![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval of Record of Decision
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 17441-17445]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ap02-94]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
General Management Plan Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement Mojave National Preserve, California; Notice of Approval of
Record of Decision
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior, National Park Service has
approved a Record of Decision for the General Management Plan and
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mojave National
Preserve. The Record of Decision details the overall background of the
conservation planning effort, a description of the decision made,
synopses of alternatives considered, identification of the
environmentally preferable alternative, the basis for the decision,
findings on impairment of park resources and values, a discussion of
measures to minimize environmental harm, and an overview of public and
agency involvement in the information and analysis supporting
preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS).
The impetus for this planning effort was the passage of the
California Desert Protection Act (CDPA) on October 31, 1994, which
transferred over 3 million acres of California desert lands from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the National Park Service and
designated nearly 8 million acres of Wilderness on NPS and BLM lands.
CDPA created Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) and redesignated Death
Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments as national parks. In
response to anticipated changes in public lands management in the
California desert, as well as the listing of the desert tortoise,
increasing development, various public use pressures, and other
factors, the National Park Service, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) desert managers decided to prepare updated or new
management plans.
Decision (Selected Action)
As detailed in the Record of Decision, the National Park Service
(NPS) will implement Alternative 1, the proposed general management
plan (described in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
General Management Plan, dated July 2000, and as amended by the
Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement and General Management
Plan, dated June 2001). Some adjustments to the hunting portion of the
proposal have been made as a result of concerns expressed during the
no-action period and in consultation with the California Department of
Fish and Game and the USFWS. Changes in the hunting regulations will
require further regulatory action. Cottontails and jackrabbits would be
added to the list of species that may be hunted, and the NPS would seek
to adjust the seasons to allow hunting only from September through
January, in keeping with the goals of the Desert Tortoise Recovery
Plan. The one-mile safety zone around developed areas has been dropped
(except for Kelso Depot and Kelso Dunes) in favor or existing State and
County regulations of 150 yards. The language regarding safety zones
will be modified to adopt State and County regulations. The NPS would
seek special regulations for the Preserve through the California Fish
and Game Commission to implement the proposed hunting changes.
The selected plan was found to contain the best mix of programs,
strategies, and actions for managing the Preserve, given varying
mandates and diverse public opinion. The new General Management Plan
(GMP) envisions the Preserve as a cultural landscape and natural
environment (i.e., an arid ecosystem influenced by successive eras of
human use dating back in historic and prehistoric time), where native
desert ecosystems and processes are restored and protected for present
and future generations. Protecting and perpetuating native species in a
self-sustaining environment is a primary long-term goal. The GMP seeks
to manage the Preserve to perpetuate the sense of discovery and
adventure that currently exists, minimizing new development inside the
Preserve to avoid proliferation of directional signs and new
campgrounds or interpretive exhibits. The GMP envisions adjacent
``gateway'' communities as providing most visitor support services. The
GMP also seeks to retain current opportunities for roadside and
backcountry camping, and access to backcountry via existing primitive
roads, consistent with the NPS mission. Planning of actions consistent
with Wilderness will also be undertaken. Rehabilitation and partial
restoration of the historic Kelso Depot and its use as a museum and
interpretive facility is planned. The GMP also recognizes obligations
to continue grazing, hunting,
[[Page 17442]]
and existence of major utility corridors, where specifically charged to
do so by Congress. The GMP acknowledges landowner capacity to develop
private property, provided such development is not detrimental to the
integrity of the Preserve or otherwise incompatible with the CDPA.
Nearly 130,000 acres within the Preserve are in nonfederal ownership,
and the GMP sets a goal of seeking funding to purchase property from
willing sellers.
