if disease is responsible for decimating 

populations in the Fremont-Kramer and/or Superior-Cronese DWMAs. The change was made to 

include the 8,553 acres in the northern portion of the Ord-Rodman DWMA. 

(7) BTA7 – East of Newberry Springs. Only 104 acres of this relatively small area are 

managed by the BLM. Most of the local residential development and all of the agricultural 

development occur north of Interstate 40. Since BTA8 is directly adjacent to I-40, it has already 

been somewhat degraded and is within an area of likely human development. It is recommended 

that this 1,474-acre area would not be included within the Ord-Rodman DWMA; rather, it would 

be retained within the ITA. 

(8) BTA8 – Edwards Bowl Area. As given in Table 1, this was the second largest 

proposed BTA (23,593 acres compared to 24,056 acres in BTA1). There are approximately 

12,000 acres of critical habitat in the area that were not included in the southern part of the 

Fremont-Kramer DWMA. Several public comments, particularly from tortoise interest groups, 

questioned the decision to exclude any critical habitat from proposed DWMAs. The 

jurisdictional protection that would have been provided by BTA management would be replaced 

by including all tortoise critical habitat in the area within the Fremont-Kramer DWMA. This 

entailed expanding the southern part of the Fremont-Kramer DWMA by 11,898 square miles. 

Although the BTA to the west of critical habitat would be abandoned, some of this area is 

included within the MGS CA, which would call for somewhat more restrictive management than 

under BTA management. Most of the BTA located within Los Angeles County would remain 

within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA), which would already require heightened review of 

environmental impacts by the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee 

(SEATAC). 

(9) BTA9 – North of Adelanto. This 9,100-acre area is comprised of about 86% private 
Appendices 

lands, with the remaining BLM lands occurring in an unconsolidated pattern. Given the nearabsence of public lands, this former BTA was not included within the DWMA. As given below 

in point 13, it would be appropriate to implement some or all of the protective measures 

described to functionally replace the BTA. 

(10) BTA10 – North Lucerne Valley. Given the prevalence of BLM land and the 

apparent development threats from the south, all of BTA10 located west of Camp Rock Road has 

been included in the Ord-Rodman DWMA. Areas east of Camp Rock Road are within the 

Johnson Valley Open Area and would not be included within the DWMA. The southern 

boundary corresponds with an east-west road that provides an easily recognizable, defensible 

boundary. This change entailed adding 9,927 acres to the southern portion of the Ord-Rodman 

DWMA. Given the additions of BTA6 to the north and BTA10 to the south, the Ord-Rodman 

has been increased by approximately 29 square miles, for a total of about 417 square miles. 

(11) BTA11 – Twentynine Palms. There were 2,424 acres of BLM land (63%) within this 

3,873-acre BTA. In very early planning, these six square miles were first included in the 

proposed Pinto Mountain DWMA. Then it was found that this area is within the corporate 

boundary of the City of Twentynine Palms. The Biological Evaluation (Bureau of land 

Management 1999) stated that most areas within city limits would be designated as Incidental 

Take Areas. Given intended human growth within such areas, DWMAs were designed, in part, 

to avoid cities. As such, BTA11 was dropped with no expansion of the Pinto Mountain DWMA. 

Other Protective Measures. Former BTAs 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were the most likely to 

function as intended because of the proximate human development in adjacent Incidental Take 

Areas. In the absence of BTAs, the following measures are intended to help alleviate indirect 

impacts of adjacent human development on tortoises and habitat in proximate DWMAs. These 

measures include (a) Increase signing and/or fencing along boundary so adjacent residents are 

aware of the conservation area. (b) On BLM lands within the DWMAs, increase law 

enforcement or other BLM presence in the area to minimize illegal activities such as dumping, 

shooting, and cross-country vehicle use on public lands outside designated open areas. (c) 

Specifically consider and discuss DWMAs associated with these six areas when formulating the 

Feral Dog Management Plan. (d) Depending on monitoring results, there may need to be 

subsequent conservation (adaptive) management along the DWMA boundary to minimize 

impacts from authorized development in adjacent Incidental Take Areas. 
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX Y 

