B08_Attachment_2_CA_WEMOPA.pdf

FINAL

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION,

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT – CALIFORNIA,

AND

THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT RESPONSIBILITIES

FOR

THE WEST MOJAVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND

THE WEST MOJAVE ROUTE NETWORK PROJECT

WHEREAS, this programmatic agreement (Agreement) is developed under the authority of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA) found at 54 USC

§ 306108 (Section 106) and its implementing regulations found at Title 36 Part 800 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 800); specifically 36 CFR 800.14(b) which provides the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with the authority to negotiate this Agreement to govern the resolution of adverse effects from complex project situations or multiple undertakings and 36

CFR 800.4(b)(2) which provides for phased historic property identification and evaluation efforts through a programmatic agreement; and

WHEREAS, in 2006, the BLM California Desert District Office signed the Record of

Decision for the West Mojave Plan Amendment (WEMO) as an amendment to the California

Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, which included designating a network of routes of travel on 3.2 million acres of public lands in the Barstow, Ridgecrest, Needles, and Palm Springs

Field Offices; and

WHEREAS, the objectives of the BLM’s travel management plans are to provide sustainable travel and transportation systems that provide access to public lands for a range of uses which compliment specific management goals and objectives in compliance with applicable laws and regulations including: 43 CFR 8342; the BLM’s MS-1626 Travel and Transportation

Management Manual (1626 Manual); the Council on Environmental Quality’s Procedures for

Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act at 36 CFR Part 805; and the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) at 43 CFR 1610; and

WHEREAS, in 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California (Court) issued a decision in response to CBD, et al. v. BLM, et al., 3:06-cv-04884-SI brought by eleven environmental organizations against the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service which remanded portions of the 2006 decision; and

WHEREAS, the BLM will amend and revise the WEMO Plan and, through development of specific implementation-level travel management plans, referred to as the WEMO Route

Network Project (WMRNP), decide upon the management of approximately 15,000 miles of existing transportation related linear features outside of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Open

Areas and managed by the BLM, including the designation of transportation-related linear features as either Motorized, Non-Motorized, Non-Mechanized use or transportation linear disturbances (collectively, “Routes”); the routine maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation of existing Routes; and the classification of Routes for competitive use (“C” Routes”); and

WHEREAS, the BLM has determined that their actions associated with revising and amending the WEMO Plan and implementing travel management plans constitutes an

Undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)(1)(i) and (ii), the effects on historic properties are likely to be similar and repetitive, cross multiple regions, and cannot be fully determined prior to the approval of the Undertaking, ordered by the Court on a particular timeline, the BLM seeks to phase final identification and evaluation of historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2); and

WHEREAS, the BLM is the lead federal agency, responsible for ensuring that all stipulations of this Agreement are carried out and is a Signatory to this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the California Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) has historic property management responsibilities under Section 106, 36 CFR Part 800 and 36 CFR Part 61 to advise and assist the BLM in complying with its Section 106 responsibilities for proposed undertakings on public lands in California and is a Signatory to this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land

Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of

State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in Which the BLM will Meet Its

Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1)(c), the

BLM has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the Undertaking’s potential for adverse effects and of its intent to develop this Agreement and the ACHP has elected to participate by formal notification received June 24, 2014, and is a Signatory to this

Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has consulted with the SHPO and the ACHP pursuant to 36 CFR

800.14(b)(3) and following the procedures outlined at 36 CFR 800.6, and is in the process of considering alternatives for the Undertaking that have the potential to adversely affect historic properties and may reach a decision regarding approval of the Undertaking before the effects on historic properties have been fully determined, the BLM chooses to continue its assessment of the Undertaking’s potential adverse effects and to resolve any such effects through the implementation of this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, this Agreement does not negate or supersede any agreements governing the project area or vicinity between the BLM and Tribes or Tribal Organizations in effect at the time the Agreement is executed, nor does it negate or supersede any agreement documents executed for existing projects within the project area or vicinity between the BLM and the SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. If any agreement between the BLM and Tribes, or Tribal Organizations or between the BLM and the SHPO in effect at the time the Agreement is executed is found to be in conflict with this Agreement, the respective signatories will confer to resolve the conflict per

Stipulation IX (B): Dispute Resolution. If the resolution results in a proposed amendment to this

Agreement, the provisions under Stipulation X: Amendment and Termination of this Agreement will be followed; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the special relationship between the federal government and

Indian tribes, and Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA (54 USC § 302706(b)), 36 CFR

800.2(c)(2)(ii), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), Executive Orders including but not limited to 13007, and 13175, and Section 3(c) of the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the BLM as the lead federal agency is responsible for government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribes; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has formally notified and invited federally recognized Indian tribes including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the

Owens Valley; the Bishop Paiute Tribe; the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; the Colorado River Indian

