Record of Decision 
 

West Mojave Plan 
 

Amendment to the 
 

California Desert Conservation Area Plan 
 

March 2006 
 

BLM 

California Desert District 

Public Lands USA; Use Share, Appreciate 

RECORD OF DECISION 

SUMMARY 

This Record of Decision (ROD) completes a 15-year long public planning. After considering 

more than 300 public comments, the best available scientific and technical information, and 

results of consultation with federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and Indian 

tribes, it is the decision of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to approve, with minor 

modifications, the West Mojave Plan, an amendment to the California Desert Conservation 

Area Plan. The modifications, summarized below, result from resolution of protests by the 

BLM Director as well as from new information provided by the public. 

The West Mojave Plan includes the West Mojave Desert area encompassing 9.3 million acres 

in Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties: 3.3 million acres of public lands 

administered by BLM, 3.0 million acres of private lands, 102,000 acres administered by the State of 

California, and the balance of military lands administered by the Department of Defense. 

BLM and the participating state and local governments have used the name, “West Mojave 

Plan” throughout the planning process to include complementary BLM and state-local 

government actions. These actions are described under Alternative A of the January 2005 

proposed plan and final environmental impact report and statement. However, for purposes 

of this ROD, “West Mojave Plan” refers solely to BLM’s amendment of the California 

Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan and will not include the actions being proposed by 

State and local governments for the non-federal lands, except when specifically identified. 

The State and local government actions comprise a proposed Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) for the 3.1 million acres of State of California and private lands. The HCP is not yet 

complete. The major elements of the HCP are described in Alternative A, including the 

covered species, boundaries of the conservation areas, survey requirements, funding 

requirements and implementing conservation actions for each species. Greater specificity is 

necessary for the local governments to obtain incidental take permits from the State and 

federal endangered species acts. The requisite documents, including an Implementing 

Agreement, will be prepared in the future and may be accompanied by additional 

environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as will be determined necessary by thee participating 

agencies. By identifying BLM land use decisions on the public lands in the West Mojave 

Desert area, approval of this ROD takes an important step towards completing the HCP. 

The West Mojave Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are available on 

BLM’s web site at: http://www.ca.blm.gov/cdd/wemo.html. 

1 
Modifications Resulting From Resolution of Protests 

BLM has responded to the 33 protests to the West Mojave Plan and, in accordance with 

BLM regulations, 43 CFR 1610.5-2, the decision of the BLM Director is the final decision of 

the Department of the Interior as to those protests. Protests were granted on several specific 

issues, primarily involving designations of routes of travel. The changes in these travel 

designations are provided below. Numbered items refer to route designation protests that 

were granted. These modifications were fully analyzed in the EIS and will be implemented 

without further consideration. 

Red Mountain subregion 

1. Route RM 2056 is designated as open between the junction of RM 2018 and RM 2036. 

The remainder of RM 2056 remains designated as closed. 

Ord subregion 

2. Route OJ 322 road is designated as closed for protection of the Mojave monkeyflower. 

Newberry Rodman subregion 

3. Route NR 3079 is designated as closed because it is a redundant route within the new 

Pisgah Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and for protection of the whitemargined beardtongue. 

Fremont subregion 

4. Route F 2046B is designated as closed because it is a redundant route. 

5. Route F 5106 is designated as closed because private property access is provided from 

route F 5016 and via other routes and because route F 5106 leads to a closed route. 

Juniper subregion 

6. Routes RJ 1003, RJ1005, RJ 1056, RJ 1057, and RJ 1059 are designated closed for 

protection of cultural resources within the Juniper Flats Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. The portion of route RJ 2031 within the ACEC between the power line road and 

Bowen Ranch Road is designated as closed. Although route RJ 1003 and portions of route 

RJ1005 are outside the ACEC, they provide access to the single-track network within the 

ACEC that is being designated as closed. 

7. Route RJ 3043 is designated as closed because no access to the public lands exists without 

private property trespass. 

Two protests addressed the issue of safe public access through the Juniper subregion to the 

Deep Creek Hot Springs trailhead. BLM will strive to provide a safe, two-wheel drive access 

2 
located entirely on public lands in the implementation phase of the West Mojave Plan. BLM 

anticipates that this access can be provided as part of the adaptive management provisions of 

the plan and will be a plan maintenance action. 

Routes outside subregions 

9. In the Stoddard Valley area west of the Granite subregion and the Stoddard Valley Open 

Area, Route SV 2111 is designated as closed for protection of the Mojave monkeyflower. 

Modifications of Route Network Decisions of June 2003 

Decisions made in the June 2003 Record of Decision for the Western Mojave Desert Off 

Road Vehicle Designation Project were revisited in the Proposed West Mojave Plan. As a 

result of public and agency comments and information, BLM has made modifications or 

clarifications of the approved route network as described below: 

Ord subregion 

In the Brisbane Valley portion of the Ord subregion, two roads are present in the southeast 

corner of Section 35. These are SV 147, shown as open and the northern portion of SV 146, 

shown as closed. The designations remain as presented on Map 58 of the proposed Plan and 

final EIS except that the northern (closed) portion of SV 146 will be re-numbered SV 146A. 

The Stoddard Valley to Johnson Valley non-competitive connector route was illustrated 

generally on the oversize maps accompanying the West Mojave Plan (Maps 2-1, 2-15, 2-16, 

2-17, 2-19 and 2-21). Slight deviations from the illustrated path have been made to avoid 

private land where permission to cross has been denied. BLM will sign the connecting route 

between the Open Areas as soon as possible as an implementing measure of the Plan. 

