Draft Environmental Assessment

Hunting and Fishing Program on Havasu National Wildlife Refuge

April 2021

Prepared by Havasu NWR 317 Mesquite Avenue Needles, CA 92363

Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EA: $16,000

Contents Proposed Action ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Purpose and Need for the Action ...... 3 Alternatives ...... 3 Alternative A—Current Management (No-Action Alternative) ...... 3 Alternative B—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities (Proposed Action Alternative) ...... 5 Alternative C—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer ...... 6 Alternative(s) Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration ...... 6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 7 Natural Resources ...... 8 Hunted Species—Waterfowl (Ducks, American Coot, and Geese), Common Gallinule, and Wilson’s Snipe ...... 8 Hunted Species—Dove ...... 11 Hunted Species—Gambel’s Quail ...... 14 Hunted Species—Desert Cottontail Rabbit ...... 16 Hunted Species—Black-Tailed Jackrabbit ...... 18 Hunted Species—Bobcat ...... 20 Hunted Species—Coyote, Gray Fox, and Kit Fox ...... 22 Hunted Species—Feral Swine ...... 24 Hunted Species—Desert Bighorn Sheep ...... 25 Hunted Species—Mule Deer ...... 27 Fished Species ...... 29 Nontargeted Wildlife and Aquatic Species ...... 32 Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special-Status Species ...... 33 Habitat and Vegetation (Including Vegetation of Special Management Concern) ...... 36 Soils ...... 37 Air Quality ...... 39 Water Quality ...... 40 Wilderness ...... 41 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 42

Cultural Resources ...... 45 Refuge Management and Operations ...... 46 Land Use and Administration on the Refuge ...... 46 Socioeconomics ...... 48 Local and Regional Economies ...... 48 Environmental Justice...... 49 Summary of Analysis ...... 51 Alternative A—Current Management (No-Action Alternative) ...... 51 Alternative B—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities (Proposed Action Alternative) ...... 51 Alternative C—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer ...... 52 List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted ...... 52 List of Preparers ...... 53 State Coordination ...... 53 Tribal Consultation ...... 53 Public Outreach...... 53 Determination ...... 54 Signatures ...... 54 References ...... 55 Appendix 1 ...... 59 Appendix 2 ...... 61 Appendix 3 ...... 64

List of Figures FIGURE 1.—Map of Pintail Slough Management Unit on Havasu NWR...... 61 FIGURE 2.—Havasu NWR management units...... 62 FIGURE 3.—Feral swine distribution by county, 1982–2015...... 63

List of Tables

TABLE 1.—Havasu NWR management units, acreage, hunted species, and fishing information. .64 TABLE 2.—Havasu NWR established hunts: Species and hunting dates...... 65

Environmental Assessment for Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Hunting and Fishing Plan This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with the 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 (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Appendix 1 outlines all laws and executive orders evaluated through this EA.

Proposed Action The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to maintain the current hunting and fishing programs with modifications to include opening refuge-specific seasons for the harvest of new game species including Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), African collared- dove (Streptopelia roseogrisea), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and kit fox (Vulpes macrotis). The Service is also proposing to add the incidental take of feral swine (Sus scrofa) by individuals participating in established hunting opportunities on the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (Havasu NWR or refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan. The new 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan replaces the refuge’s previous plan and proposes to expand upland game hunting to 33,148 total acres. This includes expanded hunting opportunities in the Topock Marsh West Management Unit. The 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan expands a waterfowl sanctuary to 25,962 acres; permits waterfowl hunting on 11,869 acres; and requires federally approved nontoxic shot for all hunted species, with the exception of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). The 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan adds additional hunting days for mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), and creates an expanded, refuge-specific season for desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), Eurasian collared-dove, African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and kit fox. The refuge seeks to more closely align the hunting program with State regulations and to provide additional hunting opportunities. A proposed action 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.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 1

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 (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The refuge was established pursuant to Executive Order 8647 on January 22, 1941. The primary purpose of the refuge is as a “refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the 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. Additionally, the NWRSAA mandates the Secretary of the Interior in administering the NWRS (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)) to • provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats within the NWRS; • ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the NWRS are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans; • ensure that the mission of the NWRS described at 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) and the purposes of each refuge are carried out; • ensure effective coordination, interaction, and cooperation with owners of land adjoining refuges and the fish and wildlife agencies of the States in which the units of the NWRS are located; • assist in the maintenance of adequate water quantity and water quality to fulfill the mission of the NWRS and the purposes of each refuge; • recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the NWRS through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife; • ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife- dependent recreational uses; and • monitor the status and trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 2

Therefore, it is a priority of the Service to provide for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing, when those opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the NWRS.