Tribes; the Fort Independence Band of Paiute Indians; the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; the Lone

Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe; the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; the San Manuel Band of

Mission Indians; the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; the

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians; and the Tejon Indian Tribe (Tribes); and non-federally recognized Indian tribes including the Tubatulabals of Kern Valley; the Monache

Intertribal Council; the Kern River Paiute Council; and the Kern Valley Indian Community

(Tribal Organizations), to consult and coordinate on the proposed Undertaking and its possible effects on historic properties throughout the WEMO planning area that may be of religious and cultural significance; and to sign this Agreement as Concurring Parties. The BLM has documented its effort to consult and coordinate with Tribes and Tribal Organizations and a summary is provided in Appendix B to this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the following Tribes and Tribal Organizations participated in the development of this Agreement: the Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley; the Bishop

Paiute Tribe; the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; the Colorado River Indian Tribes; the Fort

Independence Band of Paiute Indians; the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; the Lone Pine Paiute-

Shoshone Tribe; the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; the San Manuel Band of Mission

Indians; the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians; the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; the Twenty-Nine

Palms Band of Mission Indians; the Tejon Indian Tribe; and the Kern Valley Indian Community;

and

WHEREAS, the BLM will continue to consult with Tribes and Tribal Organizations throughout the implementation of this Agreement regarding the phased identification and evaluation efforts and the resolution of adverse effects to historic properties to which Tribes and

Tribal Organizations may attach religious and cultural significance. The BLM, as the lead federal agency, and the other Signatories to the Agreement recognize that Tribes and Tribal

Organizations have continuing deep interests in their Ancestral Lands that are now owned and managed by the United States government. These interests may range far beyond historic properties as defined by 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1); the BLM commits to accord Tribal Officials the appropriate respect and dignity of the position as leaders of sovereign nations and will make every effort to understand and consider Tribal interests in these Lands. The BLM will carry out its responsibilities to consult and coordinate with Tribes and Tribal Organizations with the further understanding that, notwithstanding any decision by these Tribes and Tribal

Organizations to decline concurrence with this Agreement, the BLM shall continue to consult and coordinate with these Tribes and Tribal Organizations throughout the implementation of this

Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has invited the following federal and state government agencies to participate in the development of this Agreement: Joshua Tree National Park; Death Valley

National Park; Mojave National Preserve; Inyo National Forest; San Bernardino National Forest;

Sequoia National Forest; US Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake; US Air Force Base

Edwards; US Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms; US Army Garrison

Fort Irwin; the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; California State Parks, Off-Highway

Motor Vehicle Recreation Division; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; California State

Lands Commission; and California Department of Transportation, District 6, District 7, District

8, and District 9; and has invited them to sign this Agreement as Concurring Parties; and

WHEREAS, the following government agencies participated in the development of this

Agreement: Joshua Tree National Park; Death Valley National Park; Mojave National Preserve;

Inyo National Forest; Sequoia National Forest; US Army Garrison Fort Irwin; the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service; California State Parks, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation

Division; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; California State Lands Commission; and

California Department of Transportation; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has invited the following local governments to participate in the development of this Agreement: Inyo County; Kern County; Los Angeles County; San

Bernardino County; and Riverside County, and has invited them to sign this Agreement as

Concurring Parties; and

WHEREAS, the following local governments participated in the development of this

Agreement: Inyo County and San Bernardino County; and

WHEREAS, the BLM has invited the following organizations and individuals to participate in the development of this Agreement: American Motorcycle Association; American

Rock Art Research Association; California Off-Road Vehicle Association; Friends of El Mirage;

Friends of Jawbone; Friends of Public Land Cabins; the Historical Society of the Upper Mojave

Desert; Maturango Museum; Mojave Air Resources Board; Mojave River Museum; National

Public Lands News; Off-Road Business Association; Old Spanish Trail Association; Searles

Valley Historical Society; United 4 Wheel Drive Association; Western San Bernardino

Landowners Association; and individuals with demonstrated interest in the Undertaking, Mr.

Mark Algazy and the Desert Tortoise Council; and has invited them to sign this Agreement as

Concurring Parties; and

WHEREAS, the following local organizations and individuals participated in the development of this Agreement: American Rock Art Research Association; California Off-Road

Vehicle Association; Friends of El Mirage; Friends of Jawbone; Friends of Public Land Cabins;

the Historical Society of the Upper Mojave Desert; Maturango Museum; National Public Lands

News; Searles Valley Historical Society; Mr. Mark Algazy and the Desert Tortoise Council; and

WHEREAS, for the purposes of this Agreement, “Consulting Parties” collectively refers to the Signatories and Concurring Parties, and shall include Tribes or Tribal Organizations regardless of their decision to sign this Agreement; and

NOW THEREFORE, the Signatories have determined that the Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the Undertaking on historic properties, resolve such adverse effects through the process set forth in this Agreement, and further agree that these stipulations shall govern the Undertaking and all of its parts until this Agreement, is modified, expires or is terminated.