Other Alternatives Considered
In addition to Alternative 1 (selected actions highlighted above),
other alternatives considered include existing management, and an
optional management approach. The existing management alternative
(Alternative 2) describes the continuation of current management
strategies. It is commonly referred to as the no-action or status quo
alternative. It provides a baseline from which to compare other
alternatives, to evaluate the magnitude of proposed changes, and to
measure the environmental effects of those changes. This no-action
concept follows the guidance of the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), which describes such alternatives as no change from the existing
management direction or level of management intensity. However, an
agency not acting to adopt a general management plan does not mean that
no management actions are taken. Since the Preserve is a relatively new
unit of the national park system and no general management plan was in
place, management of the unit has been done in accord with applicable
federal regulations, NPS servicewide management policies, and subject-
specific manuals and guidelines.
Consistent with the no-action alternative, no comprehensive
cultural or natural resource protection program is in place. However,
the Preserve has hired several staff, and funding for managing some
programs, such as minerals management and burro removal, has been
received. Existing staff cooperate on resource inventory and monitoring
with neighboring desert parks, and staff also are involved with the
Molycorp spill abatement, the Cadiz groundwater storage proposal, and
the AT&T cable removal project. Such efforts are reactive to concerns
after they arise, rather than being a part of a comprehensive program
that is planned and funded. Existing visitor-administrative support
services and facilities are being maintained in current locations,
water systems have been improved, and vault toilets and picnic tables
have been installed. There have been few improvements to existing
structures and no change in road maintenance, although some minor road
improvements have been done. No significant changes in existing
recreation use would occur under this alternative. No action has
occurred to protect Kelso Depot from fire or earthquakes, although
planning for rehabilitation and partial restoration is underway, and
the building is secured to prevent vandalism. Efforts continue for
obtaining funding to acquire property from willing sellers and for
properties where development is potentially detrimental to the
integrity of the Preserve or otherwise incompatible with the CDPA.
The optional approach (Alternative 3) varies from the selected
action in several respects, not limited to those noted below.
Alternative 3 identifies additional tortoise recovery measures,
including fencing of 100 miles of paved roads prevent tortoise from
crossing roadways, designation of critical habitat in the Preserve as
Desert Wildlife Management Areas (DWMA), not allowing dogs off leash
for any purpose in DWMA's, permanently reducing the speed limit on park
paved roads to 45 mph, and immediate action to begin raven removals.
Areas of designated desert tortoise critical habitat currently subject
to cattle grazing would be converted to ephemeral pastures and grazing
would not be allowed on these pastures until ephemeral forage is at 230
lbs. per acre (and perennial AUM's reduced accordingly). In lieu of
fencing the entire Clark Mountain unit boundary to exclude feral
burros, this alternative proposes to fence springs and other water
sources to limit attracting burros from adjacent BLM lands. Hunting of
all species allowed under State law could occur from July to January.
Power drill usage by rock climbers outside designated Wilderness would
be allowed, and new bolts could be installed in Wilderness using hand
tools. Recreational rock climbing would not be restricted in the
vicinity of the Hole-in-the-Wall visitor center, except for the
placement of bolts.
Alternative 3 would not restore the Kelso Depot; it would be
modified to provide improved protection from fire and earthquakes,
permanent comfort stations would be added, and exterior interpretive
exhibits and panels would be installed. Existing information centers in
Baker and Needles would be expanded in cooperation with other agencies,
a visitor contact center would be established in the Cima area, and the
NPS would seek to locate an interpretive ranger at Soda Springs to
provide tours of the area.
Alternative 3 provides significantly more infrastructure inside the
Preserve than any other alternative by increasing the number of sites
at the existing Midhills and Hole-in-the-Wall campgrounds, and by
developing three new semi-primitive campgrounds. This alternative also
would construct a central field operations facility in the Cima area to
provide office space, shop and storage space, housing and fire engine
garage space for all park functions, and provide for constructing new
employee housing throughout the Preserve to place employees closer to
work sites. Emphasis would also be placed on constructing several
formal wayside exhibits, interpretive displays, and formal hiking
trails. However, adding such infrastructure was deemed to be
inconsistent with the goals of retaining the Preserve visitor
experience as it is now, which was also espoused by the Advisory
Commission and local communities and reflected in public comment.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Alternatives which are ``environmentally preferable'' are
considered by CEQ to be those actions or/and programs that in
combination will entail least damage to the biological and physical
environment, and which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources. Goals that characterize
``environmentally preferable'' were originally set forth in Sec. 101 of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The environmentally
preferable alternative for the Mojave National Preserve General
Management Plan is based on these national environmental policy goals.