SPECIES ADDRESSED BY 

THE PLAN
Appendices 
Appendices 

APPENDIX Y 

SPECIES ADDRESSED BY THE PLAN 

Proposed Covered Species – 49 

Reptiles - 4 

Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Threatened 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Uma notata) 

San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei) 

Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) 

Birds – 16 

Raptors

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Long-eared owl (Asio otus) 

Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)

Riparian guild

Brown-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus tyrannulus)

Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Endangered

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Endangered 

Summer tanager (Piranga rubra)

Vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus)

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri)

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Federal Candidate, State Endangered

Other birds

Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) 

Inyo California towhee (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus) Threatened, Endemic

LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) 

Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) 

Mammals - 5

California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) 

Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus mohavensis) State threatened, Endemic 

*Mojave River vole (Microtus californicus mohavensis) Endemic 

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

Yellow-eared pocket mouse (Perognathus xanthonotus) Endemic 
Appendices 

Covered species (cont.) 

Plants – 24 

Alkali mariposa lily (Calochortus striatus) 

Barstow woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense) Endemic

Charlotte’s phacelia (Phacelia nashiana) Endemic 

Crucifixion thorn (Castela emoryi) 

Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum) Endangered

Cushenbury milkvetch (Astragalus albens) Endangered

Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana) Endangered 

Desert cymopterus (Cymopterus deserticola) Endemic

Kern buckwheat (Eriogonum kennedyi var. pinicola) Endemic 

Lane Mountain milkvetch (Astragalus jaegerianus) Endangered, Endemic

Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia (Linanthus [Gilia] maculata) Endemic

Mojave monkeyflower (Mimulus mojavensis) Endemic

Mojave tarplant (Deinandra [Hemizonia] mohavensis) State endangered

Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii) 

Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) Threatened 

Parish’s phacelia (Phacelia parishii) 

Parish’s popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys parishii) 

Red Rock poppy (Eschscholtzia minutiflora ssp. twisselmannii) Endemic

Red Rock tarplant (Deinandra [Hemizonia] arida) State rare, Endemic 

Salt Springs checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana) 

Shockley’s rock cress (Arabis shockleyi) 

Short-joint beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada) 

Triple-ribbed milkvetch (Astragalus tricarinatus) Endangered 

White-margined beardtongue (Penstemon albomarginatus)

Species not covered by incidental take permits 

Species removed as covered species as a result of public and agency comments on the draft Plan 

and EIR/EIS – 9 

Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina) 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) 

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) 

Flax-like monardella (Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga) 

Reveal’s buckwheat (Eriogonum contiguum) 
Appendices 

Species removed as proposed covered species during the planning process

Adequate Protection in Place – 7 

Plants

Dedecker’s clover (Trifolium dedeckerae) Endemic

Gilman’s goldenbush (Ericameria gilmanii)

Hall’s daisy (Erigeron aequifolius) 

Muir’s raillardella (Raillardiopsis muirii) 

Nine Mile Canyon phacelia (Phacelia novenmillensis) Endemic

Owens Peak lomatium (Lomatium shevockii) Endemic

Sweet-smelling monardella (Monardella beneolens) 

Deleted – 19 

Mammals

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) 

Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femerosaccus) 

Birds

American white pelican (Pelacanus erythrorhynchos)

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) 

California gull (Larus californicus) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

Hepatic tanager (Piranga flava) 

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi) 

Virginia's warbler (Vermivora virginiae)

Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Endangered 

Plants

Calico monkeyflower (Mimulus pictus) 

Cream layia (Layia heterotricha) 

Ertter’s milkvetch (Astragalus ertterae) 

Flat-seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma)

Palmer’s mariposa lily (Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri) 

Peirson’s spring beauty (Claytonia lanceolata var. peirsonii) 

Spanish Needle onion (Allium shevockii)
Appendices 

Dropped - 39 

Insufficient information - 21 

Amphibians

Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi) State Threatened

Mammals

Argus Mountains kangaroo rat (Dipodomys panamintinus argusensus) Endemic 

Tehachapi pocket mouse (Perognathus alticola inexpectatus) 

Birds

Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei) 

