California Department of Fish and Wildlife Small Game Guzzler Enhancement Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-D060-2020-0036-EA

Home , Chocolate Mountains, Corn Springs

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management ______

Preparing Office

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs – South Coast Field Office 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs, California, 92262

Applicant/Proponent: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

July 30, 2020

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Small Game Guzzler Enhancement Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-CA-D060-2020-0036-EA

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 6

1.1 Identifying Information ...... 6 1.2 Lead Office ...... 6 1.3 Applicant Name ...... 6 1.4 Location of Proposed Project ...... 6 1.5 Summary of Proposed Project...... 6 1.6 Purpose and Need ...... 7 1.7 Decision to be Made ...... 7 1.8 Land Use Plan Conformance ...... 7 1.9 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Other NEPA Documents ...... 9

2.0 Alternatives ...... 9

2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative ...... 9 2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative ...... 10

3.0 Affected Environment ...... 12

3.1 Non-native, Invasive Species ...... 14 3.2 Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 14 3.3 Wildlife ...... 14 3.4 Wild Horses and Burros ...... 16

4.0 Environmental Effects ...... 17

4.1 Non-native, Invasive Species ...... 17 4.2 Threatened or Endangered Species ...... 17 4.3 Wildlife ...... 20 4.4 Wild Horses and Burros ...... 20 4.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 20

5.0 Consultation and Coordination ...... 21

5.1 Summary of Consultation and Coordination ...... 21 5.2 List of Preparers ...... 24

Appendix A: Table of Issues Considered ...... 25

A.1 Air Quality ...... 25 A.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) ...... 25

A.3 Cultural Resources ...... 25 A.4 Environmental Justice ...... 26 A.5 Geology/Mineral/Energy Resources ...... 26 A.6 Lands and Realty ...... 28 A.7 Livestock Grazing ...... 28 A.8 Recreation ...... 28 A.9 Soils ...... 28 A.10 Vegetation ...... 29 A.11 Visual Resources ...... 30 A.12 Wastes – Hazardous or Solid ...... 30 A.13 Water Quality (Surface and Ground) ...... 30 A.14 Wilderness ...... 30

Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 31

Appendix C: List of References ...... 32

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Identifying Information California Department of Fish and Wildlife Small Game Guzzler Enhancement DOI-BLM-CA-D060-2020-0036-EA BLM Palm Springs – South Coast Field Office 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 1.2 Lead Office Palm Spring – South Coast Field Office – LLCAD06000 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs, CA 92262 1.3 Applicant Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife Colorado River Program - Wildlife P.O. Box 2160 Blythe, CA 92226 1.4 Location of Proposed Project Riverside County, California

Guzzler RB03 T4S R20E Section 18, SW1/4NW1/4 Guzzler RB17 T6S R20E Section 18, SW1/4NW1/4 Guzzler RB20 T7S R20E Section 33, SW1/4SE1/4 Guzzler RB26 T7S R14E Section 17, SE1/4NW1/4 Guzzler RB40 T6S R12E Section 22, SW1/4NE1/4 1.5 Summary of Proposed Project The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was granted the sum of $190,000.00 by the Wildlife Conservation Board to repair and increase the storage capacity of small game guzzlers on Bureau of Land Management land (BLM) among the various mountain ranges and washes within an approximate 75-mile radius of the city of Blythe, California in Riverside County. CDFW is proposing to repair and increase the storage capacity of five small game guzzlers which would make them available for large game species. This involves replacing the existing small game guzzler with a slightly larger guzzler that is accessible to large game and repairing the existing concrete apron to ensure that water can be collected and funneled into the guzzler during rain events.

1.6 Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed action is to provide permanent, reliable water sources for large game species at five existing guzzler locations in Riverside County, California. The BLM has agreed to partner with CDFW to implement this guzzler grant on BLM land and needs to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. The completion of the proposed project would have positive effects upon such limiting factors as: • Reduced access to foraging habitat • Limited water availability • Human encroachment into mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus) and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) habitat particularly with off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and increased public land use during the winter months • Global environmental change (demonstrated increases in temperatures and decreases in precipitation) The need for the water development and improvement work is: 1. To provide additional permanent and dependable water sources for deer and other wildlife as provided for in Chapters 2 and 6 of the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO). 2. To mitigate the historical effects of habitat fragmentation caused by highways, canals, mining, renewable energy use, past and present military use, and railways. 1.7 Decision to be Made The BLM must decide whether to allow CDFW to implement the proposed project and replace five small game guzzlers with large game guzzlers in Riverside County, California. 1.8 Land Use Plan Conformance The proposed action and alternatives are in conformance with both the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA) and the Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan (NECO). California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as amended Objective #1 of the Wildlife Element of the CDCA Plan is to “Avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts of conflicting uses on wildlife populations and habitats and to promote wildlife populations through habitat enhancement projects so that balanced ecosystems are maintained and wildlife abundance provided for human enjoyment.” Objective #2 of the Wildlife Element of the CDCA Plan, in part, is to “Develop and implement detailed plans to provide special management for: b) areas with habitat which is sensitive to conflicting uses…”

Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2002. Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, pages 2-50 and 2-51. Desert Mule Deer Management--Goals and Objectives Desert mule deer are a native species, but not a special status species. Deer are included in tis section primarily because they are managed as a game species and because artificial waters are proposed to support their population. Deer would potentially benefit from prescriptions related to protecting and enhancing habitat for both desert bighorn sheep and other special status species. Nevertheless, management of mule deer is not dependent on designation of Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs) or Wildlife Habitat Management Areas (WHMAs).

The objective of this effort is to provide for the aesthetic, educational, and recreational uses of desert mule deer, to be accomplished by maintaining genetic variation in, and viability of, individual demes and by improving or increasing usable habitat and by augmenting populations.

Desert Mule Deer Strategy The desert mule deer populations within the NECO Plan area would be managed as two populations identified by their current CDFW hunting zone designation: D-12 and D-17. Desert mule deer would continue to be conserved as a native species and would continue to be managed as a game species. While deer are a native species found in Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) and Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), hunting is not allowed on those lands. In addition, in JTNP there would be no game management consideration for deer, including artificial waters, but there is in CMAGR in support of hunting that occurs outside CMAGR. Therefore, the bulk of this strategy will be limited to BLM and CMAGR lands.

1. Manage deer in deer habitat throughout their range as currently prescribed in the State’s Burro Deer Herd Management Plan.