Alternative 1 was found to best realize the provisions of the
national environmental policy stated in NEPA. This GMP will protect and
enhance natural and cultural resources by laying out strategies,
planning, inventorying and monitoring, and restoring disturbed
ecosystems and historic resources. These actions will attain the widest
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation,
preserve important resources, and maintain a variety of individual
choice for Preserve visitors. It will implement recovery measures for
the threatened desert tortoise, fully removes exotic feral burros,
presents strategies for management of grazing, mining and hunting, and
provides for the rehabilitation and partial restoration of the
nationally significant Kelso Depot. Alternative 1 also best reflects
the expressed interests of the public in minimizing development in the
[[Page 17443]]
Preserve that would detract from the setting and sense of self-
discovery and adventure that currently exists. A summary of the
comparative analysis of this alternative and others considered with
respect to ``environmentally preferred'' is detailed in the Record of
Decision.
Basis for Decision
The selected GMP provides overall direction for managing resources,
facilities and development, and use of the Preserve. The GMP presents a
logical, systematic and proactive approach to management of the
Preserve in compliance with NPS laws, regulations and policies. The
rationale for selection of alternative 1 over the no-action
(alternative 2) is based on the environmental impacts that would be
lessened by seeking funds and implementing activities identified in the
proposed plan. Public comment was also considered in formulating the
NPS preferred approach over alternative 3; in particular, funding of
full removal of burros, implementing Desert Tortoise and Mojave Tui
chub recovery actions, establishment of a cultural resource protection
program, and development of visitor information centers and
interpretive media to inform the public on desert ecosystems and
protection measures. In addition, a strategy is outlined for the
interim management of cattle grazing.
Protect and Enhance Cultural and Natural Resources: The selected
GMP identifies goals and strategies to inventory and protect, where
possible, air quality, visibility, night sky and natural ambient sound.
These resources are key elements of the desert environment that are
critical to an enjoyable visit to the Preserve. The GMP strives to
protect water resources and water rights by seeking to restore damaged
natural water sources and protect groundwater. The GMP describes
cultural resource protection and management responsibilities, and
proposes to inventory, preserve and protect paleontological,
geological, cave and soil resources. Research would be encouraged to
improve the means by which enhanced protection could be accomplished.
These proactive strategies would also yield valuable interpretive and
scientific data.
The GMP provides a more proactive approach to perpetuate native
plant life (such as vascular plants, ferns, mosses, algae, fungi, and
bacteria) as critical components of natural desert ecosystems. The GMP
calls for inventory of all native plants and wildlife, and seeks to
restore disturbed ecosystems, enhance habitat for sensitive species,
eliminate exotic species where feasible and establish monitoring
programs to serve as early warning systems for health of the system.
Two key components of the natural resource protection strategy include
the complete removal of all feral burros and the adoption of threatened
desert tortoise and endangered Mojave tui chub recovery strategies.
Since the burro is an exotic species and its presence is inconsistent
with NPS management policies and the goal of a native, self-sustaining
ecosystem, the GMP would result in fewer impacts to natural desert
ecosystems. The complete fencing of Clark Mountains would further
control impacts to natural resources from burros.