One short dirt road and a short spur road is designated as limited to allow access to private 

land in Section 13 of T7N, R1W. These routes are located in Section 19, T7N, R1E and 24, 

T7N, R1W and are shown as closed on Map 60 and labeled C-4. They are existing roads 

accessible by two-wheel drive from the open pipeline route labeled SJ7. The remainder of 

the north south route labeled C-4 remains designated as closed. 

Newberry subregion 

Errors in the depiction of routes designated as open and closed have been identified in some 

areas. In the Pisgah area of the Newberry-Rodman subregion, shown on Maps 55 and 62, 

BLM will examine the routes adjacent to Highway 66, the railroad, and Interstate 40 to 

determine which route best serves an access need in this area. These are routes NR 3046, NR 

3049, NR 3052 and NR 3021. Changes in these routes of travel conform to the Plan 

provisions for minor realignments and may be made through Plan maintenance. Route 

numbering was inadvertently omitted from the proposed action Map 62 for this area. 

3 
BLM has also modified a route to avoid private property where permission to cross is denied. 

A portion of the Kane Wash pipeline road NR 2030, shown on Map 61 of the no action route 

designations will be closed west of the intersection with NR 2027A. This will allow traffic 

to flow to Camp Rock Road on NR 2027 rather than on NR 2030 on private property. Route 

numbering was inadvertently omitted from the proposed action map for this area. 

BLM has also identified minor errors or omissions in the route network. The routes 

administered by the Needles Field Office, on the northeast side of the Twentynine Palms 

Marine Corps base, including NR 3058, NR 3066, NR 3066A, NR 3068 and NR 3068A are 

missing from proposed action Map 62. BLM will review these routes again and publish a 

corrected version of the access for this area. Many of these routes were intended to be 

designated as limited at the request of the Marine Corps. 

Coyote subregion 

In the Coyote subregion, a portion of the through road from the site of Bismarck to the 

Coyote Lake overlook is missing. Route C 0651, as shown on Map 47 of the no action 

alternative, actually connects to route C 0621. These routes were inadvertently not numbered 

on the proposed action Map 47, though their depiction is the same. BLM recognizes the 

open route connection between these two routes of travel. 

El Mirage subregion 

BLM has learned of an error in designating route EM 2042. This route is designated as open. 

Red Mountain subregion 

Map 22 showing the proposed action for the route network illustrates Route RM 6123 as 

open in the northern portion and as undesignated on the longer southern portion. Appendix R 

of the final EIS listed Route RM 6123 as open, a change from the draft EIS. BLM will make 

the map correction to show all of route RM 6123 as open. Map 23 incorrectly labels one of 

the routes as RM 6123. This will be corrected as route RM 1123 

Outside subregions 

In the area immediately north of the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, route SC 04435 

is designated as closed because it is only accessible from the Navy property, which is not 

open to public use. 

Other Modifications 

Mountainous areas over 5,000 feet within desert wildlife management areas are not normally 

desert tortoise habitat and are included within the “No Survey” areas of the West Mojave 

Plan, even though these are not mapped. This clarification applies to implementing measure 

(DT-12), found on page 2-61 of the final EIS. 

4 
The date for completion of the El Paso Collaborative Access Planning Area route designation 

program is extended as described in the Implementation Schedule below. 

The requirement for removal of dead livestock within desert wildlife management areas and 

the Mohave ground squirrel conservation area is modified by the findings of the biological 

opinion as described below. 

Incorporation of Terms and Conditions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Biological Opinion 

This ROD incorporates the terms and conditions of the January 9, 2006 Biological Opinion 

issued to BLM by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

As a result of the analysis in the Biological Opinion, the BLM is modifying one 

implementation measure related to grazing. The biological opinion stated that leaving 

livestock carcasses in place is likely to pose less risk to desert tortoises than driving crosscountry to collect them. Given that analysis, BLM will change its implementation measure 

for removal of carcasses, found on page 2-126 of the final EIS to: 

(LG-5) All cattle carcasses found within 300 feet of a road or watering 

source shall be removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner (i.e. not 

buried) within two days of being found or, if this is not practicable, such 

reasonable time as is acceptable to the BLM authorized officer. Prior 

authorization from the BLM's authorized officer is required before removal 

from designated wilderness areas. Carcasses found farther than 300 feet from 

a road or watering source shall remain unless determined to be a hazard for 

reasons of health and safety. 

Provisions of the West Mojave Plan state that incidental take of Lane Mountain milk-vetch 

will not be allowed. The Bureau recognizes that the Endangered Species Act does not 

address (prohibit) the take of plants. Because this species is so restricted in numbers and 

distribution, BLM will insure that no loss of occupied habitat is authorized by BLM actions 

and will take preventive measures to reduce existing surface disturbance in the areas where 

Lane Mountain milkvetch is present. 

Termination of Interim Measures 

All of the interim measures identified in the Consent Decree in Center for Biological 

Diversity, et al. v. BLM (C-00-0927 WHA (JCS)) and subject to expiration upon the signing 

of the ROD for the West Mojave Plan are terminated. 

5 
Continuation of Temporary Administrative Closure in the Rand 

Mountains 

Due to administrative and on-the-ground work necessary to implement the educational 

program and permit system for recreational users of the Western Rand Mountains Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern, BLM will continue to maintain the administrative vehicle 

closure affecting approximately 29 miles of selected dirt roads in an area of 17,128 acres. 

This area was closed to vehicles on March 29, 2002 by the Ridgecrest Field Office Manager. 