Purpose and Need for the Action The purpose of this proposed action is to expand compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Havasu NWR, while also fulfilling our mission and duty to the American public. The need for the proposed action is to meet the Service’s priorities and mandates as outlined by the NWRSAA to “recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general uses of the NWRS” and “ensure that opportunities are provided within the NWRS for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses” (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)). The original hunting plan for the refuge was completed in 1960, has been periodically updated over the years, and is being updated once again in 2021. This action is also needed to effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356, which directs bureaus and offices within the Department of the Interior, in collaboration with States, tribes, and territorial partners, to “enhance conservation stewardship; increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans, including opportunities to hunt and fish; and improve the management of game species and their habitats for this generation and beyond.” Feral swine are a destructive invasive species that threatens native wildlife, habitat, and public safety. The introduction of incidental take of this species by hunters participating in established hunting opportunities is anticipated to aid ongoing eradication efforts on the refuge.

Alternatives Alternative A—Current Management (No-Action Alternative) The no-action alternative would continue the current hunting and fishing program. The refuge provides approximately 110 hunting days for waterfowl (ducks, American coot [Fulica americana], dark geese, and light geese), common gallinule (Gallinula galeata), and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata). The waterfowl hunting season generally runs from the third weekend of October until the final weekend in January. Methods of take for these species on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic shot only and include shotgun, crossbow, and archery. The use of dogs is permitted. Management units open to waterfowl, common gallinule, and snipe hunting include Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu. Hunting dates will align with State regulations, with the exception of Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area within the Pintail Slough Management Unit. A permit system is employed within the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area (appendix 2, figure 1), and hunting of waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe may occur only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during the waterfowl season.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 3

The refuge aligns with the Arizona and California dove hunting seasons, which provide approximately 60 hunting days. The early season for both States is September 1–15. A second season typically starts in November and ends in December (California) or January (Arizona). Methods of take are federally approved nontoxic shot only and include shotgun, crossbow, and archery. Management units open to mourning dove and white-winged dove hunting include Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West, Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu. Hunting dates align with State regulations, with the exception of Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area. A permit system is employed within the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, and hunting of these species may occur only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during the waterfowl season. The refuge aligns with the Arizona and California Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii) hunting seasons, which provide approximately 115 hunting days. Quail hunting season generally begins the third week of October and runs until the end of January (California) or the second week of February (Arizona). Methods of take are federally approved nontoxic shot only and include shotgun, handgun, pneumatic weapons, crossbow, and archery. Management units open to quail hunting include Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu. Hunting dates align with State regulations, with the exception of Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area. A permit system is employed within the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, and hunting of this species may occur only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during the waterfowl season. Desert cottontail rabbit hunting on the refuge provides approximately 130 hunting days in Arizona and 120 hunting days in California (from September 1 to the end of the respective State quail season). Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, pneumatic weapons, muzzle-loader, archery, and crossbow. Hunting is permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West, Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units. Hunting dates align with State regulations, with the exception of Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area. A permit system is employed within the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, and hunting of this species may occur only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during the waterfowl season. Desert bighorn sheep hunting on the refuge aligns with the Arizona hunting season, which provides approximately 31 hunting days, December 1–31. Methods of take for desert bighorn sheep include rifle, handgun, muzzle-loader, shotgun, archery, crossbow, and pneumatic weapons. Management units open to desert bighorn sheep hunts include Topock Marsh East and Havasu Wilderness. These areas are encompassed within Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) game management units (GMUs) 15D and 16B, and hunters are selected by a State lottery. Fishing follows all State regulations regarding season, daily limits, and methods.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 4