The GMP addresses numerous activities and strategies for
implementing the desert tortoise recovery plan, and adopts
recommendations of the 1994 Recovery Plan where feasible and not
inconsistent with the CDPA. In addition, the NPS is to manage desert
tortoise habitat inside the Preserve according to the recommendations
of the Recovery Plan in partnership with BLM in an identical manner as
the BLM's DWMA-classified lands. All drivers of vehicles are to be
informed about tortoise presence, and the need for reduced speeds in
limited areas or during spring rainy days when tortoises are more
likely to be out on the roads. It's anticipated that this approach
would result in more compliance with speed reductions than would
universal speed limits throughout the paved road network. A coordinated
interagency strategy is to be implemented desert-wide to foster greater
consistency in dealing with raven populations throughout the area,
potentially benefiting much more tortoise habitat. Finally, under the
GMP cattle grazing could occur in critical habitat, except from March
15 to June 15, even in the absence of ephemeral forage, provided
perennial utilization is below 30% (as determined through annual
monitoring protocols). During this period desert tortoise are typically
in their burrows.
The GMP outlines interim standards that must be followed by
ranchers while a detailed grazing management plan is being developed by
the Preserve. It also states the NPS preference to permanently retire
grazing by working with third party conservation groups to acquire
permits from willing sellers and donate them back to the NPS. The
strategy also limits cattle grazing in desert tortoise critical habitat
whenever sufficient ephemeral and perennial forage is not present. The
GMP provides the greatest level of protection for park resources
consistent with varying conflicting mandates: to allow grazing (CDPA);
to remove grazing from critical habitat (Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan
recommendation); and the NPS Organic Act to * * * conserve the scenery
and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein * * *
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Enhance Visitor Experience: The GMP provides for visitor use and
enjoyment while encouraging opportunities for development in gateway
communities. The public and advisory commission supported this
direction rather than concentrating new visitor support facilities and
ancillary infrastructure inside the Preserve. The GMP retains existing
facilities, and even improves some, but would limit any new development
in lieu of relying on gateway communities for visitor facilities. The
GMP sets forth the goal that the Preserve remain a primitive place of
self-discovery with new facilities primarily in gateway communities,
but also calls for restoring the Kelso Depot to be used as a visitor
center.
The GMP entails continuing recreational climbing activity while
providing for resource protection by eliminating the use of power
drills and limiting the replacement of anchors in wilderness areas.
This also reduces visibility of climbing features by imposing
restrictions on leaving of climbing support apparatus and blending of
anchors. The GMP protects bighorn sheep during lambing through climbing
limits on Clark Mountain at certain times of the year. These management
actions would reduce impacts from climbing on park resources more than
either the no action (under which none of these restrictions would
occur) or optional approach (which would allow power drill use outside
wilderness and would not limit replacement of existing bolts and other
fixed anchors). The GMP enhances visitor enjoyment by providing for
potential use of commercial guided tours on the Mojave Road for
visitors not having an appropriate vehicle.
The GMP most effectively reconciles diverse public concerns
relating to hunting by regulated hunting for upland game birds and big
game during their established state seasons, and a limited season for
small game (cottontails and jackrabbits only) consistent with desert
tortoise recovery and the mission of the NPS to protect wildlife for
future generations. Hunting throughout the Preserve is retained for
most game species under state law, while eliminating non-game and
furbearer (predator) hunting. The GMP more fully achieves the intent of
the Recovery Plan
[[Page 17444]]
with regard to hunting in the Preserve. USFWS has determined that small
game hunting could be allowed, along with upland game birds and big
game, without substantially altering the analysis of effects on the
desert tortoise in the biological opinion.
Provide Effective Operations: The GMP emphasizes maximum use of
existing structures and provides for limited new construction of
facilities inside the Preserve, and proposes to use existing and
acquired structures, improving and upgrading them where appropriate.
Housing obtained via grazing permit acquisitions would be utilized for
employee housing and interpretive facilities in order to provide onsite
maintenance and security of the facilities. The GMP incurs the least
impacts to currently undisturbed desert habitat and cultural landscape
of the park, while still providing needed administrative facilities.
In summary, the selected GMP (Alternative 1) includes the most
actions that are beneficial to the cultural and natural resources of
Mojave and to the enjoyment of the Preserve. It is also the most
responsive alternative to public input received during scoping and
alternative development. The one exception is on hunting. Hunters
generally supported alternative 2, while a substantial number of other
commenters wanted hunting eliminated completely, an option not
represented in the DEIS because of the CDPA mandate. A comparison of
decision rationales pertaining to all three alternatives is detailed in
the Record of Decision.