CDCA Plan Amendment Decision Summary 

The following is a summary of the decisions of the West Mojave Plan which amend the 

CDCA Plan in accordance with BLM’s planning regulations, 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

1601-1610: 

1. Establish New Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

• Four Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) 

• Bendire’s Thrasher 

• Carbonate Endemic Plants Research Natural Area 

• Coolgardie Mesa 

• Kelso Creek Monkeyflower 

• Middle Knob 

• Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

• Mojave Monkeyflower 

• West Paradise 

• Parish’s Phacelia 

• Pisgah 

2. Adjust Area of Critical Environmental Concern Boundaries 

• Afton Canyon 

• Barstow Woolly Sunflower 

• Harper Dry Lake 

• Western Rand Mountains 

3. Amend CDCA Plan Multiple-Use Classes (MUC) 

The 1980 CDCA Plan established four multiple-use classes to guide management of public 

lands in the CDCA: Class C (Controlled Use), Class L (Limited Use), Class M (Moderate 

Use), and Class I (Intensive Use). Multiple Use class designations were subsequently 

incorporated in all areas of the CDCA. This ROD amends some of the previous Multiple 

Use class designations for the West Mojave planning area to reflect the new management 

actions. Other MUC designations are unchanged. The following table details the changes in 

multiple use classes: 

6 
BLM Multiple Use Class Changes 

LOCATION MUC 

CHANGE 

ACRES COMMENTS 

Western Rand – 

Fremont Valley 

Management Area 

M to L 34,835 Recommended in 1994 ACEC management plan. 

Afton Canyon Natural 

Area 

M to L 1,225 Better reflects goals of 1989 ACEC management 

plan. 

T 11N, R 5E – E 1⁄2 of Section 14, portions of 

Sections 13, 23, and 24. 

Bendire’s thrasher 

conservation area 

M to L 717 North Lucerne Valley 

Kelso Valley 

Carbonate Endemic 

Plants ACEC 

M to L 3,932 Class L better protects critical habitat. 

Little San Bernardino 

Mountains Gilia 

habitat 

Unclassified 

to M 

1,922 Lands adjoining Joshua Tree National Park. 

Mojave Fishhook 

Cactus ACEC 

Unclassified 

to L 

638 T 8N, R 4W – E 1⁄2 of Section 32 

T 7N, R 4W – N 1⁄2 of Section 4 

Mojave Fringe-toed 

Lizard Conservation 

Area 

Unclassified 

to L 

M to L 

3,341 

3,718 

Mojave River parcels 

Mojave 

Monkeyflower 

Conservation Area 

U to L 

M to L 

10,448 

25,351 

Brisbane Valley 

Daggett Ridge 

Inyo County M to 

Unclassified 

L to U 

I to U 

3,532 

2,534 

26 

Ten parcels. Lands would immediately become 

available for disposal or transfer to Inyo County 

or directly to private ownership in exchange for 

acquisition of habitat within HCA or other 

conservation areas identified in this plan. 

Non-Wilderness Class 

C lands 

C to L 

C to M 

C to I 

3,969 

842 

105 

Intent is to reflect the California Desert Protection 

Act (CDPA), enacted in 1994 by the United 

States Congress. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment within 

DWMA 

U to L 21,902 Lands within DWMA removed from disposal 

under LTA and MUC changed to reflect adjacent 

retention or consolidation zone. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment within 

DWMA 

M to L 48,666 Lands within DWMA changed from retention 

zone to consolidation zone under LTA and MUC 

changed. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment to prevent 

urban encroachment 

on EAFB 

U to M 1,225 T 9N, R 12W - SW 1⁄4 of Section 10. 

T 10N, R 12W – SW 1⁄4 of Section 34. 

T 10N, R 11W – All BLM parcels in Sections 10 

and 12. 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel Habitat 

Unclassified 

to L 

181 Lands between Saddleback Butte State Park and 

Edwards AFB in Los Angeles County: 

T 8N, R 9W - Portions of Sections 27 and 30. 

T 7N, R 9W - Portions of Sections 3, 11, and 15. 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel Habitat 

M to L 

U to L 

136,086 

144 

Lands in Inyo County south of Owens Lake. 

7 
LOCATION MUC 

CHANGE 

ACRES COMMENTS 

Mohave Ground 

Squirrel Habitat 

I to L 5,391 Linkage southeast of Searles Lake (SB Co.) 

Desert Tortoise 

DWMAs 

M to L 

U to L 

I to L 

365,485 

34,566 

1,983 

Change all lands within tortoise DWMAs 

currently Class M, I or U to Class L. 

Searles Lake I to 

Unclassified 

40 T 25S, R43E, Section 21. Parcel to be sold or 

exchanged to facilitate landfill transfer. 

Pisgah ACEC M to L 13,524 Proposed ACEC Lands 

Summit Valley 

Arroyo toad potential 

habitat and watershed 

Unclassified 

to M 

1,814 T 3N, R5W, portions of Sections 12, 16, 17, 20, 

21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28. T 3N, R 4W, portions 

of Sections 17, 18. 

San Gabriel 

Mountains Foothills 

Unclassified 

to M 

706 T 4N, R 8W - portions of Section 17 

T 4N, R 9W – portions of Sections 2, 3, 11, 14, 

and 15. 

Los Angeles County 

Significant Ecological 

Areas 

Unclassified 

to M 

164 

316 

93 

38 

234 

395 

75 

326 

265 

SEA #47: T 8N, R 9W – NW 1⁄4 Section 30. 

SEA #48: T 5N, R 9W - S 1⁄2 of Section 6. 

SEA #51: T 7N, R8W - Portions of SW 1⁄4 

Section 19. 

SEA #52: T 7N, R 9W - Portions of Sections 31. 

SEA #54: T 7N, R 9W - Portions of Section 32. 

SEA #55: T 4N, R 8W - portions of Sections 3, 

4, 10, 13, and 24. 

T 6N, R 8W - Portions of S 1⁄2 of Section 33. 