Alternative B—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities (Proposed Action Alternative) The refuge has prepared a hunting and fishing plan, which is presented in this document as the proposed action alternative. Please refer to the Havasu NWR Draft Hunting and Fishing Plan for a more detailed description of the proposed hunting and fishing programs. Under the proposed action alternative, hunting acres (appendix 2, figure 2), hunting dates, and permitted hunt species would expand on Havasu NWR (appendix 3, table 1). The fishing program would remain the same and follow all State regulations. Under the proposed action alternative, rules for waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe hunting would remain similar to those of alternative A, with the following change: waterfowl hunting would not be permitted within the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit. The plan expands the waterfowl sanctuary to 25,962 acres and permits waterfowl hunting on 11,869 acres. Under this plan, the refuge maintains a waterfowl sanctuary on 60 percent or more of total refuge acreage for the benefit and protection of wintering waterfowl species. Mourning and white-winged dove hunting would remain the same as under alternative A. The harvest of Eurasian and African collared-dove would be allowed from September 1 to March 15, providing approximately 196 hunting days. Methods of take would follow those for mourning and white-winged dove hunting, with the addition of muzzle-loader, handgun, and pneumatic weapons as methods of take for Eurasian and African collared-dove. Hunting would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of the waterfowl season), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units. Gambel’s quail hunting would remain similar to its status under alternative A, except that it would be allowed in Topock Marsh West Management Unit outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31). Desert cottontail rabbit hunting would remain similar to its status under alternative A, except that desert cottontail rabbit season would be expanded to September 1–March 15, providing 196 hunting days, and Topock Marsh West Management Unit would expand desert cottontail rabbit hunting opportunities outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31). Desert bighorn sheep hunting would remain the same as under alternative A. Alternative B would open the refuge to hunting of black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and kit fox. Methods of take would include federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, muzzle-loader, archery, crossbow, and pneumatic weapons. A refuge-specific hunting season would be created for these species, September 1–March 15. Hunting would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of the waterfowl season), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units. Hunting of these species between sunset and sunrise would not be permitted.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 5

The incidental take of feral swine would be allowed by hunters engaged in refuge hunts for waterfowl, upland game, or big game from September 1 to March 15. The following measures would avoid conflicts: • During Pintail Slough Quota Hunt dates, access to the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area is restricted to permitted hunters only. • The Topock Marsh West Management Unit (6,065 acres) is open to upland game hunting in the months of September, February, and March only. It remains closed to all hunting and all other entry from October 1 to January 31, to serve as a waterfowl sanctuary. • The Havasu Wilderness Management Unit (15,021 acres) will remain open to upland game and big game hunting, but is closed to all waterfowl hunting, to serve as a waterfowl sanctuary. • No hunting is permitted within the Mesquite Bay Management Unit (232 acres), which is located within Lake Havasu City limits, to serve as a waterfowl sanctuary. • No hunting is permitted in the Topock Gorge Management Unit (4,644 acres); the refuge is unable to support safe hunting activities in these areas due to high-density visitation by other recreational users. This unit is part of the waterfowl sanctuary, and includes the Topock Maze and Hum-Me-Chomp tribal cultural sites. • The refuge releases announcements with hunting information several weeks in advance of hunts, and posts the announcements in the visitor center, to several refuge kiosks, to social media, and to the refuge website. • No hunting is permitted at night; visitors are permitted on the refuge after sunset only for fishing. This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the NWRSAA. The Service expects that the hunting and fishing plan would be found compatible with the purposes of Havasu NWR and the mission of the NWRS. Alternative C—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer Alternative C would be similar to alternative B and would open the refuge to hunting of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Under this alternative, mule deer could be harvested following AZGFD regular season dates by archery and crossbow only as methods of take. Mule deer hunting would be allowed in the Pintail Slough and Topock Marsh East Management Units. Alternative(s) Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration The AZGFD has requested full alignment with State hunting regulations on Havasu NWR in Arizona. The following are requests by AZGFD that were considered but dismissed from further analysis.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 6

The State requested full alignment with State regulations for mule deer, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, feral swine, coati (Nasua nasua), raccoon (Procyon lotor), ringtailed cat (Bassariscus astutus), furbearer, American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), and rabbit and hare hunting on the refuge. The refuge is not considering opening to hunting of mule deer, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, coati, raccoon, ring-tailed cat, furbearer, or American bullfrog in full alignment with State regulations. Little information about the population sizes of these species on the refuge is available, and full alignment with State regulations for season dates of these species would interfere with the breeding seasons of federally threatened and endangered species, including the Yuma Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The refuge is proposing refuge-specific seasons on the harvest of desert cottontail rabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and kit fox (September 1–March 15) (appendix 3, table 2). During this season the refuge is proposing the incidental take of feral swine to reduce potential impacts on the three federally protected bird species listed above. The State has also requested hunting of mountain lion (Felis concolor) on the refuge. Mountain lion hunting is not being proposed at this time. Implementing a hunt when its benefit is for low- density, and likely transient, individuals is not feasible due to increased demands for additional management and law enforcement. In the neighboring AZGFD mountain lion management unit (16A) only 5 mountain lions were harvested from 2012 to 2017 (AZGFD, 2017b). The refuge manages land in Arizona and California, and mountain lion hunting is illegal in California. This would add more complexity to an already limited law enforcement capacity.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This section is organized by affected resource categories and for each affected resource discusses both (1) the existing environmental and socioeconomic baseline in the action area and (2) the effects and impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives. The effects and impacts of the proposed action considered here are changes to the human environment, whether adverse or beneficial, that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives. This EA includes written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and it is therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analysis.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 7

