Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy April 29, 2003 Flowers of the plant species addressed by this strategy, from left to right: Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum), Cushenbury milk-vetch (Astragalus albens), Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana), Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) Prepared by Todd G. Olson for San Bernardino National Forest Association Acknowledgments aps were prepared by the San Bernardino MNational Forest. Additional technical assistance was provided by the USDA Forest Service, the USDI Bureau of Land Man- agement, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Plant illustrations are by Fred M. Roberts, Jr., and plant photographs are by Scott Eliason, all used with permission. The following organizations and their representa- tives actively participated in the working group that developed this strategy (listed alphabetically): BLM California Desert District; Butterfield family; Califor- nia Native Plant Society; County of San Bernardino; Cushenbury Mine Trust; Gresham, Savage, Nolan & Tilden, LLP; McKay & McKay; Mitsubishi Cement Corporation; OMYA California Inc.; San Bernardino National Forest; Sentinel Mining; Specialty Minerals Inc.; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; White & Leatherman BioServices. Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy Contents Part I: Introduction Part IV: Administration 1. Background 4 13. Parties and Responsibilities 33 2. Objectives 6 14. Monitoring 35 3. Scope 8 15. Funding 37 4. Strategy Overview 9 16. Legislation 38 17. Amendment 39 Part II: Components 5. Land Use Categories 15 Appendices 6. Administrative Units 17 A. Glossary of Terms 43 7. Conservation Value 17 B. Species Accounts 47 C. Habitat Definitions 63 8. Conservation Tools 20 D. Habitat Statistics 65 E. Guidelines and Success Criteria for Part III: Implementation Revegetation and Carbonate Plant Introductions 67 9. Reserve Formation 23 F. Conservation Credit Worksheets 75 10. Conservation Credits 26 G. Edge Effect Examples 79 11. ESA Compliance 29 H. Credit Registration 85 12. Revegetation 31 I. Maps 89 Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy I. Introduction n August 24, 1994, five plants that are associated with the carbonate geology of the northeastern San Ber- Onardino Mountains and adjacent Lucerne Valley were listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (the “ESA”). Four of these plants occur on commercially valuable limestone deposits. The public interest in protecting these plant species is thus in conflict with the public and pri- vate interest in mining the coincident limestone deposits. This Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy (the “CHMS,” referring both to this document and the program it describes) is the product of years of effort by interested mining companies, claim holders, landowners, conserva- tion interests, and government agencies to develop a strategy to resolve this conflict in a mutually-agreeable manner with an approach that can also be utilized by other parties in the future on a voluntary basis. shall be referred to as the “Re- 1. Background source Management Agencies,” each with respect to land under rom the 1950s, various claim holders and mining its jurisdiction. A portion of the companies have been extracting limestone from F mining activity also occurs on the northeastern San Bernardino mountains. In recent privately-owned land under the years, annual production has been running at about jurisdiction of the County of three million tons of cement-grade limestone, at a San Bernardino (the value of about $100 million, and 1.5 million tons of “County”). high-brightness limestone, at a value of about $75 mil- Eriogonum ovalifolium lion. Much of this mining activity is occurring on min- In 1994, the four plant species shown in the box on ing claims established under the Mining Law of 1872, this page (the “Carbonate Plants”) were listed under as amended (the “Mining Law”) on federal land under the ESA. Each of these species occurs only in the vicin- the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Agriculture ity of the northeastern San Bernardino mountains, and Forest Service (the “Forest Service”) or the U. S. De- each occurs almost exclusively on carbonate soils that partment of Interior Bureau of Land Management (the often coincide with economically valuable limestone “BLM”). Collectively, the Forest Service and the BLM deposits. (A fifth carbonate plant species, the San Ber- nardino Mountains bladderpod, Lesquerella kingii var. bernardina, was listed as Carbonate Plants endangered at the same • Cushenbury buckwheat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum) (federal endangered) time that the other four • Cushenbury milk-vetch (Astragalus albens) (fed- were listed, but the eral endangered) bladderpod does not co- • Cushenbury oxytheca (Oxytheca parishii var. incide with economic goodmaniana) (federal endangered) limestone deposits, so it Astragalus albens • Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii) (federal threat- is not addressed by the ened) CHMS.) 6 Part