2. CDFW would continue to construct, improve, and maintain existing natural and artificial water sources and exclosures around them where required and coordinate such work through other agencies and volunteer groups according to CDFW standards and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with BLM and CMAGR.

3. Artificial waters proposed for construction would be considered as a grouped proposal as noted for waters proposed for desert bighorn sheep and addressed in a NEPA review on a yearly basis for administrative efficiency. Since about half of the proposed artificial waters for desert bighorn sheep and desert mule deer are mutually beneficial, they would also be considered simultaneously.

NECO CMP/FEIS, July 2002 Appendix B, Standards and Guidelines, page B-5 Resource Advisory Council Direction At a minimum, State or regional guidelines must address the following: • 6. Maintain, restore, or enhance water quality to meet management objectives (e.g., meeting wildlife needs) • 9. Maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions to sustain native populations and communities 1.9 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Other NEPA Documents Cultural Resources Review Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the BLM is charged with managing public lands in a manner that will “protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values”. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ace, as implemented at 36 C.F.R. Part 800, requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Revised State Protocol Agreement (BLM 2019) between the California State Director of the BLM and the California and Nevada State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), defines the roles and relationships between the SHPOs’ offices and the BLM under the National Programmatic Agreement. The State protocol is intended to ensure that the California BLM operates “efficiently and effectively in accordance with the intent and requirements of the NHPA.” The protocol streamlines the 106 process by not requiring case by case consultation with the SHPO on most individual undertakings.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7 Consultation BLM submitted an Activity Request Form on March 16, 2020 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) citing the 2017 “Biological Opinion for Activities in the California Desert Conservation Area” (FWS-KRN/SBD/INY/LA/IMP/RIV-17B0532-17F1029) which transmits the USFWS’ Biological Opinion regarding the effects on the federally listed Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and its critical habitat, in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This Biological Opinion pertains, but is not limited to the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of guzzlers. The USFWS responded to BLM’s proposed project request on April 10, 2020 and approved the proposed project (FWS-ERIV-17B0532-20F0916).

2.0 Alternatives 2.1 Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative The five existing small game guzzlers would not be enhanced and thus would not be available for use by large game species. The existing small game guzzlers would remain in place and no action would be taken to conduct repairs on the existing guzzlers.

2.2 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Alternative The proposed project consists of removing the five existing small game guzzlers and replacing each guzzler with one large game guzzler. This will be a 1:1 replacement ratio. The existing concrete guzzler tanks that are approximately 9’ long x 5’ wide x 4’ deep will be dug up and removed from the site. A new fiberglass large game guzzler, which are 17’ long x 9’ wide x 3’ deep in size, would be placed in the existing hole. The hole will be about one foot longer in both length and width (18’ x 10’) to fit the new guzzler, the depth of the new guzzler tanks is one foot less than the old guzzler tanks. The new tank will be plumbed into the existing concrete apron. The aprons will not be expanded, but any damages to the aprons will be repaired to ensure that water can be collected and funneled into the guzzler during rain events. The extra soil from the removal of the old guzzler and installation of the new guzzler will be distributed evenly along the landscape following the contours of the land. All installation activities will take place within the existing footprint of the original guzzler installation, which is less than a quarter of an acre. Typical footprints are much smaller, approximately 0.05 to 0.10 of an acre. Tank installations and renovations have become very efficient over the years, usually not taking longer than 25 working hours from start to finish. Therefore, installation crews are normally in and out of the project area within three days.

1. Site Access CDFW has proposed to access the five existing guzzlers using BLM designated OHV routes to get as close to each guzzler as possible, they will then drive the remaining distance to the guzzlers using open washes. They estimated their off-route travel paths using open washes and areas devoid of larger vegetation. A qualified biologist will clear the off-route tracks for desert tortoise, nesting birds, and active mammal dens before driving. Upon departure, CDFW will completely cover their off-route tracks.

2. Equipment required • One backhoe • Four, four-wheel drive trucks • Hand tools: shovels, rakes, pickaxes, hammers, reciprocating saw, etc.

3. People required Approximately 15 people would be at each site for about 25 hours. Some people may camp near the sites. All personnel would be briefed daily on-site stewardship and safety. All trash created on site will be properly disposed of in a raven-proof container and removed upon completion of the project. Supplies, tools, and materials would be stored, when not in use, at the site location and a first aid/safety area would be established.

4. Post Construction Activities Upon completion of the project, areas disturbed by the project would be restored to as natural condition as possible. It is not anticipated that any large plants will need to be removed during construction, but if this does occur the area will be re-vegetated with any native plants that were removed. All disturbed soil surfaces would be contoured and raked to match the surrounding terrain. Any rocks that were removed would be scattered back over the disturbed area. Upon project completion vehicle and equipment tracks leading into the washes will be raked over to discourage unnecessary OHV use.

5. Monitoring CDFW and/or its agents would drive to the sites to monitor the enhanced guzzlers as needed for water level and quality inspection. Camera traps may also be used to monitor species use of the guzzlers. CDFW/agents would discuss and/or provide to BLM an annual inspection summary of observations regarding desert tortoise observations, burrows, scat, or remains and observations of corvid species that were made while conducting guzzler work. If impacts to desert tortoise becomes evident from the guzzlers, then additional monitoring and mitigation measures will be discussed between CDFW/agents and BLM.

6. Repair and Refill The anticipated lifespan of the guzzler tank is greater than 50 years. Other components of the guzzler system (e.g., concrete apron) may deteriorate or require repair due to weathering or infrequent environmental events such as earthquakes or severe floods. Refill activities are anticipated when storm events do not provide enough water to the system. When the system is full, the water would be expected to last for approximately two and a half years without needing any natural recharge or refill. CDFW/agents would fill the guzzlers on an as needed basis. Refill would involve a vehicle with a water tank or trailer to fill the guzzler. Repair and refill activities would utilize the same access routes that were utilized during the initial guzzler enhancement and would follow the same protocols established in this EA.

7. Area Description

The five small game guzzlers are located on BLM land within an approximate 75-mile radius of the city of Blythe located in Riverside County, California. The guzzlers and access routes are not located within wilderness.

RB03 Guzzler This project site is located north of Interstate-10 (I-10) and just north of the McCoy Mountains near Arlington Mine Road and Palen Pass Road. It is not within desert tortoise critical habitat. It is within a NECO open wash area. This guzzler is in severe disrepair and is not holding water.