This section describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting in the action area. The refuge consists of approximately 37,515 acres, or 58 square miles, along the lower Colorado River in Mohave County, Arizona, and San Bernardino County, California (appendix 2, figure 2). Havasu NWR protects native riparian, marsh, and surrounding desert upland habitat and manages the landscape to provide habitat for neotropical migratory birds, other native wildlife, and federally listed threatened and endangered species. Threatened and endangered species include the Yuma Ridgway’s rail, western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), northern Mexican garter snake (Thamnophis eques megalops), and Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The proposed action is located across most portions of the refuge including riparian areas, marsh, river backwaters, and desert upland habitat (appendix 2, figure 2). For more information regarding the affected environment, please see section III of the 1994 Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for Havasu, Bill Williams River, Cibola, and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges (USFWS 1994).

Natural Resources Hunted Species—Waterfowl (Ducks, American Coot, and Geese), Common Gallinule, and Wilson’s Snipe Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Migratory waterfowl begin to arrive on Havasu NWR in September and depart by March. Based on aerial surveys (2009–2012), approximately 1,500–10,000 ducks, 7,700–104,000 American coots, and 725–2,225 geese were observed annually on the refuge. Due to limited funding, aerial surveys were discontinued after 2012. Currently, the refuge manages approximately 60 acres of moist soil fields to provide waterfowl forage throughout the winter and early spring in preparation for the birds’ energetically demanding migration north. Waterfowl species most commonly observed include American coot, mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern pintail (Anas acuta), American wigeon (Mareca americana), northern shoveler (Spatula clypeata), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), and gadwall (Mareca strepera). Currently, it is unknown how many ducks, coots, and geese are harvested annually on the refuge, but harvest numbers for the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area ranged from 469 to 1,010 during the period 2017–2020, with approximately 1,450 waterfowl hunting visits. Snipe populations have rebounded since being depleted by overhunting in the late 1800s (Bent 1927). Wilson’s snipe is now considered a species of least concern in North America (BirdLife International 2017). They are common and widespread, and observed in flooded and marshy areas across much of the United States and Canada. Based on callback surveys (2012–2019), approximately 34 to 196 common gallinules were observed annually on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 8

On Havasu NWR, it is possible that a few snipe or common gallinule are opportunistically harvested during waterfowl hunting, but no harvest for these species was reported for Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, where an estimated 91 percent of waterfowl hunting visits took place in the 2019–2020 waterfowl hunting season. Waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe use all wetland and agricultural areas of the refuge. These areas include the Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West, Topock Gorge, Lake Havasu, and Mesquite Bay Management Units, as well as moist soil fields, remnant river meanders, and backwaters of the lower Colorado River. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Waterfowl harvest limits in the United States are based on a thorough regulatory process that involves numerous sources of waterfowl population- and harvest-monitoring data. In 2019, the national breeding duck population estimate was 38.9 million birds; of those around 5 percent were harvested in the Pacific Flyway (USFWS 2019). In 2019, Arizona waterfowl hunters harvested an estimated 16,900 ducks (Raftovich et al. 2020). Arizona’s harvest is approximately 0.1 percent of the U.S. harvest (9.7 million) and less than 1 percent of the estimated 2.1 million harvested in the Pacific Flyway (Raftovich et al. 2020). Based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, American coot populations are relatively stable across their range (Sauer et al. 2017). Nationally, in 2019, hunters harvested about 242,600 coots, an increase of nearly 300 percent from 2018 (Raftovich et al. 2020). In 2019, goose hunters in Arizona harvested an estimated 2,365 Canada geese, 163 snow geese (Chen caerulescens), and 489 Ross’s geese (Chen rossii) (Raftovich et al. 2020). Arizona’s harvest is approximately 0.1 percent of the 2.6 million harvested in the United States and less than 1 percent of the estimated harvest in the Pacific Flyway (Raftovich et al. 2020). Annually, AZGFD sets harvest regulations within limits established by the Service’s Division of Migratory Birds. Based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, snipe populations are relatively stable across their range (Sauer et al. 2017). Nationally, in 2019, hunters harvested about 92,700 snipe. This harvest estimate is up from the 83,600 estimated in 2018 (Raftovich et al. 2020). Wilson’s snipe harvest for the 2019 hunting season in California is estimated at less than 3,500 birds, up 57 percent from 2018 (Raftovich et al. 2020). In Arizona, no birds were reported harvested in 2018 or 2019 (Raftovich et al. 2020). Nationally, in 2019, hunters harvested about 19,700 common gallinules (Raftovich et al. 2020). Common gallinule harvest for the 2019 hunting season was 0, and 600 in 2018 (Raftovich et al. 2020). In Arizona, no birds were reported taken in 2018 or 2019 (Raftovich et al. 2020). Annually, AZGFD sets harvest regulations within limits established by the Service’s Division of Migratory Birds.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 9