I • Introduction Figure 1: Location of CHMA provides a means for forming a reserve sys- tem for the Carbonate Plants (the “Habitat Reserve” or the “Reserve”) while allowing mining activities to proceed under a stream- lined and expedited ESA compliance pro- cess. The CHMS is voluntary as to private mining interests; it imposes no regulatory burden on existing claims or privately owned property, but it provides a clear recipe for ESA compliance for those who desire to avail themselves of it. Mining interests remain free to seek any required ESA compliance without utilizing or complying with the CHMS. Governmental authorities may also use the CHMS as a framework for establish- Absent a regional strategy for the preservation of ing land use regulations or policies within the CHMA the Carbonate Plants, ongoing limestone mining ac- but, except for any commitments made by the Re- tivities could come into direct conflict with the ESA. source Management Map 1 and Map 2 in Appendix I illustrate the potential Agencies in consultation conflict by showing the locations of the carbonate with the United States soils, the Carbonate Plants, existing mining claims, Fish and Wildlife Service and existing mining activity. Being aware of this situa- (the “USFWS”), they are tion, certain mining interests, conservation interests, not required to do so. and government agencies (collectively, the “Working Group”) began to develop the CHMS in October The time scale over 1999 to resolve this potential conflict. For purposes of which limestone reserves Erigeron parishii planning and analysis, the Working Group identified are mined is measured in an area of approximately 160,000 acres in the north- decades. In order to be useful, the CHMS is intended east San Bernardino Mountains, which encompasses to be operational for fifty years or more, and the Habi- nearly all of the habitat for the tat Reserve is intended to be in place in perpetuity. Al- Carbonate Plants, as the Car- though the CHMS is subject to amendment over time bonate Habitat Management in accordance with its terms (see Section 17(b)), it has Area (the “CHMA”; see Figure no established date of termination. 1). The CHMA is characterized The following section describes the objectives of by substantial limestone depos- the CHMS in some detail. its and encompasses nearly the entire known geographic range of the Carbonate Plants (except Oxytheca parishii 2. Objectives one occurrence of Parish’s daisy habitat near Pioneertown, approximately ten miles east he goals of the CHMS are to facilitate economic of the CHMA boundary). The majority of the CHMA T limestone mining activity while conserving the is within the San Bernardino National Forest (the Carbonate Plants under a sensible and efficient regula- “SBNF”), but large and important portions occur on tory regime. Each of these three goals may be regarded federal lands managed by the BLM and on private as in the public interest, though different members of lands. the public will have different degrees of interest in each The CHMS, as set forth in this document, is the of them. The specific objectives of the CHMS can be culmination of the efforts of the Working Group. It categorized by the three types of goals: economic, con- servation, and regulatory. Section 2 • Objectives 7 (a) Economic objectives. The economic objectives (iii) To avoid “destruction or adverse modifica- of the CHMS are as follows: tion” of critical habitat for the Carbonate Plants (as de- fined in Section 7 of the ESA and its regulations). (i) To increase the regulatory certainty that the most valuable mineral deposits within the CHMA may (iv) To contribute to the recovery and ultimate be mined in the future. de-listing of the Carbonate Plants under the ESA. (ii) To protect the availability of limestone re- (v) To help avoid the need for future ESA list- sources that are vital to the construction industry in ings of species that occur within the CHMA. the southwestern region of the United States. (vi) If other species that occur within the (iii) To protect the viability of the mining-based CHMA are listed under the ESA in the future, to economy of the northeastern San Bernardino Moun- avoid jeopardy to those species (as defined in Section 7 tains and Lucerne Valley region. of the ESA and its regulations). (iv) To provide a definitive, streamlined process (vii) To provide a mechanism for tracking both for future mining activities within the CHMA to com- the loss and conservation of habitat for the Carbonate ply with ESA regulation of the Carbonate Plants. Plants over time. (v) To provide a framework for streamlining Na- (c) Regulatory objectives. The regulatory objec- tional Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) require- tives of the CHMS are as follows: ments for future mining activities. Such streamlining (i) To streamline the application of the ESA to would not be available unless and until the CHMS is mining activities within the CHMA. incorporated into future land use plans for lands man- aged by the Resource Management Agencies within (ii) To provide a biological basis for addressing the CHMA (“Federal Land Plans”).