SEA #56: T 6N, R 13W - Portions of Section 13. 

SEA #58: T 7N, R 15W -Portions of Sections 13, 

and 14. 

SEA #61: T 5N, R 12W- Portions of Sections 26 

and 35. 

North Edwards 

Conservation Area 

Unclassified 

to M 

1,134 Lands NW of Kramer Junction. 

T 11N, R 7W - Section 26, Portions of Section 

28. 

4. Establish Mohave Ground Squirrel Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

A conservation area is established for the long-term survival and protection of the Mohave 

Ground Squirrel (MGS). A total of 1,726,712 acres is included within the conservation area. 

Public lands within the MGS Conservation Area are designated as a BLM Wildlife Habitat 

Management Area in the CDCA Plan. Within the MGS Conservation Area, the public land 

south of Owens Lake classified by the CDCA Plan as multiple use Class M is changed to 

Class L. 

5. Amend Rand Mountains/Fremont Valley Management Plan 

Amend the CDCA Plan to implement the 1994 Rand Mountains – Fremont Valley 

Management Plan recommendations: 

8 
• Expand Western Rand Mountains ACEC 

• Multiple Use Class Changes 

• Adopt Motorized Vehicle Access Network 

• Designate Desert Tortoise Category I Habitat 

• Authorize Mineral Withdrawal 

• Implement a use permit program. 

6. Modify Afton Canyon Natural Area 

Modify ACEC boundaries, adopt motorized vehicle access network, change multiple use 

class designations. 

7. Modify West Mojave Land Tenure Adjustment Program 

Modify boundaries of consolidation, retention and disposal zones to conform to conservation 

area goals. 

8. Approve Regional Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines 

Standards and Guidelines, already selected for BLM CDCA public lands outside of the West 

Mojave, would be selected for lands within the planning area. Following approval of this 

Record of Decision, the State Director will submit the regional standards and guidelines for 

approval by the Secretary of the Interior. 

9. Amend Route Designations 

Adopt minor modifications of the network of motorized vehicle access routes that were 

adopted as a component of the CDCA Plan by BLM on June 30, 2003. Modifications 

include redesign of the Juniper subregion, route closures in Lane Mountain milk vetch, 

Barstow woolly sunflower and Mojave monkeyflower conservation areas and the Red 

Mountain subregion, opening of a nine-mile undesignated route east of Haiwee Reservoir, 

and establishment of competitive “C” routes northeast of Spangler Hills Open Area. No 

routes of travel were designated on privately-owned land, and any depiction of such a 

designated route is a mapping error. 

10. Control Motorized Vehicle Stopping, Parking and Vehicular Camping 

Amend Motorized Vehicle Access Element’s Stopping and Parking Section, incorporating 

following restrictions within DWMAs: 

• Motorized vehicle based camping limited to previously existing disturbed camping 

areas adjacent to routes designated open. 

• Motorized vehicle stopping and parking allowed within 50 feet of centerline of routes 

designated open. 

9 
11. Delete Barstow to Vegas Race Course 

Delete that portion of the Barstow to Vegas Race Course that lies within the West Mojave 

Planning Area. 

12. Modify Stoddard Valley to Johnson Valley Connector 

• Delete competitive event corridor. 

• Establish connector route. No competitive speed events allowed. 

13. Provide for Authorization and Use 

BLM will continue to administer existing authorizations and uses and will consider future 

requests consistent with this ROD. Any new authorization or use of public land within the 

West Mojave Desert area must be in conformance with the West Mojave Plan and subject to 

site specific analysis. Such authorization and use would be subject to administrative review at 

the time of issuance of a final BLM decision regarding the authorization or use. 

14. Implementation Schedule 

This ROD incorporates the anticipated implementation schedule contained in Chapter 2 and 

Appendix C of the proposed West Mojave Plan. The management actions, sequence of 

implementation, and estimated costs are carried forward in this ROD and are subject to 

available funding. 

Completion of the planning for route designation in the El Paso Collaborative Access 

Planning Area will occur within a five year period following this ROD. 

Errata 

BLM is modifying one aspect of the proposed action with respect to utility construction and 

maintenance, noted as part of Implementation Measure (DT-11) on page 2-59 and Appendix 

C.2 of the final EIS. Contingency Corridor W was deleted from the CDCA Plan by 

Amendment #17 in 1988, so the recommendation cannot be implemented. 

BLM acknowledges that Section 22, T2N, R3E is within the boundaries of the Rattlesnake 

Canyon Allotment as provided by the CDCA Plan of 1980. Subsequent published maps of 

the allotment erred in omitting this section of land from the allotment. 

Page 2-38 of the final EIS contains a misprint. In the discussion of the application of a 

mitigation fee to smaller parcel sizes in the Habitat Conservation Plan, parcel sizes of 2.5 

acres are shown as 2 ‰ acres. 

Page 2-115 of the final EIS contains a misprint. In the discussion of implementation measure 

(P-53), improvements to Big Morongo Creek and Dry Morongo Creek would be limited to 

areas within 0.25 mile of Highway 62. 

10 
Table 4-13 on page 4-24 of the final EIS incorrectly describes the residual impacts of new 

construction activities on public lands because of the decision to designate lands in the 

DWMAs as multiple use Class L. 

Table 3-45 on page 3-215 contains a misprint for the acreage of desert tortoise habitat on the 

Lacey-Cactus-McCloud grazing allotment. The correct acreage of desert tortoise non-critical 

habitat is 1,800 acres. 

