Chapter 8 ‘THE DESERT TORTOISE IN NEVADA Kristin H, Berry and Betty L. Burge Prior to 1974, only general information was available on the distribution and relative abundance of desert tortoise populations in Nevada, Grant (1936) noted that tortoises occurred south of the Beatty Bunkerville line, More recently Stebbins (1966) and Ernst and Barbour (1972) showed similar distributional lines. The historical records on distribution in the literature and museums have been summarized by Patterson (1982), These, too, show the distribution to be limited to the southern tip of the state. More detailed work was initiated in 1963 by Medica, Bury, and Turner (4975), They captured, marked, measured, and released several tortoises in three 9-hectare fenced areas in Rock Valley, Nye County, Eventually data from 22 individuals vere used for studies on growth. The next intensive study was begun in 1974, Burge established 2 1,2 sq. mile study plot southwest of Las Vegas (Burge 1977a, 1977b, 1978; Burge and Bradley 1976), Soon after, the Nevada Department of Fish and Game (now the Department of Wildlife) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) funded several studies on the distribution, relative densities, and population characteristics of tortoises at selected sites in the state, We have analyzed the atlable data on the desert tortoise in Nevada and have collected information on uses and impacts. Our discussion is subdivided into (1) distribution and relative densities in the state, (2) population characteristics at selected study plots, and (3) land uses and impacts to important tortoise habitats olin Nevada. DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE DENSITIES OF TORTOISES ‘This section covers surveys of the distribution and relative densities of tortoises, methods of estimating relative densities, and identification of important tortoise population: Surveys for Tortoises Biologists with the Nevada Department of Wildlife made “ground surveys’ of desert tortoise distribution between 1977 and 1979, Lucas (1978) and Lucas and Oakleaf (1977) looked for tortoises and their sign in the Tule Desert in southeastern Nevada, Upper Toquop Wash, and Beaver Dam Slope drainages. Using evidence from scats, bones, and dens, they reported that the northeasternmost distribution was at Cherokee Mine, Garden, and Snow Washes. . Herron and Lucas (1978, 1979), Lucas (1979), and Turner (1980) noted that tortoise populations extended as far north as upper Pahranagat Valley in south-central Nevada and near Beatty, a town close to the Nevada~ california border, These surveys by Department of Wildlife personnel were cursory. In May of 1980, Turner and Herron (Turner 1981) established and surveyed two one-sq.-atle plots in Valley of Fire State Park and Eldorado ct was Valley. They walked 20 parallel transects on each plot; each trai one mile long and 20 yards wide. Evidence of live tortoises and tortoise sign was recorded. Densities were estimated at 21 tortoises/sq. mile in Valley of Fire State Park and 50/aq. aile in Eldorado Valley. These plots and the methodology were abandoned in favor of the strip-transect technique(Chapter 2) and the 30-day censuses of one~sq.-mile plots (Appendix 2). In 1979 and 1980, the BLM funded a series of contracts to determine the distribution and relative densities of tortoises on public land in southern Nevada, The strip-transect technique developed by Berry and Nicholson (Chapter 2) for California was used. Data on live tortoises and other tortoise sign were gathered on transects approximately 10 yards wide and 1.5 miles long and recorded on forms developed for the project. The transect was usually an equilateral eriangle with the investigator beginning and ending at the same point. tn 1979, Karl (1980a, 1980b) made 201 such transects in Clark County, covering 104 townships or 3,744 sq. miles. In 1980, Karl (1981) made 109 more transects using the sane technique in Nye and Lincoln Counties. These transects encompassed 28 townships or 1,008 sq. miles, In 1981, the Air Force supported 281 strip-transects on BLM-administered lands in Coyote Springs Valley and Arrow Canyon in Lincoln County. This was part of an effort to learn more about tortoise populations in an area proposed for an MX base and facility (Garcia, Berry, and Schneider 1982). ‘The U.S. Department of Energy funded an intensive effort in 1982 to determine whether tortoises were present in an area under consideration for a radioactive waste disposal site (Thomas O'Farrell, personal communication). ‘The equivalent of 130.5 strip-transects (1.5 miles each) was made in an area of 27.5 eq. miles on the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, t side adjoining the Nellis Air Force Bombing and Gunnery Range on the of Yucca Mountain and on Yucca Mountain itself, The Nevada Department of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jointly supported 150 strip-transects near and within the Desert National 3-3Wildlife Range, Valley of, Fire State Park, in the Lake Mead Recreation Area, and on federal lands near Blue Diamond, Goodsprings, and Ivanpah and Piute Valleys in 1981 (Schneider and Turner 1982). Thus, between 1979 and 1982, 871 strip-transects vere made in the southern part of Nevada in habitats suspected of supporting desert tortoises (Plate 8-1), Most transects were located below 5,000 ft in saltbush (Atriplex spp.), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), tree yucca (ucca spp.), and blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) coumnities. Transect densities averaged two 1.5 mile strips per township except: (1) in Coyote Springs Valley and Arrow Canyon, where there was one transect/sq. mile Garcia, Berry, and Schneider 1982); (2) in parts of Piute Valley where each of 45 contiguous sections vas sampled with 1.5 mile strip-transects (Schneider and Turner 1982); and (3) on the eas side of Yucca Mountain and on Yucca Mountain itself where the transect density averaged 4.7/sq. mile (Thomas O'Farrell, personal communication). Methods for Estimating Relative Densities of Tortoise Populations Karl (1980a, 1961), Garcia, Berry and Schneider (1962), and Schneider and Turner (1982) used the same aethod for estimating tortoise densities from transects as Berry and Nicholson (Chapter 2). Berry and Nicholson (Chapter 2) used the phrase "corrected" sign, whereas Karl (1980a) wrote of “total adjusted sign." We will use the phrase "total adjusted sign" (TAS) here for consistency, because most Nevada investigators followed Karl's (1980a) terminology. ‘The methods used for stimat ing, tortoise densities are summarized in Table 8-1. Note that Karl (1980a) used different range divisions of TAS and estimated densities in the Clark a4susye paaenty pe Te102 = sv “e 8 £ sour 3867 Carte9) € Carte9) Aerten nopeys Aortea mopeus z tua doays zt tua daays 8 sua daays £ Aorten aad € Aorrea exntd at Aorrea 93nd s wopzy T wopay (Kqwo 1861 1279) sasasueay uot 30rd Kpnas ‘s399uea3 UOTa aord Kpnag —sapeeuvx, wor 07d Anas “ON Pay Teo “ON -BAgyTED “ON ont wt ort< a 66T - Ost Test ont - 06 118 ovt - 06 1-8 Ost - vet 91-6 06 - sy i 06 - sy i yet - 0s as sy - oT et Sy - ot et 0s - 12 rt or-o ° or-t ° w-0 ° (etre “bs) Aazeuep (2tTm *bs) £apeuep (@rve *be) Aayeuap 28703303 pereutaeg svi 2syo2s03 peqeay28y SVL 98703303 peavuraez = SVL (Za6t s2preuyas pur ‘Kasog ‘eyoz09) AerteA eBusads 920409 sepyauyss: UT sats pi (zg6t x0uany pue ) BpeAeN vzat{anos 9229798 PUP (TEST Tawy) "809 UTODUFT pur ay (wopst Tx) Aaunog 43079 1203 sazeuesy ‘wpeaan UF eayp i299uvI3-dyI38 woX SaTITSUBP 9eToII0 BuTIeEpI#e 205 spoyrem 842 Jo LOSFABdmos ¥ “1-9 STAPL a5County etudy than in the Nye and Lincoln County project (Karl 1981). Garets Berry, and Schneider (1982) and Schneider and Turner (1982) followed Karl's (1981) sign and density levels for subsequent studies. While discrepancies exist in the TAS levels and density estimates, ve see no purpose in belaboring the point further until more study plots are set up and their densities established. We have prepared our own analysis of indices for density estimates of all work done as of the end of 1982. We discuss this in a later section. Identification of Important Tortoise Populations Using data from the 300 transects, Karl (1980a, 1980b, 1981) and Mark Maley (personal communication) identified six areas with relatively high tortoise sign and possibly moderate-to high-density tortoise populations: (1) Piute Valley, (2) Ivanpah Valley-Goodsprings, (3) Arden, (4) Arrow Canyon and Coyote Springs Valley, (5) Moapa Valley and Mormon Mesa, and (6) the Virgin Mountains, Mark Maley (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b) also identified several similar areas in Clark County with slightly different boundaries. Burge examined TAS for all 871 transects (Plate 8-1) and outlined six moderate-to high-density populations areas vhich are similar but not identical to those mentioned above. The: population areas are called (2) Moapa, (2) Arrow Canyon, (3) California Wash, (4) Gold Butte, (5) Goodaprings, and (6) Piute Valley (Plate 82). Within each area there are areas vith densities of 250tortoises/sq. mile, The perimeter of each area was determined by draving a polygon around groups of transects indicating 250 tortoises/sq. mile. In most cases, the line forming the Brb&Plate 8-1 DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada Desert Tortoise Transect Distributionperimeter vas placed equidistant between the outermost transects showing 2 50 tortoises/sq. mile and those showing 250 tortoises/sq. mile. Isolated transects indicating 250 tortoises/sq, mile outside the polygons were ignored. The presence of disturbed areas such as cities, mines, and airports within the polygons was not a factor in outlining the perimeters. In most cases, all portions of the polygons lie below 4,000 ft in elevation. We call the six areas identified by Burge as the “desert tortoise crucial habitats" for Nevada (Plate 8-2). The term “crucial habitat" has been adopted from the Bureau of Land Management's 6840 Manual on Threatened and Endangered Species and modified. We use the term to refer to tortoise habitat which potentially: (1) is crucial to the survival of the species in its native habitat; and (2) contains sufficient densities for a viable population. A more detailed definition and discussion of crucial habitat are presented in Chapter 6. ‘The. six crucial areas in Nevada encompass most habitat which was identified as having an estimated 245 to > 50 tortoises/sq. mile during the strip-transect surveys. Some contiguous areas with 20 to 50 tortoises/ sq. mile were included also. One exception was the habitat identified by Karl (1961) in and near Pahrump Valley in Nye County. This ar was thought to contain moderate densities. Karl (1980c) censused part of the area intensively and found very low densities, so ve did not include this area. Tortoise Densities in the Six Crucial Habitats AIL transect data within and adjacent to the six crucial habitats were analyzed and individual density maps were prepared for each area. The numbers of transects available for data analysis for each area were: 10Plate 8-2 DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada 34Toquop sheep: . ” : 988for Moapa, 289 for Arrow Canyon, 6 for California Wash, 9 for Gold Butte, 46 for Goodsprings, and 93 for Piute Valley. Two methods were used for preparation of the density maps, the first for five crucial habitats in Clark and Lincoln Counties (Moapa, California Wash, Gold Butte, Goodsprings, and Piute Valley), and a second for the sixth (Arrow Canyon). Afornta Wash, Gold But Preparation of Density Maps for Moapa, Goodsprings, and Piute Valley. Transects were plotted on BLM planning unit maps (30-minute scale) and were coded according to the five TAS and estimated-density levels established by Karl (1980a) for Clark County (Table 8-1). The transects undertaken by Schneider and Turner (1982) also vere used but vere reanalyzed to fit Karl's (1980a) sign cl 28. Polygons were dram around transects with the same sign level, following topography where possible. Isolated transects of a different sign level within polygon vere not singled out as a separate polygon of higher or lower tortoi: densities. Mountainous areas and the lands surrounding the town of Searchlight in Piute Valley vere placed in the 0 to 21 tortoises/ 8q. mile category. The density maps are shown in Plates 8-3 (Goodsprings), 8-4 (California Wash and Gold Butte), 8-5 (Moapa),and 8-6 (Piute Valley). The amounts of habitat for each density level are presented in Table 8-2. Preparation of the Density Map for Arrow Canyon. The system used here followad tha TAS and estimated density levels established by Karl (1981) for Nye and Lincoln Counties and later adapted by Garcia, Berry, and Schneider (1982). We did not have the calibration G10DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-3 NevadaDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 4 in Nevada Key Frortoise Density EE om a California Wash Gold)ButteDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada Moapa Plate 8-5 kK FE Y 7 tutise oomain ESTMATED TORTOISE DENSITY tet se me Co on 0 EQ oeDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada Piute Valley Plate 8-6 Key Tortoie Density SE reve 3 rem sot Ze = wm [OO] si raDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT | in Nevada ‘Arrow Canyon Tortoise Density Plate 8-7 e000pue aepromyss Aq apem easasuest *(eOg6T) T2ex Aq pador: Ble + (#0861) T2¥x Ka poystTgease sasseT> 437 yp 02 pauByssw pur pazkyeus-e2 919A (zg6T) 20UINL P sTaRaT UBS Uo poseq ore SazvuTIs9 KIPSUEp aUL “e 6 ese oz. at 68 6IT stez0y 'D oF (8*z) ot @) 0 @) 0 CO 0 002 - ost (2°L1) got (£92) £6 oo (L098) st (0) 0 (0) 0 ost ~ 92t (9°95) Ts5 (08) zoT (1°9s) tot (ZS) 29 (oor) 68 (2'08) 96 yet - 0s (Le zat (8°82) 16 (9°92) 99 (0) 0 (0) 0 (e*61) ez 0s - 1 (s'9) 9) (ern) (29 94 @) 0 (©) 0 0) 0 w-o0 Karten eanta —sBupxdspooy — 9am PION —_ SEN BFUIO;T TED eden, (zFa/se0703103) Terex (re1ea wunyoo 30 x) Serre ozenbs UT ereaFaey Tey2N39 soritduep pereuyzeq ‘epeAsN UE SIEITqNY TeFINID PAF; UF sesTorI03 3298ep 30 BaTI;SUAP PereUTIeT “7-9 TAPEtransect data for this area, and therefore could not reanalyze completely the data using the Clark County (Karl 1980a) TAS and estimated density level Polygons were drawn around areas with transects of the same TAS level. ‘The minimum number of transects for a polygon was three. All mountainous areas and playas were considered "poor habitat." Poor habitat and areas with no sign/transect were placed in the 0 to 10 tortoises/sq. mile category. The density map is shown in Plate 8-7 and the amount of habitat for each sign level is in Table 8-3. We did not use the map produced by Garcia, Berry, and Schneider (1982), because polygons were drawn around areas representing single transects in sone cases. As discussed earlier, the boundaries of the crucial areas were drawn to include tortoise habitat with densities estimated at >50 tortoises/sq. mile. The Arrow Canyon crucial habitat is an exception and has a much higher proportion (72 per cent or 339 sq. miles) of low density habitat with densities estimated at < 50 tortoises/sq. mile, The higher density areas exist as scattered pockets throughout the lover density areas (Plate 8-7). The reader is cautioned that the density maps are general maps based disturbed habitat on results of transects made in the le: Areas disturbed by human activities are unlikely to have densities as high as those projected on the map, In fact, we expect that numerous areas exist with few or no tortoises in the vicinity of roads, residential areas, highway material sites, intensive off-road vehicle use areas, and near cattle vatering tanks and troughs, Nevada supports an estimated 859 sq. miles of tortoise habitat with eqTable 8-3. Estimated densitic of desert crucial habitat in Nevada, tortoises in the Arrow Canyon Tas’ Estinated densiti Total area % of total (tortoises/sq. mile)* (sq. mile) ° 0-10 us 25.2 1-3 to - 45 2a aa 4-7 45 - 90 85 18.1 a-u 90 - 140 a 8.7 2 > 160 4 0.9 Total 469 100.0 a, TAS and estimated densities are taken from Garcia, Berry, and Schneider (1982) areas shown above are our estimate: ‘The polygons shown in Pla 8-7 are ours; a4the potential for supporting densities of >45 to 50 tortoises/sq. mile, or, 60 per cent of che total crucial area. Only two crucial habitats, Piute Valley and Arrow Canyon, have estimated densities of > 140 to 151 tortoises/sq. mile (14 sq. miles tota: 10 in Piute Valley and 4 in Arrow Canyon). This is less than one per cent of the total existing tortoise crucial habitat in Nevada. ‘The Piute Valley crucial habitat is contiguous with, and probably a northern extension of, the Fenner-Chemehuevi crucial habitat in California (Chapter 6). Nevada apparently does not have tortoise densities equal to those in California's adjacent Ivanpah Valley or the Fenner area of ~ 200 tortoises/sq. mile. ATTRIBUTES OF POPULATIONS ON PERMANENT STUDY PLOTS Population characteristics were exemined at four study sites in two crucial habitats in southern Nevada. Burge undertook an 18-month study in 1974-1975 near Arden in Clark County (Site 30) (Burge 1977a; Burge and Bradley 1976), Karl (1979a, 1979, 1980c) ablished three plots for the BIM at Last Chance (Site 28) in Nye County and Sheep Mountain (Site 29) and Piute Valley (Site 31) in Clark County, using the 30-day census technique at each site. Descriptions of the plots are in Appendix description and discussion of the methodology are in Appendices 2 and 3, respectively. Burge chose the Arden site in 1974 because of apparent moderate to high tortoise densities. Two BIM study sites were selected by Mark Maley (personal communication) of the Las Vegas District Office. The Sheep Mountain and Piute Valley plots were chosen because: (1) BLM personnel $20dus, xed | ef Uneexed ne as ae aa Fig. 8-1. Site 29. Sheep Mountain, Nevada. Live tortoises captured in the spring of 1979. Histogram of live tortoises captured and marked during a 30-day spring census of the Sheep Mountain study plot in 1979 (data from Karl 1979a). galobserved tortoises in those areas, and (2) the data were to be used for the Clark County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for livestock grazing (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). Karl. (1980c) picked the third BLM plot, the Last Chance site, after examining 48 strip-transects in 25 townships in Nye County. This plot was one of two areas with relatively high tortoise sign in Nye County, Only three of the four plots had sufficient data for comparative analysis of population attributes. Each plot is discussed separately below. Last Chance (Site 28). Too few live tortoises vere present on this nd plot for inclusion in the major data analysis. Only 10 live tortois 53 shell-skeletal remains vere found in a 1.5 sq. mile area (Karl 1980c). Nine of the ten live tortoises were adult. Three of the nine were old adults judging from the shell-wear classes of 6 and 7 (Appendices 4 and 5). Most of the 53 carcasses were of tortoises which died more than four years prior to the study, before 1976, Only five carcasses were relatively recent and probably dead less than four years. Karl (1980c) estimated densities of 5 to 10 tortoises/sq. mile (Table 8~4). If Last Chance is representative of Nye County, then tortoise densities are very low in this part of Nevada. ‘Sheep-Mountain (Site 29), This site lies on the southern edge of the Goodsprings crucial habitat (Plate 8-3). Karl (1979a) studied tortoises here in 1979, Only 31 live tortoises were found, most of which vere adults (table 8-5 and 8-6; Fig. 8-1). Densities were estimated at 50 and 65 tortoises/sq. mile using two techniques (Table 8-4). Sex ratios of subadults and adults vere not significantly different from 1:1 (Table 8~7). ‘The Sheep Mountain population appears similar in size and age 22suoyaeuetdxe 103 ¢ xTpuaddy 995 201d 242 apreano oxen oats ang poxsyE pu peanadeo o10n ano3-K2U8Ta_ “4 ‘woyavuetdxe 203 ¢ xrpueddy 99s -seraepunog 307d Uo 10 epysuT TE ATYO !peamade> seBzoI307 onI—AI2TUL “e aueespat Teuoyesozo2d ost-szt s09 33819 “Teqeayss ocr or oot t shorten oma TE worsee801 s20u7T zr *Teqouyos, sot ‘xepur ut0o0y1 sz v09 2819 ‘yunos y9eaTP ot ot an wt ‘uepsy of aveespnf Tevoyssazo2d 0s anoqe —_ataqyssod 1 +09 8T9 ‘Teqwmos 9 ‘searuryep 9 ale T ——tureaunoy deans gz sosyorzoa aary aeou auowspnf Mooxe syeoe pus setayssod / (aupryoaey T Twuoyssajo2d onorxanq may {oT 02 ¢ ‘eaaTUTZep C¢ pue SITMPE 6) OF S*T aw teaueyp arr az (e1Fe bs /sesyoas03) Aaysuap auazedde —_pe299T{02-peap poxsee-oart (orem “be) (2) pour aK ‘vo squsao9 sesTo3302 30 z9qumu TP3cy, 9248 937s vuou 2173 ats *(9U6T) SoTpesa paw eBang pue (#1461) 98:mq wo2z 9x8 o¢ 2245 103 wreP 943 £(4TeRFI>0¢803 g6/6T PUP *86L6T ‘20R6T) TARA BOA; UOAED ‘eae TE pue ‘Gz ‘gz 8997s 303 eaeP ONL ‘epeasy uF e20Td Kpnas ausuemsed anos 203 soawey3ss Kaysued “y"9 @TaPL 3-23Table 8-5. Mountain (Site 29) during the spring of 1980. Size class distributions of desert tortoises registered near Sheep Per cent of Size classes Undetermined Male Female Totals overall total Juvenile 1 ° ° Juvenile 2 1 3.2 Immature 1 5 16.1 Imature 2 3 9.7 Subadule 2 ° 2 6.5 Adule 1 ° ‘ 4 12.9 Adult 2 10 6 6 51.6 Totals 2 10 3 9-24Table 8-6. Proportions of adults and non-adults obi tortoises in Nevada. srved in populations of desert Site Number of Number of non- number Site name Years adults (and 2) adults (and 2) 29 Sheep Mountain 1979 20 (64.5) 1 (35.5) 30 Arden 1974-75 74 (58.3) 53 (41.7) a Piute Valley 1979 31 (39.2) 48 (60.8) e2359270 ot ras ot ot ° z 6L6T WF PAUMOW dooys. Lus"0- 9 wz et 8T et ’ 6L6T sorte eanta 999°T ue es 6 sy 8 8 St-¥L6T vopay z soqwmeg 9TH sorwmag STE sotemog — 8aTeH ‘e209 2a1s sTPI01 sa TMpy satnpeqns sepenoy uy saa7s saxya 28 yaSuey UF am-ggT Z sesyor202 1398ap HuomE SoF3Nx xBe paAr9Eq0 */-f aTAeL $26Site 30. Arden, Nevada. | Live tortoises captured in 1974 and 1975. as -384 238 208 Maximum Carapace Length own) as 4 [ ese 4 88-64 s a Fig. 8-2, Histogram of live tortotses captured and marked during a year- is. 2 | Jong study of the Arden plot in 1974 and 1975. a atcomposition to populations at study plots in west-central Arizona (e.g., Sites 36 and 38, Alamo Hill and Little Shipp; see Chapter 10), There is a high proportion of adults (but the difference between adults and nonadults is not statistically significant), and the adults are large and old (see Appendices 4 and 5). The mean carapace length for males is larger than for any other tortoise population studied to date (Chapter /4). Mean carapace length for females is similar to that for populations in Utah, and a few sites in California, but is not as large as for females in west-central Arizona or on Tiburon Island. Fifty per cent of the females and 46.1 per cent of the males are in shell-wear classes 6 and 7, the “old age" classes. ‘The only other populations with similar composition of shell-wear classes are the two west-central Arizona sites, Alano Hill and Little Shipp. The population composition here is puzzling because it is markedly different from Arden (Site 30) 20 miles to the north, Piute Valley (Site 31). 