Findings on Impairment of Park Resources and Values
The NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and values
unless directly and specifically provided for by legislation or by the
proclamation establishing the park. Impairment that is prohibited by
the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act is an impact that
would harm the integrity of park resources or values, including
opportunities that otherwise would be present for enjoyment of those
resources or values (NPS Management Policies 2001). This policy does
not prohibit impacts to park resources and values. The NPS has the
discretion to allow a limited degree of impact when necessary and
appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, so long as the impacts
do not constitute impairment. In the case of the Preserve, it is noted
that human activity and past development have resulted in the ongoing
disruption of natural systems and processes for many years.
The NPS has determined that implementing Alternative 1 will not
constitute an impairment to the Preserve's resources and values. This
conclusion is based on thorough analysis of the environmental impacts
described in the Revised Draft EIS/GMP, the Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP,
with due consideration of public and agency comments and relevant
research (pursuant to direction in NPS Management Policies, section
1.4). While the GMP may entail some minor negative impacts, in all
cases these adverse impacts are the result of proactive strategies
intended to quickly implement the NPS mission, policies and regulations
in the management of the Preserve. None of the selected actions would
result in impacts that would impair the integrity of park resources or
values, including opportunities that would otherwise be present for the
enjoyment of those resources or values. Overall, the GMP results in
major benefits to park resources and values, opportunities for their
enjoyment, and it does not result in their impairment.
The collective actions encompassed in Alternative 1 will serve as a
means to manage the Preserve in a manner that would result in a
protected native desert ecosystem that functions without interference
from human activities, while allowing visitor use and Congressionally
mandated resource consumptive activities. While some of these
activities could result in resource impacts that seem contrary to the
NPS preservation mission (e.g. hunting, grazing, mining), Congress
specifically provides for these activities in the CDPA, still subject
to other applicable laws and regulations. For example, any future
mining operations would be required to undergo NPS review and
environmental impact analysis under 36 CFR Part 9, Subpart A. A grazing
management plan would be developed to manage cattle grazing activities
so that park resources are protected. Constructing wayside exhibits,
maintaining existing developments, or rehabilitating Kelso Depot could
create minor impacts on some resources locally, but would not result in
impairment. A summary of the comparative analysis of this alternative
and others considered with respect to ``impairment'' is detailed in the
Record of Decision.
Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm
The NPS has investigated all practical means to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts that could result from implementing the selected
action. The measures are incorporated into Alternative 1, and are
addressed in both the Revised Draft EIS/GMP and Abbreviated Final EIS/
GMP. A consistent set of desert tortoise mitigation measures would be
applied to actions that result from this plan (see Appendix E in
Revised Draft EIS/GMP). Monitoring and enforcement programs will
oversee the implementation of mitigation measures. These programs will
assure compliance monitoring; biological and cultural resource
protection; traffic management, noise, and dust abatement; noxious weed
control; pollution prevention measures; visitor safety and education;
and other mitigation measures. Mitigation measures will also be applied
to future actions that are guided by this plan. In addition, the NPS
will conduct appropriate compliance reviews (i.e., National
Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, and so forth) for all future actions.
Background of Public and Interagency Involvement
Immediately following enactment of CDPA on October 31, the Preserve
had no existing management plans or general ``blueprint'', under which
more detailed activity or implementation plans could occur. While not
specific in nature, the new GMP focuses on purposes of the Preserve,
its significant attributes, its mission in relation to the overall
mission of the NPS, what activities are appropriate within these
constraints, and resource protection strategies. It also provides
guidelines for visitor use and development of facilities for visitor
enjoyment and administration of the preserve. The goal of the GMP is to
best manage the new unit to meet the Congressional intent as expressed
in the CDPA and the mission of the NPS. It was the stated intention of
this conservation planning effort to explore only alternatives that
would result in an implementable management plan for the Preserve.