RB17 Guzzler This project site is located north of I-10, west of the McCoy Mountains and southeast of the Palen Mountains near the Palen/McCoy Wilderness, but the guzzler and access routes do not occur in wilderness. It is not within desert tortoise critical habitat. It is within a NECO open wash area.

RB20 Guzzler This project site occurs south of I-10 in between the Little Chuckwalla Mountains and the Mule Mountains near Wiley’s Well Road. It is within desert tortoise critical habitat and the Chuckwalla Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). It is within a NECO open wash area.

RB26 Guzzler This project occurs south of I-10 in between the Orocopia Mountains and the Chuckwalla Mountains within the intersection of Summit Road, the Bradshaw Trail, and Gas Line Road. It is within desert tortoise critical habitat and the Chuckwalla ACEC. It is within a NECO open wash area.

RB40 Guzzler This project occurs south of I-10 and Chiriaco Summit near the Red Canyon Jeep Trail. It is within desert tortoise critical habitat and the Chuckwalla ACEC. About 1/3 of the off-route travel path is an open wash and 2/3 of the off-route travel path is in a closed wash. Per 43 CFR 8340.0- 5.a.3, vehicle use is allowed in areas closed to Off-road vehicle use on the condition it has been “expressly authorized by the Authorized Officer, or otherwise officially approved”.

3.0 Affected Environment This project would occur in the Colorado Desert subsection of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California. The climate is that of the low desert with very hot summers and warm winters. Rainfall averages about 3 inches per year with the bulk occurring in the late summer and winter. Vegetation is best characterized by Sonoran creosote bush scrub, but many areas are cut by desert washes inhabited by microphyll woodlands. The soils range from very coarse sand and gravel in the washes to rock and desert pavement in the upland areas. Common wildlife species include mule deer, coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), desert bighorn sheep, and a variety of birds, reptiles, and insects. Desert tortoise, a federally threatened species, also occur here. No federally or state listed plants are known to occur in the area. CDFW has plans to reintroduce pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) into this area within the next few years and the proposed project’s water sources would be accessible to them as well.

The table below includes all of the resource issues brought forward for consideration and the level of analysis suitable by BLM specialists. For an account of every resource listed as “N/A or Not Present” or “Applicable or Present, No Impact” refer to Appendix A. Resources with a “Potential Impact” are discussed in section 3.0 and 4.0 of the EA.

Table 1. Resources considered for analysis Consideration of Critical N/A or Not Present Applicable or Present, Potential Impact, Elements (NP) No Impact (NI) Discussed in EA (PI)

Air Quality X

Areas of Critical X Environmental Concern

Cultural Resources X

Environmental Justice X

Geology/Mineral/Energy X Resources

Lands and Realty X

Livestock Grazing X

Non-native, Invasive Species X

Recreation X

Soils X

Threatened, Endangered, or X Candidate Species

Wildlife X

Vegetation X

Visual Resources X

Wastes - Hazardous or Solid X

Water Quality (Surface and X Ground)

Wild Horses and Burros X

Wilderness X

3.1 Non-native, Invasive Species Non-native, invasive species in this area include Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.), and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.). Sahara mustard and Mediterranean grass are present throughout the project areas. These species are annuals that die each year and their seeds lie dormant for long periods of time in the soil. During wet periods, these species erupt and cover much of this portion of the desert. These annuals pose a threat to the native community by increasing the risk of wildfire by providing light transmission fuels. These species can also compete with native plants. Tamarisk is usually found in association with moisture, either in washes or riparian areas. It can pose a major threat to native plant life by depleting subsurface water and increasing soil salinity. With enough water available, tamarisk could grow in dense monoculture stands and provide little benefit to most wildlife.

3.2 Threatened or Endangered Species The Mojave population of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) was listed as federally threatened on April 2, 1990 and the USFWS designated critical habitat for the species on February 8, 1994. Three of the five guzzlers are located within designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise.

Results of the USFWS range wide monitoring in 2019 showed a density of 1.8 tortoises/km2 in the Chuckwalla monitoring stratum which is part of the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit. The three guzzlers that are in designated critical habitat are within the Chuckwalla monitoring stratum. In 2019, the average density for the Colorado Desert Recovery Unit was 4.8 tortoises/km2 (USFWS 2020).

There are no known Candidate species for listing in the project area. 3.3 Wildlife Special Status Species Special status species are designated by the BLM, USFWS, and/or CDFW. Table 2 compiles wildlife that are considered special status species that are known to occur within the general region of the project.

Table 2. Special status species in the project area Species Status* Presence at project location LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma CDFW – SSC Species observed in sand dune lecontei) USFWS – BCC habitat near RB20, but habitat is not optimal at the guzzler location. Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes CESA – Endangered Species is only observed within the uropygialis) BLM – S vicinity of the Corn Springs USFWS – BCC Campground/ACEC where they can nest in palm tree and cultivated saguaro cactus cavities. But they could occur in microphyll woodland. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) BLM – S The project is within the range of USFWS – BCC the species. Suitable nesting habitat exists on mountain cliff faces. The habitat near the guzzlers would be used for foraging not nesting. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo BLM – S The project is within the breeding swainsoni) CESA – Threatened range of the species, but suitable USFWS – BCC breeding and foraging habitat tends to be agricultural crop lands, grasslands, and pasture. It is unlikely that any nesting Swainson’s hawks will be observed near the guzzlers. Burrowing owl (Athene BLM – S This species is known to inhabit the cunicularia) CDFW – SSC project area year-round and is likely USFWS – BCC to inhabit the site. Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) BLM – S Species is only observed within the CESA – Endangered vicinity of the Corn Springs USFWS – BCC Campground/ACEC where they can nest in palm tree and cultivated saguaro cactus cavities. But they could occur in microphyll woodland. Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) ESA – Threatened Species likely present on or near the CESA – Threatened project sites. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) BLM – S The project is within the range of CDFW – SSC this species. Suitable seasonal foraging and roosting habitat is present near the project area. No known hibernation or maternity roosts are present in the area. Townsend’s western big-eared bat BLM – S The project is within the range of (Corynorhinus townsendii) CDFW – SSC this species. Suitable seasonal foraging and roosting habitat is present near the project area. No known hibernation or maternity roosts are present in the area. Pocketed free-tailed bat CDFW – SSC The project is within the range of (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) this species. Suitable seasonal foraging and roosting habitat is present near the project area. No known hibernation or maternity roosts are present in the area. 15