36 miles to the southeast, and Ivanpah Valley (Site 14), 24 miles to the south in California, This site has experienced long-term cattle grazing and some off-road vehicle (ORV) use (Table 8-8). Arden (Site 30). The site lies in che e: Goodsprings crucial habitat (Plate 8-3). Population attributes for central part of the 1974-1975, the year of study, are not particularly unusual. Size structures are presented in Table 8-9 and Fig. 8-2. Sex ratios are not significantly different from 1:1 (Table 8-7). More adults vere captured than nonadults, but the difference is not as pronounced as at Sheep Mountain. Densities were estimated using several techniques; estimates ranged from 108 to 132 tortoises/sq. mile in 1975 (Table 8-4). Since 1975, numbers probably have dropped considerably because of urban development, vandalism, collecting, and dogs (Table 8-8). We do not expect the area vill support viable*(2LU61) 9820q pur (961) AaTPERE puE 2Bang Woy O30 OC 9975 uo eaep 942 {(étearasedsoa ‘a6U6T PUR ‘¥6L6T ‘2086T) THEY wory OER o4aR TE PuE “Gz ‘Bz _9AITS YO eI¥P ONL“ (6c6t 1 0ys punoy 98703303 2uo) SuT200us, yo 19299 uo ssnou, *2L6T uF 207 3vOU S9enoy paze22¥0s tenoaanq 98701302, Jo woraeawoxa aToTu9R peos-330 £19237 auytzanod pesodosd ‘sy y83 2TOTUEA TeaUR—y pu eToKo2030m 30 soTTE Z ueya exon 280309 uzsaseayinos uF asn ‘atoTtian peo-330 wkavoy £T92829POK,, o86t Uy auaserd 949033 eToTyeA TeoyR-y PUP ‘2T2koz010" M93 ¥ Azepunog 2014 uo peor 233p 30 squeufes pus-peap ona {(@TFm 0°T >) vet pea 3z5P paUsTT suon = 2auTs BupzEx8 ON ~aeae9 *pto 309 Quemorte one ‘eye1 veer) OT Spueaxe prox ipasodoad BuyurH auyzex8 97338) ‘suoydete 33rd 201d 30 rewayrz0u ue fone Sarre 6z°T aord 242 2890 207d aya 70 qnoge (souyu Te19A408 pur uo 27028 seeicy —saUI09 92 e8OAIe ‘U3TA poaeroosse yu auee20T Te ‘eunz peoa 237 Ayayssod) sBurptreg Suzex8 yooreaaFT oN POT TeAeII-~eds 203 saan8zq ‘sauedzoFazed 97 {ZG ‘DZ TEqUOKON UO UNI BD7y “—P seaoreazeds 90'sz pue sauedyoqaaed Q7E 9xe Saz0dex TeUTJ woAy BI>qUNN *Ze6T ‘91 3290399 to UNI eoey *> ssevez yo aunz-o2d apntouy 20u op saxn8zg “4 *2e6T UF 997330 2972387a SeB9A SET oy UT 33¥29 wemeUN_ pu] Jo NeaAnG Aq porederg *e o0z't t sv89q-02-nors30g uoyawysossy 9T2K93020K UeDT oN T goez eToKoz020m qnz> exez0Noad wpUIO;F TD enosUeTTe2ETH ‘000° ost-oot 1 ‘29ea £88nq sunp Teuoyseazord 000° 002 t prtsoroz0m pur <#8nqaunp uopavpooesy Fuyory IeNpATTS o0s'z ost-oor T e002 488nq ounp [wuofesez034 o0s*z ost-oot T eeTOFUaR T9208 00's 00-008 T PeTeeUN-z puw ~¢ ‘=y YITR ODS JeFIUOIE eyauozg/upoey 339800 UBTH 000'0s 00s-0s% 1 9903 488nq ounp TruoFssez034 00y INIK o00'9 ooT-0L T 00'T Sr-oE z 2902 488nq ounp {euotesazoad (erseyenyaea 005 sz-st > sape3 AB8nqeunp qnt> POU 330 EPRAEN UIBYINOS) SWONS osy ozt-08 Z (Seung se89q 861) 20"2 ss0xD030m TeuoFIEU osz 0s-07 st (saung sv8aq 8e7) s90e2 ssox020m qnT> 820200204 Sxe4I0% SeBOA 9eT 000'T oot T ‘2onx TaKox010m TwuoTeRezONd 00y ee8eq be7 (epeAaN Jo woTawTD088y osz ooT-se st s90e3 9{Ko2010" qnTo ‘Supowy 9T295020H) NVR wo0x 2903 auans 30 adky ‘ert 3902 sosuods aory fexoyeqveds — /e3uedyoyazed —squono 130 29quny QoPMEIOsUF 33028 WIE + _(B9TOFHOR 210m 30 QS Y2FA SqUEAe 203) ePEABN ‘KaUNOD ¥2eT] UF spueT DFTQnd Uo mexZo2d BuFOeI AYO TRUE TeOTdAL “CT-g TIEL afrom Las Vegas Valley in the north to Goodsprings and Hidden Valleys in the south, It occupies approximately 276 sq. miles (Tables 8-2, 8-11) and contains habitat with estimated densities of tortoises ranging from 0 to 124/sq. mile (Plate 8-3), Within the CH are two areas with moderate densities (50 to 124 tortoises/sq. mile), one in the north and the other in the south, They are separated by a low density zone (21 to 50 tortotses/ sq. mile). The Goodsprings CH is fragmented by a number of human uses (Table 8-11). ‘These usi Land Ownership and Urban Development, Private lands are concentrated in the northern one-third of the area (Plate 8-3) and also in a smaller are briefly discussed below. pocket near the tomn of Jean. Both developed and undeveloped private lands occupy 39.4 sq. miles or 14.2 per cent of the total area. The northern one third of CH, which lies inediately outside the Las Vegas metropolitan area, is experiencing scattered residential and comercial development. A strip of tortoise habitat 13 miles long by 1.5 to 3.0 miles wide lies within a 2-mile radius of metropolitan Las Vegas and is considered lost to eventual urban development (Plate 8-8). The northern one-third of Ci also Les adjacent to the Red Rock Recreation Lands, vhich are administered cooperative by the HM and Nevada State Park system. The park is bordered on the east by a large tract of land, Husite, which is owned by the Summa Corporation. Fire. The northern one-third of the CH experienced 22 small fires between 1975 and 1979, each of vhich burned less than 100 acres (Table 8-11, Plate 8-9). A mich larger burn of 1,500 acres occurred in summer of 1983, No other CH has as many recorded recent fires, Careless recreationists and G-3leDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada Goodsprings (Other Land Useintensive human activity in the general region are the principal cause. The area is knovn as “Firecracker Alley." Livestock Grazing and Feral Burros, Public lands in the West have a long history of overgrazing and range deterioration, and Nevada is no exception (Vale 1975; Voigt 1976). Vale (1975) states: A recent study by personnel in the [BLM]...supports allegations by academic researchers and conservationists that the Bureau's policies cater alnost exclusively to livestock interests, with a resulting deterioration of wildlife, watershed and recreation values on the public lands, The study was conducted by a team of Long-time employees of the Bureau and focused on the agency’ policies, and their effects, in the State of Nevada... vale (1975) quotes from the BLM report are of particular interest: The majority of [range] improvements constructed in the State of Nevada was directed primarily for the purpose of livestock production with little or no consideration for other resource needs or values... Uncontrolled, unregulated or unplanned livestock use is occurring in approximately 85% of the state, and damage to wildlife habitat can be described only as extreme destruction. Livestock grazing was much more intensive in the decades prior to 1970. In 1968, the BLM classified much of the range phemeral," and grazing use was decré sed (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). However, Vale (1975) reports that in 1974 the Bureau allowed grazing in Nevada to exceed 5% of the carrying capacity of the range as determined by its own eagerte, In 1982, approximately 38.4 per cent of the Goodeprings CH was in five grazing allotment: four of which were grazed by cattle (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c; Plate 8-9). One allotment, Spring Mountain, receives no use at this time. Three of the five allotments receive year-long grazing (Table 8-12). 334Bureau of Land Management personnel made over 56 vegetation transects of the area in 1979 as part of inventories and management planning for the region (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1981), The transects were made to determine forage condition and trend for livestock grazing. The vegetation was rated in fair or poor condition for 55 of the 56 transects (using the per cent composition of desirable, intermediate, or undesirable plants in the vegetation type). In 1982, the BL recommended changing the grazing use pattern from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial on many grazing allotments in Clark County in the Clark County Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Grazing (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). Four of the five grazing allotments in the Goodsprings CH were reclassified as epheneral-perennial. The Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Wildlife Management Institute, Desert Tortoise Council, and other agencies and conservation groups expressed concern about the shift from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial grazing use (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982c). In @ letter to the State Clearing House about the Draft EIS for Livestock Grazing in Clark County, William Molini, Director of the Nevada Department of Wildlife, said: Our greatest area of concern continues to be associated with the peoposed reclassification of 18 allotments in Clark County from ephemeral to epheneral-perennial, a change that we consider not to be in the best interest of resource management but a change which is aleo in direct conflict with Section 4112 of the BLM manual that describes policies for management practices. A vast majority of the grazing lands in Clark County fall under the rules of ephemeral range as described on page 29 of the draft EIS and which were adopted by the BLM in 1968. We would again point to the fact that the 1979 range survey indicated that 89 percent of Clark County is in poor livestock forage condition .., "Native perennial grasses and shrubs, though BuOthey may be high in palatability to grazing animals, are generally too sparse to support sustained grazing." The above statements certainly do not support the reclassification proposal nor would the reclassification allow for range improvement in the future. ‘The major thrust of the EIS for Clark County should be to explicitly state that livestock grazing in most areas has a direct impact on the wildlife resources because of the harsh nature of the environment and the limited quality of range available. Conflicts are intensified in desert habitats because of relatively low forage production in addition to a general lack of water, a characteristic which concentrates grazing animals and increases competition. The proposed alternative...is not consistent with the above listed facts. Desert ranges cannot support maximum use by one cli animal without having a detrimental effect on the numbers of other species utilizing the same area, We do not feel that it is possible to continue with current livestock use, improve the forage conditions which are currently classified as poor in most are low for expansion of desert sheep populations to reasonable numbers, and improve the viability of desert tortoise populations all at the same time. The desert is simply not capable of producing enough forage to accomplish the above listed objectives. ‘The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Interior and the BIM Director in May of 1983 over the Clark County Grazing EIS and the reclassification issue NRDC charges that the BLM has failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in administering livestock grazing on public lands. The NRDC cited: (1) a lack of specific management proposals that meet NEPA requirements, (2) a lack of an edequate site-specific impact analysis, and (3) failure to include a reasonable range of alternatives. In addition to domestic livestock grazing, feral burros use an estimated 67 eq. miles in the western portions of the CH. Paved and Dirt Roads, Trails, and Other Transportation Lines. The impacts of these land uses are discussed in Chapters 2, 5, and 14. We want to emphasize that the impacts are not confined to the direct loss of auhabitat from the roads, trails, and ORV courses thenselves, Losses occur from collections, vandalism, and roadkills. Unauthorized ORV travel cro country opens new access routes and human contact. Deterioration to tortoise habitat occurs from this piecemeal degradation and fragmentation of land. The major paved road in this CH is Interstate I-15, which bisects the southern one-third of CH for more than 13 miles. The Union Pacific Railroad accounts for ancther 22 linear miles. For each sq. mile of tortoise habitat, there are approximately 0.17 linear mile of paved roads, 0.57 Linear mile of dirt roads, 0.08 mile of railroads, and a minimum of 0,37 Linear mile of ORV trails and courses (Table 8-11; Plates 8-3, 8-10). When the Linear mileage of all these actions is combined, the density of roads and trails per sq. mile of habitat is equivalent to 1.2 linear miles/ sq. mile, This figure is undoubtedly an underestimate, because many ORV trails and routes are not plotted on existing maps, and new trails and routes are formed monthly. ‘The BLM's annual ORV racing program is shown in Table 8-13 (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 19824). Several ORV races are run in the Goodsprings CH, including events sponsored by MRAN, SNORE, the High Des rt Racing Association, and Frontier Hotel, The recently-approved Barstow-to-Las Vegas motorcycle race is scheduled to occur annually at Thanksgiving and have 1,200 participants (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1983a, 1983b). The route, which ie not shown on Plate 8-10, enters the southern part of the CH and traverses several miles. Although ORV impacts to tortoise populations and habitat have been covered in more depth in Chapters 3 and 6, it is worthwhile to examine briefly the recent work of Burge (1982). Burge (1982) observed and photographed the direct impacts of the GurDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-9] in Nevada Goodsprings (Grazing Allotment]October 16, 1982 "Frontier 500" race along 12 miles of a 100-ft wide course in the Goodaprings CH. The race had 370 2. + and 4-vheeled vehicles and approximately 25,000 spectators and pit crews. Racers were allowed to pre-run the course for three weeks prior to the event. Burge (1982) focused attention on surface impacts of race-related vehicles on vegetation, soils, and tortoise burrows by making transects before and after the race and through on-site observations during the race. She observed directly or found evidence of: (1) course widening, (2) travel by racers off-course, (3) passing in a no-passing zone, (4) damage to perennial vegetation, (5) unauthorized spectator-use areas, and (6) other violations of the BLM race permit stipulation: Burge saw no attempts by race personnel to control spectators and to restrain vehicle users from driving, parking, or standing in unauthorized areas. No efforts were made to control race drivers from making illegal shortcuts and compounding previous habitat degradation. BLM demanded no restitution from the permittee. Ueilities, Existing and proposed utility lines (gas and power) are still another source of disturbance to tortoise habitats and are an important impact in the Goodsprings CH. Several major utility corridors exist and still others are proposed (Table 8-11; Plates 8-3, 8-8). The region is a key pathway for transmission lines to Las Vegas and southern California from other parts of the West. The 125 linear miles of existing and proposed utility lines are equivalent to 0.45 linear mile of utility Lines/sq. miles of habitat. Exploration and Development for Oil, Gas, Hardrock Minerals, and Other Leaseable and Saleable Commodities. Virtually all tortoise habitat in the SadGoodsprings CH has been leased or has leases pending for of1 and gas (Table 8-11; Plate 8-11). Several companies involved in energy development in Clark County think that the area is one of the more promising on-shore drilling regions in the U.S. (U.S, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1981). More than 12 ofl and gas fields have been discovered in North America along the overthrust belt, which extends in a north-south direction from Canada into southern California. In southern Nevada, 15 wells were drilled for oil and/or gas between 1960 and 1980, O11 shows were reported from two wells s++sData reported on oil and gas shows should be used with caution; in many cases reported shows cannot be substantiated; in other cases, shows probably occurred but were not reported (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1981). Short and long-term damage to tortoise habitat is inflicted by both the exploration and development phases (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980). Seismic lines account for damage to an average of one acre/mile or 87 acres in the CH (one acre/sq, mile is disturbed by the crushing activities of vehicles, blasting, etc.). Seiemic lines are created by two methods of seismic exploration: (1) a vibroseis machine, vhich is used to generate ismic waves, and (2) blasting explosive charges at intervals ranging from 220 ft to 1 mile to generate a shock wave. Both techniques require a line of geophones to pick-up the waves. Two to six vehicles may travel adjacent to existing roads and trails or off-road as part of the operation, Other impacts include drill pads, which cause 5 acres of disturbance each, and new roads, which are 25 ft wide with a SO-ft right-of-way. Seismic lines a shown on Plate 8-11. Sand and gravel sites (highway material sites) are numerous in the southern one-third of the CH, particularly along Interstate I-15 (Table 8-11; SHSPlate 8-11). One area with locatable minerals has been identified north of Diamond Road near the Red Rock Recreation Lands, Also in the same general area are three additional localities where mining activity is now occurring (Plate 8-11). Wilderness Study Areas and Natural Areas, No Wilderness Study Areas, Natural Areas, or other protected habitats lie within the Goodsprings CH. Arrow Canyon ‘The Arrow Canyon CH is by far the largest CH, covering 469 sq. miles in both Coyote Springs and Arrow Canyon Valleys (Table 8-3; Plate 8-7). The habitat forms a long (>60 linear miles), narrow polygon, which ranges from 5 to 15 miles in width, Most of the habitat--339 sq. miles or 72.3 per cent—-probably supports low density populations of 0 to 45 tortoises/sq. mile, The higher density habitats are fragmented into ven pieces, the largest of vhich is in the northern end of Coyote Springs Valley. No permanent study plots have been established here, so population attributes are unknown. ‘The Arrow Canyon CH is not as fragmented by human uses as the other two large CH's, at least at this time. However, land use commitments have been made or are under consideration for veral potentially destructive activities. These are discussed below. Land Ownership. The BIM administers approximately 83 per cent of the habitat. The second largest land manager is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the Desert National Wildlife Range (Plate 8-7), An application ie pending at the BIM Las Vegas District Office to expand the Desert National Wildlife Range to the east (Plate 8-12), into the western and ubsouthern parts of the CH. Private land is limited to three small parcels totalling 3.8 sq. miles, Two parcels are near to and include Coyote Springs, The third parcel is on the extreme southern edge of the CH near Interstate I-15. Applications for Desert Land Entries are shown on Plate 8-12. If the BLM grants these applications, agricultural development will probably occur. Livestock Grazing and Feral Burros. Approximately 83 per cent of the CH 1s in 11 allotments for cattle grazing (Table 8-12; Plate 8-13). Four allotments are in Lincoln County and seven are in Clark County. Two allotments are not grazed at this time. Only the seven in Clark County were included in the Clark County Grazing EIS (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). None of the allotments was recomended for reclassification from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial use. Out of 46 vegetation transects made in the Clark County allotments, only 2 were considered in good and 3 in fair forage condition for livestock (Plate 8-13). The remaining 41 transects were rated as in poor forage condition. ‘Twenty-seven sq. miles of tortoise habitat are currently used by feral burros (Plate 8-13). Fires. Four sites, each less than 100 acres, burned between 1975 and 1979 (Plate 13), All four burn siti are in the southern portion of the cH. Paved and Dirt Roads, Trails, and Other Transportation Lines. One of the more significant impacts to the Arrow Canyon CH is from paved and dirt roads (Table 8-11; Plate 8-7). State Highvay 93 bisects the habitat in a north-south direction. Highway 7 joins State Highvay 93 and leads to the town of Moapa, A major unpaved road in the central and northern end of the B47CH unites Highway 93 with the towns of Elgin and Caliente via Kane Spring Valley, Density of dirt and paved roads is equivalent to 0.32 linear mile of road/sq. mile. Off-road vehicle courses and trails are an additional impact. The Silverdust Racing Association, for example, holds dunebuggy and motorcycle races here. Many washes have been and are used by ORVs. An ORV corridor has been proposed also; it is part of the proposed Intermountain Power Project right-of-way and old Highway 93, which lies along the west side of the Meadow Valley Mountains. Only a few ORV courses are shown on Plate 8-14, When mileage for roa ORV trails and courses are compiled, the total is equivalent to 0.49 linear mile/sq. mile, Other sources of disturbance a utility and seismic lines, which cover 72.3 and 20 linear miles, respectively (Plates 8-7; 8-15). Exploration and Development for Oil, Hardrock Minerals, and Other Leaseable and Saleable Commodities Approximately 85 per cent of the sections in the CH has leases or applications pending for oil and gas exploration and development (Table 8-1: ; Plate 8-15). Seven highway material sites and two sites with potential for development of locatable minerals and leaseable and saleable commodities are present. An estimated 7 aq. miles of habitat are involved. ‘The MK Basing Site. In 1980, the U.S. Department of Defense proposed two operating bases for the MK missile, one of which would be centered in Coyote Springs Valley (U.S. Dept. of Defense, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980; Huff 1981). The proposed operating base would have occupied a substantial portion of habitat in the Arrow Canyon CH. Housing and recreation facilities for a community of several thousand people, test areas, office buildings, and air B48DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-10 in Nevada Goodsprings [ott-road Venicle Usefields were under consideration for construction (Plate 8-12). The Air Force has altered its plans for the MX bases and systems a number of times since 1981. In 