Environmental Assessment for the Castle Dome Bypass Road Project

Draft Environmental Assessment

Date: May 8, 2019

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kofa National Wildlife Refuge 9300 E. 28th Street Yuma, AZ 85365 928-783-7861

Table of Contents Proposed Action 3 Background 3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 5 Alternatives Considered 5 Alternative A – No Action Alternative 5 Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative (Blue Bypass Route) 5 Alternative C – Red Bypass Route 6 Alternative D – Green Bypass Route 6 Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration 7 Affected Environment 8 Environmental Consequences of the Action 9 Cumulative Impact Analysis 9 Mitigation Measures and Conditions 23 Monitoring 24 Summary of Analysis 24 Alternative A – No Action Alternative 24 Alternative B – Proposed Action 24 Alternative C 24 Alternative D 25 List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted 25 References 25 List of Preparers 26 State Coordination 26 Tribal Consultation 26 Public Outreach 26 Figure 1. Kofa National Wildlife Refuge map which identifies the refuge boundary, 27 current roads, wilderness areas, and hunt units 27 Figure 2. Castle Dome Mountain area access map annotated with current and past access 28 to the Castle Dome Mountain area via motorized vehicle 28 Figure 3. Map of alternatives for the Castle Dome Bypass Road Project EA 29 APPENDIX 1 30

Environmental Assessment for Castle Dome Bypass Road Project

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment.

Proposed Action The Service is proposing to construct a bypass road to reroute the existing Castle Dome Road around three private inholdings on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (Kofa NWR or refuge). Castle Dome Road currently crosses three private inholdings. Due to concerns with vehicular traffic and dust, the landowner has closed the road to through public access. The proposed action would restore safe and efficient visitor access to areas in the refuge, facilitate refuge management activities, and conciliate concerns by the adjacent private landowner.

The Proposed Action would occur in the southwest portion of Kofa NWR (T4S, R19W, sect. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, and T5S, R19W Sect 3 and 4), Yuma County, Arizona.

A Proposed Action is often iterative and may evolve during the NEPA process as the agency refines its proposal and gathers feedback from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final Proposed Action may be different from the original. The Proposed Action will be finalized at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

Kofa NWR, which encompasses 666,641 acres, was “reserved and set apart for the conservation and development of natural wildlife resources” by Executive Order 8039 on January 25, 1939. Initially, the Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) jointly managed the area as the Kofa Game Range with the recovery of declining desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) populations as a management focus. On February 27, 1976, an amendment to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (P.L. 94-223) awarded sole jurisdiction to the Service and changed the name to Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.

The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is:

“to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

In 1990, Congress designated 547,719 acres of Kofa NWR, over 80 percent of the refuge, as wilderness through the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended, established the National Wilderness Preservation System and mandates that wilderness areas be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. For refuges that encompass wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes for the wilderness portion of that refuge (603 FW 2 2.6).

Over 75,000 people visit Kofa NWR each year to enjoy recreational activities, including hunting, wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and camping. The remote and rugged character of the refuge, particularly the designated wilderness areas, provides challenging and satisfying outdoor experiences in the vast expanse of the picturesque Sonoran Desert. Visitors can access the interior of the refuge on approximately 360 miles of road. The speed limit on all roads is 25 miles per hour. All are primitive roads and approximately 90 percent are only accessible with 4- wheel drive, high clearance vehicles. Only 3.8 miles are maintained to be passable in a standard passenger vehicle. An additional approximately 20–30 miles may be passable in a high- clearance 2-wheel drive vehicle. Of the refuge’s six main entrances with visitor information kiosks, the entrance at Castle Dome Road, in the southwest corner, is the closest to Yuma (Fig. 1). For many decades, visitors traveled this primitive road in 2-wheel drive, high ground clearance vehicles from the entrance for 14 miles to reach the Castle Dome Mountain area. The Castle Dome Mountain area is the starting point for a 5-mile hiking route to Castle Dome Peak. The area is also popular for desert bighorn sheep hunting. Visitors with 4-wheel drive vehicles could continue north over McPherson Pass to connect with other roads and exit the refuge at a different point.

In September 2016, due to vehicular and dust concerns from a private landowner, through access on the Castle Dome Road to other areas of the refuge was restricted about 8 miles from Highway 95 on a portion of the road that crosses three private inholdings (Fig. 2). Two of these inholdings, Flora Temple and Castle Dome inholdings, are adjacent to each other and will be collectively referred to as Flora Temple inholding throughout the document. Prior to this closure, the Castle Dome Road was used for public access for over 50 years. After the road was closed, visitors and staff accessing the Castle Dome Mountain area and other refuge lands had to travel from the north over McPherson Pass, which requires a 4-wheel drive vehicle. In addition to the need for a 4-wheel drive vehicle (as opposed to a high-clearance 2-wheel drive), the round trip drive time from Yuma to the Castle Dome Mountain area increased from just over two hours to over five hours. Access through the gates has been intermittently allowed by the landowner since the initial closure. For the winter of 2018 through April 2019, access was granted through the peak of the visitor season. After this date access across the private inholdings is restricted.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to continue to provide public access to the Castle Dome Mountain area for visitors in high clearance 2-wheel drive vehicles. Access was restricted to these public lands when the southern access road was closed at the private inholdings. The proposed Castle Dome Road reroute is needed to restore safe and efficient visitor and staff access to the Castle Dome Mountain area from the southernmost refuge entrance and allow through traffic to other areas of the refuge. The Proposed Action would restore access while fostering a cooperative relationship with the adjacent landowner.

The Proposed Action meets the following priorities and mandates outlined by the NWRSAA (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)):

● Ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses. ● Ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agency of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located.

The Proposed Action would additionally contribute towards the purpose of “increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish” emphasized in the Secretary of Interior’s Order No. 3356, issued on September 15, 2017.

Alternatives Considered In this EA, we propose to construct a bypass road to reroute Castle Dome Road around three private inholdings. We evaluated multiple routes and a No Action alternative (Fig. 3). Comparison of action alternatives are described in Table 1.

Alternative A – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no bypass road would be constructed. Public access to the Castle Dome Mountain area would be accessible only from McPherson Pass, which is a longer route than the former Castle Dome Road access, and would be passable only to high clearance 4-wheel drive vehicles.