DEFINITIONS

Terms used in this Agreement are defined in Appendix A and are consistent with the definitions found in 36 CFR 60.3; 36 CFR 800.16; BLM 8100 Manual Identifying and Evaluating Cultural

Resources (8100 Manual); and the 1626 Manual. All other terms not defined have the same meanings as set forth in the above-mentioned resources.

STIPULATIONS

The BLM shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:

I. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

A. The BLM in consultation with SHPO and the Consulting Parties has determined and documented the area of potential effects (APE) for the Undertaking, in accordance with

36 CFR 800.16 (d). The APE for the Undertaking is shown on Attachments 1 and 2 to this Agreement. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of the Undertaking and is based on potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with route designation under 43 CFR 8342, routine maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation activities and classification of “C” Routes. The APE, as currently defined, encompasses an area sufficient to accommodate all of the proposed alternatives of the WMRNP and account for the direct and indirect effects of the 2006 WEMO Plan. The BLM utilized current cultural resource information in the development of the proposed alternatives for the WMRNP, based on the results of a review and update to the BLM cultural resource

GIS records. The APE is determined as follows:

i. The direct APE for Routes proposed for designations will be 50 feet beyond any existing or allowable ground disturbance associated with the route. Designated off-route parking or camping areas will be within the direct APE.

ii. The indirect APE will vary based on the presence of cultural resources identified during previous record searches; topography; visibility of historic properties from a

Route; the vulnerability of historic properties to atmospheric, visual or auditory effects and looting; the extent of Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) or districts; or other factors identified during on-going consultation with the Consulting Parties.

iii. The indirect APE extends to the visual horizon, not to exceed one mile on either side of the direct APE of a Route, unless otherwise identified by a Consulting Party in consultation or as identified through additional analysis.

iv. Where the indirect APE includes TCPs, properties of religious and cultural significance, and other classes of historic properties to which setting, feeling, and/or association contribute to eligibility, additional analysis may be required and the indirect APE may be modified according to Stipulation I.C below.

B. In some cases, historic properties and properties of religious and cultural significance may extend well beyond the narrow APE of the Route. Such properties will be identified through consultation with the Consulting Parties with applicable knowledge.

C. The BLM may modify the APE, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, without amending the Agreement. If it is determined, in the future, that the Undertaking may directly or indirectly affect historic properties located outside the currently defined APE, the BLM, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, shall modify the APE using the following process:

i. Any Consulting Party may propose that the APE established herein be modified. The

BLM shall notify all Consulting Parties of the proposal to modify the APE, including a map and description of the proposed modification. The BLM will consult for no more than 30 days in an effort to reach consensus on the proposed modification. The

BLM will keep copies of the description and the map on file for its administrative record and report the modification of the APE as part of the annual reporting requirements of Stipulation IV.E and during regularly scheduled Consulting Party meetings.

ii. If the modification to the APE adds a new geographic area, the BLM will identify historic properties in the new APE area, assess the effects of the Undertaking on any historic properties in the new APE area, and consult to seek resolution of adverse effects to such properties in accordance with the process outlined in Stipulation IV of this Agreement.

iii. If the Consulting Parties cannot agree to a proposed modification of the APE, then the

BLM will consider the concerns and will render a final decision.

II. TRIBAL CONSULTATION

A. The BLM is the lead federal agency responsible for consultation and coordination with

Tribes and Tribal Organizations under this Agreement.

B. The BLM shall coordinate and consult on a government-to-government basis with designated Tribal representatives in the identification, evaluation, and treatment of resources to which the Tribes and Tribal Organizations may attach traditional religious and cultural significance [36 CFR 800.16(l)] and to determine whether they are historic properties.

i. Tribes and Tribal Organizations may identify specific resources that meet the definitions of historic properties at 36 CFR 800.16(l) and 36 CFR 60.3 defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects through on-going consultation. Such resources may include but are not limited to:

a. Prehistoric and historic sites and districts;

b. Multicomponent and historic sites that are related to Native American history and

/or contain Native American artifacts and/or features;

c. Traditional Cultural Places;

d. Isolated objects, materials or occurrences of religious and cultural significance.

ii. The BLM requests that any resources of traditional religious and cultural significance known to Tribes or Tribal Organizations that are located within the APE be identified by Tribes or Tribal Organizations in consultation.

iii. The BLM will endeavor to provide Route maps and Route-related GIS data that are easily understood by representatives in the consultation process.