1983, Coyote Springs Valley was not one of the operating bases and was not slated for development. However, since plans for development of the MX missile system remain in a state of flux, we have included the 1980 and 1981 proposals here. They may be resurrected in the future. Wilderness Study Areas and Natural Areas. Until mid-1983, the Arrow Canyon CH had six Wilderness Study Areas in the Las Vegas, Arrow Canyon, and Meadow Valley Mountain Ranges, covering about 91 sq. miles or 19.4 per cent of the CH (Plate 814). With the issuance of the Draft EIS for Preliminary Wilderness Recommendations (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1983b), all but one of the areas—the Muddy Mountains—was dropped. Thirty-four sq. miles of CH are closed to ORV use and is generally inaccessible to a number of potentially destructive Jand uses in the Desert National Wildlife Range. California Wash California Wash lies northeast of Las Vegas within Dry Lake Valley. Tt 1s the qmallest Nevada CH with 89 sq. miles of habitat. Tortoise densities are estimated at 50 to 124/sq. mile at distances greater than 0.5 mile from major roads and away from heavily-used areas. The numerous land uses which fragment this habitat are briefly outlined. Land Omership, The BLM manages almost half the habitat (Table 8-11; Plate 8-4). The remaining 45 sq. miles are under the jurisdiction of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, The presence of the Indian Reservation aeeffectively splits the CH into three noncontiguous pieces, which range in size from ca, 8 to 36 sq. miles. The small settlement of Crystal on private land lies within the Indian Reservation boundaries. Livestock Grazing. Two grazing allotments, one for cattle and a second for cattle and horses, exist in the CH (Table 8-12; Plate 8-16). Both lie outside and adjacent to the Moapa River Indian Reservation, which also has a livestock grazing permit. The Muddy Mountains allotment was reclassified from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial use with the Clark County Grazing EIS (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). In 1979, 14 transects were made to determine forage condition and trend for livestock in and adjacent to the CH. Data from 12 transects indicated the vegetation was in poor forage condition. Two transects (one each) yielded fair and good forage ratings. Fires. Two fires, thought to be man- or lightning-caused, were reported in the CH between 1975 and 1979; a third occurred nearby (Plate 8-16), Each burn covered less than 100 acres, Par nd Dirt Roads and Trails, The Southern Pacific railroad and Interstate I-15 bisect the CH from southvest to northeast. Twenty-two miles of dirt and 1é miles of paved roads cross the area (Table 8-11; Plate 8-4), Off-road vehicle race courses and trails are common and total at least 122 linear miles (Plate 8-17). The density of roads and trails is equivalent to 0.98 linear mile/sq. mile of habitat, making the California Wash CH highly accessible to vehicles. (The Moapa Indian Reservation apparently grants permission for ORV races on a case-by-case basis. More ORV courses and trails could be within Reservation boundaries.) Approximately one mile of habitat in the northwestern corner is closed to $5)DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-11 jin Nevada Goodsprings ‘OW and Gat Leses(DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT | in Nevada ‘Arrow Canyon Plate 8-12 (Other Land Usevehicle us Seiamic lines, established for exploration of oil and gas, cover 50 Linear miles (Plate 8-18), When added to the compilation of road and trail mileage, the cumlative figure for the CH becomes 1.8 linear miles of road and trail/sq. mile of habitat. Ueilities. Five utility lines run in a southwest-northeast direction through the CH (Plate 8-4). Total mileage for utility lines is 27 linear miles or 0,31 linear mile/sq. mile of habitat. Exploration and Development for O11 and Gas, Hardrock Minerals, and Other Leaseable and Sa leable Commodities. All or part of every section in the CH have been leased for of and gas (Table 8-11; Plate 8-18). One operating well lies near the southwestern boundary. Six highway material sites are scattered along the interstate freevay. One site with locatable minerals is present. Wilderness Study Areas and Natural Areas. Other than the 1.0 sq. mile of habitat closed to ORVs, no protected are: exist here. ‘The Special Leasing Act for Lake Mead National Recreation Area confers some protection on tortoise habitat through restrictions on mineral leases (Plate 8-18). No leases are permitted within 300 ft of the water. The National Park Service is empovered to grant or not grant leases elsewhere in the recreation area depending on whether the leases would have a significant adverse effect on the are: The Valley of Fire lands, vhich BIM transferred to the Sta are not protected from mineral leasing; the BLM processes in the State park. ostDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada ‘Arrow Canyon Plate 8-13 [Graxing Allotments]DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada Plate 8-14Gold Butte The Gold Butte Ci Lies immediately south of the Virgin River, between the Overton Arm of Lake Mead and Lake Mead National Recreation Area on the vest and the Virgin Mountains on he east (Plate 8-4), Tortoise densities are estimated at 50 to 150/sq. mile in an area occupying 137 sq. atles (Table 8-2). Land uses are described below. Land Omership. With the exception of a 0.25 sq. mile parcel, the habitat is under the jurisdiction of the BLM (Table 8-11; Plate 8-4). The one private parcel has been developed for agriculture. All of the Gold Butte CH is grazed by cattle, horses, and sheep in three allotments (Table 8-12; Plate 8-16). Under the Clark County Grazing EIS, all three allotments were reclassified from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial use (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c). However, the Gold Butte and Billy Goat Peak allotments have had year-long usage by Livestock for several years, at least between 1975 and 1979, Sheep trail through these allotments enroute to the Toquop Sheep Allotment to the north (see Moapa CH and Plate 8-20). In 1979 the BIM conducted surveys to determine livestock forage condition ef the range. The findings were similar to the transects in the rest of Clark County, namely that the range is in poor condition. of the 49 transects made in and adjacent to the CH, only one was rated as in good and seven were rated as in fair condition, The remaining 41 vere in poor condition. ‘These three allotments have some livestock improvements (one spring S5TDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT | itera Plate 8-15 Arrow Canyon [it and Gas Lease key ote |development and two troughs). Livestock use is intensive at these sites. Tortoise habitat in the vicinity of such livestock waters has high potential for being degraded or has been degraded through years of range pressure, Tortoise densities are likely to be lower in the immediate vicinity of such improvements. Wild horses and burros are found in 48 sq. miles (35 per cent) of the CH, primarily in the Gold Butte allotment. Concentrated burro use is within 6 miles of the Lake. Use elsewhere by the herd of 498 animals is scattered. Fires. Two fires have been recorded immediately outside the CH. Both occurred between 1975 and 1979, Paved and Dirt Roads and Trail: - The New Gold Butte Road, which stretches from Interstate I-15 in the north to the Lake Mead Recreation Area in the south, bisects the CH (Plate 8-4). The 112 linear’ miles of dirt and paved roads are equivalent to 0.82 linear mile of road/sq. mile of habitat. Off-road vehicle traile and seismic lines also provide another 22 and 27 linear miles of access and disturbance respectively, bringing the total figure to 1,2 linear miles of road and trail/sq. mile of habitat (Plate 8-17). A small portion of CH Le closed to ORV use in the Virgin Mountains. Utibdttes, There are no utility lines or rights-of-way in the CH at this time, Exploration and Development for Oil and Gas, Hardrock Minerals, and Leaseable and Saleable Commodities, ALL or part of each section in the CH have been leased for oil and gas. Three areas with locatable minerals occupy about 3,5 sq. miles (Plate 8-18). Wilderness Study Areas and Natural Areas, ‘There are no Wilderness 54Study Areas or protected areas in this CH. Moapa The Moapa CH lies primarily north and adjacent to Interstate I-15. ‘The towns of Moapa, Arrowhead, Glendale, and Bunkerville are on the southern boundaries, along the interstate freeway. This CH is small, encompassing 119 sq, miles, and is estimated to contain tortoise populations ranging in density from 21 to 124/sq. mile (Table 8-2; Plate 8-5), The small size, degree of fragnentation, and proximity to settlements are of particular concern here, Land Ownership. The majority of the CH is administered by the BLM (Plate 8-19). Substantial land area (15.3 sq. miles) is in a water and power withdrawal in the western one-quarter of the CH.’ A few parcels of state land have been developed for agriculture (1.3 sq. miles) inside the CH along the Muddy River plain and Highway 7, Several sq, miles imnediately outside the CH are in agriculture. Livestock Grazing. Virtually all the CH lands are in five livestock allotments, two of which are not grazed at this time (Table 8-12; Plate 8-20), One allotment is grazed by cattle, a second by cattle and horses, and a third by sheep. The Upper Mornon Mesa allotwent, which is grazed by both cattle and horses, was proposed for reclassification from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial use by the Clark County Grazing EIS (U.S. . Avwithdrawal is an action which restricts disposal of public lands and holds them for specific public purposes, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission governs water and power withdrawals, which are withdrawn from the general land laws and mineral use. GLO“ CD eee een DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Nevada [crazing Allotments California Wash rae 6]Plate 8-17 Ott-road Vehicle Use California WashDept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982, 1982c). Thirteen transects were made in the CH in 1979 to determine condition and trend of forage for Livestock (Plate 8-20). Ten transects were rated as poor, two as fair, and one as in good condition. There is one livestock improvenent, a windmill. Fire. One fire, burning less than 100 acres, was recorded between 1975 and 1979 (Plate 8-20). jed_and Dirt Roads, Trails, and Railr Two major paved roads, Interstate I-15 and Highway 7, lie immediately outside CH boundaries. Fifty-six linear miles of dirt and paved roads, however, are present within the CH (Table 8-11; Plate 8-5), as well as 40 miles of ORV courses and trails (Plate 8-21). ‘Two lines of the Union Pacific railroad bisect the CH and run parallel to Meadow Valley wash. Seismic lines for oil and gas exploration contribute an additional 73 linear miles of disturbance (Plate $22). The total mileage (154) for roads, trails, and seismic line: is equivalent to 1,3 Linear miles/sq. mile of habitat. Utility Lines. Power and transmission lines extend for 41 mil paralleling the principal paved road: Exploration and Development of O11 and Gas, Hardrock Minerals, and Leaseable and Saleable Commodities. All or part of each section of habitat have been leased for ofl and gas exploration and development or have pending (Plate 8-22). Seven highvay material sites have disturbed an estimated 0.5 aq. mile, Two aq. ailes have potential for developnent of saleable or leaseable ainerals. Wilderness Study Areas and Natural Areas, No habitat is protected by Wildernes Study Area, Natural Area, or Closed Area designations, Glo}DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT levada key (OW and Gas Lester California WashPiute Valley ‘The Paiute Valley CH, which is an extension of the Fenner-Chemehuevi CH in California (Chapter 5), is found in extreme southern Nevada in Eldorado and Piute Valleys. This second largest Nevada CH, with 353 sq. miles, supports tortoise densities estimated froa 0 to 200/sq. mile (Table 8- Plate 8-6) and has more acreage of habitat with densities > 50 tortoises/ sq, mile than elsewhere in Nevada CH . Fragmentation of this CH by numerous land uses is discussed by topic below, Land ownership. Most land in this CH is under the jurisdiction of the BIM, Private holdings are centered near the town of Searchlight with its 620 residents, and along Highway 95. Fourteen sq. miles of land lie within Lake Mead Recreation Area under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. Several sq. miles have been withdrawn for recreation, water, and power purposes (Plate 8-23; see also discussion of withdrawals under Moapa CH). The approximately 6 sq. miles in the extreme northern edge of the CH are of particular interest. Under the Eldorado Valley Act (passed by Congress in 1958), the state, through the Colorado River Commission, was given the option to buy 127,000 acres of BLM-administered lands for Boulder City. The lands would become part of Boulder City and would be used to meet airport Fequtrenents and Federal Aviation Administration standards. Livestock Grazing and Feral Burros. Piute Valley has five grazing allotments for combinations of cattle, horses, and sheep (Table 8-12; Plate 8-24). Ninety-seven per cent of the habitat is grazed. Although hr of the five allotments vere reclassified from ephemeral to HOSephemeral-perennial usage with the Clark County Grazing EIS, they have received year-long usage since 1975 (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1982b, 1982c), ‘Transects made by BLM personnel in 1979 to determine range condition and trend for livestock forage revealed that most of the range was in poor condition (Plate 8-24), Out of 70 transects within and near CH boundaries, 68 were listed as poor and two as in fair condition, The severe impact of Livestock on key forage plants such as perennial gr: es (e.g., de: rt needle grass (Stipa speciosa], the gramma grasses (Bouteloua spp.], and fluff gra [Erioneuron pulchellua}) is readily apparent along fenced highways and road: are common or abundant and in In many areas gras: healthy condition along the highvay, outside the fenced grazed range, The perennial bunch grasses are difficult to find inside the fences, The reclassification of the range from ephemeral to ephemeral-perennial and continued year-long use arenot Iikely to permit recovery of the range. Piute Valley has more livestock improvements than the other CH's: 21 troughs, two spring developments, one windmill, and several niles of pipelines. Tortoise habitat near the water sources is likely to be in very poor condition, Tortoise populations are probably in lover densities in the vicinity of water sources than 0.2 to 0.4 mile avay, Burros are found on 21 sq. miles, in the vicinity of the Newberry Mountains. Paved and Dirt Roads and Trails. Piute Valley is bisected in a north-south direction by Highvay 95 and in an east-west direction by Route 68. There are 60 miles of paved roads (Table 8-11; Plate 8-6). This valley is also a major ORV recreation area, Dirt roads, ORV trail: FLand race courses account for a minimum of 335 Linear atles (Plate 8-25). The density of roads and trails averages 0.9 linear aile/sq. nile. There are no closed areas. Ueilietes. Plute Valley is a major corridor for utility Lines coming from Las Vegas, Boulder City, and the Colorado River area and elsevhere into California and Arizona, At least seven sets of transaission and gas Limes run in a general north-south direction (Plate 8-6) and another pipeline and transmission line are proposed (Plate 8-23). A large utility corridor also has been proposed. Exploration and Development for O11 and Gas, Hardrock Minerals, and Other Leaseable and Saleable Commodities. All or part of more than half the sections in Piute Valley had been leased for ofl and gas or had lease applications pending in 1982 (Plate 8-26). The figures may be considerably higher now, Five areas with past or current mining activities cover 27 sq. mile: Additional disturbances can be found at 12 highway material sit Wilderness Study Areas, Natural Areas, and Closed Areas. Three sq. miles (0,8 per cent) of habitat vere protected temporarily by the Ireteba Peaks Wilderness Study Area and roadie designation (Plate 8-25). That special designation has been lifted (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1983¢), and no protected areas exist within this CH, as of 1983. DISCUSSION Possible Changes in Tortoise Distribution and Abundance Since the Early 1900's Although ve have not undertaken a study on the distribution and FUTDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-19 in Nevada Moapa kK EB Y Other Land Use raceway on OWIDED HIGHWAY EES rawvare ano TO retic vomane OTHER LAND USE — ey STATE AGRICULTURAL LANOS TEE onany ancasDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-20 an Nevada kK EF Y Luvesrock. orazna ‘tnd Related Siete & fae ob Sane? & So Guano. , i. wedabundance of the desert tortoise in the early 1900's, we can speculate on the situation in Nevada based on work in California and Utah (Chapters 4 and 12), Tortoise populations may have been continuous over large areas of considerably higher densities at elevations below 3,500 to 4,000 ft in the valleys and bajadas of southern Nevada in Clark, Nye, and extreme southern Lincoln Counties. Development of Las Vegas Valley and establishment of major state and interstate highways started the fragmentation proce: Other land uses contributed to the gradual decline in habitat. Tortoise populations present today in Nevada are probably only remnants of much larger and more widespread populations in the recent past. Comments on Cumulative Impacts to and Long-term Viability of the C's Crucial habitate in Nevada are primarily on public lands administered by the BIM. Very little habitat (<4 per cent) is in private holdings ‘The land uses described for each CH reflect the BLM's mandate for multiple-use: over 90 per cent is grazed by domestic Livestock, over 80 per cent is leased for oil and gas, and most areas are highly accessible with an average of 0,83 linear mile of roads or trails/sq. mile of habitat. ‘The analysis of land uses in the six C's is admittedly superficial. Not all ongoing and past impacts were described-only those impacts for which data vere readily accessible. The following are some impacts which were omitted: locations of individual homes and developing residential } spectator viewing and camping areas for ORV events; many ORV route locations of BLM "temporary use permits" for some utility lines and such SODESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT an Nevada Moapa Plate 8-21 kK BE Y raver ano To rusue oman (OFF-ROAD VEHICLE USE.DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-22 in Nevada Moapa kK EB Y Oil and Gas Leases MINERAL EXPLORATION ‘ol Ano cas Leases. a ena ore [avon matt oF atea LEASED watenia Sale CHEERY ruicarion renoine LIZA, *sesmenerssoie ste LNs RR ern cna cesactivitie filming, aptaries, some material sites, some rights-of-way, and research projects, Many historic uses were not included either. Damage to tortoise populations and habitat can be sessed crudely for some activities such paved and well-used roads and highway material sites, Acreages of habitat lost to roads, railroads, residential and commercial development, and utility lines can be calculated. More difficult, however, is an as: jsment of such impacts as livestock grazing and the resulting poor range condition in southern Nevada, ofl and gas exploration and development, mining, and residential development. We have not made a quantitative, cumlative assessment of these impacts. We have summarized our opinions about the CH's below. In doing so, we have made two major assumptions: (1) illegal collecting and vandalism of tortoises increa with increasing human contact, and (2) the potential for collections and vandalism increa: as the number of linear miles of access roads and trails/sq. mile of habitat increases. Goodsprings. This CH is highly fragmented by major roads, powerline corridors, towns and residential developments, and ORV activities, and other land use Evidence from the two study plots at Arden and Sheep Mountain indicates that tortoises are not thriving in these areas. The high level ef access to habitat—-1.2 linear miles of road and trail/sq. mile (1.4 4f sefemic Lin are included)--is a matter of grave concern, as is the gradual development southvard of Las Veges and associated “rural” residential a The CH also 1i within major interstate transportation and utility corridors, which are likely to increase human activity and disturbance in the future. Arrow Canyon. The numerous strip-transects in this CH indicate that SRDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-23 in Nevada Piute Valley Other Land UseDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 8-24 in Nevada Piute Valley ‘Allotment EW var wo 3population densities are heterogeneous, Unfortunately, no data have been collected on population attributes and condition. Arrow Canyon has more “protected” tortoise habitat than any other CH, with the narrow strip of 34 99, miles of habitat within the Desert National Wildlife Range. Habitat fragmentation has occurred with construction of dirt and paved roads (0.5 Linear mile/sq. mile) and promises to continue with proposed utility Lines and corridor: Opportunities exist here for management of a substantial block of land for tortoises, if existing populations are viable. California Wash, The small size (69 sq. miles) and relatively low densities (51 to 124 tortoises/sq. mile), coupled with fragmentation of the habitat into three or more parcels, area matter of grave concern. The density of roads and ORV courses and trails (0.98 linear mile/sq. mile) is probably too high for long-term survival of tortoise populations in such a small land area. This CH may not be a viable unit. Gold Buti Gold Butte has higher tortoise densities than the other two small CH's (California Wash and Moapa), but nothing is known of population attributes, Although the CH is not fragmented by major roads, the 1.2 linear miles of minor roads and ORV trails present high potential for damage to tortoise populations and habitat. Moapay, The Moapa CH may not be a viable management unit for much the same reasons as California Wash, It is omall with relatively low tortoise densities, close in proximity to residential and agricultural developments, and has a high deneity of roads, trails, and