DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Management Strategy Piute Eldorado Desert Wildlife Management Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Management Strategy Piute Eldorado Desert Wildlife Management Area Conservation Management Strategy Piute Eldorado Desert Wildlife Management Area Clark County, Nevada February 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mojave Desert population of desert tortoises has been declining since the 1970s and was declared threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1990. Impacts of urban growth, agriculture, recreation, and other human activities—coupled with the rise of predators and disease—are thought to be the major causes of tortoise decline. Over the past 16 years, several attempts to define and implement specific Conservation Actions (CAs), strategies, and plans have been proposed to protect the tortoise and other species considered imperiled. Clark County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) entered into the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) as a binding commitment to protect 78 species, including the tortoise, by providing a commitment to implement specific CAs. Subsequent to the MSHCP, a site-specific conservation management strategy (CMS) is required for each of four areas in Clark County known as Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMAs). The intent of the CMS is to guide management actions and to unite federal, state, and local agencies in coordinated, adaptive management for each DWMA. This document is a CMS for the Piute Eldorado DWMA, consisting primarily of rolling valleys and bajadas with a creosote-bursage shrub canopy. This DWMA has the largest area of high quality tortoise habitat in the State of Nevada and may also possess the highest desert tortoise population densities. In addition, at least nine springs provide critical water resources for plants, birds, springsnails, and some aquatic species and are important resources for bighorn sheep and bats. Many of the springs have been adversely altered by historic ranching activities. Other human impacts include roads and trails, utility lines, mining, and recreation. The purpose of this CMS is to consolidate and prioritize CAs and guide their implementation. This document consists of eight chapters: • Chapter 1 reviews the background leading to the present situation, the need for and purpose of the CMS, and the process of its development. It also details steps that will be taken to involve and educate the public in conservation efforts. • Chapter 2 describes the Piute Eldorado planning area. It identifies gaps in the knowledge base, reviews the existing environment and the current status of desert tortoise populations, and presents current land uses and future potential scenarios. • Chapter 3 defines the purpose of the CMS and provides conservation objectives to achieve that purpose in the context of existing federal and state policies and mandates. • Chapter 4 reviews a suite of previously proposed CAs. It assesses funding sources and staffing necessary to implement them, describes their potential effects, and ranks them based on cost–benefit ratios. • Chapter 5 recommends, in order of priority, 12 new CAs that build on the existing base to evaluate the current status of recovery in the DWMA, address gaps in knowledge, and provide a long-term research, monitoring, and management plan. Specific projects, tasks, and performance measures for each action are included. • Chapter 6 describes the implementation plan for the 12 new CAs and provides a timeline for CMS review and assessment. • Chapter 7 lists references. PIUTE ELDORADO DESERT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY iii E XECUTIVE S UMMARY • Chapter 8 lists frequently used acronyms in the CMS. The following is a summary of the 12 new CAs described in Chapter 5. Priority CA 1—Identify where, how many, and to what extent CAs previously defined in the Clark County MSHCP have been implemented. Priority CA 2—Determine whether current levels of law enforcement staffing are sufficient to identify and quickly remedy human behaviors that negatively impact conservation. Priority CA 3—Provide managers with specific information on how and where outreach and education programs and materials are being used, whether they are effective, and how they need to be improved. Priority CA 4—Immediately establish monitoring programs for species about which very little is known concerning their distribution and abundance. Priority CA 5—Collect the results of existing research and monitoring efforts and investigate new methods of assessing threats to determine the extent and severity of human activities on sensitive species and habitats. Priority CA 6—Develop a comprehensive, centralized database to track the status of conservation efforts. Priority CA 7—Provide managers with reliable quantitative measures to more effectively evaluate conservation success using methods such as remote sensing and satellite imagery. Priority CA 8—Develop a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of each CA. Monitoring should consist of hypothesis-based studies that measure tortoise and habitat responses before and after implementation of recovery actions. Priority CA 9—Establish a timeline for review and update of the CMS as the results of research and monitoring become available. Priority CA 10—Pursue a research program to identify tortoise movement patterns. Priority CA 11—Conduct long-term research studies on the biology and ecology of juvenile and hatchling tortoises and relate their survival rates to tortoise population viability and persistence. Priority CA 12—Pursue research aimed at recognizing, diagnosing, and treating tortoise diseases and establishing clear standards to accurately determine the health status of the tortoise population. The implementation plan of this CMS is meant to act as a guide for carrying out the CAs in consecutive steps. Changes to the CAs, to their priority ranking, and to the time frame for their implementation may occur as additional information is collected and analyzed and as funding and resources fluctuate. The adaptive management approach followed by this plan, and required by the MSHCP, links conservation strategies to the findings of research and monitoring activities over time. This CMS recommends continuous periodic review and revision of the CMS to produce the most effective plan over the long term. iv PIUTE ELDORADO DESERT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY CONTENTS Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................iii 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background......................