Proposed northern & eastern Colorado Desert coordinated management plan : an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, 1980 and Sikes Act Plan with the California Department of Fish and Game and final environmmental impact statement

496 Pages·2002·118.5 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. California Desert District

BLN LBR\RY
ill
38CC£>h- 32
Proposed
&
Northern Eastern Colorado Desert
Management
Coordinated Plan
an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980
and Sikes Act Plan with the California Department ofFish and Game
and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
California Desert District
and
California Department ofFish and Game
Inland, Deserts, and Eastern Sierra Region
BLM/CA/ES-2002/004+ 790+ 600
1 1
FES 02-15
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
California Desert District Office
6221 Box Springs Boulevard
Riverside, California 92507-0714
6780 NECP
(CA-610)
June 30, 2002
Dear Reviewer:
Enclosed for your review is the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Proposed Plan (NECO) and
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). NECO will update the Bureau ofLand Management
(BLM) 1980 California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for the southeastern part of the
CDCA. BLM prepared this document in partial fulfillment ofits responsibilities under the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Environmental PolicyAct of 1969, and the
NECO
Federal Endangered Species (ESA) Act of 1973. is designed to stand alone from the Draft
Plan/EIS (DEIS) issued in February, 2001 . However, to gain the full management picture as NECO
applies to the CDCA, the reader is referred to the CDCA Plan. NECO will amend some aspects of
CDCA
the Plan. Otherselements -e.g.. Cultural, Utilities, Minerals, and Recreation - remain largely
NECO
unchanged. is a two-volume set. The second volume contains only appendices.
BLM
The public devoted substantial effort to providing in-depth review and input on the DEIS.
received over 1600 comment submissions (about 1400 ofwhich were various form letters), which
BLM
express over 450 separate comments. has assessed these comments and utilized them in
making substantive changes in the document, strengthening the EIS, and ensuring consistencywith
CDCA BLM
otherconcurrentlydeveloping plans (also amendments to the Plan). appreciates those
ofyou who took the time to provide comments. Your efforts have resulted in a stronger and clearer
plan.
The planning area covers 5.5 million acres. NECO is one six CDCA Plan amendments in progress.
Public scoping, held at the beginning ofthe planning process, identified several issues. The focus
ofthese issues includes 1) recovery ofthe desert tortoise, a listed (threatened) species under both
federal and state endangered species acts, 2) conservation ofotherspecies andhabitats, and3) public
BLM
lands access and resource uses. The scope ofdecisions applies to all federal lands - managed,
the eastern halfofJoshua Tree National Park (JTNP), and all ofthe Chocolate Mountains Aerial
Gunnery Range (CMAGR), administered by the Navy Department - to provide unified, landscape-
basedecosystemmanagement forbiological resources. BLM is the leadagencyinpreparingNECO.
The DEIS described and analyzed a Preferred Alternative and three additional alternatives. As a
result of public comments, internal review, and discussion with other agencies, the Proposed
Plan/FEIS was developed. The Preferred Alternative in the DEIS was revised and renamed the
Proposed Plan in the FEIS.
NEPA allowsyouanopportunityforfurtheradministrativereviewofthe FEIS throughaplanprotest
BLM
to the Director ifyou believe the approval ofa proposed decision would be in error under 43
CFR 1610.5-2. Careful adherence to the above CFR guideline will assist you in preparing a protest
that will assure the greatest consideration ofyourpoint ofview. Ifyou wish to protest the Proposed
Plan, you must do so in writing within 30 days from the date that the Notice ofAvailability ofthe
document appeared in the Federal Register as filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
NECO
Cover Sheet located at the beginning of contains the complete procedural, timeframe, and
mailing instruction details for filing a protest.
Plan approval will be documented in a Record of Decision which will be made available to the
public and mailed to all interested parties. Land use plan implementation usually involves on-the-
ground managementactions andpermitteduseswhich require furtheranalysis and decisionmaking,
including public involvement, and allows for appeal ofdecisions under applicable regulations.
BLM
In recent months has implemented a number of interim land use decisions as a result of a
BLM
lawsuit filed against by a consortium ofenvironmental advocacy groups. According to court
stipulations nearly all ofthese interim decisions, to the extent that they apply within the Planning
Area, will end when the Record ofDecision is signed.