seismic lines (1.3 Linear miles/sq. mile). Piute Valley. Piute Valley was considered as one of the better locations within the geographic range for protecting and managing viable atetortoise populations representative of the eastern Mojave Desert because of the apparent high densities, large area, and public ownership of habitat. In the spring of 1983, however, a census of the Piute Valley study plot and surrounding area indicated that a possible die-off of tortoises occurred during the last four years, Tortoise populations may be auch lower than projected on Plate 8-6. Piute Valley aleo has numerous human activities and a high degree of vehicle access (0,9 linear mile/sq. mile). Off-road vehicle use poses a grave threat to integrity of the habitat as does the gradual loss of land through new utility lines and residential growth. One tortoise was found shot on the study plot in 1979 (Karl 1979b), indicating that vandalism is probably an issue here too, Future Field Work and Data Analysis Detailed recommendations for future studies and research are offered in Chapter 14, We wish to call the reader's attention to a few pressing points here, however. First, time is of the essence in determining the status of populations in the Arrow Canyon, California Wash, Moapa, and Gold Butte CH's. Several new one sq. mile plots should be established and surveyed by experienced fieldvorkers for 60 or more days in the spring. Second, the Goodsprings and Piute Valley CH's should be examined more intensively to determine if the population status 1s indeed ae serious throughout as it appears on the three existing study plot's. Again, more study sites and intensive spring censuses are necessary. Third, an effort ‘should be made to protect the prime areas from further piecemeal degradation and human access. Populations and habitat may be at or near the threshold StPlate 8-25; in Nevada Piute Valley (Off-road Vehicle Use DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITATDESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT ate in Nevada Piute Valley koe y (OW and Gas Leases 14 Ps Gennes ) eam eenfor recovery. Without prompt action, key populations and habitat may be compromised. Boundaries of the CH's undoubtedly will have to be modified as more information becomes a {lable on population status. Some boundaries will shrink when habitat is discovered to be too damaged or fragmented for realistic management, Other CH boundaries may need expansion--for buffer zones, large tortoise foraging and home range areas, and incorporation of pathways to hibernation sites. SUMMARY Between 1977 and 1982, several studies were undertaken to determine distribution, relative densities, and population attributes of desert tortoises in Nevada. Distribution and relative densities were assessed using data from 871 strip-transects. Several tortot populations were identified and six areas were defined as “crucial habitate" (CH’s) on the basis of density (>45 tortoises/sq. aile) and geographical extent. The crucial habitats are confined to southern Nevada, primarily in Clark County, and are called Goodsprings, Arrow Canyon, California Wash, Moapa, Gold Butes and Piute Valley. Within the crucial habitats, there are an estimated 859 aq. miles of habitat whieh historically have had or have now the potential for supporting densities of > 45 to 50 tortoises/sq. mile. Only an timated 14 sq. miles extst which may support "high" densities of > 140 to 150 tortoises/ sq. mile. These figures are presented without taking into account the habitat which has been lost to numerous human impacts or habitat and populations that have deteriorated because of recent or ongoing human S40activities. The actual number of sq. miles with the above cited densities is probably considerably lower. Population attributes were examined at four study sites: (1) Last Chance in Pahrump Valley; (2) Sheep Mountain in northern Ivanpah Valley; G) Arden, immediately southwest of Las Vegas; and (4) in Piute Valley. The results varied considerably from site to site. At the Last Chance plot, which may be representative of the situation for Nye County, tortoise densities vere obviously very low. Only 10 live tortoises and 53 carcasses were found in a 1.5 sq. mile area during a 30-day spring survey, too few live animals for an analysis of population attributes. The Arden site had densities estimated at 108 to 132 tortoises/eq. mile in 1974-75, but numbers are thought to be considerably lower in 1982 due to residential development. The Sheep Mountain plot appears to have low densities and a population dominated by large, old adults. The fourth site in Piute Valley had densities and population attributes in 1979 which were more typical of those found in California, Densities were estimated at 130 tortoises/sq. mile and the size-age cli structure was composed of 39.2 and 69.8 per cent of adults and nonadulte, respectively. A spring census in 1983 indicated that densities may have dropped considerably since 1979, and mortalities also may have been exceptionally high during the sane tine period. None of the four study sit has a thriving population. With the exception of collections and vandalism, impacts to the CH’s were identified, quantified, and described. They include: residential and agricultural development; livestock grazing; fires; paved and dirt road ORV use exploration and development for ofl and gas, hardrock minerals, and leaseable and saleable commoditie: Beneficial Land j and utdlitd $lmanagenent actions also were examined (¢.g., lands in Wilderness Study Areas, Natural Areas, and areas closed to vehicles). Cumulative impacts for each habitat were not determined except qualitatively. ‘Two CH's, California Wash and Moapa, are probably not viable in a long-term sense, because of small size, relatively low tortoise densities, and degree of fragmentation. The Goodsprings CH does not have a thriving tortoise population and also may be reaching a.point where fragnentation and impacts from urban and residential development and vehicle use render protection of viable tortoise populations impossible. Both the Gold Butte and Piute Valley CH's have a high degree of vehicular access, with 1.2 and 0.9 linear miles of roads and trails/sq. mile of habitat, r spectively. ‘The Piute Valley population may be in a serious downward trend. Without a change in land use practices and management in these two CH’s, tortoise habitat will continue to decline in quality and tortoise populations can be expected to decrease in density and ultimately in viability. Threshold levels for recovery may be exceeded. ‘The Arrow Canyon CH, which appears to be highly variable in tortoise density, has some protected habitat in one Wilderness Study Area and the Desert National Wildlife Range. It is the least disturbed of the CH’s at this time, although several land uj actions with potential for damaging habitat and populations have been proposed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to personnel in the Las Vegas District Office of the Bureau of Land Management for providing access to the many document: maps, and overlays, and for comments on the draft manuscript, Paul Schumann $2spent many days calculating acreages and mileages of land uses. Robert J. Turner assisted by plotting locations of strip-transects. Lori Nicholson prepared the density mapa for each crucial habitat and checked accuracy of nap boundaries and acreages, Frederick B. Turner performed the statistical analysis. George Teukanoto, Gary Herron, Robert J. Turner, Janes St. Anant, Dave Stevens, and Frederick B. Turner commented on the manuscript. $43REFERENCES CITED Burge, B. L. 1977a. Movements and behavior of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi). M.S, Thesis. University of Nevada, Las Vega: Burge, B. L. 1977b, Daily and seasonal behavior, and areas utilized by the desert tortoise Gopherus agassizi in southern Nevada. Pages 59-94 in M, Trotter and C. G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.). Proc. 1977 Symposiua of The Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Burge, B. L. 1978. Physical characteristics and patterns of utilization of ‘cover sites used by Gopherus agassizi in southern Nevada. Page: 80-111 in M. Trotter and C. G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.). Proc. 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Burge, B. L. 1982, A brief survey of some direct impacts on the di resulting from the "Frontier 500" off-road vehicle race along twelve niles of course lying within crucial desert tortoise habitat. Proc. 1982 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Burge, B. L., and W. G, Bradley. 1976. Population density, structure, and feeding habitats of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) on a low desert study area in southern Nevada. Pages 51-74 in N. J. Engberg, S. Allan, and R. L. Young, eds. Proc. 1976 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Covles, R. B., and C. M. Bogert. 1936. The herpetology of the Boulder Dan region (Nev., Ariz., Utah). Herpetologica 1(2):33-42. Ernst, C, H., and R. W, Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. University Presa of Kentucky, Lexington. Garcia, J., K. H. Berry, and P. B. Schneider. 1982. Distribution and relative abundance of desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) in Coyote Springs Valley, Nevada. In K. A. Hashagen (ed.), Proc. 1982 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Grant, C. 1936. The southwestern desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizit, Zoologica 21:225-229. Herron, G. Bs, and P. A. Lucas. 1978. Population surveys, species distribation, and key habitats of selected nongame species, Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game, Job Performance Rept. Proj. W-53-R, Study I, Jobs 1 and 2. Herron, G. B., and P. A. Lucas. 1979. Population surveys species distribution, and key habitate of selected nongame species. Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game, Job Performance Rept. Proj., W-53-R, Study I, Jobs 1 and 2, Muff, R., Maj. 1981, The MK Missile Project. Pages 16-22 in K. A. Hashagen and E. St. Amant (eds.). Proc. 1981 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. S34Karl, A. 1979a, An ecological study of a population of desert tortoises, Gopherus agassizi, in Clark County, Nevada. Rept. to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, Contr, No. YA~512-CT9-90.. Karl, A. 1979. An ecological study of a population of desert tortoise: Gopherus agassizi, in southern Nevada. Rept. to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. Contr. No, YA-512-CT9-90. Karl, A. 1980a', Density and distribution of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizi, in Clark County, Nevada. Draft Rept. to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. Contr. No. ¥A-512-C79-90. Karl, A. 1980. Distribution and relative densities of the desert tortoise in Nevada. Pages 75-87 in K. A. Hashagen (ed.). Proc. 1980 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Karl, A. 1980c. The ecology of @ population of desert tortoises, Gopherus ‘agassizi, near Pahrump, Nevada. Rept. to U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. Contr. No. YA~512-CT9-90, Karl, A. 1981. The distribution and relative densities of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizi, in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. Pages 76-92 in K. A. Hashagen and E, St. Amant (eds.). Proc. 1981 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Lue: » P, 1978. State Report - Nevada. Pages 46-47 in M. Trotter and . G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.). Proc, 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Lue: P, 1979, State Report - Nevada. Pages 95-96 in E. St. Amant (ed.), Proc. 1979 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, calif. Lucas, P. A., and R, J. Oakleaf, 1977. Population surveys, species distribution, and key habitats of selected nongame species. Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game. Job Performance Rept., Proj. W-53-R, Study I, Jobs 1 and 2. Medica, P. A., R. B. Bury, and F. 8. Turner. 1975. Growth of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) in Nevada. Copeia 1975(4):639-643. Patterson, R. 1982, The distribution of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizit). Pages 51-55 in R. B. Bury (ed.), North American tortoises: conservation and ecology. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Res. Rept. 12. 1, This draft report was finalized in the summer of 1983. We have not evaluated the final report for this chapter. £85Schneider, P. B., and R. J. Turner. a9a2t, a survey of desert tortoise on selected areas in southern Nevada. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Contr, No, 15-16-001-81138. Stebbins, R. C, 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co,, Boston, Turner, R. J. 1980, State Report - Nevada. Pages 88-90 in K. A. Hashagen (ed.), Proc, 1980 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, calif. Turner, R. J. 1981. State Report - Nevada. Pages 74-75 in K. A. Hashagen and'E, St, Amant (eds.), Proc. 1981 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. U.S. Dept. of Defense, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980, Draft environmental impact statenent on deployment area section and land withdrawal/acquisition. Dept. of the Air Force, Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Oi1 and gas leasing in the Red Rock Recreation Lands. Final Environmental Assessment NV-050-9-30. U.S, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Unit resource analysis for the Stateline planning unit, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1982a, Unit resource analysis for the Virgin Valley planning unit, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1982b, Draft environmental impact statement: Proposed domestic livestock grazing management program for Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1982c. Final environmental impact statement, proposed domestic livestock grazing management program for Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev- U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 19824. Clark County unit resource analysis for recreation. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. 1, This report was erroneously dated as 1980, GBleU.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1983a. 1982 Plan amendments to the California Desert Plan and the eastern San Diego County MFP. Record of Decision. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District, Riverside, Calif. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1983b. Addendum to final programmatic environmental analysis record for Jean ORV use area (QN-050-7-1) for the Barstow to Las Vegas motorcycle race. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1983c. Draft environmental impact statement: preliminary wilderness reconmendations for Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District Office, Las Vegas, Nev. Vale, T. R. 1975, Report by Bureau of Land Management on range conditions and grazing in Nevada. Biol. Conserv. 8:257-260. Voigt, W., Jr. 1976, Public grazing lands: Us and industry. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Jersey. and misuse by government RST9-3484054492,8-93Chapter 9 NEVADA STATE REGULATIONS FOR WILD AND CAPTIVE DESERT TORTOISES James A. St, Anant? The desert tortoise is protected legally in Nevada by a Nevada Fish and Game Commission regulation and six State las. The desert tortoise is State Listed as rare and protected under the State Fish and Gane Commission General Regulation No. 1 which allows the State to classify a native species as rare or endangered. Commission General Regulation 1, Glassifies the desert tortoise as a tare reptile under protected reptiles. Under this regulation, a rare species is defined as a species which, although not presently threatened with extinction, is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. State statutes that pertain to the protection of the State's desert tortoise populations are:”/ Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 503.080. The following reptiles are classified as protected and rare: A. Gila monster, Heloderna suspectum, and B. Desert tortoise, Copherus agassizt, outside the urban areas of Clark County. ALL reptiles other than those listed in subsection 1 are classified as unprotected. Statute NRS 503.080 was passed to allow the legal possession 1, De rt Tortoise Council, 5319 Cerritos Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90805. 2, State of Nevada Fish, Gane, and Watercraft Las as amended 1979, 1981 ‘and 1983, Compiled and issued by Nevada Department of Wildlife, Main Office, 1100 Valley Road, Reno, NV (Mail: P.0. Box 10678, Reno, NV 89520). a-tof urban (captive) tortoises in Clark County. This County has the three najor cities (Las Vegas, Henderson and Boulder) where ost of the captive tortoises now exist. (RS 501.065. Open season. There shall be no open season on those species of wildlife classified as protected. NRS 501.379. Unlawful sale of wildlige or importation of game animals, or game amphibians. It is unlawful for any person to sell, or expose for sale, to barter, trade or purchase, or attempt to sell, barter, trade or purchase, any species of wildlife or parts thereof, except as provided in this title or in a regulation of the commission, The importation and sale of game animals, game birds or game amphibians or parts thereof is not prohibited if the importation is from a licensed commercial breeder or processor outside of the State. NRS 503.030, Possession of wildlife after end of open season. It is unlawful for any person to have in his control any wildlife or any part thereof, the killing of which is at any time prohibited, and the po: jession of such wildlife shall be prima facie evidence that it ws the property of the State at the time it was caught... NRS 503.597, Introduction into, removal from State of wildlife. It is unlawful, except by written consent and approval of the department, for any person to receive...or renove...from one portion of the State to any other, or to any other State, any aquatic Life, wildlife, spava, eggs or young or any of then. NRS_503.600. Hunting and trapping of the desert tortoise is unlavful. NRS 503.584. This regulation states the people of Nevada have an obligation to conserve and protect various species of native fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction. In April 1980 the Nevada Department of Wildlife initiated a program for aacaptive tortoises turned in to the Department. The program, considered temporary until a permanent program to allow people to keep captive tortoises could be established, consisted of releasing these animals on various Las Vegas golf courses. As of March 1981, 80 tortoises had been released on two golf courses (Turner 1981), No additional tortoises have been released since 1981. ‘The passage of statute 503.080, which provides for legal possession of captive tortoises, means people who no longer want their tortoises can now legally given thea to another party. THE STATE'S ABILITY TO PROTECT TORTOISE POPULATIONS AND HABITAT The State of Nevada has adequate regulations to legally protect the desert tortoise, However, these regulations concern the animal and not its habitat. As with any regulations, a vigilent, effective enforcenent progran is also required. Also, the public must be avare of the laws. My observations and contacts with the public in California, Arizona and Nevada have shown that the majority of the public is still unavare of regulations regarding desert tortoises. REFERENCES. Turner, B, 1981. State Report-Nevada, Page 75, in K.A. Hashagen, and E. St. Amant (eds.), Proc. Desert Tortoise Council Symposium for 1981, Riverside, California.Chapter 10 ‘THE DESERT TORTOISE IN ARIZONA Kristin H. Berry The desert tortoise occupies two different types of desert in Arizona, the Mojave Desert in the northwestern and western portions of the state, and the Sonoran Desert in the western and southwestern parts (Brown and Lowe 1980). Until the late 1970's, little was known about the distribution, densities, and condition of tortoise populations in these areas, Stebbins (1966) and Ernst and Barbour (1972) shoved the distribution as covering about one third of the state, primarily in the vest and southwest. Patterson (1982) and Taubert (1982) have prepared similar maps. Such digtribution saps are based on numerous sight observations and collection localities and do not reflect relative abundance within the state. Since 1975, two studies of the distribution and relative abundance of tortoises have been completed by Burge (1979, 1980) and Walchuk and deVos (1982). Population attributes have been examined at nine sites by Hohman and Ohmart (1980), Sheppard (1980, 1981), Schwartzman (unpublished manuscript), and Schneider (1981). A population study is also underway at 2 tenth site (Vaughn 1982, 1983). The information from these studies, an analysis of impacts to populations, and a discussion of the potential status of the tortoise 1s presented in tvo parts: (1) populations north of the Grand Canyon in the Mojave Desert, and (2) populations south of the Grand Canyon in both the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. 