Alternatives were ruled out of full consideration if they needed
legislation before they could be implemented, are contrary to specific
Congressional direction, were inconsistent with NPS regulations or
policy, or could be financially infeasible--these would not serve the
need of creating an immediate management plan for this new unit. These
were among the considerations weighed in developing the purpose and
need section for the EIS.
The conservation planning process began in 1995 with the selection
of a GMP/EIS planning team, which was stationed at the Preserve
headquarters in
[[Page 17445]]
Barstow. The Notice of Intent for this effort was published in the
Federal Register on September 5, 1995 announcing the beginning of the
conservation planning process. The planning team conducted 20 public
scoping meetings in September 1995 and April 1997 to gather information
about public concerns and issues on management direction for the
Preserve and BLM lands. In addition, a number of agency scoping
meetings were also held. From this data and meetings with interested
parties (such as county departments, special interest groups, state
agencies, Native American tribes, etc.) and discussions with NPS and
BLM staff, proposed management plans were developed.
In September 1998 the Mojave National Preserve Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and General Management Plan was released for public
review. Approximately 450 printed and 100 CD-ROM copies of the Draft
EIS/GMP were distributed for review. The entire document was also
posted on the Internet with links from the park's homepage and the
Northern and Eastern Mojave planning page. A notice of filing of the
Draft EIS/GMP was published in the Federal Register by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September 11, 1998 (FR 48727).
Written comments were accepted from September 11, 1998 through January
15, 1999, a period of 127 days. Eleven public meetings were held in
October 1998 throughout the planning region of southern California and
southern Nevada. In addition, the planning team attended and
participated in numerous meetings of the Mojave Advisory Commission to
obtain their feedback, concerns, and direction regarding the
development of the general management plan. The NPS received
approximately 390 comment letters from government agencies, tribes,
interest groups, and individuals. In addition, members of environmental
groups (National Parks and Conservation Association, The Sierra Club,
and The Wilderness Society) sent in approximately 1,800 identical
postcards. Several additional letters and postcards were received after
the closing date for public comments.
Due to the large number of substantial changes required as a result
of public comment on the 1998 Draft EIS/GMP, the NPS decided to rewrite
the document. In September 2000, a Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan was released for 92 days of
public review. Responses to all written substantive comments on the
1998 Draft EIS/GMP were addressed in a separately bound report. The EPA
published a notice of filing in the Federal Register on September 6,
2000 (FR 54064-54065). Eleven more public meetings on the revised draft
plan were held in southern California and southern Nevada during
October and November 2000. During the public comment period, a total of
202 written comments were received.
Upon review of public and agency comments regarding the Revised
EIS/GMP, it was determined that no new substantive issues were raised,
therefore, the NPS decided to prepare an Abbreviated Final EIS/GMP,
dated June 2001. The abbreviated format for the Final EIS/GMP was used
because the changes to the revised document were minor and confined
primarily to factual corrections, which did not modify the analysis.
Use of this format is in accord with regulations implementing the 1969
National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.4[c]). This abbreviated
format requires that the material in this document be integrated with
the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement and General Management
Plan to comprise a full and complete record of the environmental impact
analysis, public and agency comment, and decisionmaking process.
Conclusion
Following the signing of this Record of Decision, the NPS will
excerpt and print the final General Management Plan as a stand-alone
document, which can be readily used by park staff and interested
individuals and organizations as the ``blueprint'' for managing the
Preserve over the next 10-15 years. The selected alternative was the
agency preferred alternative and the environmentally preferred
alternative as documented in the Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact
Statement and General Management Plan, dated June 2001. Persons
desiring a copy of the Presentation Plan when it becomes available, or
the complete Record of Decision at this time, may contact the
Superintendent, Mojave National Preserve, 222 E. Main St., Ste. 202,
Barstow, California, 92311.
September 28, 2001.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director
[FR Doc. 02-8700 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P