Alternative B – Proposed Action Alternative (Blue Bypass Route) The Proposed Action is an approximately 4.5 mile bypass road that would reroute Castle Dome Road around the west of the three private inholdings (Fig. 3). The route would diverge from the existing Castle Dome Road about 2 miles east of the refuge boundary, traverse to the west side of the private inholdings, and tie back into the existing Castle Dome Road about 1.2 road miles north of the Hull Mine inholding boundary. Approximately 3.5 miles of the route would be established on old two-tracks and previously disturbed ground.

Construction methods and design features common to all alternatives (except for the No Action Alternative) would be unsurfaced, primitive roads about 12-feet wide, accessible by high clearance 2-wheel drive vehicles, similar to the former Castle Dome Road. As a large percentage of the route would be on old two-tracks or previously disturbed ground,

construction equipment would be used primarily to improve wash crossings where needed. Equipment may include a grader, bulldozer, front-end loader, backhoe, dump truck, water truck, and portable fuel source or other similar equipment. A water truck would apply water during construction to minimize dust. If necessary, any excess material would be hauled off and stockpiled at Imperial NWR. Equipment would be staged at the existing parking area at the Castle Dome Road kiosk or other already disturbed areas. Construction would occur between June and September 2019, after the breeding period for most wildlife species in the area, and would take approximately three weeks to complete.

Maintenance would be similar for all alternatives (except for the No Action Alternative). The Castle Dome Bypass Road would be maintained by Kofa NWR staff, as are the other roads on the refuge. Maintenance of these primitive roads is typically limited to spot treatments at wash crossings, especially after big rain events. Refuge staff conduct road maintenance on an as-needed basis, prioritizing the most commonly used roads. Maintenance on any one road typically occurs no more frequently than twice a year.

Analysis for all alternatives includes a vehicle pull-off zone of 100 feet on each side of the entire length of the road, which is consistent with current travel management across the refuge.

Alternative C – Red Bypass Route Alternative C is an approximately 5.4 mile bypass road that would reroute Castle Dome Road around the west side of the three private inholdings (Fig. 3). The route diverges from the existing Castle Dome Road about 1 mile east of the refuge boundary, traverses across a section of desert to the west of the private inholdings, and ties back into the existing Castle Dome Road about 1.2 road miles north of the Hull Mine inholding boundary. Approximately 3.8 miles of the route would be established on old two-tracks and previously disturbed ground.

Construction methods and design features would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative D – Green Bypass Route Alternative D is an approximately 3.8 mile bypass road that would reroute Castle Dome Road around the west side of the three private inholdings (Fig. 3). The route would diverge from the existing Castle Dome Road about 2 miles east of the refuge boundary, traverse to the west of the private inholdings, and tie back into the existing Castle Dome Road 0.65 road miles north of the Hull Mine inholding boundary. Approximately 3.3 miles of the route would be established on old two-tracks and previously disturbed ground. Due to the proximity of Alternative D to a private inholding, there would also not be a 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone for a 0.5-mile section.

Construction methods and design features would be the same as Alternative B.

Table 1. Specifications of each of the action alternatives. Previously undisturbed areas are areas of road that would not be constructed on old roads, two-tracks, or ground disturbed by other human activity.

A B C D (Blue) (Red) (Green) Total length of road (miles) 0 4.5 5.4 3.8

Length of road N/A 1.0 1.6 0.5 on undisturbed area (miles) Length of road N/A 3.5 3.8 3.3 on old two-tracks or previously disturbed area (miles)

Number of wash crossings N/A 32 50 33

Total acres of roadbed N/A 6.5 7.8 5.5

Total acres of new disturbance N/A 1.5 2.3 0.7

Total acres of 100-ft. vehicle N/A 108 129 80 pull-off zone

Alternative(s) Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration Four road bypass routes were considered, but dismissed from further consideration for the reasons described below:

1) We considered, and dismissed development of a route on the east side of Castle Dome Road due to rugged terrain, potential ground instability, and impacts to cultural resources. The terrain of the steep hills and mountains limits where a road could be constructed. Construction of a road would require more extensive construction methods and would not be accessible with high clearance 2-wheel drive vehicles. The route would also traverse the historic Castle Dome mining area that contains numerous old buildings and mining equipment. Detailed analysis of mine workings would be needed to determine whether it would be possible to design a route where ground stability is not compromised by the multiple mining shafts and underground tunnel systems.

2) We considered another route diverging from Castle Dome Road at the junction of the Big Eye Mine Road that would bypass the private inholdings to the west. While this route would have been shorter than current alternatives, it was dismissed from further consideration due to the steepness of wash crossings and the amount of previously undisturbed ground that would be affected.

3) We dismissed improving McPherson Pass Road from the north to allow high-clearance 2- wheel drive vehicle access to the Castle Dome area, because it would require extensive construction work and very frequent maintenance due to the rugged mountainous terrain and wash crossings.

4) We considered a route diverging from Castle Dome Road about 0.25 miles west of the Flora Temple inholding that would bypass the private property, going east between the Flora Temple and Hull Mine inholdings. The route would extend around the Hull Mine inholding to the east and tie back into the existing Castle Dome Road just north of the Hull Mine boundary. While much of this route would be on old two-tracks and flat terrain, its proximity to the private inholdings and business that is operated there raised concerns about potential impacts and conflicts with visitors.

Affected Environment Kofa NWR consists of approximately 666,641 acres located in Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona. Elevations range from 680 feet on the desert floor to 4,877 feet atop Signal Peak, the highest peak in Yuma County. The refuge is located in the Sonoran Desert climatic zone that is characterized by long, hot summers and short, mild winters. Daily temperatures generally range from 80°F to well over 110 °F during summer months and from 40 °F to 75 °F during winter months. The area receives 2 to 8 inches annual rainfall. The refuge is located in the Gila, Salt, and Verde Ecoregion, which encompasses much of the State of Arizona outside of the Colorado River valley. The Sonoran Desert biome habitat on the refuge can be further divided into the Lower Colorado River Valley and Arizona Upland biome subdivisions.