1O-tPART I, DESERT TORTOISE POPULATIONS NORTH OF THE GRAND CANYON Tortoise populations north of the Grand Canyon appear to be confined to two areas in the northwestern corner of the state: the slopes of the Beaver Dan and Virgin Mountains, and the Pakoon Basin (Plate 10-1). Both areas are in creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) scrub and Joshua tree (Yucca ociations! and are typical of the Mojave brevifolia) woodland vegetation Desert. Studies on two permanent one-sq. mile study plots (Hohman and Ohmart 1980; Sheppard 1980, 1981) and data from 423 miles of transects are discussed below and are followed by a description of human activities in the region. Distribution and Relative Densities of Tortoises Hohman (ohman and Ohnart 1980) surveyed the Beaver Dam Slope in fall 1976 and winter and spring 1977, using 2 transect technique and recording tortoise sign. Sixty-six tvo-m{le-Long transects were made in order to locate sites for permanent study plots. All vashes vere traversed. Two study plots were selected in late spring 1977 because "they had the highest densities of tortoise sign and possibly the highest densities of live tortoises on the entire Arizona Slope." These study sites becane the two permanent study plots on the Beaver Dam Slope in Arizona (Sites 44 and 45). Burge (1979) undertook a study of distribution and relative abundance of desert tortoises in both the Mojave and Sonoran deserts, using a strip- 1, Data on the locations of these vegetation associations are taken from a map prepared by Brown and Love (1980). Elsewhere in the text, the terms on vegetation generally were taken from the cited reports and papers. vodtransect method. She walked three-aile-long transects at 12 sites in north western Arizona in 1978 (Fig. 10-1). Four additional three-mile-long transects were made at each of the tvo permanent study plots established by Mobman in 1977 (Hohman and Ohnart 1980). Sign counts from these transects were used to establish a density index for the 12 sites. Burge (1979) recorded tortoise sign at 10 of the 12 sites at elevations jote bush scrub and Joshua ranging from 2,000 to 3,800 ft, primarily in ere tree woodland associations. No transects vere made on slopes. Burge (1979) suggested that densities range from 0 to 100 tortoises/sq. mile. Density at nine of the 12 sites was determined to be < 50 tortoises/sq. mile and for one site at 75 to 100 tortoises/sq. mile. Sheppard (personal communication) made 24 strip-transects in the Pakoon Basin and an additional 133 transects on the Beaver Dan Slope and Virgin Mountains area. The transects were identical to those described by Berry and Nicholson (1979, Chapter 2), were 1.5 miles in length, and were conducted between 1979 and 1982, Sheppard used the transect data of Hohman (unpublished notes) and Burge (1979), as well as his own, to prepare maps of desert tortoise distribution north of the Grand Canyon (Plate 10-1). He found only four areas, each about one~ to three-eq. miles, with tortoise sign densities equivalent to the Hohman permanent study plot termed "the control" (see below). Using the transect data, Sheppard identified two large areas as “erucial habitat" (see Chapter 6 for definition) for desert tortoises: (1) the slopes of the Beaver Dan and Virgin Mountains and (2) the Pakoon Basin. ‘These areas cover approximately 145 and 260 sq. miles, respectively, and include intrusions such as towns and roads (Plate 10-1), The Beaver Dam and 10-3y ARIZONA PHOENIX arucson scave ooen @ 0 190 — wines Fig. 10-1. Location of strip-transects made by Burge (1979) in northwestern Arizona. todVirgin Mountain slopes crucial habitat 1s adjacent to Critical Habitat for the desert tortoise in Utah (Dodd 1980). Tortoise distribution 1s primarily confined to creosote bush scrub and Joshua tree woodland associations at elevations ranging from 2,200 to 3,500 ££, Some tortoise sign is present in nixed black brush (Coleogyne ranosissina) and Joshua tree associations en che northwest part of the Beaver Dam Slope and the northern and northwest parte of the Pakoon Basin. Population Characteristics at the Two Permanent Study Plots Hohnan and Ohmart (1980) established two one-sq. mile plots on the Beaver Dam Slope of Arizona in 1977 (Plate 10-1). Hohwan collected data on tortoises in 1977 and 1978, and Sheppard (1980, 1981) vorked there from 1979 to 1981. The two study plots are Sites 44 and 45; animals captured on the periphery are referred to Site 46 (see Appendix 1 for descriptions of sites and Appendix 2 for a description and discussion of methodology). The data for all tortoises registered at these three sites between 1977 and 1980 vere pooled, and the size-age class distributions are shown in Table 10-1. Note that only 24 adult and subadult females vere found in an area covering more than two sq. miles. A histogram of the sizes is displayed in Figure 10-2. The sex ratio for the pooled population {s shown in Table 10-2. The Z value was not statistically significant between males and females. Hohman and Ohmart (1980) provided estimates for densities at Sites 44 and 45, based on data collected only between 1977 and 1978 (a = 73 marked tortoises). The data for the evo study plots were pooled. Density estimates were 45 tortoises/sq. mile (confidence limits: 26 to 90/sq. mile) using the Petersen Estimator, and 49/sq. mile (confidence limits: 29 to 83/sq. mile). Hohman and Ohmart (1980) point out: eoTable 19-1, Size class distributions of tortoises registered on the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona (Sites 44-46, combined) for 1977 through 1980. Percent of Size classes Undetermined Male Female ‘Totals _ overall total Juvenile 1 3 3 23 Juvenile 2 16 16 12.3 Immature 1 19 19 16.6 Immature 2 20 20 15.4 Subadult aa e a 16.1 Adult 1 wv 10 7 20.8 Adult 2 a 5 2% 18.5 58 48 24 130 a. Includes 6 individuals of unspecified sex. b. Includes 5 individuals of unspecified sex.Maximum Carapace Leng (oe) Adu, ced Unaeeed Ws ee us «354 sas - 344 22s 304 ais 324 295-304 255-264 21s -224 tes 174 as +184 35-144 was tos -114 95-108 as. 94 7s ss. oe seu Fig. 10-2. Sites 44, 45, and 46. Beaver Dam Slopes, Arizona. Live tortoises captured during yearlong studies between 1977 and 1980. § | i.e. co cL ( Histogram of live tortoises captured and marked at the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona study plote during year-long studies fron 1977 to. 1980 (Hohman and Ohmart 1980; Sheppard, pers. commun.) 10-7aver sureaunon we 6 1 @ 9 9 eee onset user 1 al or at vis o z 08g6r ddryg 213371 sear0- a ‘ a 8 o Tost rm owery y09°T > or € 6 1 1 Let sadors weg 301008 perme, sor oremeg sere seyemez sat 7 ere205 eroy eatnpeans —eaeag or seuozysy Uy soaps ano} 6 yafuaT UT uuAggy Z sasyo2z0a x9sep.Buoue sorzer x96 paarosqo “2-01 PTaeL lo-Bsesthe...etudy eites...are believed to have the highest tor~ toise densities on the Beaver Dam Slope in Arizona. Therefore, estimated tortoise densities for the entire Arizona Slope vould be much lover than estimates for the two study sites. ‘They also noted that 20 tortoises were marked at the exclosure site (Site 45) compared with 53 at che control (Site 44) in 1977 and 1978. The pooled data for the histogram (Fig. 10-2) indicate that reproduc~ tion is occurring and that sone small tortots 1s are being recruited into the juventle and immature classes in the population. Hchnan and Ohnart (1980) and Sheppard (1981) reported evidence of reproductive activities in 1977, 1978, and 1981, In 1977 a single egg shell and a hatchling tortoise vere found on the periphery of one plot (Hohnan and Oheart 1980). Tn 1978 one unsuccessful mating, one instance of courtship, and two courtship rings were observed, Another hatchling was found also. In 1981, three groups of egg shell fragnents were found at the entrance to tortoise burrows (Sheppard 1981). Hohman and Ohmart (1960) found 112 carcasses, of which 100 were on the two study plots. Twenty-two of the 112 were estimated to have died within the year. Hohnan attempted to reanalyze the mortality data using carcass decouposition data provided in Appendix 6, but did not have sufficient information on individual carcasses. Analysis of Impacts to Populations and Habitats Impacts solely to populations occur through collections and vandalism. collecting has in the past and continues to be permitted under Arizona stai reptile regulations (see Chapter 11), Impacts to both tortoise habitat and populations come with urbanization, agricultural development, fires,Livestock grazing, mineral and other energy developments, construction and use of transportation and utility routes and corridors, and recreation use. The two crucial habitats north of the Grand Canyon, the Beaver Dam and Virgin Mountain slopes (SDV) and Pakoon Basin (PB), cover 145 and 260 sq. niles, respectively (Plate 10-1), Sone land uses, land commitments, and human activities with potential for damaging tortoise populations and habitat in these two areas are shown in Tables 10-3, 10-4, and 10-5, and in Plates 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4, This information was obtained primarily from planning and environmental documents in the Arizona Strip District Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Tt is not couprehensive or all inclusive, The two crucial habitats are discussed separately belov. Beaver Dan and Virgin Mountains Crucial Habitats. Tortoise populations in the BDVM crucial habitat are naturally divided into two segments by the Virgin River, which flows year-round. Some genetic exchange may be occurr- ing between the two areas as a result of collections, transport, and releases by private citizens. Populations in the BDVM crucial habitat also are fraguented by numerous human activities. State and private lands, which compose about 14 per cent of the total crucial habitat, are scattered throughout the area (Plate 10-1, Table 10-3). Concentrations of state and private lands occur along Beaver Dam Wash, in and adjacent to the tows of Littlefield and Beaver Dam, and in the extrene southwestern comer of the crucial habitat. An estimated 8.6 sq. miles have been lost to agricultural and urban development. In the southwest corner of the crucial habitat, another tvo privately-owned parcels have been staked for subdividing and are slated for development (Plate 10-2). to-10DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT Plate 10-1 KoeE Y Beaver Dam/Virgin — rater on om re [TET "Mountain slopes ‘Sere Sama aoe 5 enact sn ate nate som Oo Re etree osc Xx Heap agper on enmeaien (ov re cecarn ans note TODESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL H. in Northern Arizona Other Land Use Plate 10-2 KoeEY Beaver Dam/Virgin ‘Mountain Sloper mse coma FS reve on at ot cererent a | J Rg reonton sea OeV/Viegin ‘Mountain Slopes DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT {in Northern Arizona [Wilderness Study Areas Plate 10-3 er CIA, sine 1 ws os+> peaver Dam/Virgin | Mountain Slopes DESERT TORTOISE CRUCIAL HABITAT in Northern Arizona [Grazing Allotments] Plate 10-4 en “| Sa, Totvanqea syua 203 porseaaqns you Kem-so-saysy2 Komyssy pue sxopyzx09 IFTFIN “T oor “09 L6se sor e201 1 v0 on z 26 sra eveatad ¢ srst ’ sit 2363s 16 ose sez. sat qexep3 NaLLva aTHsHANNO aNvT PUPTPOOR 9033 wRYEor ueTpoon 9933 enusor voyae3089n, ‘qnaze ysnq 92080039 *qnaos ysnq 208022) Maxx IVZTEVH HF S-7 [-n0N ‘oa7nbem Mi Tm og. *xoadde !Qioua uruaTa) 71498 “9a ;nbEm weg x9avog *PT9TI9TII7 i909 Lest sot (18) vw WuoL ‘sedors wyeaunon vyseg uooyeg uy8aTA ~ wed TeR—G awn woud ere Gr 30% ther swokueg puezg ayi Jo yaa0u szeayqry as7o3303 TeINID qaasep 30 LOFIdTIISeq “¢-OL ETHEL lolsc0°0/t"Tt ° 80°0/61°1T posodora a °0/9ST €2"G/gs"8s 99°0/ 5°56 (s90ua3 sopntouz) aau20 20°0/1"0T 6 10°0/51"0t #05 ~fuyaepeg (au 778/78 'y8) :AvHAg0 ~sundTe 9 SaNTT ALTTIIN <0 0 0 ‘8983n09 ANO 10°0/2"L2 ° z'0/2"2 pened os-o/t-€oz srro/e-ert as-o/"48 ap (oud 258/38 78) STR. 9 Savou zi or ‘eaFqey ox3nq 9 98304 PTA serartees 19 errr cz Se HPeS oF sausadoyanep 2220H (pozeas ease 2) 2 06 6 OOLSBATT ONTZV¥D oe ° 2st aaearaa +t'9 vt iss aanaqnorsay ° ° 0 suoyaeazenox UeyPUT Gm ‘}STVMVECHLIA GNVT 4976 ° +96 NOTLVZINVEHN 01. $507 soy 092 sot (3) VR TWiOL woud wr sodots upeaunoy Jox e101 upseq uooyed uyBazA ~ weg aeacog HY LVZTAVH suokueg puerg 243 Jo y2x0U (HoLG) 2eIFqeY TeTONID asfoII02 a3esap UF sasM PUET —*y-—OT ATABL lorezr6eT 21°21 v6 (38) Hone nr (s)vauv Adnus sSamugotts SN aWO OL G3S019 gear 0 s9208 of 039 Of 3(SL6T e2uys Houd 389u/ur) Saud +339 oTqeseot/atqvoTes sqerzeara KemySyy, (2482 +00) sea7s stexouza yoozpze4 ‘ONINIR vou Supads 204 ou0 ° ‘winiai039 ° 0 wz ez Sus TTT3P (IO sesvor poardx Jenoaueatmays GA9) Burpu rT im) poseot v9 aKV ‘110 wiog ‘ayuo4 Sado1s NIVINAOR 40% ‘wio NISVa OOS —-NIDWIA - WV waAva HVS LWETaVE, suokueg puery 942 jo Ya40u (HUG) aeaygey TeFINAD esyorz03 2398p UT saen puey “panufaucy »-OT oTaeL lorrT10. ue 12. Table 10-4 Footnotes Conservative estimate. Irrigated Agriculture is mostly along Beaver Dam Wash and Virgin River Valley and adjacent benches. Private lands and urban are Includes 10 winduills, 4 troughs, 2 corrals, and 4 reservoirs. Includes 4 windmilis, 6 troughs, 6 corrals, and 11 reservoirs. No organized ORV activity. R, McCullough transmission line. Telephone line (18 mi); livestock fencing (approx. 66 mi); water pipelines for livestock (11.5 mi) Water pipeline for livestock (14.5 mi); livestock fencing (approx. 44 mi). Allen 345 kV tranem{ssion line and coal slurry line for Allen-Warner Valley Energy System. Several sites on/near I-15 corridor. WSA 1-5 (3.6 wi”); WSA,1-135 5.3 mi”); WSA 1-130 (0.5 mi”); Paiute Primative Area (0-5 ai7). WSA 1-112 (30 gi”); WSA 1-109 (33.2 gi”); WSA 1-105 (16.3 mi”); WSA 1-114 (39.5 mi%)3 WSA 1-107 (12.5'mi“). JOrsA large parcel of approximately 2,000 acres of public lands adjacent to the towns of Littlefield and Beaver Dam will be lost in the near future. ‘The BLM ig planning to exchange this tortoise habitat to a private party to obtain bighorn sheep habitat near Kingman (Plate 10-2). The lands contain low density tortoise populations of 5 to 50 tortoises/sq. mile. The owner-to-be anticipates developing a small retirement community and an airport with the property (Sheppard, personal communication). The crucial habitat is fraguented into three parts by 27 miles of major paved roads, Interstate 1-15 and Highway 91. Dirt roads account for another 84 miles, bringing the density of roads to 0.77 linear ailes/sq. mile. Existing rights-of-way for transmission, telephone, and gas lines and fences account for another 105.6 Linear miles of intrusions. Traffic on roads has resulted in losses to tortoise populations in the past and continues. Sheppard (personal communication) reports that a truck driver observed dozens of tortoises killed by vehicles on Highvay 91, Both Sheppard (personal communication) and Hohman (personal communication) have observed tortoises killed by vehicles on highways. In addition, they found three road kills on dirt roads in the permanent study plots in 1977, 1978, and 1981. The BLM (U.S, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980a) has identified two Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's), 1-5 and 1-135, on the extrene northwestern corner of the crucial habitat (Table 10-4, Plate 10-3). Also present but not shown on Plate 10-3 is a small portion (0.5 sq. miles) of WSA 1-130 and a piece of the Pauite Primitive Area of the same size. ‘The BVDM crucial habitat has been grazed by livestock since 1849 (Hohman and Ohmart 1978). The Old Mormon Trail, which was used to trail Livestock, is in this area. Virtually all of the crucial habitat is in seven grazing allotments, which have been utilized either yearlong or during voywinter and spring months (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Managenent 1979). See Table 10-5 and Plate 10-4 for a sumary of grazing allotment Gata and locations of grazing allotments and improvements. At least 18 water developments occur in the crucial habitat. Habitat in the inmediate vicinity of water developments is usually in very poor condition because of intensive use by livestock. In the Shivwits Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a document which covers grazing allotments in the BDVM crucial habitats, the BL recognized ‘that most of the tortoise habitat is in poor condition for "Livestock forage" (see Table 2-15, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1979). In the Final Draft of the Shivwits EIS, desert tortoise habitat is shown as improving for 133,530) acres and declining for 66,290 acres! under the proposed action (U.S. Dept, of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980b). At the same time, the two vegetation associations occupied by tortoises——"ereosotebush" and "desert shrub" are expected to “change Little from current conditions." For creosotebush, ..."Range condition screage would not change under the proposed action or any of the alternatives." The prognosis was slightly better for the desert shrub subtype. Overall, the outlook for desert tortoise habitat under livestock grazing aanagenent does not appear to be prosperous (see also coments from the Desert Tortoise Council and Natural Resources Defense Council in the Final Draft of the Shivwite EIS (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1980b). Land uses associated with the permanent study plots, Sites 44 and 45, are shown in Table 10-6, In addition to livestock grazing (only recently 1, These figures include the Pakoon Basin crucial habitat as well. to-20suoraeaoz-atos aanaeed. cwosaeertran ey 0 poonpoy “(uoraezy1yan poonpea 2e Suy2¥38 Sv0T-s804 30) saysuesuy S01 02 peaysus aq TTTM vs2ea6 ayaeiones uy panotre sen tesseaida *¢ Suy2028 uoyrer03 pasz030q ‘soyaepunog HUG UINRIA aaed ay asnf tou “uemnOTTe expos 20y 228 5,14 e x pannotreen ™ eareuszoy ggg ssr't 9 er ec Keuekqeom 092 T8201 a9u'y cay 5 8 wer stupid suey pu pm ott 196, 26 a9 m ‘wore Ts6'2 90" a we cor yet att get" a Y " Bupads wooed 5 @ peraorreun oct saat z st u wpeaunoy STOWTON pT FTEIOn sere ez 1 er om ‘uote 9To43 TOR wa ert oot ’ , 224 PISHIOTIATT £09 oz ot a 7 THM wou 968, 208, oot 95 9s dots sed 20000 onstz 99st au st 38 Kayunmog s2rnbao z10't Tos'e ow sir ort ‘Axqunamog pIevseT2271 -ueg 1988og uv) sumer Youd aeomor10 “ peveerieg yeseezg Tok Up gta anys exon ‘aurze39, 0H ‘wosueg puesg aya Jo ae2}qey [eFoMID aeyo3101 a30E9p uF AUTzEAH OrseATT “5-01 ATA to-2\\o-22 eurt pasodosd sxoupu &q_ peor 330 Buyatap auos ayers adetd 02 soars 001 Ktaavupxordde 0 Supaap ‘uopzeusy sop aToTyaA paaeTorA soyazed om 0961 UF 61 8F Suyouey yarn pores =TOTT2 ‘6yg1 2uTs Bupzex8 yo03saaTT mou Buyz038 e1a2e0 t6ygt eouTs Supzea3 32038947T souyy wopssqu =suer1 yBnoTTAIIR Ua TA poretoosse peoy “spvoa paavu ““81sep 02 pearurt Sy T9Ae23 tepeor aarp yo sory ¢*T peor pazeu 8399p 03 poITETT Sy TeApsa tspeor 335 0 soTTU S*z (amsozaxa) 1 evezy3y ‘adots wea 2908=g Sy (to2au02) 1 euozTay ‘odors weq z9Aon oy 29430 surerk Supzea9 s9sn pury speoy paru 0275 ‘ou ats ‘odors weq zeavag ay uo * seuozT3y ‘Gy pure yy sorTs ‘s10Td Kpnas quoweured oma ae sasN PUT “9-OT >TEPLexcluded at the exclosure, Site 45), there are roads, sone off-road travel by miners, and, in the case of the exclosure, transmission Lines. A retirement conmunity and airport have been proposed for a location within 1.0 to 1.5 miles of the control plot, Site 44, as part of the BLM land exchange mentioned above. The increased hunan population that will result from such development has high potential for reducing the tortoise popula~ tfon in that area through collecting, vandalism, and occasional kills by dogs, as well as through increased craffic on dirt roads. Habitat will be lost by human encroachment. Pakoon Basin Crucial Habitat. In comparison with the BDYM crucial habitac, the PB crucial habitat is almost twice the size and is far less Fragnented by state and private lands and roads (Plates 10-1, 10-2, Table 10-3). Nine separate parcels of state and private land compose less than two per cent of the total acreage (Table 10-3). Two quarter sections have been leased or developed for agriculture (Plate 10-2). No paved roads are present, but dirt roads account for 118.7 Linear miles of disturbances and intrusions, an average road density of 0.46 Linear wiles/sq. mile (Table 10-4). Other Linear intrusions include 58.5 miles of fences and pipelines for Livestock improvements. Five WSA's occupy 129.5 #q. miles or about 50 per cent of the area (Table 10-4), They occur along the vestern and eastern portions of the crucial habitat (Plate 10-3), In late 1978 and early 1979, WSA 1-109 sustained danage from activities of the U.S. Energy Corporation of Riverton, Wyoming. This company began assessment work on uranium clei According to a Jan. 16, 1979 menorandum in the BLM wilderness files: 10-23The use of exploration equipment in the Gyp Hills, Pigeon Wash, and other areas within the planning unit resulted in Severe environmental damage. The equipment consisted of: tvo drill rigs, two tank trucks, one caterpiller D-6 dozer, and two 4WD pickup trucks. The danage resulted from blading approxi- nately ten miles of access routes. The vehicles did not stay on existing roads and trails. The D-6 dozer bladed trails at random causing much impact on the desert environment. The 4WD pickups had also driven across the desert without regard to vegetation and topography. In the Gyp Hills, che pickups had attempted hill climbing in several places which resulted in ruts and gouges on the hill side... Much desert vegetation was destroyed as a result of care~ less operation of equipment. Many barrel cactus, yucca, creosote bushes, and other plants had been uprooted, pushed into piles, or had been crushed by equipment... The drilling crew also impacted the area by discarding trash and litter within the unit. At several of the drilling sites, trash and litter had been discarded loosely over the site. Irene that were scattered...were: old boots and gloves, magazines, food and ...paper wrappings, soda and soil cans, and empty gun shells, There was also one main trash site besides those at drill sites. There was no attempt to contain or dispose of this trash properly. The potential and possibly temporary protection accorded to" tortoises in WSA's may have been offset by recent fires (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1981a). Two separate fires in 1979 and 1980 burned 112.3 sq. miles in and to the west of WSA's 1-109 and 1-112 (Plate 10-2). The 1980 fire destroyed one of the rarest Joshua tree and Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera) communities on the Arizona Strip District (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1981a). Such fires have high potential for killing tortoises, as well as severely danaging tortoise habitat (cover, forage, nest sites, etc.). Woodbury and Hardy (1948) reported 14 eupty tortoise shells in a burned area near Bunkerville, Nevada, im December 1942. The tortoises were believed to have died in a fire two years earlier. Fires have killed other species of tortoises. Stubbs loraat(19814, 1981) reported scorchings and kills of Herman's tortoise (Testudo herwanni) in a aan-caused fire on the Alyki heaths in northern Creece tn 1980. He estimated that about 10,000 torto{ses died, with proportionally more juveniles being affected than adults, Pictures of the dry heath vegetation type look similar to creosote bush scrub and alkali sink (Atriplex spp.) communities with some grass. While fire is a natural part of the ecosystem, fires in the Arizona Strip District have “increased dramatically" and have burned 11,000 acres/year between 1971 and 1980 (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Managenent 1981a). Most fixes occurred in such vegetation types as creosote bush scrub, desert shrub, and blackbrush (the first two types are tortoise habitat), The BLM proposed modified and full suppression tactics to control burns in areas including the BDYM and PB crucial habitat. The PB has eight grazing allotments, three