C. Agency and Tribal Points of Contact

i. The BLM Point of Contact (POC) for official correspondence shall be the California

Desert District Deputy District Manager for Resources, or designee.

ii. On behalf of each Tribe and Tribal Organization, the Tribal Chairperson shall be the official POC. A representative(s) in addition to the Tribal Chairperson may be designated in writing by the Tribal government to represent the Tribe or Tribal

Organizations for the purposes of Section 106 consultation [36 CFR 800.2(C)(2)].

iii. Communication between the BLM and Tribes and Tribal Organizations will follow

Stipulation III.A(ii).

D. The BLM will continue government-to-government consultation with Tribes and coordination with Tribal Organizations throughout the implementation of this Agreement, notwithstanding any decision by a Tribe or Tribal Organization to decline concurrence to

E. The BLM will invite and coordinate further Tribal participation in the BLM’s Section

106 identification, evaluation, and treatment efforts.

III. PARTICIPATION OF CONSULTING PARTIES AND NOTIFICATION TO THE

PUBLIC

A. Throughout the duration of the Agreement, the BLM will seek, discuss, and consider the views of the Consulting Parties and will, where feasible, seek agreement with them [36

CFR 800.16 (f)] when making decisions under the stipulations of this Agreement.

i. The Consulting Parties are responsible for providing updated contact information to the BLM.

ii. Unless otherwise agreed, Consulting Parties shall have 30 days to respond to a review of documents and deliverables associated with this Agreement, from receipt of a formal request for review. The BLM shall make reasonable attempts to contact

Consulting Parties to confirm the participation of the Consulting Party in review.

“Reasonable attempts” may include contacting the Tribal Chairperson, designated staff or representatives of the Consulting Parties by Certified Letter, email and/or follow-up telephone call. Where the period for review or comment has passed after such reasonable attempts, the BLM shall assume that the Consulting Party has elected not to comment. The BLM will proceed with the proposed course of action, after taking into consideration the comments from other Consulting Parties, and without that party’s comments on the matter.

iii. The BLM will utilize BLM webpages and the public participation process described in NEPA to notify the Public regarding the activities carried out pursuant to this

Agreement.

a. The BLM will post the final Agreement, including any amendments, and all annual reports associated with this Agreement to the BLM California State

Office and WMRNP webpages. The BLM will notify Consulting Parties of such postings by the methods described in Stipulation III.A(ii).

b. The BLM will ensure that activities associated with the Agreement that require

NEPA documentation are posted to the appropriate managing BLM Field Office webpage. At a minimum the pending Undertaking’s NHPA Section 106 information will be updated when the NEPA review is initiated and again when it is completed.

c. The activity information will include a basic project location and description of either the proposed finding of effect, (i.e. no historic properties affected, no adverse effect to historic properties, or adverse effect to historic properties) or the proposed use of an exemption under the Agreement if that is the case.

IV. IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF HISTORIC

PROPERTIES

A. Identification of Historic Properties:

The BLM shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify cultural resources in the

APE. The BLM will determine if any of the cultural resources identified within the APE, including resources with religious and cultural significance to a Tribe or Tribal Organization, meets one or more of the eligibility criteria for the National Register of Historic Places

(National Register) specified in 36 CFR 60.4. Resources that meet one or more criteria shall be considered historic properties. The BLM will carry out identification efforts for this

Undertaking in phases, which may be completed or undertaken concurrently. To the extent that the phases require formalized documentation of process or have a specific timeline for completion, the BLM will incorporate the tasks as part of the Historic Properties

Management Plan (HPMP). The phases of the Agreement are described as follows:

i. Phase 1 – Literature Review – The BLM completed a records review and annotated bibliography of inventory related to Routes for the WEMO Plan Revision to assist in the development of NEPA alternatives. The BLM will conduct additional literature reviews in order to have current data in advance of subsequent cultural inventories and to ensure properly identified research themes for the development of the

Evaluation Plan for Phase 6 of the Undertaking, and as described in Stipulation

IV(vi)(f)(3). Additional literature reviews may include more extensive scholarly research to identify particular property types; such methods of identification may include but are not limited to ethnographic research; examination of old maps and surveyors’ reports; oral histories; interviews with Tribal Elders; and examination of primary archival resources such as Mission Records and travelers’ diaries.

a. In addition to inventory efforts of the direct APE as described in Stipulation IV.A

(iv), below, the BLM will conduct a Class I records review for one mile beyond the direct APE to account for the indirect APE. The BLM will conduct a GIS based viewshed analysis to refine the indirect APE. Where the GIS based sensitivity model results (Stipulation IV(iii) below) and viewshed analysis results indicate high visibility and high sensitivity, the BLM will consult with Consulting

Parties to develop additional identification efforts.

b. The Class I Survey will result in a landscape level report synthesizing the data of the planning area rather than Route specific analyses. The BLM will be responsible for this report. The BLM will update the literature reviews and report every five years during the life of this Agreement. The literature reviews and reports for the direct and indirect APE, and the products of any scholarly research with all confidential or sensitive information redacted pursuant to Stipulation