The affected area is located in the southeast corner of the refuge, outside of the wilderness boundary. The Castle Dome Mountain Range dominates the landscape in this area of the refuge and is typified by extensive exposures of bedrock, sparse vegetative cover, lack of soil development, and narrow side canyons. Bajadas or alluvial fans sloping down from the base of the mountains cut deep gullies or washes. Numerous old two-tracks still exist. Historic mining operations have left a high concentration of abandoned mine portals and mining structures in the area. The affected area lies on the valley floor just to the west of these mountains and the Castle Dome mining area. Tables 2 through 5 provide descriptions of each resource and the effects of each alternative.

Three private inholdings are located near the project area. Public access to the Castle Dome Mountain are is contingent on permission from the private land owner to cross the private inholdings. This restricted access spurred the development of this EA.

For more information regarding the affected environment, please see Part II of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New Water Mountains Wilderness Interagency Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (1996), which can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/KofaNWR- NewWaterMountains_WildernessManagementPlan-EA.pdf

Environmental Consequences of the Action This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the action on each affected resource, including direct and indirect effects, as well as cumulative impacts. This EA includes the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource” or are otherwise considered important as related to the Proposed Action. Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action or have been identified as not otherwise important as related to the Proposed Action have been dismissed from further analyses.

Tables 2 through 5 provide: 1. A brief description of the affected resources in the Proposed Action area; and 2. Impacts of the Proposed Action and any alternatives on those resources, including direct and indirect effects.

Impact Types: ● Direct effects are those which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. ● Indirect effects are those which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. ● Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

Appendix 1 lists applicable statutes, executive orders, and regulations relative to these resources and lists steps that Kofa NWR has taken or will take to comply.

Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). For this analysis, the refuge considered other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have occurred or could occur near the project area. These include military actions on surrounding military lands; activities such as past mining; various activities on private land; and other refuge operations, such as habitat management and recreational uses including hunting, wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and camping.

Table 2. Natural resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Wildlife Species – General and Federally Protected Bird Species Wildlife documented on Kofa NWR include 49 mammal species, 188 bird species, and 41 reptile and amphibian species. This includes hunted species such as coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus crooki), Mexican desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana), and Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii). The species denoted in bold are those Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has designated as “Species of Economic and Recreation Importance” (AGFD 2012).

Many of these wildlife species may use areas in and near the project area for foraging, breeding, and/or movements between other areas. Habitat within the area is generally comprised of Sonoran desert scrub plants such as creosote (Larrea tridentada), jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), foothills paloverde (Parkinsonia microphylla), ironwood (Olneya tesota), saguaro (Carnegiea gigantea), and other plant species. Lowest density of plants occur in areas of desert pavement and greatest densities occur in washes. The highest quality habitat for many species is limited to washes, which support more productive vegetation. Desert pavement areas are likely used mostly for transitory habitat as they are largely devoid of perennial vegetation.

The Service identifies Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that represent the highest conservation priorities in a specific region (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered). In addition to BCC, AGFD has identified certain bird species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). The following birds from the BCC (*) and/or SGCN(^) lists are known to occur or may occur in the affected area. The species denoted in bold are known to breed or may potentially breed in the affected area, primarily vegetated washes, as described above.

Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus chrysaetos)^, Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae)*^, Gilded flicker (Colaptes chrysoides)*^, prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)*, Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)*, Gila woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis)*^, Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii)^, Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi)*^, sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus)^, Lucy’s warbler (Oreothlypis luciae)*^, Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei)*, Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella atrogularis)*, Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri)^, Bendire’s thrasher (Toxostoma bendirei)*, LeConte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)^. Many of these species use the Sonoran desert scrub habitat, especially washes which have greater plant density, for breeding and foraging. Others, such as golden eagles and peregrine falcons, may only use the area for foraging.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action No anticipated change in impacts. No new roads would be built, therefore no disturbance to wildlife and/or habitat fragmentation would occur. Noise associated with construction or maintenance of new roads would not occur. Wildlife injury or mortality on the open portion of the Castle Dome Road from vehicle traffic would remain low due to the 25 mile per hour

speed limit. Wildlife including games species and federally protected bird species, will continue to use the area where habitat requirements are met.

Some wildlife may be impacted by visitors attempting to drive around the locked gates and fenced portion of the private inholdings to access other areas on Castle Dome Road. Though driving off the designated roads is prohibited, refuge staff has observed some signs of visitors attempting to drive around the gates.

Alternative B Alternative B would create a bypass road approximately 4.5 miles long, of which approximately 1 mile would be newly disturbed area. Habitat fragmentation is expected to be minimal because the bypass road would be an unsurfaced, 12-foot wide primitive road. Construction activities could injure or kill wildlife, especially smaller, less mobile species such as lizards, snakes and small mammals. Larger and more mobile animals such large mammals and birds can avoid this impact by moving out of traffic. Additionally, the 25 mile per hour speed limit would limit wildlife mortality from vehicle strikes.

The construction of Alternative B would result in the loss of 6.5 acres of habitat within the roadbed. However, only 1.5 acres of new disturbance of wildlife habitat would occur for this alternative because much of the roadbed is already disturbed. The amount of disturbance from construction is less than Alternative C, but more than Alternative A and Alternative D.

Vehicles would be allowed to park along the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone (both sides of the road) which could decrease the quality of habitat within 108 acres for some species as vegetation may be impacted. Wildlife, including game species and federally protected bird species, may continue to use the area where habitat requirements are met. The area of wildlife habitat impacted within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone is less than Alternative C, but more than Alternative A and Alternative D.

Noise associated with construction activities are anticipated to last for three weeks. Wildlife, especially highly mobile species such as coyotes, deer, foxes and birds may be temporarily displaced during construction. It is anticipated that wildlife will continue using this area for foraging, breeding and/or movements when construction ceases. Vehicle traffic noise and presence may displace wildlife along the 4.5 miles of the bypass road. Given the area, which includes the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone, this impact is anticipated to be negligible. Noise impacts associated with construction are approximately three weeks and about the same as Alternatives C and D.

The construction of Alternative B would cross 32 washes which provide higher quality habitat relative to the surrounding upland areas which have very sparse vegetation. However, washes are common throughout the refuge. The reduced quality of habitat due to the loss of vegetation at crossing sites and impacts associated with the presence of vehicles would be limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the wash crossings. Because of this, the impact is negligible. The number of wash crossings are fewer than Alternative C and similar to Alternative D, but greater than Alternative A, the no action alternative.