of which are unalloted (U.S. Dept. of Interior 1979, 1980; Plate 10-4). Twenty-one water sources or developments exist, as well as six corrals (Table 10-5). The coments above on Livestock grazing for the BDVM crucial habitat apply here also. Approximately 150 burros graze on 10 sq. miles in the southwestern part of the crucial habitat. PART II. DESERT TORTOISE POPULATIONS SOUTH OF THE GRAND CANYON Since 1975, substantial efforts have been made by federal agencies to study tortoise distribution and habitat preferences, and to identify areas with moderate to high density populations in this region of the state. The surveys to determine distribution and relative densities are discussed 10-25,first, followed by studies to determine population ateributes at permanent study plots, and a brief analysis of impacts to tortoise habitat. Distribution, Relative Densities, and Habitat Preferences of Tortoises Burge (1979, 1980) surveyed 375 sites and walked 1,040 afles of transects in southern Arizona in 1978 and 1979 (Fig. 10-3). She used three-mile-long transects in most areas. She found that (1) most tortoise sign was on hills and mountain slopes, (2) tortoise sign density was, significantly greater among granitic rocks than other rock types, (3) tortoise cover sites were almost exclusively anong rock formations and in cavities in consolidated gravels in washes, (4) tortoise use of flat and rolling terrain types appeared to be of a transient nature, (5) sign density was significantly higher in Arizona Upland communities of the Sonoran Desert scrub bione than in Lover Colorado communities, and (6) sign density wae higher in Mojave Desert scrub, Semi-desert Grassland, and Interior Chaparral biomes than in the Sonoran Desert Scrub biome. Burge (1979, 1980) reported finding six sites with densities that may exceed 300 tortotses/sq. mile. The: six sites represented only 5 percent of the sites with tortoise sign. ALL were between 3000 to 4000 ft elevation, on slopes of granite or granite-gneiss...At least 1 live tortoise was seen at each site. Tyo sites vere in Arizona Upland; 2, in Mojave Desert scrub; and 2, in Interior Chaparral. Waichuk and deVos (1982) examined an area of approximately 600 99. miles which Lies to the north, west, and south of Tucson (Fig. 10-3) in 1981, using strip transects and direct observations. They conducted 132 transects, each one aile long by 20 ft wide, between May and October and recorded all tortoise sign. Five transects/month were made in four lo-2e© surge (1979,1980) ®@ Walchuk and de Vos. (1982) ara ARIZONA PHOENIX Fig. 10-3. Areas surveyed with transects by Burge (1979, 1980) and Walchuk and de Vos (1982) in Arizona, south of the Grand Canyon. \o-atvegetation associations--mixed palo verde (Cercidium microphyllua)-cacti or Arizona Upland, creosote bush-bursage (Asborsia deltoidea) or Lover Colorado Valley, desert grassland, dnd mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) bosque. one transect was made per sonth in riparian deciduous woodland and in « mixed palo verde-cacti site in the Cat Mountain basin of the Tucson Mountains. Live tortoises and tortoise sign were found only in the creosote bush- bursage and mixed palo verde-cacti communities (Walchuk and deVos 1982). Most tortoise sign fron transects (97.8 percent) was observed in mixed palo verde-cacti habitats at elevations ranging from 2,300 to 31,000 ft, with the najority of sign between 2,700 to 3,000 ft. Most tortoise sign was also on the foothills or steep slopes. Walchuk and deVos (1982) identified several areas with relatively high tortoise sign counts in thetr 600 sq. mile study area: Cat Mountain, Twin Hills, San Joaquin Road dump areas, and "several other localities" in the Tucson Mountains; Black Mountain on the San Xavier Indian Reservation; and Helmet Peak. All are in mixed palo verde-cacti habitats at elevations of 2,790 to 3,000 £t, and most are on north or northwest aspects of bajadas. Walchuk and deVos (1982) made an interesting and potentially significant comment: The results of this inventory indicate that tortotse densities are low to moderate in the Tucson Mountains and surrounding areas. The habitat appears favorable and larger populations night be expected under ideal conditions...Higher densities exist in similar habitat adjacent to the study area such as Ragged Top Mountain to the northwest (Schneider, 1980), the Picacho Mountains to the north (Schvartzmann and Ohmart, 1976; Burge, 1979), and in the McClellan Valley near the Picachos (Dave Brown, AGFD, personal communication). We shall see in the next section that Schneider found apparently low densities on a study plot at Ragged Top Mountain and that Schwartemann lo 2B(unpublished manuseript) may have about 50 tortoises/sq. mile in his "high density" area in the Picacho Mountains. Ted Cordery (personal communication), wildlife biologist for the Phoenix District Office of the BLM, has identified 20 possible population habitat areas for the desert tortoise in the western part of Arizona (Plates 10-5 and 10-7), The habitat areas vere delineated using the Burge (1979, 1980) transect data, information on habitat preferences from other tortoise studies in Arizona (Schnefder 1961, Walchuk and deVos 1962), and field observations of tortoises by BLM and Arizona Gane and Fish personnel. The population-habitat areas are within the Hualapai-Aquarius and Lover Gila North planning areas and Environmental Impact Areas, which together cover an estinated 6,000 square miles. (A “planning area" is a LM management area). Six population-habitat areas have been outlined within the Hualapai~ Aquarius planning area. The average size of each habitat area is 50.6 sq. miles (range: 14 to 124), The total area of potential tortoise habitat is . Fourteen habitat areas 303.5/aq. miles here, or 10.5 percent of the ar covering a total of 227 square miles (average: 16.2/sq. miles; range: 1 to 36) were identified for the Lover Gila North planning area, They occupy about 7.2 per cent of the area. In 1980, three study plots were established in the Hualapat-AquariuS unit and to within the Lover Gila North uate by Schneider (1981) (see below). Data from initial studies indicated moderate densities (estimat} of 100 co 200/sq. mile) at two of the Five plots. The renaining three plots appeared to have very lov densities (see below). Cordery (personal communication) suggests chat the Huglapai-Aquarius and Lover Gila North areas together comprise about 30 per cent of tortoise habitat in the state, south of the Grand Canyon. loadSone low density tortoise populations may exist in national parks and monuments. Hovever if such populations cover extensive acreages or are high in density, they probably would have been discovered by park personnel by now, In a memorandum to the superintendent of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Bennett (1962) of the National Park Service wrote: We have been trying to locate some tortoise colonies in the monument on and off for about a year and a half. Our objective is to evaluate their status and to find out more about their movements and habits. As you may know this species is in trouble throughout its range. I have the sub- Jective impression that the tortoise population in the onunent is less than might be expected. Recently ay atten- tion has been focused on the Jackson Hole area. This trip, for the first time, ve found a living tortoise there... ‘The differences in habitat preference exhibited by tortoise populations in Arizona compared with populations in California, Nevada, and Utah are striking. Tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert occupy flats, valleys, the lowlands and areas of low relief--in creosote bush scrub and bajadai and Joshua tree voodland vegetation associations. Tortoise habitat in the Sonoran or the Colorado Desert of California {8 on benches, in valleys, and on bajadas, as well as washes. The habitats are in mixed creosote-ocotillo~ cacti communities and microphyll woodland washes. The only place tortoises appear to be confined principally to the slopes or rocky outcrops is south of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, Schneider (1981), Walchuk and deVos (1982), and Schwartzman (unpub- lished manuscript) have suggested possible reasons for lack of tortoises and tortoise sign in the valleys and flats: overgrazing (particularly in the early 1900's), urbanization, collecting, road building, off-road vehicle use, mining, and harvest for food, Road kills are another source of losses, and many roads cross valleys and flat lands. For example, in 1951 and 1952 John Moon, a federal employee with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SLM 10-30for about 30 years, observed one to two dozen tortoises/day in sumer while driving on a paved road from Yuma to the Yuna Test Ranch. A number of che tortoises vere crushed by vehicles. These human activities are che source of population and habitat losses in California (Chapters 3 and 6) and Nevada (chapter 8). Population Characteristics at Eight Tortoise Study Plots Tortoise populations have been studied at seven sites, and an eighth study is in progress, Six areas vere examined by Schneider (1981) in the spring of 1980 at Alano Hill, Stout Mountain, Little Shipp Wash, Harcuvar Mountain, Black Butte, and Ragged Top (Sites 36 to 41). A seventh (Site 42) in the Picacho Mountains was examined by Schvartzmann (unpublished manuscript) from 1975 to 1979, and Vaughn (1982, 1983) has an eighth study in progress in the same general area. See Appendix 1 for a description of sites and Appendix 2 for a description and discussion of field techniques. ‘The choice of locations for the study sites provides some insight into tortotse density and distribution in this part of Arizona. Schneider (1981) selected three of the six sites identified by Burge (1979, 1980) as possibly having relatively high tortoise densities. These were the Alamo Hill, Stout Mountain, and Little Shipp Wash sites. The Harcuvar Mountain, Ragged Top, and Black Butte sites were identified as having potential populations by Bruce Jones, He and an Arizona Game and Fish manager observed several. individuals in < 30 minutes at Ragged Top, as well as at Black Butte. However, Burge (personal communication) had made one transect in 1978-1979 that overlapped part of the site and another transect within a mile of it and found little tortoise sign. The Picacho Mountains study plot vas the \o-3tonly area identified by graduate students of Dr. Robert Ohmart at Arizona State University as having "good" numbers of tortoises. only three of the seven sites with completed studies have sufficient data for analysis--Alamo Hill, Little Shipp Wash, and Picacho Mountains. The renaining four vere abandoned after surveys ranging from an estimated one of seven calendar days and eight to 27 field days (person days) of effort, because few live tortoises were found during the surveys. Eight live tortoises were found at Stout Mountain, one at Harcuvar, four at Black Butte, and seven at Ragged Top. It is interesting to note that Burge (1979, 1980) identified Stout Mountain as having an estisated density of more than 300 tortoises/sq. mile. In 1978 Burge (1979) found 91 tortoise sign here, among the six highest sign counts for the 285 transects made in southern Arizona that year. One possible explanation for the discrepancy between low tortoise numbers and high sign counts is that one or more of the four sites was abandoned prematurely and that nore tortoises might have been found. Another explanation Lies in the problem of estimating densities from sign counts in this part of Arizona on slope habitats (Surge 1980). Size classes for Alano Hill (Site 36) and Little Shipp Wash (Site 38) are shown in Tables 10-7 and 10-8, respectively, Both Alamo Hill and Little Shipp Wash have vegetation typical of the Upper and Lover Sonoran Life Zones of the Mojave Desert. They also contain elements of Joshua tree woodland. Histograms of the size classes are shown in Figs. 10-4 and 10-5. The observed sex ratios for both sites are in Table 10-2, The 2~ values were not statistically significant, Schneider (1981) estimated densities at 100 tortoises for the population at Alazo Hill and 100 to 200 tortoises for the population at Little Shipp Wash (Table 10-9). He emphasized that both the Alamo Hill and Little Shipp Wash sites were isolated populations on 10-32Table 10-7, at Alamo Hill (Site 36) during the spring of 1980. Size class distributions of tortoises registered % of overall. Size classes Undetermined Male Female ‘Totals total Juvenile 1 1 L 3.4 Juvenile 2 2 2 6.9 Immature 1 4 4 13.9 Immature 2 1 1 38 Subadult 1 ° 1 3.4 Adult 1 ° 1 1 3.4 Adule 2 8 a 19 65.6 Totals 8 9 2 29 10-33Table 10-8, Size class distributions of tortoises registered at Little Shipp Wash (Site 38) during the spring of 1980. Sex % of overall Size classes Undetermined Male Female ‘Totals total, Juvenile 1 3 3 5.9 Juvenile 2 7 7 13.7 Immature 1 2 2 3.9 Immature 2 5 5 9.8 Subadult 2 ° 2 3.9 Adult 1 1 1 2 3.9 Adult 2 13 wv 30 58.8 Totals v7 16 18 SL. to-3dMaximum Carapace Length (mm) Site 36. Alamo Hill, Arizona. Live tortoises captured in the spring of 1980. as aes 205 205 zs a8 205 384 a me 24 264 254 24 Fig. 10-4. Wistogran of live tortoises captured and marked in a ‘spring study at the Alano Hill plot in 1980 (chnetder 1981).Maxim Corapace Langth (mm) 3s 364 aes 384 335-344 ais -324 288 - 308 2a -294 265-274 25s 264 24s «254 23s -2ae 22s -204 21s -224 208-214 98-204 85 «194 165-174 135-164 125-134 as. 96 ase a tse Fig, 10-5. fe 38. Little Shipp Wash, Arizona. Live tortoises captured in the spring of 1980. Histogram of live tortoises captured and marked in a spring study at the Little Shipp Wash plot in 1980 (Schneider 1981).+ (adyzzequew poystrandun) uuewzazemyos woss 248 Zy 2375 207 eIeP *(TRGT) TOPFOUYDS wosy aze Ty-9E S9ITS 107 IEG uoyssaz¥03 aapaedau azTs97 poyzee ray2euny9s aavayzsa wosiazag 9°95 (asz) az # £0 #(@sz) 72 ¥ 99 unos 19937P sorte “bs /es © es uyerunoH oysesta zy quowspnf ——_uoyaeqndod uy sasto3 euoyssojox4 =303 GL ueya x9N05 oe dog poiey Ty (2x24 snogaaad uy sBurayszs: uoyaeqndod euoyssezox4 uy seszoazes 05 o> orang yoeTa oy aord upyarA KUO sauee avout pnt swaze anoy wp udys Be23 1194s eucyssazoxd astorres tmoy A190 om £(0) T uyeaunoy zeanszeH —6E auawBpnf vor euopssazoxd et ndod uy 987302103 ‘xepur utoour1 002-001 !sa¥o2302 Z6T (@) 15 sem ddyys 213391 ae 8L6T UF oBang Kq uou8pnt yeuoyasazoad Surtzznd ang ‘mor os ureaunoy 303s ue auowapar uoyaetndod euopssayo2d uy #8703303 OT (8) 62 Tun omy oF Aaysuap (peop) poxzea s9eyor tou (s)pouseK auezedde uo squsmcy —-202 BATT 29qunU TeI0L, sueu 237s #aTs s,ouozTay wasyanos ur s201d Kpnas auoueuiad anes 103 sereuTase Aaysueq “6-0T TAP. 10-35slopes and in rocky areas. He and other field workers made searches of surrounding areas and found little or no tortoise sign. Schwartzmann (unpublished manuscript) and Schwartzman and Ohnart (1977, 1978) studied the Picacho Mountains site from fall 1975 until spring 1979. This site has vegetation typical of the Sonoran Desert. The data ve show are pooled for the years of intensive study, 1975 through 1978. The size class structure 1s shown in Table 10-10, the sex ratio in Table 10-2, and the data on estimated densities in Table 10-9. Schwartzman (unpublished manuscript) estinated densities of 53 tortotses/sq. mile (direct count), 64 (Peterson estimator), 73 (Schumacher method), and 57 (Leslie negative regression). The estimates were made using data gathered betueen fall 1975 and fall 1978. The tortoises with radio transmitters vere excluded from the estimates. Separate population estimates were not made for each year, Vaughn (1982, 1983) is currently studying tortoise populations in the Picacho Mountains for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Her study area is quite large, encompassing several sq. miles. As of March of 1983, she had marked only 45 tortoises in four areas, even though she averaged one to tuo days/week in the field for a year. Sixty-nine per cent of the marked individuals were adults. Data from the four study sit differ considerably from plots in California and Nevada with moderate to high tortoise populations: (1) the total number of tortoises marked is low (n = 178 for four plots), (2) populations appear limited in extent and isolated, (3) adults compose a Large portion of the sampled populations (from 63 to 88 per cent), and (4) densities appear to be low to moderate (vhen compared with California populations). In addition, tortoises at the two sites for which we have 1o3bTable 10-10, Size class distributions of tortoises registered at Picacho Mountains (Site 42) between 1975~1978°. Size classes Undetermined Totals overall Males Fenal total Juvenile 1 Javenile 2 Immature 1 1 1 19 Temature 2 2 2 3.8 subadule it 3 6 10 18.9 Adult 1 u 16 2 50.9 Adult 2 ‘ 5 9 16.9 Adult-size unidentified 1 3 4 15 Totals 4 9 30 53 99.9 a. Schwartemann (personal communication) b. These tortoises were adults and had radio transmitters. measured. They were not \0-37Table 10-11. Proportions of adults and non-adults observed in populations of desert tortoises in Arizona south of the Grand Canyon Site Number of Number of non— number Locale Years adults (and %) adults (and %) 36 Alamo Hi1L 1980 20 (69.0) 9 (31.0) 38 Little Shipp 1980 32 (62.7) 19 (37.3) Wash 37, 39, West-central 1980 14 (73.7) 5 (26.3) 40, 41 ‘Arizona 4a Picacho Mts. 1975-79 38 (88.4) 5 (1.6) 44, 45, Beaver Dam 1977-80 51 (39.2) 79 (60.8) 46 Slope io 3shell wear data (Little Shipp Wash and Alamo Hill) appear to have a high proportion of adults with the old, worn shell classes (Schneider 1981; Appendix 5). Analysis of Impacts to Desert Tortoise Populations and Habitats Quantitative information on impacts to tortoise populations and habirat 4s limited to the eight study sites and 20 potential habitats identified by Ted Cordery in the Hualapai-Aquarius and Lover Gila North planning areas. The findings, which are presented below, aay be representative of other, as yet unidentified, tortoise habitats in Arizona. Land Uses on Study Sites. Land uses on seven of che eight study sites are shown in Table 10-12, The Vaughn (1982, 1983) study site probably has land uses sisilar to the Schwartemann (Schwartenann, unpublished manuscript) study area in the Picacho Mountains, Most study sites have dirt roads and evidence of mining. Site 42 in the Picacho Mountains has mining pits which trap tortoises (Schwartznann, personal communication), All study sites are grazed by Livestock. Land Uses on the Huslapai~Aquarius Desert Tortoise Habitats. Locations of che six Hualapat-Aquarius tortoise habitats and three tortoise study sites (Alamo Hill, Stout Mountain, and Little Shipp Wash, are shown on Plate 10-5. Land uses for the tortoise habitats are shown in Tables 10-13, 10-14, and 10-15 and on Plate 10-6. The information for the tables and plates was taken from BIM planning documents for the Hualapai and Aquarius planning areas (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1975 to present, 1980c, 19804, 1981, 1981c, 19828, 1982). 10°34(o4rr9enuwa payerrandun) wwewrrzem2s oxy 928 zy 2945 303 FIeP “THET) TeprOUNDS wIAy BI” TyH9E OTF5 20} eID “e punoscanak asad 12389 worsuow of auyeaunoK oY>eoTa ty sow saqaoe 308 303 aauiyy ge osesd otra * otra exroys ura aofew 2an0) shnoqnoayp aes 93309 con 80 ap doy powsey ty errs 0 ytnon3 pow use capaes sbaen amet87g = eras por don (oy Keng eons pros are sunqers oF sazmronars pavopunge ont rereon xranoamy 66 96 Kemitvn ‘uyddesy poe Sepang aoe pouopnuoe suo yon (ey ree wm dine n= 9-0 wat yo wine reaozees3e yuna aoere z teraae> roy owsty Bu0re wrevenon ano 16 rvs 9°0 wna aan ye aye sry seo qesonee spots par trvapura for33e>3oses epeos aaqp passaaeoe rm camry 9¢ aen0 ‘resus tuyz019 pro wey oars sou rovssy womans ey sxoqd Gpnae iuvorarad wonse 26 S200 URL “ZT-BT STGP tooauioys wopsysToNaD, porTe2 semsrouos “de FTI +1 ot oor 9 cor 6 oS WT re) oor oe yesen ys se sez zy s3t » L os site cee aaeaad oe $96 ne sw ied oy $00 sk Terps st oe ts eal cso og 2 ee gry mee papers Pawoqoy20u> Prw0ga999949 pivoqieyo949 prwoqzey22y9 pawoqaeysays wa iva ataswaNno “axa seen 705 atese &q peazeree eres zt wyerea upeaes vyerea ores muon OwVT reraorTe ‘puanoqed-oxenses —_yeasedeys aeéronp porseeere erry oxonses oe rene ado "anaye say0n0939 tena e3onoes9 Tapieaorea cErous anrfon —pexra-azdyunp 9033 emueor S303 vmisor san ovate x78 07 MF 07 Fovaeery foensers nye 9 tw me ct ams wmeztnmes tam orn me ny smcinm? Cm) 7enor2orH anspor Pavone Fate 7e230k pores stro 1S7a¥aK wt oI ee enn a oz (oe) van 108 eneeny anopeTH “a st06 Oovret — ODI/t9—OT/6E«OOL/S*¥LOOT/Sy 67st Pyaoueoast ONTEVED ° ° ° ° ° ° aewno ° ° ° ° ° ° anim ° ° ° ° ° ° eunaTnoy : ° ° ° ° ° ° spoanosar 2030H on ° ° ° ° ° ° eos oeyoUT (20 sstveesantA ant er yin ° ° ° ° 0 “Yosop Texauopreea ‘Suypueds noravzriveua ob $807 Sco ver ° 6 a 0 (ym vay aviot eee “wie a - =r on ava ae om eo a z 1H avn seuorray uy ewryaey seyor203 2 s22p (WH) SraseRby-TedeTenH UT soen pUEL “yI-OF STEEL todaDESERT TORTOISE HABITATS AND STUDY SITES Plate 10-5 Hualapai - Aquarius Planning/EIS Area in Arizonz Kory i wou |oz o9 ° ° ° ° eee, rary 1 ° 3 5 oe ° ° ° ° ° or A 9 ° ° © & w : 2 ° e ° o o 9 (one (pro ‘e000 o ° fon) 2 Seeewe} 2 oF 5 vor0/s ° ° ° e ° ror sat ez aor oH =m aH E en On avaTEVE swozpay uy se2qqey ose: ‘is989p (yn) ensenby-yederem 9m pur (panuraues) -pt-or #TaeE 1ou4Table 10-14 Footnotes on ALL numbers in this category for HA are reported as follows: mi? of occupied by burros (estimated 198] burro population within DT) El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline Mead-to-Liberty line (9 mi); 69 kV Bagdad line (5 mi). Big Sandy to Bagdad water pipeline. McConnico Corridor (1 mi wide); existing line (probably 230 kV) plus several proposed lines. Parker-Bagdad corridor ~ existing and proposed lines Includes both existing and pending leases ACEC's are Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Burro Creek (proposed). Dm o-45,sunop = q f972"98 # g fdn =n *z saeayqey ost02302 azasop yea uF Buzz0I% Jo qWNoM TOF E1-OT PTTL 22S “T 99 ez9'z a7; s oust oon'z 9u9'z poo8—3783 A pepseg ge. 009 poo8-2783, 8 pea ETE eaysuaquT ait oot'z 2183 a uyeaunog #3368227 ‘anpeue20y 998 o9e'T ary a youry ye0rD 0308 oH eayeueauy 919 agctz ares a ye2g_poonuser5 ‘enyeuaauy LL0et vet! zt poo8 A yeeap syouray sve ‘anyeueaUy 922 ate ares s ‘yeog #002 ese ote oot a Bourton 807 ceets aye" any s sBupsds_ wex9TUD oon eaysuoaUy cces aye 218s s sBupxds wexoTHD evn ‘aayeuaauy oss‘ ere! ams rece pesnqeena paaeatinn 7 1 9 w * ry won tra 7a wang ae oe a oa 98 5007 0 91 za TH Lovoayay uy eneatgey 98703209 320899 (en) 420N FTTD 28007 2 adraoeea “93-08 stan oHDESERT TORTOISE HABITATS AND STUDY SITES Plate 10-6 Hualapai - Aquarius Planning/EIS Area Arizona [Grazing Allotmra]? @ ° ° ° eee] e oor] oot | + 90 oot] a ° a ° oT ° perorg pepers prota powers perora wrene ree — wren eres ‘manNas aN serps opaas, apsn aH oricoumntes oreenoamntes sans rev sro 36 (ease wea saat 3 ye et ar? “sme Loam) ebunzeyp/omes) ed paren poet jmores ‘senou Seva ‘ = 7 w et a om (ga) yaw Waa en Fan somery #03 Teown aM Tes STAND Ween a7oH9 STEMI “a aan oa er wor zw Tet or wor 11 om “on avazevit euoayay uy exeaygey oe7o3203 32989p (NOT) GB4ON PTID 20HeT OND JO euoFsEFIDE—q (3009) “9T-OT FEAL to-50° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 8 8 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o score ° ovoysrzt os-0ys"0 ° seroyer ° > Te ° ° ° ° or oor oot oor oor oor oor ° ° ° ° ° ° © ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o ° ° o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° “Sanquowazn punouw vusedoteasp mos or 7 1 en ce cs (eon) was 10-5)01 x iys})| anil Fa eecoe| go cecee! g arto at lo-52Table 10-17 Footnotes. 