Projected annual human population growth rates for Arizona are higher than the U.S. average (Arizona Commerce Authority 2020). By 2050, an additional 73,000 people are expected to live in Mohave County, AZ, bringing the total population to around 292,000 (Arizona Commerce Authority 2020). This population growth will continue to place stress upon the ecosystems of the lower Colorado River, through both direct loss of remaining habitats and indirect loss through fragmentation and degradation of the remaining parcels of wildlife habitat. Increasing human populations will also increase demands on water in an arid desert ecosystem. This potential stress on water and wetland resources may impact habitat quality and quantity for these species in the arid Southwest. The States of Arizona and California allow the use of lead sinkers and fishing tackle. Fishing contributes a considerable amount of lead into the environment, which can have a range of serious effects, such as the lethal poisoning of wildlife, including waterfowl, loons, and raptors (Scheuhammer et al. 2003, Rattner et al. 2008, Schroeder 2010, Martin 2019). Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 200 Estimated Take: < 1,200 Waterfowl hunting occurs 110 days per year as permitted by the State of Arizona in the Topock Marsh East Management Unit (7,240 acres), Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres), Lake Havasu (3,870 acres), and (on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays only) Pintail Slough (443 acres). The refuge does not have data regarding the overall waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe harvest on the refuge. The majority of waterfowl hunter visits are to the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area. Harvest numbers for the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area ranged from 469 to 1,010 waterfowl and geese from 2017 to 2020. In the 2019–2020 hunting season, 1,456 hunting visits occurred at the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area out of an estimated 1,600 waterfowl hunting visits refugewide. The 1,456 hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season resulted in the harvest of 1,010 waterfowl, generating an average of 0.69 birds harvested per hunting visit. Adding the estimated take by the remaining 144 hunting visits outside of the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area would result in a harvest of approximately 100 birds, generating an estimated total harvest of 1,110 waterfowl on the refuge. Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area had an estimated 91 percent of all waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe hunting visits for the refuge. No common gallinules or Wilson’s snipe were harvested from 2017 to 2020. It is anticipated that the waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe harvests would remain similar, as hunting would continue and waterfowl bag limits, which are set nationally to adjust for changes in various species population numbers, would continue to be reviewed and set annually.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 10

Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 200 Estimated Take: < 1,200 Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative A. Hunting for waterfowl would not be allowed within the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit. The Havasu Wilderness Management Unit is primarily desert upland habitat and should result in no lost opportunity for waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe hunters, as this habitat type is generally unused for forage, resting, breeding, or any other feature of this group’s biology. An increase in hunter numbers and harvest is not anticipated, as the waterfowl hunting acreage would decrease to 11,869 acres and season dates for waterfowl hunting on the refuge would not increase under the proposed alternative. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 200 Estimated Take: < 1,200 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no change to waterfowl hunting. Hunted Species—Dove Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Mourning doves are widely distributed and abundant in North America (Peterjohn et al. 1994). Mourning doves are the most widespread and likely the most abundant breeding bird in Arizona (Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas 2005) and can be found year-round on the refuge. Incidental observations by refuge staff indicate that mourning doves are one of the most abundant birds on the refuge. White-winged doves are migratory and breed in the southern United States, including Arizona and California. White-winged dove populations in Arizona have been stable since 2001, but remain at their lowest relative abundance estimates since surveys began in the 1960s (AZGFD 2017b). White-winged doves are abundant and prolific breeders on the refuge. They migrate in early September and are generally absent during the winter. Eurasian collared-doves are a non-native, invasive species and have expanded their range throughout much of North America since initial establishment in southern Florida in the early 1980s (Smith 1987). Populations have increased throughout the United States in recent decades (Poling and Hayslette 2006). African collared-doves are a non-native, invasive species that exist as wild populations in Arizona and southern California (AZGFD 2020a). Havasu NWR does not collect harvest or population data for these species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 11