An error in the ownership of lands north of the Rand Mountain – Fremont Valley 

Management Area was discovered. This error shows private lands used for agricultural 

production as belonging to the public. It appears on the final EIS Map 3-1 and on all of the 

route designation maps. These private lands are correctly shown on the Desert Access Guide 

maps distributed to the public. The affected lands are within Townships 29S and 30S and 

Ranges 38E and 39E. All route designations shown for these private lands on Maps 22 and 

25 for both the no action and the proposed action alternative are invalid. These are within the 

El Paso subregion and the Rand Mountains area. The corrections to the Geographic 

Information System have been made in the California State Office. 

BLM clarifies that the mitigation fee to be applied to federal lands for new ground-disturbing 

activities does not apply to grazing permits. Grazing should be added to the list of activities 

and uses exempt from fees on BLM land shown on Table 209, page 2-38 of the final EIS. 

Alternatives Considered 

Seven management alternatives were analyzed for the Proposed Action and EIS. The 

alternatives were developed by the BLM on the basis of, and in response to, substantive 

public input on the existing environment, existing uses, desired future uses, and desired 

environmental conditions of the planning area. The alternatives considered in the EIS are 

summarized below: 

• Alternative A: Proposed Action – Habitat Conservation Plan. This alternative 

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

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

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

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

jurisdictions and state agencies. The proposed action cannot be implemented until the 

local governments complete the application for incidental take permits and receive 

approval from state and federal wildlife agencies. 

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

Alternative A that are applicable to, and that could be implemented on, BLMadministered public lands. It is applicable to public lands only. This ROD approves 

Alternative B. 

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

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

11 
species with the management program recommended by the 1994 Desert Tortoise 

(Mojave Population) Recovery Plan. CDCA Plan amendments and a habitat 

conservation plan would be adopted and incidental take permits would be issued to 

participating local jurisdictions and state agencies. The public expressly requested 

detailed consideration of this alternative during NEPA scoping meetings. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

local jurisdictions and state agencies. 

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

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

vehicle recreation, even if this might preclude the implementation of some of the 

programs to conserve species and ecosystems. It also responds to a specific request 

raised by the public during scoping meetings that the EIS explore whether a single 

DWMA, protecting only the remaining areas of relatively higher tortoise populations, 

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

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

be issued to participating local jurisdictions and state agencies. 

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

alternative proposes a tortoise conservation strategy that relies on an aggressive 

program of tortoise disease management and raven control, supported by limited 

fencing, rather than the establishment of tortoise DWMAs to protect habitat. Subject 

to these modifications, the Alternative A conservation program for other species 

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

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

jurisdictions and state agencies. 

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

by each of the participating agencies would continue to be implemented. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Federal environmental quality regulations (40 CFR 1505.2 (b)) require that an agency 

identify the “environmentally preferable” alternative or alternatives in the ROD. Alternative 

D is the environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative D would effectively provide a 

higher level and more immediate focus on natural and cultural resources in the plan area 

through the application of management actions that would reduce levels of public activity 

that may impact threatened and endangered species. 

12 
Management Considerations 

1. Respond to the Purpose and Need 

Approval of the West Mojave Plan achieves the purpose and need for the Plan. Approval 

establishes a regional biological strategy to conserve plant and animal species and their 

habitats and prevent future listing; and provides for an efficient, equitable and cost-effective 

process for complying with threatened and endangered species law. The West Mojave Plan 

addresses over 100 species of plants and animals, designates Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern and other special management areas specifically designed to promote species 

conservation, designates routes of travel on the public lands, and establishes other 

management prescriptions to guide grazing, mineral exploration and development, recreation, 

and other public land uses. 

2. Achieve the Biological Goals and Objectives 

Desert Tortoise Goals 

Approval of the Desert Wildlife Management Areas, to be managed as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern for desert tortoise conservation, and implementation of specific 

controls over uses such as off-highway vehicles, grazing, commercial activities, ensures that 

the following goals are achieved: 

Goal 1: sufficient habitat to ensure long-term tortoise population viability is provided. 

Goal 2: ensures an upward or stationary trend the tortoise population for at least 25 years. 

Goal 3: ensures genetic connectivity among tortoise populations, both within the West 

Mojave Recovery Unit, and between this and other recovery units 

Goal 4: ensures tortoise mortality is reduced 

Approval also achieves the recommendations of the desert tortoise recovery plan for 

establishing desert wildlife management areas within all recovery units. 

Mohave Ground Squirrel (MGS) Goals 

Approval of the MGS wildlife habitat management area and implementation of specific 

controls over uses such as off-highway vehicles, grazing, and commercial activities ensures 

that the following goals are achieved: 

Goal 1: ensures long-term protection of MGS habitat throughout the region 

Goal 2: ensures long-term viability of the MGS throughout its range 

Other Species Goals 

Approval of the Plan achieves the BLM goals for conservation of habitat for the other listed 

and sensitive species as shown on Table 2-1 of the final EIS. The management of public 

13 
lands enables the complementary conservation for the HCP in preparation by the state 

agencies and local governments. 

3. Provide Flexibility to Adjust for Possible Change in the Desert Tortoise Recovery 

Plan 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is undertaking revisions to the Desert Tortoise Recovery 

Plan of 1994, which was the basis of many of the Plan decisions to hasten the recovery of the 

desert tortoise on public lands. A Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan Assessment has been 

completed, and the new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Desert Tortoise Recovery Office is 

coordinating a number of studies on the genetic relationship of different tortoise populations, 

desert tortoise densities throughout its range, and the effect of fires on desert tortoise 

numbers. This new information could lead to recommended changes in the boundaries of 

recovery units, the boundaries of desert wildlife management areas, and the definition of 

distinct population segments. If an approved future revision of the Desert Tortoise Recovery 

Plan substantially alters the means of conservation or other management decisions affecting 

the West Mojave plan, the BLM will give timely consideration to whether a Plan amendment 

is warranted. 