Species Status* Presence at project location California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus BLM – S There are known populations in this californicus) CDFW – SSC area. Suitable seasonal foraging and roosting habitat is present near the project area. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) BLM – S The project is within the range of this species. Suitable seasonal foraging and roosting habitat is present near the project area. No known hibernation or maternity roosts are present in the area. Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis BLM – S This species is known to inhabit canadensis nelsoni) CDFW – FP this area. *ESA: Endangered Species Act CESA: California Endangered Species Act BLM – S: BLM Sensitive Species USFWS – BCC: Bird of Conservation Concern CDFW – SSC: Species of Special Concern CDFW – FP: Fully Protected

Other Wildlife, Including Migratory Birds The project area is inhabited by an abundance of wildlife species, including but not limited to, mule deer, bobcat, black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), and zebra-tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides). Microphyll woodlands near the project sites typically support a higher diversity of wildlife than many other parts of the Colorado Desert. These woodlands provide cover, forage, and nesting areas, and are particularly important for migratory birds. Many species of birds migrate through this area and utilize these woodlands as stopover habitat. This is especially important for species that cross hundreds of miles across the harsh desert environment. In 2001, microphyll woodlands were designated as an important bird area by the National Audubon Society. 3.4 Wild Horses and Burros Burros aggressively compete for vegetation and available water in arid environments and actively exclude native wildlife, including deer. The proposed project is not within a Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area (HMA). The closest HMA is the Chocolate-Mule Mountains HMA, located in southeastern Imperial County, California near the Chuckwalla Bench DWMA. However, burros currently range within a broad area adjacent to the Coachella Canal. The Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma natural resource staff conducted aerial and ground surveys from June 2017 through September 2018 using standard burro survey protocols and estimated that there are approximately 20 burros utilizing the area along the southern boundary of the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range near the Coachella Canal. In June 2019, the Marine Corps Air Station began working with the Bureau of Reclamation to install burro-proof fencing around wildlife drinkers on the lands it manages or has administrative authority over. The fencing in this area would reduce the likelihood of feral burros reinhabiting this area along the Coachella Canal.

4.0 Environmental Effects 4.1 Non-native, Invasive Species Sahara mustard and Mediterranean grass are already prevalent throughout the project area. It is not anticipated that this project and guzzler maintenance activities will result in an appreciable increase in these species. BLM will adhere to Conservation and Management Action (CMA) 14, below, to minimize the spread of invasive plants. Specific implementation measures including washing vehicles and construction equipment before construction and maintenance activities to remove weed seed. There is not currently tamarisk near the guzzlers. However, during routine checks and maintenance of the guzzlers, if tamarisk is found it will be removed.

The No Action Alternative would have no effect to non-native, invasive species. 4.2 Threatened or Endangered Species The enhancement of the small game guzzlers to large game guzzlers would temporarily disturb at most 0.30 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat and 0.20 acres of non-critical habitat.

This project would temporarily disturb 11,762 square feet for the access routes to the guzzlers and 0.50 acres for the replacement of the guzzler tanks, see Table 3. Once the new guzzlers are in place the sites would be restored to their natural condition. Further impacts to habitat would be limited to wildlife entering and leaving the guzzler locations to drink, and routine visits by CDFW and/or its agents and BLM to inspect the guzzlers and perform maintenance.

Table 3. Access route and guzzler tank temporary disturbance and existing disturbance Access route Guzzler tank temporary replacement Existing guzzler Guzzler disturbance (square temporary apron (acres) meters) disturbance (acres) RB03 1,517 0.10 0.03 RB17 1,191 0.10 0.03 RB20 3,979 0.10 0.03 RB26 3,711 0.10 0.03 RB40 1,364 0.10 0.03 Total 11,762 0.50 0.15

Andrew et al. (2001) examined 13 guzzlers in this region for signs of drowned desert tortoises. Her study found no tortoise remains. Hoover (1995) in a similar study of 86 small game guzzlers found the remains of 17 tortoises. It is impossible to determine whether the remains were washed in the guzzlers from routine filling or if the tortoises fell in and became trapped. Hoover recommended installation of a roughened matt or abraded surface for tortoises to be able to have traction to escape the guzzler. Although the proposed large game guzzlers are of a different design than the small game guzzlers examined by Hoover, the proposed guzzlers would be equipped with a roughened ramp or steps to allow tortoises to climb out. Because of the escape

17 ramp and CMAs established below for construction and maintenance, this project is not likely to adversely affect desert tortoises or adversely modify critical habitat.

Common ravens and American crows can be attracted to unnatural water sources, such as large game guzzlers. The common raven is a subsidized predator of the desert tortoise (McIntyre 2004). Raven predation on juvenile tortoises is believed to be one of the most important threats to the desert tortoise (McIntyre 2004). There is a potential for predation by ravens on immature desert tortoises. Therefore, a monitoring program would be implemented by CDFW and/or its agents. The Colorado Desert does not support the high abundances of ravens as seen in parts of the Mojave Desert. In 1995, during weekly raven surveys, McKernan saw a range from 14 ravens per month to 0 ravens per month. The average number of ravens per month was 1.1 (SD 0.39). Daily average totals ranged from 0 to 3. Much of this raven activity was centered near roads or at campsites in the Imperial Sand Dunes (McKernan 1995).

The No Action Alternative would result in no impacts to desert tortoise or disturbance to desert tortoise critical habitat.

Desert Tortoise Mitigation Measures

The BLM is using the Biological Opinion for Activities in the California Desert Conservation Area (FWS-KRN/SBD/INY/LA/IMP/RIV-17B0532-17F1029), developed the following Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) for the project in coordination with the USFWS.

CMA 1: The BLM will designate a qualified biologist (QB) who would be responsible for overseeing compliance with protective stipulations for the desert tortoise and for coordination on compliance with the BLM. The QB must be on-site during all project activities. The QB shall have the authority to halt all project activities that are in violation of the stipulations. The QB shall have a copy of stipulations when work is being conducted on the site. The QB may be a biologist with desert tortoise experience and approved by BLM. The QB may be a BLM Wildlife Biologist or BLM Biological Science Technician.