Dove species use all areas of the refuge, but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix spp.), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), and salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), as well as agricultural fields. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Mourning doves and white-winged doves are migratory species and regulated by Federal and State Governments. The harvest limit and season for mourning and white-winged doves is based upon a regulatory process that involves numerous sources of dove population- and harvest-monitoring data. The United States manages these populations based on three different management units: Eastern, Central, and Western. Arizona supports breeding populations of an estimated 20 million to 30 million mourning and 2 million to 3 million white- winged doves. In 2019, Arizona hunters harvested 235,400 mourning doves and California harvested 641,600 mourning doves, 22 percent and 60 percent of the total Western Unit harvest, respectively (Raftovich et al. 2020). In 2019, Arizona hunters harvested 52,500 white- winged doves and California harvested 38,600 white-winged doves, 56 percent and 41 percent of the total Western Unit harvest, respectively (Raftovich et al. 2020). As exotic invasive species, Eurasian and African collared-doves are not protected in either Arizona or California. There are no harvest limits, and hunting is permitted year-round in both States. Presently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) conservation status for all four species is “of least concern,” indicating that population trends show no threat of extinction. The refuge is currently expanding the habitat restoration program to enhance approximately 300 acres of riparian forest, as well mesquite bosque, in the next 5 years for the benefit of resident and migratory wildlife. These projects will involve a considerable amount of active revegetation in the form of clearing ground with heavy equipment and prescriptive fire, as well as planting and irrigating nursery-grown trees. Short-term disturbance to wildlife and habitat during the implementation of these projects will result in long-term benefits in the form of high-quality riparian and upland habitat, both of which are utilized by doves. Therefore, restoration efforts are expected to positively impact local dove populations. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 1,000 Mourning and white-winged dove hunting occurs about 60 days a year as permitted by the State of Arizona in the Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres), Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres), Lake Havasu (3,870 acres), and Topock Marsh West (6,065 acres) Management Units, and the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area (443 acres) outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1– January 31).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 12

The refuge does not have data regarding overall mourning and white-winged dove harvest on the refuge. Based on encounters with hunters by refuge staff and wildlife officers, few doves of either species appear to be harvested on the refuge. It was estimated that there were 100 hunting visits by dove hunters in 2019 and 2020. From 2004 to 2015, the combined average daily harvest of mourning and white-winged doves was 7.0 to 10.1 (AZGFD 2017b). Based on the averages for Arizona and the estimated hunting visits to the refuge, it is estimated that 700–1,000 mourning and white-winged doves are harvested on the refuge. It is anticipated that the mourning dove and white-winged dove harvest would remain similar under alternative A, as hunting would continue and bag limits, which are set cooperatively by AZGFD and the Service to adjust for changes in species population numbers, would continue to be reviewed and set annually. Harvest of the invasive, nonnative Eurasian and African collared-dove would remain closed to hunting. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 60 Estimated Take: < 1,200 Mourning and white-winged dove hunting would remain the same as under alternative A. In addition, the harvest of Eurasian and African collared-doves would be allowed from September 1 to March 15, providing approximately 196 hunting days in the Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres), Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres), Lake Havasu (3,870 acres), Pintail Slough (443 acres), and Topock Marsh West (6,065 acres) Management Units outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31), providing 33,148 acres. Harvest of these species within Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area may occur by permitted hunters only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during waterfowl season. Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, muzzle-loader, handgun, pneumatic weapons, archery, and crossbow. There are no bag limits or harvest data for the invasive, nonnative Eurasian and African collared-dove in Arizona. The anticipated harvest of these invasive, nonnative species would be primarily during the estimated 100 hunting visits that occur on the refuge by dove hunters or opportunistically by hunters participating in other refuge hunts. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 60 Estimated Take: < 1,200 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to hunting of mourning or white-winged doves, or of Eurasian or African collared-doves.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 13