IX.A below, will be provided for review to the Consulting Parties either prior to the Record of Decision, or on a schedule as determined through consultation pursuant to Stipulation IV.A(vi).

ii. Phase 2 – Seek additional information – Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(3), the BLM will continue to gather information from the Consulting Parties, other individuals, and organizations likely to have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties in the planning area, and identify issues relating to the Undertaking’s potential effects on historic properties. This phase will be on-going throughout the life of the Agreement.

iii. Phase 3 – GIS-Based Sensitivity Model – The BLM has developed a GIS-based

Cultural Resource Sensitivity Model (Model) using known cultural resource location data and environmental factors (e.g. slope, aspect, elevation, hydrology, flora, landforms, or other landscape attributes and natural features). The BLM will compare the results of the Model with the results of randomly selected cultural resource inventories of Routes conducted during 2014-2015 to test the validity and further refine the Model. The BLM will provide documentation of the Model development to the Consulting Parties for review within 90 days of execution of this

Agreement. The Model documentation will be included in the HPMP. The Model will be dynamic, adaptive, and will be refined through further data acquisition and application of the Model, including inventory and consultation with Consulting

Parties.

iv. Phase 4 – Develop Route Inventory Prioritization/Strategy – Where BLM determines that less than a Class III survey of the direct APE is appropriate, the BLM, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, will develop a strategy of inventory priorities based on the results of the GIS-Based Sensitivity Model and the Recreation

Use-Levels of the planning area (Strategy). The BLM shall seek informally the views of the SHPO staff concerning the justification and Strategy for the reduced level of inventory. The SHPO may concur with the proposed approach or may request that the BLM employ a Class III inventory. The BLM will take any requests into account and proceed at their discretion.

Priority and strategies for inventory will vary depending on the quality of existing information; extent of potential change to the Route by motorized, mechanized, non-motorized or non-mechanized use; the expected density and nature of historic properties; and the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed designations. The Strategy will be adaptive and may be modified as new information and data are gathered through consultation, inventory, and coordination with BLM

Recreation staff, for example, where changes in the network of Routes result in a shift, concentration, or expansion of travel onto other designated Routes where historic properties are likely to be adversely affected. The Strategy will be formalized as part of the HPMP.

v. Phase 5 – Class III Inventory of Routine Maintenance, Restoration and Rehabilitation

Activities and Classification of “C” Routes – The BLM, acknowledging the compliance requirements of the Court, will continue Section 106 review and Class III inventory of implementation actions associated with routine maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation activities, and classification of competitive routes. These activities will be on-going throughout the life of the Agreement.

a. Routine Maintenance, Restoration and Rehabilitation Activities: Routine maintenance activities may include: maintaining Route surfaces with heavy equipment; installation of erosion control features; installation of fencing; barriers and other traffic controls; and the removal of attractants and debris not older than

45 years. Restoration and rehabilitation activities may include: decompaction of

Route tread; terracing, seeding and vertical mulching to obliterate Route tread;

and installation of fencing, barriers and other traffic controls. For routine maintenance activities or restoration and rehabilitation activities that result in ground disturbance on Routes not previously subjected to Section 106 review, the

BLM will conduct Class III inventory of the APE (proposed direct effects plus a

50 foot buffer surrounding the disturbance) prior to implementation of the proposed action. No additional identification efforts are required if the APE is entirely within areas that have been previously inventoried; and the BLM archaeologists from either the Barstow or Ridgecrest Field Office have determined that the previous identification efforts represent a reasonable and good faith effort and conform to the prevailing professional survey standards for the geographic region, provided that the regional standards meet or exceed the

Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines. When assessing and certifying the adequacy of previous inventory work (i.e., reports and documentation), BLM archaeologists shall consider the following measures, with additional review for inventories completed greater than 15 years ago:

1. when the inventory was done;

2. experience level and survey objectives of the person or persons who did the inventory;

3. whether there are any previously identified problems with similar inventories;

4. what parties were consulted and how;

5. whether methodology accounted for prehistoric resources, properties of traditional religious and cultural significance, and historic resources;

6. changes in environmental conditions (e.g., burn areas where the potential exists for new exposure of resources; erosion, landslides, flood events or other actions which may cause the exposure or natural destruction of sites);

7. and adequacy of previous documentation.

b. Classification of “C” Routes: For Routes not previously designated for competitive use nor subjected to Section 106 inventory, the BLM will conduct

Class III inventory of the APE of the Route prior to opening those Routes for competitive use.

c. The determination and the justification for determining that a prior survey was adequate to identify historic properties shall be explained in the annual report to the Consulting Parties pursuant to Stipulation IV.E.(iv) and will be subject to

Stipulation IX.B Dispute Resolution. The BLM may at any time invite the SHPO or Consulting Parties to comment on the adequacy of previous inventory.

vi. Phase 6 – Development of the Historic Properties Management Plan – The BLM, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, will develop a HPMP that will formalize the inventory strategy, evaluation plan and specific processes for the Undertaking.

a. The BLM will develop the HPMP subsequent to the issuance of the BLM

NEPA Record of Decision and within one (1) year of execution of this

Agreement, or other period as agreed to by the Signatories.

b. The HPMP may be completed in phases and by task, as directed by BLM.