4. Incorporate Multiple Use Management Considerations 

BLM’s approval of the West Mojave Plan responds to the multiple use requirements as stated 

in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: “the use of all California desert 

resources can and should be provided for in a multiple use and sustained yield management 

plan to conserve these resources for future generations, and to provide present and future use 

and enjoyment, particularly outdoor recreation uses, including the use, where appropriate, of 

off-road recreational vehicles...” [Public Law 94-579 Section 601 (a) (4)]. Specific 

management considerations are summarized below for the key decisions of the West Mojave 

Plan: 

a. Establish New Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The fourteen new ACECs all contain robust populations and essential habitat of threatened, 

endangered or sensitive species. Without the added protection provided by the ACEC 

designation, conflicting uses could lead to declines in the numbers or ranges of these species. 

A goal of the CDCA Plan is to prevent rare species from declining to the point of becoming 

listed as threatened or endangered. The ACEC management provisions, which are described 

in Appendix D of the West Mojave Plan, are tailored to the specific needs of the plants and 

animals found in each new ACEC. 

b. Adjust Area of Critical Environmental Concern Boundaries 

The Afton Canyon Natural Area Management Plan of 1989 recommended boundary changes, 

both additions and deletions, to the ACEC. This requires an amendment to the CDCA Plan. 

These have not been completed, so the West Mojave Plan provides the administrative 

mechanism for enacting the boundary adjustments. The amendments will further protect the 

14 
riparian habitat and the more than ten special-status species residing in the ACEC. 

The Rand Mountains Fremont Valley Management Plan of 1993 recommended changes to 

the boundaries of the Western Rand Mountains ACEC, requiring an amendment to the 

CDCA Plan. This amendment has not been enacted. The West Mojave Plan provides the 

administrative mechanism for enacting the boundary adjustment. The amendment will 

greatly facilitate protective management of the desert tortoise and its designated critical 

habitat. 

The Barstow Woolly Sunflower ACEC, at 314 acres, encompassed only a small part of the 

range of this rare West Mojave endemic plant. The boundary adjustments are necessary to 

include additional populations and provide unified management of its habitat and range. 

BLM has installed visitor facilities on the edge of Harper Dry Lake and made this a showcase 

Watchable Wildlife site. The boundary adjustments are needed to include the new facilities 

in the ACEC. 

c. Amend CDCA Plan Multiple-Use Classes (MUC) 

The 1980 CDCA Plan established four multiple-use classes to guide management of public 

lands in the CDCA: Class C (Controlled Use), Class L (Limited Use), Class M (Moderate 

Use), and Class I (Intensive Use). The MUC amendments bring consistency to all desert 

wildlife management areas in the California desert. They also reflect changes which allow 

BLM to better manage important habitat for listed and sensitive species, as well as 

facilitating the transfer of specific parcels of public land to other agencies. Changes to Class 

C lands reflect designations of wilderness boundaries in the California Desert Protection Act 

(CDPA), enacted in 1994 by the United States Congress. 

d. Designate Mohave Ground Squirrel Wildlife Habitat Management Area 

Nearly the entire range of the Mohave ground squirrel, a state-listed threatened species, is 

within the West Mojave planning area and most of this land is public land managed by the 

BLM. Designation of the Mohave Ground Squirrel Conservation Area will facilitate 

protective management for this species and serve to prevent further declines and assist the 

California Department of Fish and Game. A goal of the CDCA Plan is to prevent rare 

species from declining to the point of becoming federally listed as threatened or endangered. 

e. Amend Rand Mountains/Fremont Valley Management Plan 

The Rand Mountains Fremont Valley Management Plan of 1993 recommended five 

amendments to the CDCA Plan, which have not yet been enacted. The West Mojave plan 

provides the administrative mechanism for enacting the boundary adjustments, multiple use 

class changes and withdrawal from mineral location and entry, route designations and 

designation of lands as Category I desert tortoise habitat. The amendments will greatly 

facilitate protective management of the desert tortoise and its designated critical habitat. 

15 
The popularity of vehicle recreation in the Rand Mountains necessitates the establishment of 

a visitor use permit program. Without stricter control of visitor use and management of the 

routes of travel, BLM will not be able to meet the requirements of the biological opinion for 

the West Mojave plan. 

f. Amend Afton Canyon Natural Area Management Plan 

The Afton Canyon Natural Area Management Plan of 1989 recommended three 

implementing actions requiring an amendment to the CDCA Plan. These have not been 

completed, so the West Mojave plan provides the administrative mechanism for enacting the 

boundary adjustments, multiple use class changes and withdrawal from mineral location and 

entry. The amendments will further protect the riparian habitat and the more than ten 

special-status species residing in the ACEC. 

g. Amend West Mojave Land Tenure Adjustment Program 

The boundaries of the consolidation, retention and disposal zones of the Land Tenure 

Adjustment Program were changed to bring consistency to the management of the desert 

wildlife management areas. Lands formerly classified for disposal within the Habitat 

Conservation Area were changed to retention or consolidation to reflect their value as habitat 

for rare species, primarily the desert tortoise. 

h. Approve Regional Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines 

This ROD approves the Regional Public Land Health Standards and Guidelines to be 

consistent with the other regional amendments of the CDCA Plan and provide uniform 

management with respect to grazing, protection of riparian areas, fragile soils and water 

quality. The regional standards must be submitted to the Secretary of Interior for final 

approval. 

i. Amend Route Designations 

The network of motorized vehicle access routes in the West Mojave that was adopted on 

June 30, 2003 achieved most of the objectives of the CDCA Plan. Modifications were made 

with the additional public review of the West Mojave Plan to better protect rare species and 

their habitat, connect travel routes among subregions, allow competitive use of routes outside 

sensitive habitat and curtail conflicts with private property. 

j. Control Motorized Vehicle Stopping, Parking and Vehicular Camping 

The amendment defining allowable uses for stopping parking and camping within and 

outside of DWMAs reduces new ground disturbance throughout the West Mojave area. 