10. ne a. LB. a. as. 16. uw a. 19. ALL burro populations on LGN-6, 7, 10 and 11 are part of a larger wild horse/burro area, and populations within DTH cannot be estimated. One area where one to two ORV races are held/yr (winter) on tracks and trails. 69 kV Line. Within an allotment but no grazin; land. incidental use of adjacent state Along El Paso gas corridor. NA = Not available. Including prospects-iron, nickel, tungsten, vanadium, lithium mines. Copper, silver, gold, tungsten. Fluorite, manganese, vanadium, gold, silver, lead, tungsten. Strontium, manganese. Mercury, manganese, silver, copper, gold. Gold, tungsten, manganese, many prospects. Hummingbird Springs. Harquahala Mountain. Harquahala Mountain WSA. Harquahala ACEC (proposed). Copper, gold, silver, manganese. Fluorite, manganese, lead, copper, gold. Buckskin WSA (15,900 acre: » Rawhide WSA (1,200 acres). 10-53,° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 8 8 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o score ° ovoysrzt os-0ys"0 ° seroyer ° > Te ° ° ° ° or oor oot oor oor oor oor ° ° ° ° ° ° © ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° o ° ° o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° “Sanquowazn punouw vusedoteasp mos or 7 1 en ce cs (eon) was 10-5)-puey 22e38 aussefpe 30 2en TeqUaprouy fFupzer9 oN *y caw fupspa *€ sunop = q {972038 = § {poaorduy = 1 *Z sunop = q foraeas = § fdn= a °T - =" ° ° - _ suey 2TH TROT 1 ‘aysue3T 0c" Ws2't 3783 a eurredra | CT-NOT aayeusay oce"z oce'z = a eae) ZT-NOT s onyousaur 976 126 ares 8 oarzeutea I eaysuoaey cc'z cee a3 8 wsxeH ours TT-ROT adh yates: qusaaSeueu Bupy2038 cenav) puss. rou Bensedez —-posodoza.—«TeyaTUy pesodoag an que#ezg uoyaypuoy abazeddy quemoTT® SupzeI9 IeITAEH seuozy2¥ ‘wae Buyuueyd y2x0x ETFO AMET Oya UT aeayqeY ayorz0I T4Esep UT SqUMOTTE BuFZeAT YooIseAy] (+3009) “gT-—OT STAT 10°85,habitats are in federal ommership and are scheduled for retention in the public domain (Table 10-16). Seven of the 14 areas contain WSA's, and one (LGN-1) has an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (Table 10-17). None of the habitats has paved roads, but most have dirt roads (Table 10-17). The exceptions are LGN- and LON-7, which have no roads or utility Lines. All but one of the habitats (LGN~7) have records of hard-rock mineral exploration and/or development. Virtually all of the habitats are grazed by livestock (Plate 10-7, Table 10-18). DISCUSSTON AND SUMMARY Two crucial habitats vere identified for tortoises in this region of Arizona-the slopes of the Beaver Dam and Virgin Mountains (BDVM) and the Pakoon Basin (PB). Data from tvo permanent study plots and 423 ailes of strip-transects indicate that tortoise populations in the two crucial habitats are low in density compared with populations in crucial habitats in California and Nevada, They also are patchy in distribution. More specifically, populations at the two study sites have density estimates ranging from 26 to 90/sq. mile, with the exclosure having far fever tortoises than the control. Only three or four areas with densities similar to and as high as the control exist within the crucial habitats. Each area of "higher density" 1s estimated at one to three sq. niles. The study sites also have lov numbers of subadult and adult females, o total of 24 in the two sq. miles of the two study plots. The low numbers and densities of breeding females may be insufficient to sustain visble populations in the event of natural disasters (occasional droughts, fires, and floods) and with ongoing and projected human-related impacts. If the lo562-01 aed SAIS AGnis Pu SivievH asIOLNOL 143530numbers and density of potentially breeding fenales on the tvo study sites are typical of the rest of the patchy tortoise populations north of the Grand Canyon, tortoise populations in this area are in serious trouble. Human activitdes may be responsible in part or entirely for low tortoise densities and patchy distributions. In addition to collecting, the BDVM and PB crucial habitats have sustained losses or danage to tortoise habitat at least since 1649. Both crucial habitats have current land use commitments that contribute to continued habitat deterioration and loss. The BDVM crucial habitat, vhich covers 145 sq. miles, is the most severely fragmented, Tortoise populations are separated naturally by the Virgin River and by hunan activities, Paved roads (Interstate I-15 and Highway 91) cut the area into three parts, The Ill linear miles of paved and dirt roads and 105.6 Linear miles of utility Lines and fences are equivalent to an average of 1.5 linear miles of intrusions and vehicle access/sq. mile. Possibly nore significant are the estimated 8.6 sq. miles lost to urbaniza~ tion and agricultural development. More development is anticipated in the near future, This region has been grazed by Livestock since 1849 (ichman and Ohmart 1978) and most of the habitat is considered in poor condition. The Pakoon Basin {s larger (260 sq. sles) and has no paved roads or towns. The 118.6 linear miles of dirt roads provide access to 27 livestock improvenents and mining claims. Much of the area ie grazed by Livestock, and 10 sq. miles are grazed by burros. Forty-three per cent of the crucial habitat vas burned in 1979 and 1980. Approximately 50 per cent is in WSA's, one of which vas damaged in 1979 by a mining company. In brief, tortoise habitat north of the Grand Canyon is highly fragmented into relatively small parcels and appears to support relatively 10°53low densiti of tortoises in island-like areas. Land uses are continuing to encroach on remaining habitat, apparently unchecked by state and federal agencies. Tortoise Populations South of the Grand Canyon Approximately 40 per cent of thie region has been surveyed with strip transects by Burge (1979, 1980), as well as by Walchuk and deVos (1982). Eight study sites, most of which were about one oq. mile, vere established in areas identified as having high potential for tortoise populations. An additional 20 possible tortoise habitats were delineated by Cordery (personal communication) in BLM's Hualapat-Aquarius and Lower Gila North planning areas. Data from these studies indicate that tortoise populations south of the Grand Canyon are highly patchy in distribution and island-Like in nature. Tortoise populations appear to be Limited to hills and rocky, mountainous terrain in Arizona Upland and sone Mojave Desert scrub communities. Only four of thé eight sites have sufficient data for analysis. The other four sites vere abandoned because few Live tortoises vere found. The data from the sites with tortoises indicate (1) densities are low (the total number of tortoises marked on the four plots was 178), (2) the populations are limited in extent and {solated, (3) chat adults compose a large portion of the samples (68 to 88 per cent), and (4) that at least tvo of the four popula~ tions appear to be composed primarily of large, old adults. ‘The 20 por ible tortoise habitats identified by Cordery still must be surveyed for tortoises. However, most of these sites are relatively small and most have a number of human uses which could have contributed to population and habitat loss in the past and may continue to do so in the 10°54future. One might ask how many of these sites have viable populations or enough tortoises for analysis of population attributes. If the six sites censused by Schneider (1961) in 1980 are any example, perhaps 50 per cent of the 20 sites will prove productive. The status of tortoise populations south of the Grand Canyon can be put into perspective by examining the findings on tortoise distribution and abundance for California, Nevada, and Utah. The surveys undertaken for tortoises in Arizona were similar in scope to those done in California and Nevada, In addition to the formal studies, state and federal biologists, students, and academicians have been looking for tortoise populations for the last ten years, Yet, as of 1983, no major or minor populations of the areal extent or density of those in California or Nevada have been found in Arizona, Instead populations appear to be isolated and remnants or relicts of once larger populations. Their long-term viability under current patterns of land use and collecting is questionable. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank the staffs of the Arizona Strip and Phoenix District Office of the BLM for providing data and documents. Mr. W.K. Barker and Ted Cordery of the Phoenix District Office sent the comprehensive material included in the tables on the Hualapai-Aquarius and Lover Gila North planning areas, as well as the references. Betty Burge offered further, updated interpretations of her data. George Sheppard and James Schwartzmann provided raw data for use in the analysis. Frederick B. Turner assisted with preparation of the population data, Paul Schumann and Lori Nicholson prepared and checked tables and maps. Betty Burge, Ted Cordery, James lo~weodeVos, Judy Hohman, Bruce Jones, George Sheppard, James St. Amant, Mary Trotter, Frederick B, Turner, Sheryl Vaughn, and Sandra Walchuk provided numerous useful comments. REFERENCES CITED Bennett, P.S. 1982. Trip report to ORPI 20 thru 24 September, 1982. Menorandum to Superintendent, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, dated Sept. 30, 1982. From U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service, Tucson, Ariz. Brown, D.E., and C.H. Lowe. 1980. Biotic communities of the southwest. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Gen, Tech. Rept. RM-78. Map. Burge, B.-L. 1979. A survey of the present distribution of the desert tor- toise, Gopherus agaseizi, in Arizona. Pages 27-74 in E. St. Amant. (ed.), Proc, 1979 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, caliz. Burge, B-L. 1980. Survey of the present distribution of the desert tor- toise, Gopherus agassizi, in Arizona: additional data, 1979. Pages 36-60 in K.A. Hashagen (ed.), Proc. 1980 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Dodd, C.K. 1980. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: listing as threatened with Critical Habitat for the Beaver Dan Slope popula tion of the desert tortoise in Utah. Federal Register 45 (163) :55654~ 55666- Ernst, C.H., and RW. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Hohman, J.P., and R.D. Obmart. 1978. Historical range use of the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona and its possible effects on a desert tortoise population. Pages 116-125 in M. Trotter and C.G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.), Proc. 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Hohman, J.P., and R.D. Obmart. 1979. Results of a two-year study of tor- toises on the Beaver Dam Slope, Arizona. Page 148 in E. St. Amant (ed.), Proc. 1979 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Hohman, J.P., and R.D. Ohmart, 1980. Ecology of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) on the Beaver Dam slope, Arizona. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Ariz. Rept. on Contr. No. YA-510-PH7-54. looPatterson, R. 1982. The distribution of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agascizi), p, 51-55. In 8.B. Bury (ed.), North American tortoise: conservation and ecology. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife Res. Rept. 12, Washington, D.C. Schneider, P.B. 1981. A population analysis of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) in Arizona. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Ariz. Rept. on Contr. No. AZ-950-CT9-0014. Schwartzman, J.L., and R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Radiolocating free-ranging desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizi); maximizing transmitter range and longevity. Pages 57-58 in M, Trotter and C. C. Jackson, Jr. (eds.), Proc. 1977 Syaposium on the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Schwartemann, J.L., and R.D. Obmart. 1978, Quantitative vegetational data ‘of desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) habitat in the Lover Sonoran Desert. Pages 112-115 in N, Trotter and C.G. Jackson, Jr. (eds.), Proc. 1978 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Schwartemann, J.L. In preparation. Draft manuscript for masters thesis on the desert tortoise population in the Picacho Mountains, Arizona. Arizona State University, Tempe. Sheppard, G.P. 1980. Status of the Arizona Beaver Dan Slope population of desert tortoises. Pages 23-32 in K.A. Hashagen (ed.), Proc. 1980 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Sheppard, G.P, 1981. Desert tortoise population of the Beaver Dam Slope in northwestern Arizona, Pages 25-47 in KA. Hashagen and £. St. Amant (eds.), Proc. 1981 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, Long Beach, Calif. Stebbins, R.C. 1966. A field guide to western reptiles and anphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Stubbs, D. 1981a. The Alyki Heaths--the destruction of an environment. Part 1--Destruction by fire and plough. Animals 1981 (8):10-11. Stubbs, D. 1981b. Wildlife of the Alyki Heaths~- fire. Animals 1981 (9):14-16. Before and after the ‘Taubert, B. 1982. Arizona Game and fish department, Wildlife manager's sutvey of desert tortoise distribution. In M. Trotter and K. Hashagen (eds.), Proc, 1982 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, cals. 1, There were at least three editions of this report, all labeled 1961. This is supposedly the edition mailed to the Bureau of Land Management in Arizona in February 1982.U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1975 to present. Fire history overlays. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Managenent, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1979. Shivwits proposed grazing management; draft environaental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980a. Arizona Strip wilderness draft environmental impact statement and suitability report. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980b. Shivwits proposed grazing management; final environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Managenent, Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980c. Hualapai unit resource analysis (URA). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Managenent, Phoenix District office, Phoenix, Ariz. = Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980d. Aquarius unit resource analysis (URA). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981a. Arizona Strip District modified fire suppression plan. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip District, St. George, Utah. + Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981b. Hualapai~ Aquarius management framework plan (NFP). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981c. Hualapai- Aquarius draft grazing environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District office, Phoenix, Ariz. + Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981d. Lower Gila North unit resource analysis (URA). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981e. Lower Gila North management framevork plan (MFP). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1982a. Hualapai- Aquarius rangeland program sumary. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. 10-3U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 19826. Upper, Sonoran draft wilderness environmental impact statement. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1982c. Lower Gila North draft grazing environmental impact statement, U.S, Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Ariz. Vaughn, S.L. 1982. Home rangé and habitat requirement study of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizi, in the Picacho Mountains. In Proc. 1982 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, Calif. Vaughn, S-L. 1983. Update of a home range and habitat study of Gopherus agassizi in the Picacho Mountains. Tn M. Trotter and K. Hashagen (eds.), Proc. 1983 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, calif. Walchuk, S.L., and J.C. deVos Jr. 1982. An inventory of desert tortoise populations near Tucson, Arizona. In M. Trotter and K. Hashagen (eds.), Proc. 1983 Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, calif. Woodbury, A.M., and R. Hardy, 1948. Studies of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agaesizi. Ecol. Monogr. 18:145-200. loroChapter 11 STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AFFECTING THE DESERT TORTOISE IN ARIZONA 1 Terry B. Johnson’ Proper management of the desert tortoise has long been a concern of state and federal agencies in Arizona. However, concern for the species and policies established for its protection and management have varied considerably over the yei s. Additional changes in desert tortoise management may occur in the future. FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES The U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead Federal agency in setting policy for wildlife protection and managenent. Arizona populations of the desert tortolse, while not Federally-listed as either Endangered or Threatened, are of great concern to USFWS (David Bowman, Office of Endangered Species--Albuquerque, personal communication), The status of the tortoise 1s currently being revieved to ensure that it is given the appropriate level of protection (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Manageent 1982). ‘The desert tortoise is now considered by the BLM in Arizona to be a “gensitive species," according to the BLM Manual 6840 for threatened and endangered species (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1976). According to that manual, BLM must take whatever action in nece: ry to avoid Federal listing (1.e., by USFWS) of "sensitive species" by managing 1. Arizona Natural Heritage Program, 30 North Tucson Blvd., Tucson, Arizona 85716 (now at Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2222 W. Greenway Rd. Phoenix, Arizona 85023). Original draft by Terry 8. Johnson; updated by Judy Hohman. Melhabitate properly, The BLM in Arizona also gives “priority management consideration" to the desert tortoise, because it is listed as “threatened” by the Arizona Gane and Fish Department. The new BLM Draft Manual 6840 (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 1961) is similar to the working sanual of 1977 in its treatment of sensitive species. Ie states that activities and programs proposed on BLM Land are to be reviewed by BLM and appropriate state game and fish agencies to insure that they comply with state laws and regulations. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) treats the desert tortoise as a “sensitive species," primarily because it ie Listed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department as “threatened” (U.S. Dept. of Interfor, Forest Service 1980). Again, such isting confers on the tortoise a priority consideration status in evaluating management plans implenented on USFS lands in Arizona However, USFS lands represent only a small percentage of the desert tortoise habitat in Arizona, USFS policies are not expected to change as long as the tortoise is listed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. STATE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES The State of Arizona has charged the Arizona Gane and Fish Commission and Department with managing the vertebrate wildlife in Arizona (Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 17). To focus habitat management activity in Arizona, the Department has, since 1975 and subject to Comission approval, maintained a list of threatened or othervise special-interest species of wildlife. Other State or Federal agencies give priority consideration to species so listed when developing and implenenting habitat management policies and plans. In the case of the desert tortoise, the Department has approached management from the perspective of reducing or mitigating habitat loss. Because of constraints of time and money, no efforts have been made W2by the Department to document the biology of the desert tortoise in order to better design management plane or verify the needs for such plans until recently. In 1982 an effort to record all sightings of desert tortoises by f4eld personnel was initiated by the Fisheries Management Branch. The following year this information, plus location data from the Arizona Natural Heritage Program, vas compiled and mapped. Later in 1983 management jurisdiction of the desert tortoise was transferred from the Fisheries Managenent Branch to the newly created Nongane Branch. Still in ite first year of opetation, the Nongame Branch has hired a herpetologist whose many duties include investigating the status of Arizona's threatened herpetofauna. Because the desert tortoise is listed as "threatened" by the Game and Fish Department, other agencies have conducted such studies (see Chapter 10). The most recent Gane and Fish list was revised in December 1982. Species presently are Listed in one of four groups: Group 1. Species or subspecies known or suspected to have been extirpated from Arizona but which still exist elsevhere. Group 2. Species or subspecies whose continued presence in Arizona is now in jeopardy because of substantial population declines. Extirpation from the State is highly probable without recovery efforts. Group 3. Species or subspecies whose continued presence in Arizona could be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future. Serious threats to the occupied habitats have been identified and populations (1) have declined or (2) are limited to few individuals in a few locations. Group 4. Species or subspecies for which there is a moderate threat to the occupied habitats but for which substantial population declines or habitat loss have not occurred. Currently, the desert tortoise is listed in Group 3. It is expected that the State and Federal agencies in Arizona will continue focusing management attention on the desert tortoise. Although they are not legally mandated byArizona law to do so, these agencies have treated listed animals as if they were required to devote attention to then. The desert tortoise is further affected by Gane and Fish policies on collection of individual animals. Arizona reptile regulations permit that one desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizt) may be taken alive and possessed. None may be killed or exported from Arizona (Commission Order 43, R12-4-443). A tortoise may not be taken unless the person at the tine of taking has a valid Class Gor F hunting license on his/her person and exhibits it upon request for inspection to any game ranger, wildlife manager, of peace office (Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 17-331). The progeny of lavfully held tortoises may, for 12 months from date of birth, be held in captivity in excess of the stated limit. Before or upon reaching 12 months of age, such progeny may be disposed of by gift to another person or as directed by the Arizona Vane and Fish Department. Desert tortoises or their progeny may not be purchased, bartered, sold, leased, or offered for sale (Commission Order 43, R12-4-319). SUIMARY State and federal policies regarding the desert tortoise are in a period of flux at the present tine. The effectiveness of policies and nitigation measures implemented during the past decade cannot be assessed other than subjectively. No baseline information is available for areas in which state or federal actions have modified projects. No subsequent population data are available that clearly Link population changes with project effects and mitigation measures in a cause-effect relationship. Clearly, the desert tortoise has been given special consideration by federal agencies in Arizona in the last few years. The impacts of federal projects on tortoises and possible mitigation measures to protect then are discussed Wein many draft and final Environmental Assessment and Impact Statements for the federal projects in the state. vs. vs. REFERENCES CITED Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1980. Forest Service Manual (Section 2670); threatened and endangered plant and animal species. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1976. Bureau of Land Management Manual 6840 for threatened and endangered species. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981, Draft Bureau of Land Management Manual 6840 for threatened and endangered species. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of vertebrate wildlife for Listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register 47(251): 58454-58460. W5VNOZI¥V BR 2,0 - S15. LE | 9€ VOVAIN ol, 1. se | 9 | SEpL | sabi U-&Chapter 12 ‘THE DESERT TORTOISE IN UTAH Kristin H. Berry Desert cortoise populations and their habitats have been studied longer fon the Beaver Dan Slope of Utah than elsevhere in the geographic range. Woodbury and Hardy (1940, 1948) established their 1,200 acre study area in 1936 and made repeated visits to the site of 10 years. Hardy (1945, 1962, 1972, 1976) returned on several occasions to gather additional data on tortoises, as well as on soils and mammals, In the 1979's, Coombs (1974a, 1974b, 1977a, 1977, 19770, 1979) undertook @ number of studies on tortoises and other reptiles at several sites on the Slope, These data on tortoises and information on human uses of che area were used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider @ 1977 petition by Dr. Glenn Stevast of the Desert Tortoise Council to List the Utah desert tortofse an Endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Dodd 1980). The tortoise ultimately vas Listed as Threatened in 1980 (Dodd 1980). The purpose of this chapter is to (1) summarize data collected on the Aistribution and abundance of tortoises on the Slope, (2) review data collected on attributes of populations in recent years, and (3) outline detrimental and beneficial land uses and commitments in the Critical Habitat (CH) and in other tortoise habitat on the Slope DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF DESERT TORTOISES IN UTAH ‘The distribution and relative abundance of tortoises on the Beaver Dan latSlope have been examined by Woodbury and Hardy (1948), Coombs (1977a, 197, 1979), and Minden (1980). These authors present evidence that tortoise populations occur in seni-isdlated or perhaps isolated colonies. Total numbers in each colony appear to be small. Woodbury and Hardy (1948) noted that their study population consisted of a “semi-isolated colony consisting of approximately 300 tortoises." They further stated: s+-t ie surrounded on three sides by steep foothill and moun~ tain barriers at the edge of the range of the species, which appear to effectively isolate the colony from any contact with other tortoises in those directions. Tt ts only on the southwest chat the way is open for effective contact with others, but even here it is very doubt- ful {f any extensive intermingling with other populations takes place, Our studies of the surrounding region indicate several other such colonies occur in places where concentra~ tions of winter dens are located in suitable wash banks. The area co the southwest has few suitable places for winter dene and the population across the flats in that direction ts very sparse. Presumably, the distance to the next colony is too great for regular effective interchange of wenbers of the population. ‘This partial isolation enables the colony to be ana- lyzed as a geographical unit, typical of many such units which there is reason to believe are scattered over the colder por~ tions of the southwestern deserts. This does not imply that tortoises may not be sparsely scattered over other types of country, but rather, where euitable den sites are available in suitable quantities, than sufficient numbers of tortoises WALL be able to winter satisfactorily to keep the area fully stocked. The findings of Woodbury and Hardy (1948) on this topic are still applicable today. Coombs (1977c) delineated 13 sq. miles of habitat on che Slope which included "the majority of tortoise populations and winter dens." He identified seven "High density areas ranging in size from about 80 to 1,600 acres (Coombs 1977a, 1977¢; Plate 12-1). He stated: a-2Plate 12-1 DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT in Utah kK E Y 7 rustic coma [ a EEE raivare uno TD pope unr asatoy 0585 t coomas 977440) Cite ser Wri * MINDEN (1980) oys+sThere are three active major denning areas on the Slope. A fourch area, the Castle Cliff Wash, has so Little tortoise activity it has been used as a captive transplant area... (Coombs 1977a). Minden (1980) surveyed a 125 sq. mile area using a sample of 15 quadrats, each of which was 0.25 sq. mile, as vell as "many random surveys." He estimated that the total area occupied by tortoises was 91 sq. miles. However, all but two of the live native tortoises he encountered were in clusters or colonies within the sane 45 sq. mile in the extrene southwestern corner of the Beaver Dan Slope where Coombs (19772, 1977c) identified "high density" areas (see Minden 1980: Fig. 3). In addition, all but one of the 119 renains he located vere in the sane vicinity. Coffeen (personal communication) believes that tortoises in the area north of the CH occur in small, isolated groups. Arhart (1977) indirectly provided another measure of the low of abundance through counts of tortoise scats for a food study. He stated: sssWe collected only 1 set of samples at the end of the grazing season from each of 3 of the major tortoise den~ ning areas...Each of the tortoise scats was examined separately... Twenty-five scats from each of the 3 areas vere analyzed. He then said that the BLM hoped to get more tortoise scats analyzed in 1977. s+sbut unfortunately we are not sure we can find sufficient tortoise scats for seasonal sampling. Every tortoise scat found was collected last year, so, if suitable samples can be found this spring, perhaps we can at least get a good spring sample. ATTRIBUTES OF POPULATIONS Data from Study Areas on the Beaver Dam Slope Woodbury and Hardy (1948), Coombs (1974a, 1974b, 1977a, 1977c), Minden to-4(1980), and Minden and Keller (1981) presented data on population attributes at four overlapping study sites (Plate 12-1). The study sites (Sites 32-35) are described in Appendix 1 and che techniques for gathering data in Appendix 2. We have analyzed only the data from Site 32, the Woodbury and Hardy study area, and Site 35, the Minden and Keller (1981) data set. The rationale for the choices is given in Appendices 2 and 3. It is important to enphasize that the field techniques for the four studies vere markedly different, and the data cannot be compared easily. The pioneering work of Woodbury and Hardy (1948) at Site 32 should be considered cautiously. Because this research stands as the only historical reference point with which present findings may be compared, it is tempting to draw too heavily on it. As Woodbury and Hardy acknovledged, collecting techniques vere designed to register tortoises in dens, and there was no systematic effort to acquire samples representative of the entire population. Of che nore than 100 tortoises tabulated by these authors, only five were less than 200 am in carapace length (Table 12-1, Fig. 12-1). Tn discussing the density of tortoises at their site, Woodbury and Hardy (1948) spoke of @ semi-isolated colony of about 300 tortoises in an area of 1,200 acres. Taken at face value, this would be equivalent to a density of about 160 torto{ses/sq. mile. The most reasonable way to use this estinate would be to consider it applicable only to adults. Cooabs (19772, 1977e) combined tortoise data from many areas on the Slope (Site 33) and reported a size composition of percent hatchlings, 9.0 per cent juveniles, 18.0 per cent subadults, and 72 percent adults. His size classes are not equivalent to what we are using, hovever. Minden (1980) also combined date from an extensive area and reported a size composition of 2.4 per cent hatchlings, 4.9 per cent juveniles, adTable 12-1, Size class distributions of desert tortoises registered in the Woodbury-Hardy area (Site 32) between 1938 and 1946, Percent of Size classes Undetermined Male Female Totals ~— overall total Juvenile 1 ° ° ° Juvenile 2 ° ° 0 Immature 1 ° ° ° Tnmature 2 L 1 0.9 Subadult 1 5 6 5.2 Adult 1 4 24 28 24.1 Adult 2 38 23 a1 69.8 Totals 63 33 116Maxioue Carpece Leng (mm) Unsaxed- ‘nd Site 32. Beaver Dam Slope, Utah | Live tortoises captured between 1936 and 1946, Mistogran of live tortoises captured between 1936 and 1946 during « study of winter dens (Woodbury and Wardy 1948). Ta-720.7 per cent immatures, 30.5 per cent subadults, and 41.5 percent adults. Again, his size classes are different from our size classe Minden and Keller (1961) reexamined part of the Woodbury-Hardy study area (Site 35) in 1961 (Table 12-2, Fig. 12-2). They used a modified 60-day spring census technique. These authors analyzed their data by capture- recapture analysis (using three different models) and estimated the density of tortoises to be in the range of 109 to 137/sq. mile with 95 per confidence on the order of 130 to 540/aq. mile. It is difficult, therefore, to compare the 1940's estimate (with no confidence interval) and that of 1981. Certainly the old estimate is too low because of the sampling technique. It also included no young tortoises. The problem was acute in the 1981 sample, but smaller tortoises may have been under-represented in sone degree. The difference between the numbers of adults in the to studies is very marked, hovever. The number of adult fenales registered by Minden and Keller (1981) is, quite low--10 in a sq. mile, This density 4s very low when compared to the results of similar or even briefer census efforts on "noderate to high density" study sites in California and Nevada (see Chapters 5 and 8). The proportions of adults to nonadults at Sites 32, 33, and 35 are shown in Table 12-3. The Woodbury-Hardy study had the highest proportion of adults, the Coombs study the next highest, and the Minden-Keller study the lowest. The sampling techniques are probably responsible for che differences, The Minden-Keller study focused field work on a small site for inteneive sampling. The likelihood of finding small tortoises is such greater with this technique than with samples taken primarily at dens or over several sq. miles. (2-8Table 12-2 « on the Beaver Dam Slope (Site 35) during the spring of 1981 Size class distributions of desert tortoises registered Percent of Size classes Undetermined Male Female ‘Totals overall total Juvenile 1 1 1 1.8 Juvenile 2 4 4 73 Immature 1 7 7 12.7 Immature 2 5 5 o1 Subadult, 2 6 8 14.6 Adult 1 7 5 12 21.8 Adult 2 13 5 18 32.7 Totals vv 22 16 55. 1a-4Site 35. Beaver Dam Slope, Utah IV. tortoises captured in the spring of 1981. sas 384 sas 3a as 334 315-324 30s -314 298 +304 25-204 275-204 28-274 25s -264 245-284 235-244 aes ease 218-224 208-214 195 -204 ms -194 Maximum Carapace Lanath (mm) 155-164 as -154 nas tas 134 0s “114 95-108 ory em as ae ou Fig, 12-2. Histogram of Live tortoises captured during a spring census on the Beaver Dam Slope, Utah IV study plot in 1981 (inden and Keller 198i). latoTable 12-3 . Proportions of adults and non-adults observed in populations of desert tortoises in Utah. Site Number of Number of non number Locale Years adults (and %) adults (and %) 32 Beaver Dam 1938-1946 109 (94.0) 7 (6.0) Slope 33 sane 1973-1974 31 (72.1) 12 (27.9) 35 same 1981 30 (54.5) 25 (45.5) 1-0)one historical comparison is possible: the sample acquired by Woodbury and Hardy between 1938 and 1946 and that taken from the sane area in 1981 (inden and Keller 1981). Females in the tvo samples were essentially of identical mean size (Table 14-1), but the males collected by Woodbury and Hardy were much larger. Frequency of Scute Anomalies in the Beaver Dan Slope Population Good (1982) analyzed data on scute anomalies in the Beaver Dane Slope population using data collected by Minden (1980) and Minden and Keller (1981), as well as data from the Slope population in Arizona (see Chapter 10). The sample included 196 individuals, This sample was then compared with data from 597 tortoises registered at the Desert Tortoise Natural Area in California in 1979. The Beaver Dane Slope population had a higher percentage of anomalies (20 per cent) than the Desert Tortoise Natural Area population (11 per cent). Using Chi-square analysis, the difference was highly significant (<0.002). Good (1982) reviewed the literature on causes of shell anomalies and identified three known causes of anomalies: (1) external factors, e.g.5 temperatures, moisture levels, and oxygen content of soils at nests: (2) genetic inheritance, e.g., size and degree of isolation of populations; and (3) radiation, With regard to the third factor, Heidi Fain (personal communication) and others at the University of Utah recently found very high levels of Thorium, Plutonium, and Uranium in the bones of a single carcass from the Beaver Dam Slope in Utah. Their studies are in the initial stages. ‘They said that the levels of some of these radioactive substances are "incredibly high." 212Release of Captive Tortoises on the Beaver Dan Slope According to Coffeen (1984; personal communication), at least 195 captive tortoises were marked and released on the Slope between 1973 and 1983 under the auspices of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Additional captives have been turned loose by unknown parties. Both Coffeen and Minden (Coffeen, personal communication) found obviously captive releases on the Slope, including a Texas tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri), without Division of Wildlife Resource markings. Captives were released at four known sites: (1) the Woodbury-Hardy study area (11 tortoises); (2) Tin Can Den exclosure (74 tortoises); (3) castle Cliffs; and (4) Welcome Wash. Eleven tortoises were placed at sites for which no location data are available. Of the 195 releases, 16 have been found dead. For the 172 tortoises released between 1973 and 1982, 45 (26 per cent) were recaptured one or more times more than six months after their release dates. Captives compose a significant portion of the marked tortoises at Sites 34 and 35 (Winden 1980, Minden and Keller 1961). Twenty-three (21.9 per cent) of the 105 tortoises captured in 1980 at Site 34 were marked captives. Seventeen of the 73 tortoises (23.3 per cent) captured at Site 35 in 1981 were marked captives, The captive tortoises are supposedly from Utah residents, who have kept then for pets. The captives may have many sources, e.g., the Slope, other states, pet traders, and pet stores. Many are passed from one ovner to another and their histories are unknown. Frank Tharp and Carl MeCamnon, California Department of Fish and Gane wardens, arrested a tortoise (2-13,collector in 1970 in the western Mojave Desert of California. The collector said he had been shipping 1,000 to 2,000 tortoises/year from California to Salt Lake City, Urah (see Chapter 4). Im October of 1981, an international group of tortoise scientists, the Tortoise Specialist Group of che International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Species Survival Commission, met in Oxford England to review the status of tortoises on a world-wide basis, They also discussed captive breeding and release of captives and passed a resolution of the subject which states, in part: ‘The group urges that in all cases preservation of tortoise populations and species by habitet maintenance and collection be the preferred technique, and that cap- tive reproduction is essentially an in extremis approach to be used when habitat has collapsed or vhen the species is so rare that natural reproduction is unlikely. IE captive breeding and subsequent release of tortoises are undertaken, the following precautions should be followed: 4) Genetic pollution should be vigorously avoided by utilizing stock of known origin and releasing sub- sequent generations in the same general area as that from which the stock was obtained; stock of unknown origin should only be used for extremely rare and localized forms. 44) Care should be taken to avoid introduction of para sites or bacteria to wild populations in the course of release of captive-bred individuals. Afi) Releases of captive tortoises anyvhere and by any- one should be coordinated with accepted scientific and conservation authorities, ideally the members of the IUCN Tortoise Specialist Group... iv) Tortoises for release should be uniquely and per manently marked and full records maintained. ‘The most serious problem with captive releases on the Beaver Dan Slope is genetic pollution. The sources of the tortoises are unknown in most, if not, all cases. If several thousand tortoises were shipped from the western rotedge of the geographic range in California to the extreme northeastern edge in Utah as reported by McCammon and Tharp, then genetic pollution undoubtedly has occurred. HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN TORTOISE HABITAT Dodd (1960) reviewed historic and ongoing uses affecting tortoises on the Slope as of 1980. More recent data on human activities in torto{se habitat were obtained from the Literature, agency reports, and from material readily available in the U.S, Department of interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) office in St. George. No attempt was made to gather information on temporary use permits; rights-of-way; ofl and gas and other leases; patented and unpatented mineral claims; and sales of gravel, sand and other such commodities. In the descriptions and discussion below, activities and uses in CH are emphasized (Fig. 12-3). Collecting and Vandalion Collecting of this species is prohibited by state and federal laws (Chapter 13). Some collecting probably still occurs but Utah Division of Wildlife Resources personnel have not observed collectors in the last fev years (Mike Coffeen, personal communication). However, possible acts of vandalism have occurred in the spring of 1962, Coffeen (personal communication) observed a family group camping at Big Den Wash and later found two fresh shell remains at their camp site. The shells appeared to be have been flattened, as if stomped. yasT ’ . tazg | 36 | 37 | 36 | 37 36 7428 |: . a _ | mas 1716 | | 7 | t T se seein unoeverorta UY sroven cxreamenrPlate 12-4 DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT in Utah kK E Y a ee GB saw FEED rawareuwo VEHICLE USE DESIGNATIONS Sd ZZ exsrexosos FERRED octienareo nounsis prohibited: about 4.8 miles of designated roads are in the vicinity of the Joshua Tree Natural Area/Woodbury Desert Study Area (Table 12-4). Elsewhere in the CH, vehicle use is permitted on approximately 34.3 miles of existing roads and trails. Road and trail density averages one Linear mile/eq. mile of CH. Rovley (1981, 1984) has reported that vehicle use is permitted on existing roads and trails, hovever. Potential Wilderness Areas In the late 1970's, the BLM identified evo "roadless" areas with 5,000 actes of contiguous public Lands (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management n.d.d.). These areas are identified at 057 and 059 (Table 12-4, Plate 12-5) and covered 21 sq. miles or 53.8 per cent of the CH. The areas were under special inventory status to determine the presence of wilderness values according to 2(c) eriterta of the Wilderness Act of 1964, The part of 057 in the Ci has been dropped from consideration; 059 also has been dropped (Hike Coffeen, personal communication). ‘The Joshua Tree Natural Area was designated an Instant Study Area by Congress and still has interim protection under the 3802 Wilderness Guidelines (Mike Coffeen, personal communication). However, both the BLM State Director of Utah and the BLM Director in Washington, D.C., have declared that this Natural Area is not suitable for wilderness and have asked that it be renoved from the list of Instant Study Areas. Currently the wilderness status of the Natural Area 4s in the Office of Management and Budget. In 1977, che BLM proposed enlarging the Joshua Tree Natural Area from about 3,000 to 4,000 acres and changing the name to the Woodbury Desert \a-23