Alternative C The same types of impacts would occur as described under Alternative B. Under this alternative, overall impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat would be expected to be greater than Alternative B because the bypass road would be longer (5.4 miles total length). This alternative would result in the greatest habitat fragmentation and the loss of habitat within the roadbed would be greater (7.5 acres total acres disturbed and 2.3 new acres disturbed). The loss of habitat within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone would also be greater (129 acres) and the wash crossings, which provide the highest quality habitat, are more numerous (50 washes). Impacts associated with Alternative C are greater than Alternative A, Alternative B and Alternative D.

Alternative D There would be the same type of impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat as described under Alternatives B and C, but impacts are anticipated to be less because Alternative D proposes the shortest new road construction of the action alternatives. Alternative D would create a bypass road approximately 3.8 miles long. This disturbance is greater than Alternative A (no action).

The construction of Alternative D bypass road would result in the loss of 5.5 acres of wildlife habitat within the roadbed, which is less than Alternatives B and C but greater than Alternative A (no action). Habitat quality would be reduced on 80 acres within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone and follows a similar pattern when comparing alternatives.

Alternative D would cross 33 washes. Impacts at wash crossing sites are similar to Alternative B, less than Alternative C, but greater than Alternative A (no action).

Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) The AGFD lists species that they consider SGCN based on an evaluation of the species’ vulnerabilities (AGFD 2012). SGCN that occur or may occur in the affected area are listed below.

Bats - The following bat species may occur in the affected area: Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), greater western Mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus), cave myotis (Myotis velifer), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana). The western yellow bat roosts in large trees, especially California fan palms (Washingtonia filifera). Western red bats roost in broad-leaved trees, especially cottonwoods and willows. All of the other bat species roost in caves, abandoned mines, rock shelters, and/or rock crevices. Some will also roost in buildings and other manmade structures. Mexican free- tailed bats and big brown bats will additionally utilize hollow trees. Any of these bat species may forage in or travel through the affected area.

Other mammals - Harris’ antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus harrisii), little pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris) as well as other rodents, and kit fox (Vulpes macrotis) may occur in the affected area. All shelter in underground burrows or dens.

Reptiles - Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) are typically associated with rocky slopes, but can also be found in caliche caves in banks of incised washes. Gila monsters (Heloderma suspectum) spend much of their time in burrows and hibernate in them during the coldest months. Both could occur in the affected area.

Amphibians - Sonoran desert toads (Incilius alvarius) breed in water, but can be found far from water sources in desert scrub habitats. They use burrows and could potentially occur in the affected area.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Bats - There are no cliffs, cottonwoods, willows, California fan palms other large trees, or buildings in the affected area of the action alternatives. There are abandoned mines that could potentially provide roosting habitat for many of these bat species. These mines are often vertical shafts not easily accessible by people and therefore the mine shafts are unlikely to be disturbed.

Other wildlife species would not be impacted under Alternative A – no action.

Alternatives B, C, and D Bats – Similar to Alternative A, abandoned mines often have vertical shafts not easily accessible by people and therefore could provide undisturbed roosting areas. These areas will not be impacted by construction of the road and we do not anticipate disturbance to any bats that may be roosting in abandoned mines.

Other mammals, reptiles, and amphibians - The construction of any of the action alternatives may impact small animal burrows and dens when grading. Burrows and dens along the route are most likely to occur on the banks of wash crossings. The upland areas are not as likely to have burrows or dens because of the sparse vegetation and prevalence of desert pavement. No burrows or dens were present on any of the routes during reconnaissance. The relative potential of each action alternative to disturb burrows and dens is best assessed by the number of wash crossings.

Alternative B This alternative has 32 wash crossings. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative, along with alternative D, would have the fewest wash crossings and, therefore, the least potential to disturb animal burrows or dens.

Alternative C This alternative has 50 wash crossings. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative would have the most wash crossings and, therefore, the most potential to disturb animal burrows or dens.

Alternative D This alternative has 33 wash crossings. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative, along with alternative B, would have the fewest wash crossings and, therefore, the least potential to disturb animal burrows or dens.

Threatened and Endangered Species Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) is the only federally listed species that may occur in the affected area. No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Sonoran pronghorn were reintroduced on Kofa NWR in 2011 as part of a population under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and are listed as threatened within the boundaries of the refuge. The species uses flat open terrain, gentle slopes and hills, and washes (USFWS 2016). Refuge staff and AGFD monitor the location of Sonoran pronghorn regularly. While habitat in the affected area may be suitable for Sonoran pronghorn, they have, to date, not used this area.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Sonoran pronghorn do not currently use habitat in the proposed affected areas, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternatives B, C and D Sonoran pronghorn do not currently use the proposed affected area and are unlikely to appear during road construction. If pronghorn are seen, construction activities would pause to allow pronghorn to move out of the vicinity on their own accord. Construction will not take place during fawning season. After construction, traffic would be the same as before the closure of access. Action alternatives are not likely to adversely affect Sonoran pronghorn.

Vegetation The vegetation in the affected area is typical of the creosote-bursage community (Lower Colorado River Valley) that covers approximately 43% of Kofa NWR.

Common vegetation in the affected area includes catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), saguaro (Carnigiea gigantea), ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi), creosote (Larrea tridentata), ironwood (Olneya tesota), buckhorn cholla (Opuntia acanthocarpa), teddy-bear cholla (Opuntia bigelovii), beavertail cholla (Opuntia spp.), foothills paloverde (Parkinsonia microphyllum), and jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). Little to no vegetation occurs on old two-tracks and desert pavement. Vegetation is most prevalent in and adjacent to washes.

The plant species denoted in bold above are on the Arizona Department of Agriculture’s list of protected plant species. The only “highly safeguarded” plant species observed in the affected area is the saguaro.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Some vegetation may be impacted by visitors attempting to drive around the locked gates and fenced portion of the private inholdings to access other areas on Castle Dome Road. Though driving off the designated roads is prohibited, refuge staff has observed some signs of visitors attempting to drive around the gates.

Alternatives B, C, and D Some vegetation would be permanently removed to construct the route of each action alternative. The disturbance area of each route is far less than 1% of the total creosote-bursage community on Kofa NWR. All routes avoid saguaros and other state protected species. All routes were selected to use old two-tracks as much as possible. Most of the vegetation within the routes occur in and adjacent to the washes. Visitors pulling off on the sides of the road could impact additional vegetation within the 100-foot area of analysis on either side of the road, though most off-road disturbance is anticipated to occur in areas without vegetation as it is against refuge regulations to damage or destroy plants. The relative potential of each action alternative to disturb vegetation is best assessed by the number of wash crossings.