Hunted Species—Gambel’s Quail Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Gambel’s quail are year-round residents at the refuge and utilize the refuge for breeding during the spring. Gambel’s quail occupy more than half of the area of the State of Arizona (more than 57,000 square miles). The primary predators of Gambel’s quail are snakes; birds of prey; and fur-bearing mammals, such as bobcats, coyotes, and foxes. Clutch and brood sizes are often large, ranging up to a dozen or more chicks, and both the cock and the hen care for the young. Individual birds have short life spans, however, and population sizes tend to fluctuate widely from year to year. Gambel’s quail form fall and winter coveys that are likely to remain in the same general area where they were raised (AZGFD 2017b). Havasu NWR does not conduct quail surveys; however, Gambel’s quail are common on the refuge, based on staff observations, particularly after a winter of adequate rainfall. Quail populations vary based on a multitude of local conditions. Currently it is unknown how many quail are harvested annually on the refuge. According to AZGFD’s spring statewide survey, quail call counts are higher than the 10-year average (2008–2017) (AZGFD 2017a). AZGFD conducts annual spring call count surveys, allowing for adjustments in hunting guidelines based on current population trends. There are no population data available for Gambel’s quail in Arizona or California, other than a general outlook through the yearly Small Game Forecast provided by AZGFD (Harding and Odell 2021). The small game outlooks are based on the current year’s spring callback surveys. The number of quail hunters in Arizona ranges from 27,000 to 60,000 annually (AZGFD 2017b). Arizona harvest estimates range from 22,000 to 56,000 birds yearly from 2006 to 2014 (AZGFD 2017b). This species uses all areas of the refuge, but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and palo verde (Parkinsonia spp.). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions For quail, hunting is generally compensatory for natural sources of mortality (Gallizioli and Webb 1958). The AZGFD hunting guidelines are used by State wildlife biologists when formulating hunting recommendations for upland game. Guidelines are reviewed every 5 years by AZGFD and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and the Commission can amend guidelines at any time. According to guidelines, seasons for small game such as quail are set for 1-year time periods.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 14

Quail populations are dependent upon winter rainfall (Engel-Wilson and Kuvlesky 2002) and can fluctuate wildly. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mohave County has seen an average temperature increase of 1.6–2.0 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century (EPA 2016b); 2006–2016 saw the most persistent droughts on record in the Southwest (EPA 2016a). While winter and summer rains are unpredictable in the Southwest, the region is predicted to get warmer and drier. The projected decreases in water availability are exacerbated by increased water demands and the projected annual human population growth rates for Arizona, which are higher than the U.S. average (Arizona Commerce Authority 2020). This population growth will affect Gambel’s quail as described above, in the section on waterfowl. Expanding habitat restoration as described above, under “Hunted Species—Dove,” should positively impact local quail populations. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 200 Gambel’s quail hunting occurs 115 days a year as permitted by the State of Arizona in the Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres), Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres), Lake Havasu (3,870 acres), and Pintail Slough (443 acres) Management Units. The refuge does not have data regarding Gambel’s quail harvest on the refuge. From 2006 to 2015, average harvest of Gambel’s quail in Arizona ranged from 1.7 to 3.1 per hunting visit (AZGFD 2017b). In 2019–2020 hunting season, it was estimated that there were 60 upland game hunting visits. Based on the averages for Arizona it is estimated that 102–186 quail are harvested on the refuge per year. It is anticipated that harvest of this species would remain similar, as hunting would continue and bag limits, which are set by AZGFD to adjust for changes in species population numbers, would continue to be reviewed and set annually. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 100 Estimated Take: < 225 Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative A, except that quail hunting would be allowed in Topock Marsh West Management Unit outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31). The expansion of hunting opportunities in the Topock Marsh West Management Unit is anticipated to cause a slight increase in hunter numbers and harvest, as it will represent an 18-percent increase in available acreage for hunting. Gambel’s quail season largely overlaps with the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31), and hunting of the species would be permitted within the Topock Marsh West Management Unit from February 1 through February 7 only.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 15

The additional 7 hunting days in the Topock Marsh West Management Unit would increase the estimated take by 1.7–3.1 quail per hunting visit for 7 days. This would increase the estimated annual harvest by 11.9–21.7 Gambel’s quail, to an estimated harvest total of 114–208 on the refuge. The addition of pneumatic weapons as a method of take is unlikely to increase the number of hunting visits to the refuge. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 100 Estimated Take: < 225 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no change to Gambel’s quail hunting. Hunted Species—Desert Cottontail Rabbit Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Desert cottontail rabbits are found throughout the West, from eastern Montana south to West Texas, west to central Nevada and southern California, and south to Baja California and northern Mexico. They are found within every county in Arizona. Desert cottontails are commonly observed on the refuge by refuge staff and visitors. Desert cottontails have litter sizes ranging from 2.6 to 3.6 young (Sowls 1957; Chapman and Ceballos 1990) and are capable of 4 litters per year (Sowls 1957). Although the desert cottontail is able to breed throughout the year, most young rabbits are produced in spring when the new growth of plants is most available. At other times of the year, selected foods include twigs, newly emerging grasses, weeds, and even cacti (AZGFD 2017b). This species uses all areas of the refuge, but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush and palo verde. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The AZGFD Small Game Forecast states that cottontail numbers and harvest generally follow Gambel’s quail numbers and harvest because both species rely on many of the same environmental conditions (Harding and Odell 2021). Harvest of desert cottontail rabbits in Arizona ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 rabbits yearly from 2006 to 2014 (AZGFD 2017a). Based on hunter encounters with refuge staff and wildlife officers, few cottontails are harvested on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 16