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Need ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Public Participation..........................................................................................................................4 1.5 Document Structure.........................................................................................................................5 2. Background, Inventory, and Assessment ....................................................................................................7 2.1 Planning Area ..................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Gaps in Information Needed to Complete Strategy.........................................................................8 2.3 Existing Environment ........................................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Desert Tortoise Listing............................................................................................... 9 2.3.2 Relevant Plans and Literature ..............................................................................................9 2.3.3 Land Ownership and Resource Management.....................................................................11 2.3.4 Human Use and Condition .................................................................................................16 2.3.5 Biotic and Abiotic Factors..................................................................................................19 2.4 Species Conditions ........................................................................................................................23 2.4.1 Species Diversity................................................................................................................23 2.4.2 Habitat Condition...............................................................................................................25 2.4.3 Tortoise Population Estimates............................................................................................25 2.4.4 Landscape Context.............................................................................................................31 2.4.5 Biotic and Abiotic Factors..................................................................................................33 2.4.6 Current and Future Threats ................................................................................................34 2.5 Human Issues and Opportunities ...................................................................................................47
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recruitment of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus Agassizii and G
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(2):583–591. Submitted: 29 September 2014; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Published: 31 August 2015. RECRUITMENT OF DESERT TORTOISES (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII AND G. MORAFKAI): A SYNTHESIS OF REPRODUCTION AND FIRST-YEAR SURVIVAL STEVEN P. CAMPBELL1,2,3, ROBERT J. STEIDL1, AND ERIN R. ZYLSTRA1 1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, Albany, New York 12205, USA 3Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Recruitment is integral to population persistence, therefore characterizing this process is essential for evaluating recovery actions for species in decline. We gathered all data available and used Bayesian analyses to quantify annual recruitment of Mojave Desert (Gopherus agassizii) and Sonoran Desert (G. morafkai) tortoises as the product of four components: proportion of females that reproduced, number of eggs produced per reproducing female, hatching success, and hatchling survival. For Mojave Desert Tortoises, the estimated proportion of females that reproduced (0.81 [95% Credible Interval: 0.52–0.99]) and number of eggs produced per year (6.90 [5.51–8.16]) were higher than for Sonoran Desert Tortoises (0.52 [0.07–0.94] and 5.17 [3.05–7.60], respectively). For Mojave Desert Tortoises, hatching success averaged 0.61 (0.25–0.90). Data on hatching success for Sonoran Desert Tortoises and hatchling survival for both species were sparse, therefore we represented these components with a range of plausible values. When we combined components, average recruitment for Mojave Desert Tortoises ranged from 0.51 females/female/y assuming that hatchling survival was 0.30 to 1.18 females/female/y with hatchling survival assumed to be 0.70.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii) Genetic Connectivity
    University of Nevada, Reno Connecting the Plots: Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Genetic Connectivity A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Geography By Kirsten Erika Dutcher Dr. Jill S. Heaton, Dissertation Advisor May 2020 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by KIRSTEN ERIKA DUTCHER entitled Connecting the Plots: Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Genetic Connectivity be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Jill S. Heaton, Ph.D. Advisor Kenneth E. Nussear, Ph.D. Committee Member Scott D. Bassett, Ph.D. Committee Member Amy G. Vandergast, Ph.D. Committee Member Marjorie D. Matocq, Ph.D. Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean Graduate School May, 2020 i ABSTRACT Habitat disturbance impedes connectivity for native populations by altering natural movement patterns, significantly increasing the risk of population decline. The Mojave Desert historically exhibited high ecological connectivity, but human presence has increased recently, as has habitat disturbance. Human land use primarily occurs in Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat posing risks to the federally threatened species, which has declined as a result. As threats intensify, so does the need to protect tortoise habitat and connectivity. Functional corridors require appropriate habitat amounts and population densities, as individuals may need time to achieve connectivity and find mates. Developments in tortoise habitat have not been well studied, and understanding the relationship between barriers, corridors, population density, and gene flow is an important step towards species recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • HUNTER INFORMATION SHEET DESERT BIGHORN Unit 266