Alternative B This alternative has 32 wash crossings. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative, along with Alternative D, would have the fewest wash crossings and, therefore, the least potential to disturb vegetation.

Alternative D This alternative has 33 wash crossings. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative, along with Alternative B, would have the fewest wash crossings and, therefore, the least potential to disturb vegetation.

Invasive Species Vehicles are vectors for introduction of invasive species to new areas along roads although many local invasive plant species are easily dispersed by wind. Once established, invasive species can outcompete native vegetation. Invasive species, such as Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), Mediterranean grass (Schismus spp.) and red brome (Bromus madritensis), are currently found on the refuge and may already occur or could become established within the affected area. The introduction of invasive species to new areas on the refuge is dependent on specific conditions and timing, and is difficult to predict. The current Castle Dome Road crosses several washes higher in the watershed and it is likely that invasive species seeds deposited by vehicles have already potentially affected these areas.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action

No anticipated change in exposure to invasive species.

Alternative B Alternative B could potentially expose new areas to invasive species as 4.5 miles of new road would be constructed. Vehicles parking within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone may expose an additional 108 acres to increased invasive species. The potential for weed expansion for Alterative B is less than Alternative C but greater than Alternatives A and D.

Alternative C Alternative C could potentially expose new areas to invasive species as 5.4 miles of new road would be constructed. Vehicles parking within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone may expose an additional 129 acres to increased invasive species. The potential for weed expansion for Alterative C is greater than all other alternatives.

Alternative D Alternative D could potentially expose new areas to invasive species as 3.8 miles of new road would be constructed. Vehicles parking within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone may expose an additional 80 acres to increased invasive species. The potential for weed expansion for Alterative D less than Alternatives B and C but greater than Alternative A (no action).

Geology and Soils The soils on the Kofa NWR are in the Aridisol order and Haplarid, Durargid, and Torriorthent suborders. The characteristics of these soils are: 1) a mean annual temperature exceeding 47°F; 2) absence of leaching; 3) little if any bacterial or decay action; and 4) accumulation of sodium salts. Deep, gravelly, moderately fine textured soils high in lime concentrations characterize alluvial fans and valley floors where the affected area is located. Much of the upland areas are characterized by surfaces of highly compacted pebbles and cobbles known as desert pavement. Areas of desert pavement often show signs of desert varnish, a thin, shiny, dark coating of manganese and iron minerals that slowly accumulate on the surfaces of the exposed rocks. Any disturbance to this unique physiographic formation by vehicles or equipment is not readily erased and can remain visible for hundreds of years.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action No change in the current potential for impacts. Some soils may be impacted by visitors attempting to drive around the locked gates and fenced portion of the private inholdings to access other areas on Castle Dome Road. Though driving off the designated roads is prohibited, refuge staff have observed some signs of visitors attempting to drive around the gates.

Alternatives B, C, and D: The construction of a bypass road would cause moderate permanent disturbance to soils in the surface strata in the roadbed. Desert pavement would be damaged within the roadbed. Potential for relatively minor erosion would exist along any new route, especially by changing the flow of water during rain events. Soils under and within the roadbed would eventually become compacted and stabilize. There could also be some disturbance and compaction

within a short distance along the outside of the roadbed due to the movement and working of the equipment. Soils within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone could be disturbed intermittently along the route by visitors pulling off to the side of the road. The relative potential of each action alternative to disturb soils is best described by the area within the 12- foot road and 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone. The area within the roadbed of each route is assessed as undisturbed ground, or old two-tracks.

Alternative B This alternative would permanently impact 6.5 acres of soil within the roadbed. Additional disturbance could occur on the 108 acres within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone. The total area of possible soil disturbance would be intermediate to the other two action alternatives. Of the total area permanently impacted to construct the roadbed, 1.5 acres would occur on previously undisturbed ground. This alternative would permanently disturb less soil than Alternative C and slightly more than Alternative D.

Alternative C This alternative would permanently impact 7.8 acres of soil within the roadbed. Additional disturbance could occur on the 129 acres within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone. This alternative would disturb more total area than the other two action alternatives. Of the total area permanently impacted to construct the roadbed, 2.3 acres would occur on previously undisturbed ground. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative would permanently impact the greatest amount of previously undisturbed soils.

Alternative D This alternative would permanently impact 5.5 acres of soil within the roadbed. Additional disturbance could occur on the 80 acres within the 100-foot vehicle pull-off zone. A portion of this route (0.5 miles) would not include a 100 foot vehicle pull-off zone due to the proximity to the private inholdings. This alternative would disturb less total area than the other two action alternatives. Of the total area permanently impacted to construct the roadbed, 0.7 acres would occur on previously undisturbed ground. Compared to the other action alternatives, this alternative, would permanently impact the least amount of previously undisturbed soils.

Water Quality The affected area is bisected by several ephemeral channels.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A - No Action No anticipated change in impacts.

Alternative B The new road sections would cross several ephemeral washes. No impacts to water quality are expected from road use or maintenance. Road construction will occur when the washes are dry and there will be very little disturbance within the channel. Any sediment from construction or use of the roads is negligible compared to natural flow regimes.

Alternative C No impacts to water quality are expected, see Alternative B.

Alternative D No impacts to water quality are expected, see Alternative B.

Air Quality The affected area lies within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clark-Mohave Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 13, which is an attainment area for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It is in close proximity to the portion of Yuma County designated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality as a nonattainment area for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Windblown dust from vehicular traffic on unpaved roads and agricultural activities elevate levels of PM10 in exceedance of federal standards, especially during periods of high winds.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action No anticipated change in impacts.

Alternative B, C, and D There would be a temporary minor increase in emissions and dust during construction. There would be a permanent minor increase in emissions and dust generated from through traffic traveling the bypass route. The difference in impacts between the action alternatives are difficult to quantify and are likely undetectable. The dust from traffic would be similar to that which occurred on Castle Dome Road prior to the closure of access.

Wilderness Approximately 80 percent of Kofa NWR (547,419 acres) is designated wilderness. None of the alternatives are within designated wilderness areas.