The HPMP will specify how each task will be carried out, when it will be completed for each segment of the Undertaking, and shall provide sufficient flexibility to allow the BLM to fulfill requirements of the Court. Cultural resource mitigation measures for the alternative chosen in the BLM Record of Decision will be incorporated into the HPMP.

c. In consultation with the Consulting Parties, components of the HPMP may be prepared and implemented in phases prior to the completion of the final

HPMP and will be incorporated into the final HPMP as agreed. The BLM will submit the individual phased components of the HPMP as they are drafted to Consulting Parties for a 30-day review and comment period. The

BLM will consider all comments and revise the individual components as appropriate. The BLM, within 30 days of close of the comment period, will provide the reviewing Consulting Parties with written documentation indicating whether and how the individual components have been modified.

The BLM will submit the revised individual components of the HPMP to the

SHPO for an additional 15-day review and concurrence.

d. The BLM will submit the draft final HPMP to all Consulting Parties for a

45-day review period. The BLM may schedule Consulting Party meetings to review the HPMP as appropriate. The BLM may assume the concurrence of Consulting Parties that do not submit comments within this timeframe.

The BLM, within 30 days of the close of the comment period, will provide the Consulting Parties with written documentation indicating whether and how the draft HPMP has been modified in response to any timely comments received.

e. The BLM will submit the draft final HPMP to the SHPO for an additional

15-day review and concurrence. If the BLM and the SHPO cannot reach an agreement on the components of the HPMP or the draft Final of the HPMP during the review period, the review period may be extended an additional

30 days or until such time an agreement is reached. If the BLM and the

SHPO are unable to reach consensus after the additional review period, resolution will follow Stipulation IX. B.

f. The HPMP may include but will not be limited to the following:

1. Formalized Route Inventory Prioritization Strategy developed in

Stipulation IV.A (iv).

2. Development of a comprehensive list of exemptions, or activities associated with routine maintenance, restoration and rehabilitation activities that may be exempt from further Section 106 review under this

Agreement. These activities are generally exempt, but may require a records check to determine whether the activity may affect a known historic property or unevaluated cultural resource. Such exemptions shall be documented in a memo to the BLM project files in order to demonstrate compliance with Section 106. The activities may include, but are not limited to:

a) Debris removal and clean out of culverts and lead outs;

b) Removal of brush and vegetation to reduce safety hazards or improve passage along a route where removal does not result in surface disturbance;

c) Removal of trash, structures, and materials such as abandoned automobiles, fences, buildings, and scattered refuse that do not exceed 45 years of age;

d) Installation/removal of carsonite signs or metal t-post bars for signs;

e) Installation/removal of signs or kiosks where disturbance does not exceed two square meters of cumulative disturbance in any given one acre location;

f) Placement of educational or informational signs on existing posts or kiosks;

g) Seed scattering that does not include drilling or trenching;

h) Raking, sweeping, or blowing away tracks when little or no vegetation trampling or soil compaction has occurred.

3. Development of an Evaluation Plan that identifies research questions that will form the basis of evaluation tailored to the type and age of historic properties present and which will be applied to the identification and evaluation of as-yet-unidentified potential historic properties. The

Evaluation Plan will be regularly updated as more research and data for the region becomes available.

4. In accordance with Stipulation IV.A(i)(b), the BLM will establish the methods and basic research questions to direct the development of a historic context for prehistoric, contact-era and historic trail networks in the WEMO area. The final context document will be completed within 5 years of execution of the Agreement to allow for adequate scholarly research and consultation with Consulting Parties.

5. Development of a comprehensive list of Standard Protective Measures that can be applied to minimize and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.

6. Development of a Condition Assessment Program that will be used to track the effectiveness of Standard Protective Measures applied during implementation of this Agreement and the conditions of historic properties listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP.

g. Upon final acceptance by the BLM in consultation with the SHPO, the HPMP will be appended to this Agreement as Appendix C and the final document provided to all Consulting Parties.

h. Modifications, additions, or deletions to the appendices made as a result of continuing consultation among the Consulting Parties only require written notification by BLM to the Consulting Parties prior to going into effect. The amendment process under Stipulation X is not applicable to such changes.

vii. Phase 7 – Development of Historic Property Treatment Plans – The BLM, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, may develop property-specific Historic

Property Treatment Plans (HPTPs) if the BLM, in consultation with Consulting

Parties, determines Standard Protective Measures developed as part of the HPMP and listed in Stipulation IV.D are not sufficient for the protection of a historic property.