These restrictions will prevent or reduce mortality to wildlife, particularly the desert tortoise, 

without substantially impairing the public’s recreational activities. 

16 
k. Delete Barstow to Vegas Race Course 

Deletion of the Barstow to Las Vegas race course from the 2002 Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Desert Amendment to CDCA Plan left a fragment of this route remaining open in the 

West Mojave area. The amendment to delete the remaining one third of the race course is 

primarily an administrative action to achieve consistency in the CDCA Plan. Deletion of the 

race course also provides conformance with the desert tortoise recovery plan, which 

recommended elimination of competitive events within desert wildlife management areas. 

BLM has not authorized this event since 1989. 

l. Modify Stoddard Valley to Johnson Valley Connector 

The competitive corridor between the Stoddard Valley and Johnson Valley Open Areas was 

changed to a non-competitive connector route and realigned to provide conformance with the 

desert tortoise recovery plan, which recommended elimination of competitive events within 

desert wildlife management areas. In addition, the corridor crossed private property where 

permission to cross was denied. 

5. Other Management Considerations 

Approval of the ROD takes into account other management considerations: 

• It is consistent with guiding goals for management of the CDCA; 

• It maintains or improves conditions of special status species and other unique natural 

and cultural resources; 

• It provides an extensive monitoring program for various species developed 

collaboratively with the FWS; 

• The FWS’ conclusion that the West Mojave Plan is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the desert tortoise, Parish’s daisy, Cushenbury milk-vetch or 

Lane Mountain milk-vetch; nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat; \ 

• Motorized recreation opportunities are provided throughout the planning area, and 

therefore, the West Mojave Plan will continue to provide a variety of sustainable, 

high-quality OHV and other recreational experiences and opportunities. 

• The amendment will not adversely affect communication sites, transmission corridors 

or major transportation facilities. 

Mitigation Measures 

Approved management measures to mitigate adverse impacts of the land use plan were 

presented in Appendix C of the final EIS and in the Proposed Action section of the West 

Mojave Plan. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm while still 

meeting the goals, purpose and need requirements for the proposed plan have been adopted. 

17 
Monitoring Program 

The ROD incorporates a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that implementation 

of the West Mojave Plan achieves the plan’s goals and objectives. The monitoring actions 

include resource condition surveys, rangeland health assessments, species surveys and 

monitoring of OHV use as well as an extensive monitoring program of biological resources. 

Agency and Public Participation 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) and BLM planning 

regulations (43 CFR 1610) require an early and open process (scoping) for determining the 

scope and significance of planning issues. The regulations also require that agencies provide 

opportunity for public involvement in the planning process, including review of the draft 

Plan and draft EIS. Extensive efforts have been made to make the public aware of the 

planning process and of opportunities for involvement in that process. 

Scope of the EIS 

The scope of the EIS has been established through the various public meetings that have been 

held by the BLM over the last 14 years, but more extensively since 1997 when a restructured planning effort was initiated by the participating agencies, led by the BLM. The 

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

EIS, established a “Supergroup” of interested stakeholders and a Steering Committee. In 

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

public, which functioned as working groups to provide input into the development of key 

elements of the plan. The BLM conducted formal scoping meetings pursuant to requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during June and July of 2002. Public 

scoping meetings as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were also 

conducted to ensure that issues affecting the local jurisdictions and affected communities 

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

establishing the scope of the EIS. 

Public Scoping Meetings: The scoping process for the project was designed to 

solicit input from stakeholders, the public, and other interested parties on the issues 

related to the development of the West Mojave Plan. 

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

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

announced the holding of public scoping meetings in January 1992. Meetings were 

held at the following locations: Ridgecrest (January 6, 1991), Barstow (January 7, 

1991), Twentynine Palms (January 8, 1991), Bakersfield (January 9, 1991), 

Victorville (January 13, 1991), Lancaster (January 14, 1991), and Riverside (January 

15, 1991). 

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

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

18 
announced the holding of seven additional NEPA scoping meetings. Those meetings 

were held at the following locations: Palmdale (June 26, 2002), San Bernardino 

(June 27, 2002), Victorville (June 28, 2002), Ridgecrest (July 1, 2002), Lone Pine 

(July 2, 2002), Pasadena (July 9, 2002) and Yucca Valley (July 10, 2002). At these 

meetings the suggested conservation strategy developed by the West Mojave 

Supergroup and its Task Groups was discussed and comments accepted. 

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

the West Mojave Plan on 6.4 Million Acres Located In California Desert 

Conservation Area (NOP) was published by the San Bernardino County Land Use 

Services Department and the Kern County Planning Department. The NOP indicated 

that the counties would be coordinating the development of a programmatic EIR for 

the West Mojave Plan as co-lead agencies. The Notice of Preparation announced the 

holding of three CEQA scoping meetings. These meetings were held at the following 

locations: Bakersfield (January 9, 2003), Ridgecrest (January 10, 2003), and San 

Bernardino (January 16, 2003). 

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

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

Extension Of Comment Period And Addition Of Second Public Scoping Meeting In 

San Bernardino County. The additional scoping meeting was held in Victorville on 

February 5, 2003. Comments received during the local government scoping meetings 

are available in Appendix V of the West Mojave Plan and final EIS. 