Cumulative Impacts on Natural Resources The no action alternative would have no cumulative impacts on natural resources. All action alternatives have limited adverse impacts. When the effects of the action alternatives are combined with the other past and present activities, the total cumulative impact on natural resources is negligible. The incremental impact of the proposed action would contribute slightly to, but would not substantially change the impacts that are already occurring.

Climate Change Warming, whether it results from anthropogenic or natural sources, is expected to affect a variety of natural processes and associated resources. Increased frequency and severity of drought in the desert could dramatically reduce the amount and quality of vegetation to support wildlife needs such as food, shelter, and nesting structures. However, the complexity of ecological systems means that there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty about the impact climate change will actually have, particularly at the local level. Therefore, none of the actions outlined in the alternatives would affect climate change.

Table 3. Visitor use and experience in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Accessibility and Recreation The Castle Dome Road entrance is the closest refuge access from Yuma. Recent years of traffic counter data indicate that over one-third of the vehicles entering the refuge use this entrance. Prior to the road closure in September 2016, visitors could use that entrance to drive a 2-wheel drive, high clearance vehicle to the Castle Dome Mountain area. Currently, to access this area, visitors have to drive approximately twice as far (5 hours compared to about 2 hours) and must use a 4-wheel drive, high clearance vehicle.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Prior to closure of the Castle Dome Road, visitors could access the Castle Dome Mountain area using 2-wheel drive high clearance vehicles with a round trip drive time of just over two hours. Given the closure, visitors need a 4-wheel drive vehicle to access the Castle Dome Mountain area and can expect a 5-hour round trip drive time because access to the areas requires travel via a northern route over McPherson Pass. These factors reduce the opportunity for visitors to access this area relative to the other alternatives. Additionally, the added travel distance and time would increase fuel costs, require visitors to begin trips earlier to account for the increase drive time, and result in later return times relative to the other alternatives. These factors may further deter the public from visiting the area.

Alternative B, C, and D All of the bypass roads would improve visitor accessibility to the Castle Dome Mountain area relative to the No Action Alternative, by reducing the roundtrip driving time from Yuma from over five hours to just over two hours and allow access with 2-wheel drive high clearance vehicles. The overall distance to the Castle Dome Mountain area from Yuma on Castle Dome Road with any of the action alternatives would be similar, within two miles difference. Access and associated fuel cost and time required to visit the Castle Dome Mountain area would be similar to before the Castle Dome Road closure.

Refuge Visitation Over 75,000 people visit Kofa NWR each year. According to a 2012 survey, nearly half the visitors surveyed used the refuge primarily for either hunting (27 percent) or hiking (22 percent) (Dietsch et al. 2013). Hunting is popular on the refuge. Some species such as quail and rabbit require only a state hunting license purchased over the counter. Hunting permits for big game species are managed by the AGFD. About 275 to 300 mule deer rifle hunting permits are issued each year. Depending on population estimates, up to 11 desert bighorn sheep permits have been issued annually in recent years. Popular hiking areas include Castle Dome Peak, Signal Peak, and Palm Canyon. The entire refuge is open to hiking and there are many additional destinations of interest that attract hikers.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action

The number of visitors to the Castle Dome area would remain similar to the level that has occurred since access was restricted in September 2016. The number of visitors has declined since access has been restricted.

Alternative B, C, and D We expect refuge visitation to increase in the Castle Dome area from the level that has occurred since access was restricted in September 2016. Visitor numbers are expected to be similar to visitation experienced prior to the restricted access.

Visitor Safety Prior to September 2016, visitors could drive the entire length of Castle Dome Road. After the closure, refuge staff posted signs at intersections and kiosks, and posted notifications on the website and issued press releases to inform visitors of the closure. Despite these efforts, visitors, especially those familiar with the refuge prior to September 2016 or those using old maps, may not notice the closure until arriving at the northern locked gate. It could take visitors three to four hours to backtrack out of the refuge and reach the nearest area of services including gas stations. The added miles and time could become a safety issue for unprepared visitors, particularly during high summer temperatures (>110 degrees F), without enough gas, water, or other emergency supplies.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action Refuge staff would continue to inform visitors of the road closure and would update printed materials. The road closure would continue to pose a safety risk to unprepared visitors approaching from the north who do not notice road closure signs and must turn around and backtrack, adding additional unplanned miles and hours to their trip. It is expected this risk will diminish with time as visitors become more aware of the road closure, under this alternative.

Alternative B, C, and D The action alternatives would allow visitors to drive the entire length of Castle Dome Road as they could prior to the road closure. Through access would be reestablished. Visitors will be able to access the Castle Dome Mountain area from the south with a high-clearance 2-wheel drive vehicle and the mentioned safety risks will be minimized.

Cumulative Impacts on Visitor Use Kofa NWR attracts over 75,000 visitors each year. Some of the visitors to the refuge are also visiting the business on the private inholdings. This business has recently expanded, and the number of visitors is likely to increase.

An increase in visitors to the business on the private inholdings will increase the number of people driving across Kofa NWR on Castle Dome Road. Many of these people may also visit other parts of the refuge. Increased visitation will likely increase disturbance to wildlife and result in a need for increased refuge enforcement of off-road travel regulations and speed limits. Associated increased noise and dust will negatively impact the experiences of refuge

visitors engaged in hunting, viewing wildlife, or seeking solitude. The increase in visitation could contribute positively to the area’s economy.

Of the increased general use of the refuge, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is particularly expected to increase. OHV use in Arizona increased 347% from 1998 to 2009 (AGFD http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor_recreation/ohv_legislation_faqs.shtml). In the past few years, refuge staff have regularly observed increased numbers of OHV’s as well as large groups of OHVs (10 to over 50) on the refuge.

Increased OHV use will likely increase disturbance to wildlife and result in a need for increased refuge enforcement of speed limits and off-road travel regulations. Associated increased noise and dust will negatively impact the experiences of refuge visitors engaged in hunting, viewing wildlife, or seeking solitude. The increase in OHV use could contribute positively to the area’s economy.

Table 4. Cultural resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Cultural Resources Kofa NWR has cultural resources that fit within two broad categories: prehistoric sites that contain artifacts or evidence of activity by aboriginal inhabitants prior to European contact and historic locations with remains and indications of activities by European/Asian peoples (USDOI 1996).