The process for developing, reviewing, and commenting on an HPTP will follow

Stipulation IV. A(vi) (c) and (d) above.

a. Upon final acceptance by the BLM and the SHPO, any HPTP developed as part of this Agreement will be appended to this Agreement within Appendix D.

b. Modifications, additions, or deletions to the appendices made as a result of continuing consultation among the Consulting Parties only require written notification by the BLM to the Consulting Parties prior to going into effect. The amendment process under Stipulation X is not applicable to such changes.

viii. Any disputes that may arise between the BLM and another Consulting Party over the phased approach as outlined above shall be resolved in accordance with Stipulation

IX.B below.

B. Evaluation of Historic Properties

For each property that is identified within the APE as affected by any activity described as part of Stipulation I.A, the BLM, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, will determine NRHP eligibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1). These may include properties of religious and cultural significance to Tribes or Tribal Organizations

i. Where resources are identified but will be avoided or protected by implementing

Standard Protective Measures, the BLM may treat such resources as eligible for inclusion in the National Register without formal evaluation.

ii. The BLM will make determinations of NRHP eligibility based on the Evaluation Plan developed as part of the HPMP.

iii. The BLM may make determinations of NRHP eligibility prior to completion of the

Evaluation Plan. The BLM will apply the criteria for evaluation found in 36 CFR

60.4 and National Register Bulletin 15 to all cultural resources that may be affected, including TCPs and properties of religious and cultural significance. The BLM shall provide sufficient written context and justification to support each determination but it need not be a full‐scale evaluation report.

iv. BLM also acknowledges that Tribes and Tribal Organizations possess special expertise in assessing the eligibility of historic properties that may have religious and cultural significance to Tribes and Tribal Organizations in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(1).

v. The BLM will distribute determinations of NRHP eligibility to Consulting Parties, with confidential or sensitive information redacted pursuant to Stipulation IX.A below, for review and comment following 36 CFR 800.4(c) for a 30 day review period. The BLM will distribute determinations, at a minimum, during any of the regularly scheduled consultation meetings pursuant to Stipulation IV.E, or as necessary based on activities pursuant to Stipulation IV.A.

a. The BLM will concurrently request SHPO review and concurrence on the agency proposed determinations of eligibility.

b. The BLM will forward to the SHPO all comments received during the 30 day review and comment period.

c. After the 30-day comment period, the SHPO will have 10 days to provide any comments on the determination or concur with the BLM’s determination.

d. If the SHPO and BLM agree that the cultural resource is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, no further review or consideration under this Agreement will be required for such resources.

e. If the SHPO and BLM agree that the property is eligible, then effect determinations will be made in accordance with Stipulation IV.C.

f. If the SHPO and BLM do not agree on eligibility, the BLM will consult further with the SHPO. If agreement cannot be reached within 30 days, the BLM will obtain a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register

(Keeper) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2) and 36 CFR Part 63. The Keeper’s determination will be final.

g. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(C)(2), if a Tribe or Tribal Organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to a property located off Tribal lands does not agree with the BLM determination of eligibility, the Tribe or Tribal Organization may ask the ACHP to request that the BLM obtain a determination of eligibility from the Keeper.

C. Assessment of Effects

The BLM will, in consultation with the Consulting Parties, make findings of effect consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(d) and identify any adverse effects to historic properties within the APE in accordance with the criteria established at 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1) and (2)(i)-(vii).

i. The BLM will provide to Consulting Parties the results of the findings, with confidential or sensitive information redacted pursuant to Stipulation IX.A below, concurrently with the distribution of inventory results and determinations of eligibility for a single 30-day review and comment period.

ii. The BLM will concurrently request SHPO review and concurrence on the agency proposed findings of effect. The BLM will follow the timelines for SHPO review of comments as described in Stipulation IV. B(v)(c) above.

iii. If the BLM determines the effect may be adverse, the BLM will make a reasonable and good faith effort to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the most reasonable and fitting extent. Avoidance of historic properties is the preferred method to address potential adverse effects and the BLM will seek avoidance to the maximum extent practicable.

iv. The BLM will consider the views of Consulting Parties in the resolution of adverse effects. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, the BLM, in consultation, will develop an HPTP in accordance with Stipulation IV.A(vii) above. These determinations will serve as the basis for the development of specific HPTPs, if

Standard Protective Measures developed as part of the HPMP are not sufficient.