Kern County announced on March 10, 2003, that it no longer would act in the 

capacity of CEQA co-lead agency. A Revised NOP was issued on April 9, 2003, 

which indicated that the City of Barstow would serve in that capacity to represent the 

various cities that may participate in the West Mojave Plan 

Public Review of the Draft EIS 

The draft EIS for the West Mojave Plan was released for a 90-day public review that began 

on June 10, 2003 and ended on September 12, 2003. During this public review period seven 

public meetings were held to explain the West Mojave Plan and EIS to the public and to 

solicit public comment. Public hearings were held in Victorville (July 15, 2003), Lone Pine 

(July 16, 2003), Ridgecrest (July 17, 2003), Redlands (July 22, 2003), Yucca Valley (July 23, 

2003), Palmdale (July 24, 2003) and Barstow (July 30, 2003). 

BLM received 278 letters on the draft West Mojave Plan and EIS from the public. An 

additional written review of the Proposed Plan was provided by the California Department of 

Fish and Game. Further comments were received through public meetings and electronic 

messages. Most comments were from members of the public located in California. Several 

were from grazing lessees, rights-of-way holders such as utilities, mining claim holders and 

others with business interests involving public lands. The largest volume of individual 

comments was from recreational and environmental interests. 

19 
BLM’s interdisciplinary team reviewed this list of public concern statements and provided 

written responses to each. The Proposed Plan and final EIS were revised as appropriate. The 

issues identified in the public comment letters and BLM’s response to these issues is 

included in Chapter 6 of the final EIS. A copy of each letter is contained in the compact disc 

accompanying the final EIS. Due to a printing error, eight letters were omitted from the 

compact disk. These letters are available from the BLM’s California Desert District office in 

Moreno Valley, California. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation 

BLM and FWS have determined that two federally endangered plant species, the Cushenbury 

milk-vetch (Astragalus albens) and the Lane Mountain milk-vetch (Astragalus jaegerianus), 

one federally threatened plant species, the Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii), and one 

federally threatened reptile species, the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) may be affected 

by provisions of the West Mojave Plan. BLM requested formal consultation on these species 

and their designated critical habitat (except Lane Mountain milk-vetch, where critical habitat 

is not designated) on July 15, 2003. BLM determined that the West Mojave Plan was not 

likely to adversely affect the endangered Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. 

goodmaniana), Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum) and threatened 

Inyo California towhee (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus) or their designated critical habitat and 

requested concurrence with that determination from the FWS. BLM determined that the 

West Mojave Plan would have no effect on the endangered Yuma clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris yumanensis), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Mojave tui chub (Gila bicolor mohavensis) and 

triple-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus) and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). 

Many of these species had received earlier biological opinions from the FWS that the CDCA 

Plan would not jeopardize their continued existence or destroy or adversely modify their 

critical habitat. 

BLM received a biological opinion on the West Mojave Plan from FWS on January 9, 2006. 

The formal consultation concluded that the Plan would not jeopardize the continued 

existence or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of the listed species under 

consideration. The consultation utilized Alternative B, the federal actions component of the 

West Mojave Plan, as the basis for analysis. 

The West Mojave biological opinion is available on the BLM web site at 

http://www.ca.blm.gov/cdd/wemo.html. 

Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

All activities and decisions identified in the Plan comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), through our State Protocol Agreement 

between the California State Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the California 

State Historic Preservation Officer (Protocol). Amendments to the Protocol specifically 

20 
address Section 106 compliance for livestock grazing permit / lease renewals and 

designations for Desert routes of travel. 

Consultation with Native Americans 

To comply with Executive Orders regarding government-to-government relations with 

Native Americans, formal and informal contacts were made with a number of tribal entities. 

Eight tribal governments who might attach religious and cultural significance to historic 

properties within the planning area were contacted in June 2000 and from May to July 2001. 

These included the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone, Timbisha Shoshone, San Manuel Band, 

Morongo Band, 29 Palms Band, Fort Mojave Tribe, Chemehuevi Tribe and Colorado River 

Indian Tribes. Contact was made by letter and phone. When contacted by phone in July 

2001, the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone, Timbisha Shoshone, Fort Mojave Tribe, Chemehuevi 

Tribe and Colorado River Indian Tribes requested additional information, and information 

packets were sent to those tribes. In August 2001 a briefing was presented to the Native 

American Lands Conservancy at their request. As a consequence of these contacts, no tribe 

or band identified religious or cultural significance to historic properties within the planning 

area. 

Environmental Protection Agency Review 

Both the draft and final West Mojave Plan and Environmental Impact Statements were 

provided to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA reviews environmental 

documents pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s NEPA Implementation Regulations at 40 CFR 1500 – 1508, and Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act. BLM received the EPA review of the draft EIS on September 4, 2003 and the 

final EIS on May 2, 2005. 

Other Consultations 

A number of agencies and interests, including local, state and federal entities have been 

involved in the development of this plan. BLM coordinated with any agency that expressed 

an interest in the plan. In addition, BLM’s Desert Advisory Council received regular 

briefings and updates regarding the West Mojave Plan. The California Department of Fish 

and Game and BLM also discussed relevant issues during the development of the Plan and 

EIS 

State of California – Plan Amendment Consistency Review and Determination 

In accordance with BLM planning regulations, 43 CFR 1610.3-2, BLM must identify any 

known inconsistencies with State or local plans, policies, or programs. BLM must also 

provide the Governor up to 60 days in which to identify any inconsistencies and submit 

recommendations. The State received a formal request for review of the final EIS on March 

23, 2005. The State completed its review on May 20, 2005. No known inconsistencies have 

been identified, either by the BLM or the Governor, for the Plan Amendment decisions. 

21