The affected area is part of the second-oldest mining district in Arizona, the Castle Dome Mining District, founded in 1862 (Lacy 1987). By 1864, almost 100 mines in the district were being developed or worked (Love 1974). However, mining activity did not last long and many mines were abandoned by the mid 1900’s.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A- No Action No anticipated change in impacts.

Alternative B and D An archeological survey was conducted on the route for these alternatives. No archaeological sites or cultural resources eligible inclusion in the National °Historic Register were found.

Alternative C There are no known major cultural resources along this route. An archeological survey would be conducted and measures to avoid or minimize impact (if necessary) would be implemented if this route were selected.

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources No direct/indirect impacts on cultural resources are anticipated for any of the alternatives; therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

Table 5. Socioeconomic resources in the affected area and potential impacts to those resources.

Local and Regional Economies The northern portion of the refuge is approximately 15 miles from Quartzsite, Arizona, population approximately 4,000. The southern end of the refuge is located approximately 30 miles from Yuma, Arizona, population approximately 94,000. The populations of both towns increase substantially in the winter months. The predominant land use in Yuma is agriculture. Adjacent lands to Kofa NWR are managed by the BLM and the U.S. Army. The Yuma Chamber of Commerce lists the refuge as one of the area’s main attractions for recreation. The refuge receives over 75,000 visitors a year. A 2016 survey asked Kofa NWR visitors to estimate their spending in the local area. Non-local visitors estimated an average of $40 pp/day, and local visitors $31 pp/day (USGS 2012). A 2006 analysis estimated that visitors to Kofa NWR brought $9,730 to the region, with non-residents accounting for $5,665 or 58% of that total. (USFWS 2007).

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative A – No Action The impact on the local and regional economies would remain the same since the restricted access on Castle Dome Road was put in place. This restricted access may have reduced the amount of time visitors stay and spend money in the region.

Alternative B, C, and D The action alternatives would facilitate visitor access to the refuge. This may increase the amount of time visitors stay and spend money in the region.

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations and communities.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives. The Service has identified no minority or low income communities within the impact area. Minority or low income communities should not be disproportionately affected by any impacts from this proposed action or any of the alternatives.

Indian Trust Resources There are no known Indian Trust Resources on Kofa NWR. The refuge has reached out to notify relevant Tribes and, upon request, meet with their representatives to discuss the process and related issues. Kofa NWR will provide the Tribes opportunity to review and comment on the draft environmental assessment.

Direct and Indirect Impacts: We do not anticipate impacts to Indian Trust Resources, because there are no known Indian Trust Resources on Kofa NWR.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources The Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity projected the population of Yuma County, Arizona to increase 56% from 221,648 in 2017 (AOEO 2017) to 345,661 in 2050 (AOEO 2015).

An increase in the local and national population is likely to increase the number of visitors to Kofa NWR which will likely increase disturbance to wildlife and result in a need for increased refuge enforcement of speed limits and off-road travel regulations. Associated increased noise and dust will negatively impact the experiences of refuge visitors engaged in hunting, viewing wildlife, or seeking solitude. The increase in visitation could contribute positively to the area’s economy.

Mitigation Measures and Conditions Kofa NWR will implement mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse environmental impacts beyond what is in the Proposed Action and Alternatives. Mitigation measures for all of the action alternatives considered in this EA include:

1. Rock lines, boulders, and signs will be placed in appropriate areas to deter vehicles from traveling on old, closed two-tracks, particularly the portion of the old two-tracks leading to the Hull Mine that is not part of the proposed bypass road. 2. The refuge will install directional signs at key points to direct visitors to the new bypass road and to inform travelers that the previous route is closed to through traffic. 3. Construction equipment will be washed prior to arriving on site to reduce the likelihood of introducing non-native species. 4. Kofa NWR will coordinate with the Arizona Native Plant Society or other nonprofit organizations about salvaging any plant species that must be removed for the construction of the road and/or Kofa NWR staff will transplant these plants to appropriate areas near the new road segment. 5. A biologist will inspect the route for obvious active animal burrows and nests prior to road construction and, if present, will take measures practicable to avoid impacting animals, such as modifying the construction footprint. 6. If a desert tortoise is found in a project area, activities will be modified to avoid injury or harm. If activities cannot be modified, tortoises in harm's way would be moved in accordance with Arizona Game and Fish Department's "Guidelines for

Handling Sonoran Desert Tortoises Encountered on Development Projects," revised October 23, 2007 (or the latest revision). 7. Kofa NWR biologists and other staff will notify the construction crew if Sonoran pronghorn are observed near the affected area or moving towards the affected area before and/or during construction. If Sonoran pronghorn appear in the action area, construction activities will pause until all pronghorn have left the area of their own volitions. Construction will not occur during the Sonoran pronghorn fawning season. 8. If any previously unidentified cultural resources (including human remains or cremations) are encountered during construction, the crew will immediately stop work at that specific location and contact an archaeologist to determine the appropriate treatment of the discovery.

Monitoring Refuge law enforcement and other staff will travel the Castle Dome Road regularly. Road damage, evidence of off-road travel, and any other violations of refuge regulations will be noted, and the refuge will respond with appropriate remedial actions. A biologist will monitor the route regularly during construction activities to ensure environmental compliance.

Summary of Analysis The purpose of this EA is to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Alternative A – No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the Service to provide visitors safe and efficient access to the Castle Dome Mountain area and would not facilitate refuge staff’s ability to conduct management activities.

Alternative B – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would meet the purpose and need of the Service to provide visitors safe and efficient access to the Castle Dome Mountain area for hiking, hunting, and other outdoor recreation, and facilitate refuge staff’s ability to conduct management activities. It would minimize adverse impacts to natural resources and refuge management and operations while fostering a cooperative relationship with an adjacent private landowner. The total disturbance area would be less than that of Alternative C. The disturbance would be greater than that of Alternative D, but because of the amount that would overlap on old two-tracks, the impact to previously undisturbed areas would be similar to that of Alternative D. In the Proposed Action, the bypass road would be located farther from the private inholdings than Alternative D and would thus provide less chance for user conflicts. The overall potential for adverse impacts would be minimal based on the nature of the action and the implementation of the mitigation measures and conditions described in the above sections.