    HUNTER INFORMATION SHEET DESERT BIGHORN Unit 266 LOCATION: Unit 266 is situated in southern Clark County and comprises the northern portion of the Eldorado Mountains. ELEVATION: Elevations range from 656' at lake level (Lake Mohave) to 3,773' above Oak Creek Canyon. TERRAIN: Topographic features vary from rolling hills on the western margin of bighorn sheep habitat to the sheer, vertical cliffs characteristic of Black Canyon. VEGETATION: Vegetation is typical of the Mojave Desert=s creosote bush scrub community. Prominent vegetative types within this community include creosote and white bursage. LAND STATUS: The majority of the area that offers opportunities to hunt bighorn sheep lies within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and is administered by the National Park Service. A minor portion of bighorn sheep habitat is within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District. HUNTER ACCESS: Hunter access is considered good given the network of National Park Service approved roads. Some hunters opt to use boats to learn their area, and to access points which would otherwise be more difficult to reach on foot. Note: Please be aware that sections of this unit are in a wilderness area. Motorized equipment, mechanized transport, including wheeled game carriers and chainsaws, are prohibited in wilderness areas. Contact the Federal Management Agency responsible for this area for more information. MAP REFERENCE: Maps are available for purchase from BLM, or through private vendors such as Mercury Blueprint & Supply Co. (Las Vegas), Desert Outfitters (Las Vegas) or Oakman=s (Reno). At a minimum, hunters should possess the United States Geologic Survey, Boulder City 1:100,000-scale topographic map (30 x 60 minute quadrangle).
    [Show full text]
  • 28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group
    28 September 2020 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 6 Top Fencing Recommendations 14 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Desert tortoise population trends through 2014 are indicated for geographic areas covered by the range-wide monitoring program Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. Identification of existing culverts and underpasses needing maintenance or CA42 modification to facilitate desert tortoise movement under highways and $48,000 roads. Rd8 Fence I-40 north of Black Ridge, CA, both sides, 5.0 miles TBD Rd11 Fence I-40 near Old Dad Mountains, both sides, 9.4 miles TBD Rd13 Fence I-40 near Kalbaker Rd, 8.1 miles TBD California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Solar Lease Revenues
    LIVE WORK PLAY RETIRE TURNING LAND INTO REVENUES: UNDERSTANDING SOLAR LEASE REVENUES Reprint Date: August 25, 2020 Mayor Kiernan McManus Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor pro tem Claudia Bridges Tracy Folda Judith A. Hoskins James Howard Adams City Manager Finance Director Alfonso Noyola, ICMA-CM Diane Pelletier, CPA Boulder City Revenue Overview Table of Contents Unlike most other municipalities and counties in Nevada, the revenue stream for Boulder City does not include the lucrative Some History . gaming tax. Prior to the recession of 2007 - 2009, the City’s • 4 • revenue stream did not have a sizable amount of monies from land leases. With the recent focus by California and more Charter/Ordinance Requirements recently at the national level on renewable energy development, • 4 • the City was in a key position to take advantage of its unique Land Lease Process position for solar development by leasing city-owned land for • 6 • energy production. Because of those prudent actions, today the Energy Lease Revenue History solar lease revenues equate to roughly 28% to 34% of the City’s • 7 • overall revenue stream to support vital governmental functions. Energy Lease Revenue Projections • • But is Land Lease Revenue Stable? 9 A common question posed to our City Council surrounds the Energy Lease Revenue Potential stability of land lease revenues. Traditional commercial or • 9 • residential land leases have many risks, as the tenants are Overall Energy Lease Revenue subject to market conditions or changes in employment. And History and Projections with recessions, these types of leases are common casualties • 10 • of a downturn in the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. References
    11. References Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). State Transportation Improvement Program. December 1994. Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE). Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study Historic Structures Survey. Vol. 1: Final Report. September 2002. _______________. Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study Historic Structures Survey. Vol. 1: Technical Report. July 2001. Averett, Walter. Directory of Southern Nevada Place Names. Las Vegas. 1963. Bedwell, S. F. Fort Rock Basin: Prehistory and Environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene, Oregon. 1973. _______________. Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Lake Area of South Central Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1970. Bernard, Mary. Boulder Beach Utility Line Installation. LAME 79C. 1979. Bettinger, Robert L. and Martin A. Baumhoff. The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition. American Antiquity 46(3):485-503. 1982. Blair, Lynda M. An Evaluation of Eighteen Historic Transmission Line Systems That Originate From Hoover Dam, Clark County, Nevada. Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, Marjorie Barrick Museum of Natural History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 1994. _______________. A New Interpretation of Archaeological Features in the California Wash Region of Southern Nevada. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 1986. _______________. Virgin Anasazi Turquoise Extraction and Trade. Paper presented at the 1985 Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada. 1985. Blair, Lynda M. and Megan Fuller-Murillo. Rock Circles of Southern Nevada and Adjacent Portions of the Mojave Desert. Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. HRC Report 2-1-29. 1997. Blair, Lynda M.