CMA 2: All employees/volunteers of the project who will work on-site shall participate in a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) prior to initiation of field activities. CDFW is responsible for ensuring that the WEAP is developed and presented prior to conducting activities. New employees/volunteers shall receive WEAP training prior to conducting on-site work. WEAP will be approved by the BLM at least 15 days prior to the presentation of the program. The program shall cover the following topics: 1) disturbance of desert tortoise, 2) general behavior and ecology of the tortoise, 3) sensitivity to human activities, 4) legal protection, 5) penalties for violations of State and Federal laws, 6) reporting requirements, and 7) project protective mitigation measures.

CMA 3: The area of disturbance shall be confined to the smallest practical area, considering topography, placement of facilities, location of burrows, public health and safety, and other limiting factors. Work area boundaries shall be delineated with flagging or other markings to minimize surface disturbance associated with vehicle straying. Specific habitat features, such as

burrows, identified by the qualified biologist shall be avoided. To the extent possible, previously disturbed areas within the project site shall be utilized for the stockpiling of excavated materials, storage of equipment, and the location of office trailers and parking of vehicles. The staging and work areas shall be surveyed for desert tortoise and their burrows.

CMA 4: Cross-country access shall be the standard for temporary activities. To the extent possible, access to the project site shall be restricted to designated "open" routes of travel. The QB shall survey and flag the routes of travel to avoid burrows and to minimize disturbance of vegetation. All access is to be considered temporary. After the project is completed, the temporary access route shall be rehabilitated using ripping, raking, and other accepted techniques.

CMA 5: Desert tortoises shall be allowed to move through a project area and shall not be disturbed. All construction activities shall cease until the desert tortoise has moved through the area. If the qualified biologist is available, the qualified biologist may move the desert tortoise from harm's way.

CMA 6: The QB shall maintain a record of all tortoises observed during the project. This information will be provided to the BLM and USFWS upon the completion of the project. The information included for each tortoise is as follows: 1) The global positioning system (GPS) location and date of observation, 2) general condition and health, including injuries and state of healing and whether animals voided their bladders, 3) diagnostic markings, 4) photograph of each observed tortoise.

CMA 7: Upon locating a dead or injured tortoise the BLM will be notified and BLM will then notify the USFWS.

CMA 8: Except on county-maintained roads, vehicle speeds shall not exceed 10 miles per hour through desert tortoise habitat.

CMA 9: Workers shall inspect for tortoises under and around vehicles and equipment prior to move it. If a tortoise is present, the vehicle or equipment shall not be moved until the tortoise has moved out from under the vehicle on its own violation. Only after the desert tortoise has moved, may the vehicle or equipment be moved. If a qualified biologist is available, the qualified biologist may move the tortoise from harm's way after 15 minutes.

CMA 10: No dogs shall be allowed at the work site.

CMA 11: All trash and food items shall be properly contained within closed, raven proof containers. These shall be removed from the project site the same day to reduce the attractiveness of the area to ravens and other tortoise predators.

CMA 12: Guzzlers will be desert tortoise safe, which may include the use of an approved ramp to allow tortoise and other wildlife to climb out.

CMA 13: The qualified biologist will survey all work areas for desert tortoise prior to project

activities and will flag potential burrows.

CMA 14: BLM will ensure the implementation of best management practices to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants in the work area. These practices will include removing dirt and seeds from shoes, equipment, and vehicles prior to entering or exiting the work area.

CMA 15: BLM will ensure that vegetation removal and clearing will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. Any vegetation removal work will be performed with the oversight of the qualified biologist to avoid impacts to special status species.

Because of the conservation activities undertaken by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for desert tortoise (habitat acquisition, education, protection), no compensation payment shall be required. 4.3 Wildlife If this project is conducted during the nesting bird season, then access routes and the guzzler areas will be cleared for active bird nests before project activities begin. If an active nest is found a buffer will be established to avoid disturbing the birds. The same is true for any active mammal dens that are discovered during pre-surveys. It is anticipated that most of the guzzler enhancement work will take place during fall 2020 and winter 2020/2021.

Direct effect to wildlife will be positive as this project will make the current small game guzzlers accessible for desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, and pronghorn if they are reintroduced into the area. Small game species will still have access to the water sources and the storage capacity of the guzzlers will be increased.

The No Action Alternative would not allow the guzzlers to be accessible to large game species; therefore, these species would not benefit. The No Action Alternative would not affect small game species. 4.4 Wild Horses and Burros This project is outside any designated HMA. There is not any evidence of burros near the current small game guzzlers; however, if these water sources are found by burros they will be considered for fencing. Only fencing of a design previously approved in the NECO Plan will be installed.

The No Action Alternative would not affect wild horses and burros. 4.5 Cumulative Effects These five small game guzzlers were constructed before the implementation of the NECO Plan. Under the terms of the NECO Plan an additional 108 deer and combination sheep and deer water sources were approved for installation in eastern Riverside and Imperial counties. This project would repair and enhance five existing small game guzzlers into large game guzzlers.

Cumulatively, the existing 37 guzzlers in both Riverside and Imperial Counties have directly 20 impacted less that 1 acre of land, most of which is suitable for desert tortoise. All of these guzzlers were installed before the signing of the NECO Plan. The desert landscape has recovered from the temporary disturbance associated with their construction. If all 108 guzzlers that were proposed in the NECO plan were installed, three acres would be directly impacted. Indirectly, these guzzlers would alter the existing distribution and abundance of plants and wildlife throughout the area in ways that are difficult to predict. Areas previously unsuitable for summer use by deer would become occupied during those periods. Improved fawn survival may occur as a result of improved water access or females during lactation. This in turn could lead to a larger deer population when water is the limiting factor. Increased browse pressure could occur in areas near the guzzlers; however, recent studies have been unable to quantify forage biomass reductions as a result of existing guzzlers (Marshal et al 2006). At some point free water may cease to be the limiting factor and available forage or thermal cover may prevent increases in the deer population.

Other potential effects include changes in the distribution of predators of desert tortoise, such as common ravens and coyotes. However, these species already have access to the small game guzzlers, and they would continue to have access to the large game guzzlers once installed. Therefore, their access to water would not change so it is unlikely that there will be a change in the predator population from the implementation of this project.

Cumulative impacts associated with the construction and maintenance of these water sources will have little impact of the abundance and distribution of plants and wildlife in Riverside County, California.