Lucy’s warbler (Vermivora luciae) 

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) 

Plants

Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri)

Death Valley roundleaf phacelia (Phacelia mustelina) 

Golden violet (Viola aurea) 

Inyo hulsea (Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoensis) 

Jackass clover (Wizlizenia refracta ssp. refracta) 

Lancaster milkvetch (Astragalus preussii var. laxiflorus) 

Mojave milkvetch (Astragalus mojavensis var. hemigyrus) 

Piute Mountains jewelflower (Streptanthus cordatus var. piutensis)

Ripley's cymopterus (Cymopterus ripleyi) 

Ripley’s gilia (Gilia ripleyi)

Robinson’s peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) 

Robison’s monardella (Monardella robisonii) Endemic

Sagebrush loeflingea (Loeflingea squarrosa var. artemisiarum) 

Small-flowered androstephium (Androstephium breviforum)

Southern scullcap (Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana) 

Too common - 8 

Birds

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Plants

Foxtail cactus (Coryphantha alversonii [Escobaria vivipara var. alversonii]) 

Sand linanthus (Linanthus arenicola) 

Kern County evening primrose (Camissonia kernensis ssp. kernensis) 
Appendices 

Pygmy poppy (Canbya candida) 

San Bernardino buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum var. corymbosoides) 

The Needles buckwheat (Erigonum breedlovei var. shevockii) 

Dropped (cont.) 

Other Reasons - 10 (Special cases) 

Mojave Tui Chub (Gila bicolor mohavensis) Endemic, Endangered 

Arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) Endangered 

Red-legged frog (Rana microscaphus californicus) Threatened 

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsonii) State endangered

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) Proposed threatened

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) State endangered 

Kelso Creek monkeyflower (Mimulus shevockii) Endemic

Clokey’s cryptantha (Cryptantha clokeyi) 

Total species = 123 
Appendices 

Definitions for Species Review 

Endemic – Entire range of species restricted (or nearly so) to the West Mojave Plan area. 

Dropped = These species are addressed by the plan, but incidental take permits are not being 

sought. In most cases, insufficient information is available to determine the appropriate 

conservation areas or management measures. BLM will continue to monitor the status of these 

species on public lands and will provide conservation measures on a case-by-case basis until 

more information on the status and distribution is obtained. If feasible conservation measures 

can be developed for private lands, the species can be amended into the Habitat Conservation 

Plan at a later date. 

Other reasons for dropping species from coverage by incidental take permits include: 

6. The species is already addressed within the West Mojave by existing Biological 

Opinions. 

7. The species has been found to be too common to require conservation measures. 

8. The species is a special case, and planwide conservation measures are not applicable. 

Some of these species are found entirely or primarily within the boundaries of military bases. 

Others are single-occurrence species best treated on a case-by-case basis. 

9. Governing jurisdiction decides that species should not be included in the permit 

application. 

10. No feasible conservation measures can be applied to protect the species in the Plan area. 

11. Task Group and Supergroup do not endorse recommended conservation measures. 

In addition, review of the recommended plan by the wildlife agencies may result in species being 

dropped (not covered by incidental take permits). This might result if conservation measures, 

adaptive management, and monitoring are judged to be insufficient to protect the species during the term 

of the HCP and 10(a) or 2081 permits. 

Deleted = These species were reviewed by West Mojave biologists and determined to be outside 

the plan boundaries or to have no essential habitat within the plan area. Several deleted plants at 

the northwest edge of the planning area occur close to the boundary and may be incorporated 

into the West Mojave Plan at a later date if they are discovered within the Plan area. Reasons for 

deletion of a species from the list include: 

1. Species does not occur in the Plan area. 

2. Species is of accidental or vagrant occurrence in the Plan area. 

3. Species is a rare or temporary visitor to the Plan area (as with migratory birds) and does not have 

important migration habitat in the Plan area. 

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

California Desert District

22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos

Moreno Valley, CA 92553

OFFICAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

PRIORITY MAIL

Postage and Fees Paid

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76

Subscribe to Newsbytes a

FREE Weekly Email Newsletter.

www.ca.blm.gov