    [Show full text]
  • Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley
    - _ . - . - - . .. -_. - .. - - - * . March 19, 1996 NOTE T0: X. Stablein J. Austin ; C. Paperiello M. Bell ' J. Greeves J. Holonich M. Federline B. Reamer M. Weber C. Cameron P. Lohaus J. Kennedy P. Sobel FROM: Nelson,[[[ SUBJECT: DOE STAFF POSITION ON DOI REQUEST FOR LLNL TRITIUM TESTS AT WARD ! VALLEY ! The attached staff position paper was provided to us by Terry Plummer, ! DOE, last week and is forwarded FYI. ; Attachment: As stated | | l, i l ! ! 1 ! t l' 970 g;g,60pe, - 1 - , - - . - - - - - - 4 , ' . I 1 * , . i. > !. 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REQUEST FOR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORA'IORY i 70 i PERFORM TRTITUM TF.STS AT WARD VALLEY, CALIFORNIA | f FACTS / BACKGROUND , i - On February 23,1996, John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Depiu unent of the Interior, requested the participation of the De,partment of Energy in contracting with the Lawrence i Livermore National Laboratory to perform tntium tests at the State licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Ward Valley, Califomia. * On Demhn 15,1995, Secretary O' leary denied a similar request dated June 8,1995, : from Senator Boxer, (D-CA). 'Ihe Secretary stated that,"We believe the State of California, in its ! licensing role as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should determine how to implement the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. If the State Mermines that further testing is needed based on analytical services unique to the Departmw of Energy, we will consider such a request." l ! + In response to an earlier request of Senator Boxer, Secretary Babbitt asked the National ! Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine several key safety related issues of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Rice Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-4 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 189,000 acres (295 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Rice Valley in northeast Riverside and southeast San Bernardino Counties. Elevation of the valley floor ranges from about 675 feet above sea level near the center of the valley to about 1,000 feet along the outer margins. The basin is bounded by nonwater- bearing rocks of the Turtle Mountains on the north, the Little Maria and Big Maria Mountains on the south, the Arica Mountains on the west, and by the West Riverside and Riverside Mountains on the east. Low-lying alluvial drainage divides form a portion of the basin boundaries on the northwest and northeast, and the Colorado River bounds a portion of the basin on the east. Maximum elevations of the surrounding mountains range to about 2,000 feet in the Arica Mountains, about 3,000 feet in the Big Maria Mountains, and 5,866 feet at Horn Peak in the Turtle Mountains (Bishop 1963; Jennings 1967; USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Annual average precipitation ranges from about 3 to 5 inches. Surface runoff from the mountains drains towards the center of the valley, except in the eastern part of the valley, where Big Wash drains to the Colorado River (USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Alluvium is the water-bearing material that forms the basin and includes unconsolidated Holocene age deposits and underlying unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Pleistocene deposits (DWR 1954, 1963).