5.0 Consultation and Coordination 5.1 Summary of Consultation and Coordination

Purpose and Authorities for Name Findings and Conclusions Consultation or Coordination

Vincent James, USFWS, Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Approved to implement project Wildlife Biologist Section 7 Consultation of the under the Biological Opinion for Endangered Species Act Activities in the California Desert Conservation Area (FWS- KRN/SBD/INY/LA/IMP/RIV- 17B0532-17F1029) per the Activity Request Form submitted for the project (FWS-ERIV-17B0532- 20F0916).

5.1.2 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation

The Project APE encompasses federally administered lands, thus requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), (54 USC 306108) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800).

The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and provided that states may establish State Historic Preservation Officers to consult with federal agencies on undertakings that may affect historic properties. Most significantly for federal agencies responsible for managing cultural resources, Section 106 of the NHPA directs that “[t]he head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.” Section 106 also affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking (54 USC 306108).

36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800 (36 CFR 800), implements Section 106 of the NHPA (ACHP 2004). It defines the steps necessary to identify historic properties (those cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP), including consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes to identify resources of concern to them; to determine whether or not they may be adversely affected by a proposed undertaking; and the process for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects. The content of 36 CFR 60.4 also defines criteria for determining eligibility for listing in the NRHP (NPS 2012). The BLM evaluates the significance of cultural resources identified during inventory phases in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office to determine if the resources are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Cultural resources may be considered eligible for listing if they possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A resource may be considered historically significant and eligible for NRHP listing if it is found to meet one of the following criteria: A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history; or B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past; or C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history.

BLM standards for identifying and evaluating resources are provided in the BLM Manual 8110 Guidance: Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources (BLM 2004).

The BLM has conducted its review to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA following the provisions of the State Protocol Agreement (BLM 2019). As summarized herein and further detailed in Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, the BLM has made a reasonable effort to identify historic properties and to assess the effect of this undertaking on historic properties that may be located within the APE. In accordance with the State Protocol Agreement, BLM has satisfied its responsibilities to consider the effects of this undertaking on historic properties that may be included or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

5.1.3 Tribal Consultation The BLM consults with federally recognized Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with several authorities including NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 USC 300101), as amended; the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 USC 1996), as amended; and Executive Order (EO) 13007 (May 24, 1996), concerning Indian Sacred Sites; EO 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000), concerning Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments; and the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 22951 1994). The BLM’s tribal consultation policy is found in the BLM 1780 Manual (Tribal Relations) and 1780-1 Handbook (Improving and Sustaining BLM-Tribal Relations).

The following tribes have been invited to participate in the public comment period for this proposed Project: -Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians -Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians -Cabazon Band of Mission Indians -Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians -Chemehuevi Indian Tribe -Cocopah Indian Tribe -Colorado River Indian Tribes -Fort Mojave Indian Tribe -Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe -Morongo Band of Mission Indians -Ramona Band of Mission Indians -San Manuel Band of Mission Indians -Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians -Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians -Twenty-nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

5.2 List of Preparers Responsible for the following Name Title section(s) of this document Kayla Brown Wildlife Biologist Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and Appendices A, B, and C Arianna Heathcote Archeologist Review of cultural resources Dan Kasang Outdoor Recreation Planner Review of recreation, visual resources, and wilderness Jeff Johnston Geologist Review of geology, mineral, and energy resources, soils, and water quality Victoria Hernandez Realty Specialist Review of lands and realty John Dalton and Monica Ammann Planning and Environmental Review of entire document for Coordinators consistency

Appendix A: Table of Issues Considered A.1 Air Quality The South Coast Air Quality Control District has air quality jurisdiction over the project area and has developed guidelines for dust control suppression during construction activities. Air quality throughout the project area is generally good. At times, the area does not meet air quality standards due to wind transported pollutants. A.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) Three of the five guzzlers are located within the Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA). This DWMA was established as an ACEC under the NECO Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to protect desert tortoise. One of the guzzlers is located in the Upper McCoy ACEC. The Chuckwalla ACEC has a 0.5% disturbance cap and the Upper McCoy ACEC has a 1% disturbance cap. A.3 Cultural Resources The BLM defined the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for direct and indirect effects to historic properties and cultural resource identification efforts consistent with Stipulations 5.2 and 5.3 of the BLM-California State Protocol Agreement (BLM, 2019). The APE includes the Guzzler locations, proposed actions, and access routes off designated OHV routes. This proposed project will result in 35 square meters of previously disturbed ground disturbance and 11,847 square meters of new ground disturbance for a total of 11,882 square meters of ground disturbance or 3 acres.

The five guzzler sites are in an area that was utilized by multiple cultural groups including the Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Mojave, and Quechan. These groups likely utilized travel and trade routes in and around the project area. Mining in the region began in the 1880’s, and the Chuckwalla Orocopia Mountains contain several historic mining sites as a result. Mining activity tapered off at the end of the century and picked up again in the early 1900’s and 1930’s.

A cultural resources records and literature search of documents and maps on file at the BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office (PSSCFO) was conducted by Arianna Heathcote, PSSCFO Archaeologist in May 2020. Four previously recorded cultural resources were identified within a one mile radius of the project APE. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the Project APE. A Class III cultural resource inventory of all five guzzler locations and access routes was conducted by Lynn Robinson, PSSCFO Archaeologist on June 8, 9, and 10, 2020. No historic properties were identified within the APE of the project. The results of this effort are documented in a report entitled: A Class III Archaeological Inventory of the Small Game Guzzler Enhancement Project, Riverside County, California.

No historic properties were identified within the project area: the proposed project will have no historic properties affected. If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project activities at any of the five guzzlers, all work shall immediately cease in the immediate area of the discovery and a PSSCFO Archaeologist shall be consulted. 25

CUL 1: Proposed work vehicles and heavy equipment will remain on designated routes or areas surveyed by Field Office Cultural Resources Staff for this project. If adjustments are made to the APE, additional cultural resource analysis will be required.

CUL 2: In the event of inadvertent discovery of Cultural Resources during implementation of an undertaking, the following procedure shall be undertaken. Field Office Cultural Resources Staff and the Field Manager shall be immediately notified by personnel responsible for implementation of the exempted undertakings. All work shall cease at the site of discovery and all other work which may damage the cultural resources shall also cease. The Field Office Cultural Resource Staff shall make an assessment of the situation and, in consultation with the Field Manager, may prescribe the emergency implementation of appropriate physical and administrative conservation measures.