Alternative C Alternative C would meet the purpose and need of the Service to provide visitors safe and efficient access to the Castle Dome Mountain area for hiking, hunting, and other outdoor

recreation, and facilitate refuge staff’s ability to conduct management activities. However, it would result in greater adverse impacts to natural resources because of the longer road length and greater number of disturbed acres than all other action alternatives. Under this alternative, the road would be the farthest from the private inholdings. This route is the longest action alternative and would result in greater adverse impacts to natural resources than Alternative B and D.

Alternative D Alternative D would meet the purpose and need of the Service to provide visitors safe and efficient access to the Castle Dome Mountain area for hiking, hunting, and other outdoor recreation, and facilitate refuge staff’s ability to conduct management activities. This route is the shortest action alternative and would result in fewer adverse impacts to natural resources than Alternatives B and C. This alternative is however, closer to the private inholdings and has a higher potential for visitor conflicts and would require a higher level of law enforcement presence than the other action alternatives.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted Arizona Game and Fish Department, Region 4 U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Bureau of Land Management, Yuma Field Office Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation Cultural Committee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Historic Preservation Officer, Southwest Region Yuma County Supervisor, District 3 Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Executive Director

References Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012 – 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.azgfd.com/PortalImages/files/wildlife/2012- 2022_Arizona_State_Wildlife_Action_Plan.pdf

Dietsch, A.M., N.R. Sexton, L. Koontz, and S.J. Conk. 2013. National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2012: Individual Refuge Results for Kofa National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report.

Lacy, J.C. 1987. Early history of mining in Arizona, acquisition of mineral rights 1539-1866 In History of mining in Arizona, edited by J.M. Canty and M.N. Greeley, pp. 1-12. Mining Club of the Southwest, Tucson.

Love, F. 1974. Mining camps and ghost towns: a history of mining in Arizona and California along the Lower Colorado. Westernlore Press, Los Angeles.

U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI). 1996. Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness Interagency Management Plan and Environmental Assessment.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Recovery Plan for the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), Second Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2012: Individual Refuge Results for Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.

List of Preparers Christa Weise, Refuge Manager, Kofa NWR Elaine Johnson, Refuge Complex Manager, SW AZ NWR Complex Linda L. Miller, Deputy Refuge Complex Manager, SW AZ NWR Complex Brenda Zaun, Inventory & Monitoring Zone Biologist Jessica Miller, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services Paul Sitzmann, Wildlife Biologist, Kofa NWR

State Coordination We coordinated with the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding access for hunters and consulted with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office regarding impacts to cultural resources. We also coordinated with Yuma County regarding visitor access.

Tribal Consultation Consultation letters in regard to this project were provided to the following tribes: Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California and Nevada, Hopi Tribe of Arizona, Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (Quechan Tribe), California & Arizona La Paz, Cocopah Tribe of Arizona, of the Gila River Indian Reservation (GRIR), Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona, Yavapai- Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation. We received communications from the Hopi Tribe and GRIR indicating that they had no concerns with the project. Refuge staff had a meeting and a site visit with the Cultural Committee of the Quechan Tribe, after which all concerns raised by the committee were resolved.

Public Outreach Public outreach has been accomplished through various news releases, webpage and Facebook posts. Information and access to the EA were emailed to all entities that expressed interest and provided email contact. Throughout this process, numerous news articles have been published in local newspapers and refuge staff have met and/or spoken with user groups, concerned refuge visitors, county representatives, and the private landowner.

Figure 1. Kofa National Wildlife Refuge map which identifies the refuge boundary, current roads, wilderness areas, and hunt units

27 Figure 2. Castle Dome Mountain area access map annotated with current and past access to the Castle Dome Mountain area via motorized vehicle

28 Figure 3. Map of alternatives for the Castle Dome Bypass Road Project EA

29 APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF OTHER APPLICABLE STATUES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & REGULATIONS

STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS

Cultural Resources

American Indian Religious An archeological survey was conducted for the proposed Freedom Act, as amended, 42 alternative. Additional archeological surveys would be U.S.C. 1996 – 1996a; 43 CFR conducted if another alternative is pursued. Part 7

Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433; 43 CFR Part 3

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm; 18 CFR Part 1312; 32 CFR Part 229; 36 CFR Part 296; 43 CFR Part 7

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810

Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa – 470aaa-11

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10

Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971)

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996)

Fish & Wildlife

Bald and Golden Eagle BGEPA prohibits the take of bald and golden eagles. No take Protection Act, as amended, 16 of these species would occur from any of the alternatives. U.S.C. 668-668c, 50 CFR 22

Endangered Species Act of No take of threatened or endangered species or adverse 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. modification to designated critical habitat would occur from 1531-1544; 36 CFR Part 13; any of the alternatives. If Kofa NWR pursues one of the 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, action alternatives, it will consult with the Service’s Arizona 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450 Ecological Services Office for concurrence on effects determinations to fulfill obligations under section 7 of the ESA.

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742 a-m

Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904

Secretarial Order No. 3356. The alternatives were designed to contribute towards the purpose of “increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish”. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as The MBTA prohibits the take of species of birds listed under amended, 16 U.S.C. 703-712; the four international migratory bird treaties signed by the U.S. 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and (50 CFR 10.13). Kofa NWR would time construction to occur 21 outside of the peak nesting season to avoid take of protected bird species.

Executive Order 13186 – The alternatives were designed to minimize impacts to habitat. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001)

Plants Kofa NWR will notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture of its intent to clear land pursuant to A.R.S. § 3-904.

Arizona Administrative Code 3 A.A.C. 3, concerning Arizona native plants

Natural Resources

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999)

Water Resources

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933

Federal Water Pollution After contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Control Act of 1972 Los Angeles District office in Phoenix about the project, we do (commonly referred to as not expect any of these alternatives to require a permit because Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. the expected construction methods would not discharge fill 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts below the ordinary high water mark in the channels. If the 320-330; 40 CFR Parts 110, construction methods did require a permit, the area of the 112, 116, 117, 230-232, 323, impacts would be minimal enough to be covered under a and 328 Nationwide 14 permit. Since the impact area in each channel would be far less than 1/10 acre, there would be no requirement to notify the USACE. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 114, 115, 116, 321, 322, and 333

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 141-148

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977)

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977)