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Avifaunas of the New York Mountains and Kingston Range: Islands of Conifers in the Mojave Desert of California
    BREEDING AVIFAUNAS OF THE NEW YORK MOUNTAINS AND KINGSTON RANGE: ISLANDS OF CONIFERS IN THE MOJAVE DESERT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN W. CARDIFF and J.V. REMSEN, Jr., Museum of Zoologyand Depart- ment of Zoology,Louisiana State University,Baton Rouge, Louisiana70893-3216 Quantificationof speciesturnover rates on islandsin the context of the equilibriumtheory of island biogeography(MacArthur and Wilson 1967) dependson accurateinventories of the biotataken at appropriateintervals in time. Inaccuratehistorical data concerningspecies composition is a sourceof error that must be avoided when calculatingturnover rates (Lynch and Johnson1974). Johnson's(1974) analysisof historicalchanges in species compositionand abundanceexemplifies the importanceof sound avifaunal inventoriesfor later comparison. In this paper, we present data to provide future researchers with a baseline from which to calculate turnover rates for the breeding avifaunas of two conifer "islands" in the Mojave Desert in California. Islandbiogeography of isolatedmountain ranges forming conifer "islands" in the Great Basin has been studiedby Brown (1971, 1978) for mammals and Johnson(1975) for birds.An analysisof breedingbird turnoverrates for a coniferisland in the Mojave Desert(Clark Mountain, California)is in prog- ress (N.K. Johnson pers. comm.). Detailed and accurate surveysof the breedingavifaunas of the Sheep and Springranges of southwesternNevada (Johnson 1965) and the Providence Mountains, San Bernardino Co., California (Johnson et al. 1948) provide data from other Mojave Desert rangesfor comparisonwith data we presentbelow. STUDY AREAS New York Mountains. The New York Mountains extend from about 14 km west of Cima east to the Nevada border in extreme eastern San Bernardino Co., California. The highestpoint, New York Peak (7532 ft--2296 m), is 39.5 km southeastof Clark Mountain (7929 ft = 2417 m) and 118 km south of CharlestonPeak (11,919 ft=3633 m) in the Spring Mountainsof Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed
    Mojave National Preserve—Management Plan for Developed Water Resources CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This chapter describes the unique factors that influence water resource management in the Preserve and the resources that could be affected by the implementation of any of the alternatives described in Chapter 2: Alternatives. The resource descriptions provided in this chapter serve as a baseline to compare the potential effects of the management actions proposed in the alternatives. The following resource topics are described in this chapter: • Environmental Setting • Cultural Resources • Water Resources • Wilderness Character • Wildlife Environmental setting and water resources are important for context and are foundational for water resource management, but are not resources that are analyzed for effects. Resource issues that were considered and dismissed from further analysis are listed in Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action and are not discussed further in this EA. A description of the effects of the proposed alternatives on wildlife, cultural resources, and wilderness character is presented in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. Environmental Setting The Preserve includes an ecologically diverse yet fragile desert ecosystem consisting of vegetative attributes that are unique to the Mojave Desert, as well as components of the Great Basin and Sonoran Deserts. Topography The topography of the Preserve is characteristic of the mountain and basin physiographic pattern, with tall mountain ranges separated by corresponding valleys filled with alluvial sediments. Primary mountain ranges in the Preserve, from west to east, include the Granite, Kelso, Providence, Clark, New York, and Piute Mountains. Major alluvial valleys include Soda Lake (dry lake bed), Shadow Valley, Ivanpah Valley, Lanfair Valley, and Fenner Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave-Road2.Pdf
    Mojave Road Detour over the Piute Range The following road log provides a 14.2 mile detour or "go around" to get over the Piute Range if the old Underground Telephone Cable Road is not practicable or closed. GPS coordinates and elevations are included. Even if the road over the Piute Range is open, this route can serve as a pleasant side trip off the Mojave Road, providing an interesting visit to Leiser Ray Mine, the Signal Mining District, Tungsten Flat, and the old Craig family home site. 0.0 N35° 5.47’ W114° 57.30’ (Elevation 2,473 feet) Begin at Mile 27.0 on page 66 in the 2010 edition of the Mojave Road Guide. Instead of turning right (west) to go over the Piute Range, continue generally south on the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) service road. 2.8 miles to: 2.8 N35° 3.05’ W114° 57.40’ (Elevation 2,723 feet) Turn off the MWD service road, curving right on a dirt “flyover.” Continue on this road in a southwest direction. A BLM carsonite trail sign indicates you are on route NN9108. 1.0 mile to: 3.8 N35° 2.69’ W114° 58.38’ (Elevation 2,861 feet) Come to a "Y." Take the road to the right (straight ahead). A BLM carsonite trail sign indicates route [NN9]108 goes to the right. 0.5 mile to: 4.3 N35° 2.40’ W114° 58.68’ (Elevation 2,908 feet) Turn right, up a wash. 0.0+ mile to: 4.3+ Pass a National Park Service Mojave National Preserve boundary marker.
    [Show full text]