The planning process was a collaborative effort by Local, State, and Federal agencies and several
citizens groups representing a varietyofinterests. Cooperation stimulated each step in the planning
process and was the basis ofcreative solutions to very difficult issues. The cooperators are listed
in Chapter 7. As previouslynoted landmanagement integrates federal lands forthe common theme
ofspecies and habitats. This creates a better regional basis for future local decisions.
Thank you for your interest in the management ofyour public lands.
Sincerely,
Acting District Manager
Enclosure (two volume set)
Proposed
&
Northern Eastern Colorado Desert
Management
Coordinated Plan
an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980
and Sikes Act Plan with the California Department of Fish and Game
and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
California Desert District Office
and
California Department of Fish and Game
Inland, Desert and Eastern Sierra Region
July 2002
Cover Sheet
Proposed
Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert
Coordinated Management Plan and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Lead Agency: U.S. Department ofthe Interior
Bureau ofLand Management
California Desert District
Project Location: (portions of) Riverside, Imperial and San Bernardino
counties, California
For Further Information Contact: Dick Crowe, Project Lead
Bureau ofLand Management
California Desert
6221 Box Springs Blvd.
CA
Riverside, 92506
Abstract: The Proposed Plan amends the Bureau of Land
Management(BLM) 1980CaliforniaDesertConservation
Area Plan for the area called the Northern and Eastern
Colorado Desert. The Proposed Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement provides a
1 )
comprehensive framework for ecosystem management,
including recovery of three populations of the desert
tortoise; 2) a single landscape basis for ecosystem
managementforthreeFederal landadministeringagencies
withing the planning area - BLM, Joshua Tree National
Park (eastern half, only), and all of the Chocolate
Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range managed by the Navy
Department; and3) integratesecosystemmanagementinto
abroadercontextofagencies’ mandates, includingBLM's
multiple use management mission. The planning area is
BLM
5.5 million acres, covering portions of field offices
in Needles, El Centro, and Palm Springs. This plan
amendment is also cooperativelyjoined by the California
Department ofFish and Game through the statewide Sikes
Act memorandum ofagreement.
This document was produced through a coordinated
process involving numerous Local, State, and Federal
agencies and special interest groups.
Protest procedures, time frame, mailing: See next page
Filing Protests
Procedure, Timeframe, and Mailing
The elements of a properly prepared protest are described in 43 Code of Federal
Regulations 1610.5-2 Protest Procedures
:
(a) Any person who participates in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be
adversely affected by the approval or amendment ofa resource management plan may protest such
approval or amendment. A protest may raise onlythose issues which were submitted for the record
during the planning process.
(1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be fded
within 30 days ofthe date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice ofreceipt of
the final environmental impact statement containing the plan or amendment in the FEDERAL
REGISTER. Foran amendmentnotrequiringthe preparation ofan environmental impact statement,
the protest shall be filed within 30 days ofthe publication ofthe notice ofits effective date.
(2) The protest shall contain:
(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest ofthe person filing the protest;
A
(ii) statement ofthe issue or issues being protested;
(iii) A statement ofthe part or parts ofthe plan or amendment being protested;
A
(iv) copy ofall documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning
process by the protesting party or an indication ofthe date the issue or issues were discussed for the
record; and
(v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decision is believe to be wrong.
(3) The Directorshall promptlyrendera decision on the protest. The decision shall be inwriting and
shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by
certified mail, return receipt requested.
(b) The decision ofthe Director shall be the final decision for the Department ofthe Interior.