D. Standard Protective Measures

The BLM will further define Standard Protective Measures as a component of the

HPMP, and may further refine measures for specific classes of impacts, in specific environments, and for specific types of historic properties in the HPMP. For cultural resources assumed eligible and immediately threatened or adversely effected by Route use and associated activities, the following Standard Protective Measures may be applied unless or until site-specific measures are developed. The BLM will define any necessary site-specific treatment in separate HPTPs, if required. For historic properties that have been determined eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and which are determined to be adversely effected by activities associated with Routes, the BLM may require additional protective measures developed in consultation with Consulting Parties.

i. BLM’s Standard Protective Measures can include, but are not limited to:

a. Redirecting Routes to avoid historic properties, where the modification does not result in impacts to additional resources.

b. Changing designations to uses that cause less impacts (e.g. Motorized to non-motorized, non-mechanized).

c. Closure and restoration of the route using standard methods developed by the Recreation Staff and approved by the Cultural Resources Staff.

d. Fencing or exclosure of a historic property, sufficient to ensure long-term protection, according to the following specifications:

1. The BLM will ensure construction of the exclosure is not a hazard to life and safety; and

2. The area within the exclosure must be inventoried to locate and record all historic properties; and

3. The exclosure fence must not divide a historic property so that a portion is outside of the fence; and

4. The BLM Cultural Resource Staff will determine the appropriate buffer to be included between the cultural resource and its exclosing fence.

e. Excluding areas with historic properties from Special Recreation

Permitted events (e.g. race courses, organized group camping sites, filming locations).

f. Removal of unauthorized, man-made, non-contributing, or intrusive attractants to a historic property when such removal, in the judgment of the BLM Cultural Resource Staff, will create no disturbance to or have no effect on the property (e.g. removing fire rings, picnic tables, modern trash or structures determined not to be historic properties).

g. Other protective measures may be established in consultation with

Consulting Parties, as appropriate.

ii. Standard Protective Measures that are implemented will be reported annually pursuant to Stipulation IV.E.

iii. The BLM will consult with Tribes and Tribal Organizations prior to the application of Standard Protective Measures that have the potential to limit access to resources of religious and cultural significance. Where these resources have been identified in consultation, the BLM will work with Tribes and Tribal

Organizations to design appropriate protection that will not violate EO13007 and

AIRFA.

E. On-Going Consultation Meetings and Annual Reporting

The BLM acknowledges the complexity and scale of the Undertaking and will continue to facilitate meaningful consultation throughout the life of this Agreement. The BLM will coordinate and facilitate Consulting Party meetings three times per year for the first three (3) years of this Agreement. The meeting purpose is to update the Consulting

Parties on the progress of the Agreement implementation and to receive feedback and information from the Consulting Parties regarding significant issues or resources that may not be identified prior to the execution of this Agreement.

i. The BLM POC in Stipulation II.C is responsible for scheduling meetings. The

BLM will provide telephone and web-based access to any in-person meetings when available.

ii. The BLM will generally schedule meetings for the months of January, May, and

September each year.

iii. The schedule of three times yearly Consulting Party meetings will be reviewed in

Year Three (3) of the Agreement.

iv. The BLM will report annually to the Consulting Parties a summary, in writing, of activities carried out under this Agreement during the previous fiscal year. The

BLM will provide the report by November 30 of each year, coinciding with the

BLM’s regular reporting schedule to SHPO. The report will be the primary subject of the Consulting Party meeting in January.

a. Annual reports shall be programmatic summaries of data and significant findings and not compilations of the individual project reports prepared for each activity. At a minimum, the report will include:

1. Total acreage and total route mileage inventoried;

2. Total number of resources identified by type;

3. Total number of condition assessments carried out;

4. Descriptions, as appropriate, of historic properties recommended eligible for the NRHP;

5. Summaries of additional consultation efforts;

6. Summaries of unanticipated effects or post-review discoveries with appropriate considerations for confidentiality/sensitivity in accordance with Stipulation IX.A;

7. Number and types of applications of Standard Protective

Measures;

8. Any treatment that exceeds the application of Standard Protective

Measures; and

9. Total number of route miles affected by the application of Standard

Protective Measures.

F. Final Documentation

In the final year of the Agreement, the BLM will produce a synthesis report of all findings and activities associated with this Undertaking and provide a copy of the document to the Consulting Parties.

V. TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS

A. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of human remains, the BLM manager for the corresponding field office must be notified immediately by telephone and with written confirmation [43 CFR 10.4(a)]. No additional disturbance may take place and all work in the area must cease immediately within a 300-foot radius of the discovery. The 300-foot radius must be secured and all personnel and equipment will be excluded from this area to the extent practicable and permitted by law until a determination is made of the next action. All human remains, burial sites, and funerary objects will be treated with dignity and respect.

B. The BLM shall notify the County Coroner’s Office of the county where the…