CUL 3: In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 USC 3001 et seq.), if human remains are found, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must be notified immediately. Excavation or disturbance in the area of the discovery must cease and a reasonable effort must be made to protect the human remains and other cultural items. The BLM must certify receipt of the notification within three working days and take immediate steps, if necessary in order to comply with the NAGPRA, to further secure and protect the human remains and other cultural items.

A.4 Environmental Justice This project would not affect environmental justice issues; therefore, this element will not be considered further.

A.5 Geology/Mineral/Energy Resources All of the proposed guzzlers are located within the southern extension of the Mojave Desert geomorphic province of southern California. This is a broad interior region of isolated mountain ranges separated by expanses of desert plains. It has many interior enclosed drainage with alluviated valleys and playas. There are no mapped active faults or other geologic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction, etc., in the regions of the current locations. As the proposed action will be to repair and increase the storage facility of existing features, with relatively little new surface disturbance, no significant impact to any existing geologic and mineral resources is anticipated on any of the proposed sites. Site specific details are given in the following sections. RB03 T4S R20E Section 18 Guzzler number RB03 is located along the north eastern tip of the McCoy mountains on Holocene to mid Pleistocene aged alluvial fan materials derived predominately from the Jurassic aged volcanic rocks of the northern McCoy mountains. While there are currently no active mining claims on the 1-mile section of the proposed guzzler, this area had numerous mining activity in the past with the workings of the Arlington, Black Jack and Bertha mines located just 26

south of the site. Gold mining in this area was most prominent during the period from 1890- 1900, and the Arlington and Black Jack mines produced large quantities of manganese and copper during World War I. There has been no significant mining activity on these mines in the last 50 or so years, with most of the operations taking place in the early 1900’s and periodically waxing and waning until the early 1970’s. However there were active claims on the several of the workings until as late as 2015. RB17 T6S R20E Section 18 Guzzler number RB17 is located in the Chuckwalla valley, southwest of the southern McCoy mountains on Holocene aged alluvial fan and alluvial valley materials derived predominately from the Jurassic aged siliclastic sedimentary rocks of the middle and southern McCoy mountains. There are currently no active mining claims on the 1 mile section of the proposed guzzler, however in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s there were a series of lode and placier claims placed around the immediate area of the site. Information on the commodities and workings of these earlier claims was not obtained during this study. RB20 T7S R20E Section 33 Guzzler number RB20 is located in the southern portion of the alleviated Chuckwalla valley, half-way between the Chuckwalla mountains to the west and the Mule Mountains to the east on Holocene aged alluvial valley deposits and very recent alluvial wash material eroded and re- worked from the alluvial valley deposits. There are currently no active mining claims on the 1 mile section of the proposed guzzler. RB26 T7S R14E Section 17 Guzzler number RB26 is located half-way between the Orocopia mountains to the west and the Chuckwalla mountains to the east and north of the Chocolate mountains on Holocene aged alluvial valley deposits and the older Holocene to Pleistocene age partially dissected alluvial gravel eroded predominately from the Mesozoic plutonic rocks and metasediments and the Tertiary volcanic rocks of the Chocolate mountains. There are currently no active mining claims on the 1 mile section of the proposed guzzler. RB40 T6S R12E Section 22 Guzzler number RB40 is located in the small Maniobra valley within a small enclave surrounded by the Orocopia mountains on the east, south, and west. The existing guzzler is situated on a relatively thin deposit of Holocene aged alluvial of sand, gravel, and silt, that are located at the base of a small hill composed of outcrops of the Maniobra formation. The alluvial formation at the site is most likely very thin and derived from the Maniobra formations which is a sequence of Eocene aged marine sediments composed of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, and breccia with some sandy limestone. There are currently no active mines on the 1-mile section of the proposed guzzler, however there were two lode claims, Rainbow I and II, in these small hills in the early 90’s. Additional information on the commodity and workings of these claims was not obtained.

A.6 Lands and Realty A lands and realty report was ran for the general vicinity of the guzzlers using the BLM Lands & Realty database, Legacy Rehost 2000. This is a public database which records authorized, pending, and closed rights-of-way, land sales, permits, and any known trespasses. This report returned that are no authorized rights within the immediate vicinity. There is one pending application, however, this will not affect the placement of the guzzlers. A.7 Livestock Grazing There are no grazing allotments within the project area. The closest grazing allotment is in Rice Valley located to the north of the Little Maria Mountains, while guzzler RB03 is located to the south of the Little Maria Mountains. Therefore, this element will not be considered further. A.8 Recreation Recreation in the project area is diverse and dispersed but easy to access via a network of designated OHV routes and open washes. Popular activities in this region are motorized vehicle touring, hunting, photography, horseback riding, rockhounding, wildlife watching, camping, and hiking. The guzzlers are dispersed throughout Riverside County across multiple land use allocations in the Eastern Riverside County Management Area. Data gathered via staff observations and automated methods have estimated visits to the area typically in the range of 300-700 thousand as visitor use patterns have changed [BLM, 2009-2019].

Two guzzlers are located within the Chuckwalla and Meccacopia Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) which do provide specific recreation objectives and receive more frequent recreational use than other areas. The SRMAs primary recreational objectives is to provide and enhance motorized recreational touring opportunities, however additional recreational endeavors are identified which include wildlife and wildflower viewing, hunting, and photography. These areas are designated VRM Class II in order to preserve the Recreation Setting Characteristics (RSCs) which contribute to the areas recreational value, please refer to the Visual Resource sections for the relevant discussion.