Mailing address for fding a protest:
Regular mail Overnight mail
U.S. Department ofthe Interior U.S. Department ofthe Interior
Director, Bureau ofLand Management (210) Director, Bureau ofLand Management (210)
Attn: Brenda Williams Attn: Brenda Williams
P.O. Box 66538 Telephone [phone]
Washington, D.C. 20240 1620 “L” Street, NW, Rm 1075
Washington D.C. 20036
-=
BLM CDD
Table ofContents
NECO CMP/FEIS, July 2002
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1-Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose, Need, and Scope 1-3
1.2 Planning Area 1-3
1.3 Planning Process Description 1-4
1.4 Planning Schedule 1-6
1.5 Planning Issues 1-6
1.6 Planning Criteria 1-8
1.7 Consistency with Local, State, Tribal, and other Federal Plans 1-11
1.8 Current Planning in the Region 1-12
1.9 Using This Document 1-14
Chapter 2-Altematives 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Vision and Concept 2-1
Alternatives 2-2
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-3
Presentation ofAlternatives 2-4
Amendments to BLM’s California Desert Conservation Area Plan 1980 2-5
2.1 Issue: Standards and Guidelines 2-7
2.1.1 Goals and Objectives 2-9
2.1.2 No Action Alternative 2-9
2.1.3 Proposed Plan 2-11
2.1.4 Small DWMA--A Alternative ‘ 2-15
DWMA-B
2.1.5 Small Alternative 2-16
2.2 Issue: Recovery ofthe Desert Tortoise 2-17
2.2.1 Goals and Objectives 2-17
2.2.2 No Action Alternative 2-21
2.2.3 Proposed Plan 2-25
DWMA-A
2.2.4 Small Alternative 2-33
DWMA-B
2.2.5 Small Alternative 2-37
2.3 Issue: Management ofSpecial Status Animals and Plants and Natural Communities
2-42
2.3.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep Conservation—Goals and Objectives 2-42
2.3.1. No Action Alternative 2-45
1
2.3.1.2 Proposed Plan 2-45
DWMA—A
2.3.1.3 Small Alternative 2-48
DWMA-B
2.3.1.4 Small Alternative 2-49
2.3.2 Desert Mule Deer Management—Goals and Objectives 2-50
2.3.2.1 No Action Alternative 2-51
2.3.2.2 Proposed Plan 2-51
DWMA—A
2.3.2.3 Small Alternative 2-51
l
4
BLM CDD
Table ofContents
NECQ CMP/FEIS, July 2002
2.3.3 DWMA-B
2.3.2. Small Alternative 2-52
Other Special Status Animal and Plant Species, Natural Communities, and
Ecological Processes—Goals and Objectives 2-52
2.3.3.1 No Action Alternative 2-54
2.3.3.2 Proposed Plan 2-55
DWMA—A
2.3.3.3 Small Alternative 2-59
DWMA—
2.3.3.4 Small B Alternative 2-59
2.4 Issue: Wild Horses and Burros 2-62
2.4.1 Goals and Objectives 2-61
2.4.2 No Action Alternative 2-63
2.4.3 Proposed Plan 2-63
DWMA—A
2.4.4 Small Alternative 2-64
DWMA—
2.4.5 Small B Alternative 2-64
2.5 Issue: Motorized-Vehicle Access, Routes ofTravel Designations, and Recreation 2-66
2.5.1 Goals and Objectives 2-66
2.5.2 Decisions and Policy Common to all Alternatives 2-67
2.5.3 No Action Alternative 2-72
2.5.4 Proposed Plan 2-77
DWMA--A
2.5.5 Small Alternative 2-82
DWMA—
2.5.6 Small B Alternative 2-86
2.6 Issue: Land Ownership Pattern 2-90
2.6.1 Goals and Objectives 2-90
2.6.2 No Action Alternative 2-92
2.6.3 Proposed Plan 2-93
2.6.4 Small DWMA—A Alternative 2-94
DWMA-B
2.6.5 Small Alternative 2-95
2.7 Access to Resources for Economic and Social Needs 2-97
2.8 Incorporation ofChanges to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan
Created by the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) 2-98
2.8.1 No Action Alternative 2-98
2.8.2 Proposed Plan 2-98
DWMA-A
2.8.3 Small Alternative 2-99
DWMA-B
2.8.4 Small Alternative 2-99
2.9 Comparison ofAlternatives 2-100
Chapter 3-Affected Environment 3-1
3.1 Air Quality 3-1
3.2 Water Quality 3-3
3.3 Soil Quality 3-4
3.4 Biological Resources 3-4
3.4.1 Biological Resources Management Tools 3-4
3.4.2 Wildlife 3-12
3.4.3 Special Status Plants 3-23
3.4.4 Natural Communities 3-27
3.5 Wilderness Management 3-32
ii