The proposed action will improve recreational opportunities in the surrounding areas. Increased abundance of large and small game and other benefitting wildlife provides enhanced opportunities for hunting and wildlife watching. Short-term safety risks to motorized wash recreation are abated through implementation of appropriate mitigation measure. REC-1: Post temporary signs in open washes notifying users of activities prior to conducting operations. Limit signage to only that necessary to provide a safe environment for public and operators. A.9 Soils Site specific soils data is sparse along much of the desert regions of eastern Riverside county. Due to climate and underlying geologic parent materials of the subject sites the soils at each location are anticipated to be composed of soil profiles of Aridisols, and Entisols taxonomy. These soils form in arid climates with poor profile development, other than a weak A horizon. Many times, these are only slightly altered, to unaltered, from their parent material of various 28

alluvial materials and washes, with little organic content supporting only sparse vegetation. While site specific field studies were not conducted, based on the data available, the soils at the proposed sites are anticipated to range from loamy fine sand (sparse) to cobbly coarse sand (more common), formed on alluvial fans and washes from a mixture of granitic and metamorphic source materials. These units are anticipated to have a low water input, in-frequent but occasional flooding and high-water intake, many times resulting in high upwards evaporations rates leaving a calcareous composition often developing a caliche hardpan. As the proposed actions involved the rehabilitation and some expansion of existing features, with little new surface disturbance, there is no significant impact anticipated on soils resources at each site. A.10 Vegetation Vegetation in the project area reflects the arid conditions, limited rainfall, and generally poor soils of the Colorado Desert. The project area is a mixture of creosote scrub/desert pavement and small areas of microphyll woodland. Dominant species found within the creosote scrub areas include creosote bush (Larrea tridentate) and brittle bush (Encelia farinosa). Dominant species found within the microphyll woodland areas include blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), ironwood (Olneya tesota), and smoke tree (Psorothammus spinosus).

Microphyll woodland habitats tend to be tall relative to their surrounding environment, with trees dispersed and spaced fairly far apart. Many of the washes within this region are inhabited by microphyll woodlands which are of special importance to wildlife and yield a higher species diversity than other desert vegetation types. This habitat is naturally fragmented due to the xeric nature of the desert and the natural drainage patters. These woodlands occur in areas subject to increased moisture due to the presence of washes, shallow water tables, or other unique hydrologic features. This habitat provides shelter and forage for all types of desert wildlife. Microphyll woodlands are an extremely important habitat feature for wintering, breeding, and migrating birds, as well as other wildlife in the desert.

There are no known occurrences of BLM sensitive plants within 1 mile of the proposed big game guzzler sites and access routes.

Past studies have addressed foraging questions and have found that sheep (Wehausen and Hansen 1986) and deer (Marshal et al 2004 and 2005) both exist at low densities, have little impact on vegetation used as browse and forage. Marshal et el (2006) specifically looked at vegetation near water sources in the Sonoran Desert in California and failed to measure any impact to vegetation by native ungulates to water sources.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact to vegetation.

A.11 Visual Resources The project area covers a number of visual resource areas. Impacted lands have Scenic Quality Class B and C character, Moderate to High Sensitivity levels, and are all within the foreground/middleground distance classification. These areas are managed under VRM Class IV, III, and II resource objectives. According to VRM Class II, wildlife guzzlers may be seen, but should not attract attention of the casual observer. The level of change to the landscape should be low. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the natural features of the landscape in form, line, color, and texture. While there are a range of lands with different visual quality and management objectives, these facilities are designed to blend with the natural environment. Long-term visual impacts are mitigated with project design features. Implementation of mitigation measure will further minimize residual impacts, consistent with VRM policy. VIS-1: Utilize screening or color treat visible replaced components to blend with existing facility. If color treatment is necessary, consult with the BLM visual resource specialist to select a color similar to those on the BLM Standard Environmental Colors chart. A.12 Wastes – Hazardous or Solid There are no known hazardous wastes at the five guzzler locations and no hazardous waste would be generated by the enhancement of the current guzzlers. Therefore, this element will not be considered further. A.13 Water Quality (Surface and Ground) There are no waterways, natural or anthropogenic, within the project area. This region receives an average of less than 3 inches of rainfall per year. What rainfall that does occur runs off the ground and into the washes very quickly resulting in flash flooding. These floods naturally carry large quantities of soil and rock. A.14 Wilderness None of the project locations are located within Wilderness areas, but are developments that occur near Wilderness areas. As these guzzlers are existing developments, there would no anticipated change to Wilderness Character.

Appendix B: Acronyms and Abbreviations ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern APE Area of Potential Effects BLM Bureau of Land Management CDCA California Desert Conservation Area CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMA Conservation Management Action CMAGR Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range DWMA Desert Wildlife Management Area EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, as amended GPS Global Positioning System HMA Herd Management Area JTNP Joshua Tree National Park MOU Memoranda of Understanding NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NECO Northern and Eastern Colorado Desert Coordinated Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act OHV Off-highway vehicle PSSCFO Palm Springs – South Coast Field Office QB Qualified Biologist RSC Recreation Setting Characteristic RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SRMA Special Recreation Management Area U.S.C. United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VRI Visual Resource Inventory VRM Visual Resource Management WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program WHMA Wildlife Habitat Management Area

Appendix C: List of References

Andrew, Nancy G., Vernon C. Bleich, Amy D. Morrison, Leon M. Lesicka, and Patrick J. Cooley. 2001. Wildlife mortalities associated with artificial water sources. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):275-280.

BLM. 2019. State Protocol Agreement among the California State Director of the BLM and the California State Historic Preservation Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the manner in which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the NHPA and the National Programmatic Agreement among the BLM, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers.

Hoover, Franklin G. 1995. An investigation of desert tortoise mortality in upland game guzzlers in the deserts of southern California. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1995: 36-43.

Marshal, Jason P., Vernon C. Bleich, Nancy G. Andrew, Paul R. Krausman. 2004. Seasonal forage use by desert mule deer in southeastern California. The Southwest Naturalist 49(4) 501-505.

Marshal, Jason P., Paul R. Krausman, Vernon C. Bleich. 2005. Dynamics of mule deer forage in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of Arid Environments 60 593-609.

Marshal, Jason P., Paul R. Krausman, Vernon C. Bleich, Steve S. Rosenstock, and Warren B. Ballard. 2006. Gradients of Forage Biomass and Ungulate Use Near Wildlife Water Developments. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3) 620-626.

McIntyre, Blodwyn. 2004. Abstracts. The Common Raven as a Threat to Desert Tortoise, West Mojave Desert. Twenty-ninth Annual Meeting and Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, February 20-23, 2004.

McKernan, Robert L. 1995. Annual Data Report 1995 Common Raven Populations within the Proposed Mesquite Solid Waste Landfill Site. Biological Science Division, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, California.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Range-wide Monitoring of the Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): 2019 Annual Reporting DRAFT. Report by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada.

Wehausen, J.D., and M.C. Hansen. 1986. Impacts of cattle grazing on bighorn sheep. Unpublished report, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.