On April 1, 2020, AZGFD received reports of Arizona’s first cases of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus 2 (RHDV2) (Arizona Department of Agriculture 2020). The impact of expanded hunting opportunities on desert cottontails will be dependent in part upon the spread of RHDV2 in western Arizona. RHDV2 has a mortality rate of up to 75 percent and is expected to cause a decrease in the rabbit population; while the disease is mostly contained in southeastern Arizona, several cases have been detected in Mohave County, near the boundary of the refuge (Arizona Department of Agriculture 2020). Due to the high mortality rate and rapid spread of RHDV2, the refuge expects to see a population decline of desert cottontail. Desert cottontail populations are dependent upon rainfall (Madsen 1974) and can fluctuate wildly. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, would have similar effects on desert cottontail rabbits. Expanding habitat restoration as described above for doves should also positively impact local desert cottontail populations. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 25 Estimated Take: < 75 Desert cottontail rabbit hunting on the refuge provides approximately 130 hunting days in Arizona and 120 hunting days in California (from September 1 to the end of the respective State quail season), in the Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres), Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres), Lake Havasu (3,870 acres), Pintail Slough (443 acres), and Topock Marsh West (6,065 acres) Management Units, outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period (October 1–January 31). The refuge does not have data regarding harvest of desert cottontail rabbits on the refuge. Based on encounters with hunters by refuge staff and wildlife officers, few desert cottontails appear to be harvested on the refuge. From 2006 to 2015, average harvest of desert cottontail rabbits in Arizona ranged from 0.4 to 1.1 per hunting visit (AZGFD 2017b). In the 2019–2020 hunting season, it was estimated that there were 60 upland game hunting visits. Based on the averages for Arizona, it is estimated that 24–66 desert cottontail rabbits are harvested on the refuge annually. It is anticipated that harvest of this species would remain steady, as hunting would continue and bag limits, which are set by AZGFD to adjust for changes in species population numbers, would continue to be reviewed and set annually. Desert cottontail rabbit populations would not likely be negatively impacted by hunting on the refuge due to their prolific breeding capabilities and ample suitable habitat.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 17

Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 150 Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative A. Hunting for this species would be expanded within the Topock Marsh West Management Unit (outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period, October 1–January 31). The season would also be extended from the end of the State quail season to March 15, adding approximately 51 hunting days, for a total of 196 hunting days. The expansion of the Topock Marsh West Management Unit hunting season is anticipated to cause a slight increase in hunter numbers and harvest, as it will represent an 18- percent increase in available acreage for hunting. From 2006 to 2015, average harvest of desert cottontail rabbits in Arizona ranged from 0.4 to 1.1 per hunting visit (AZGFD 2017b). Based on the averages for Arizona, the addition of approximately 51 hunting days is estimated to increase the harvest on the refuge by 20–56 desert cottontail rabbits, to an estimated total annual harvest of 44–122 on the refuge. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 150 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to desert cottontail rabbit hunting. Hunted Species—Black-Tailed Jackrabbit Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Black-tailed jackrabbits are found throughout the southwestern United States and parts of Mexico, and are a common sight in sparse, open areas of the refuge. The primary predators of black-tailed jackrabbits are coyotes, foxes, bobcats, and large birds of prey. Black-tailed jackrabbits are prolific breeders and are known to have between three and four litters per year with between one and five young per litter (Ballenger 1999). This species uses all areas of the refuge, but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush and palo verde. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions There are no population or harvest estimates available for black-tailed jackrabbit in Arizona and California. In Arizona there are no bag limits for the harvest of black-tailed jackrabbits and the season is year-round. Black-tailed jackrabbits are prolific breeders, and hunting has not been shown to greatly affect rabbit populations in Arizona (Brown 2012).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 18

RHDV2 may cause a decline of black-tailed jackrabbit, as described above for desert cottontail. Projected annual human population growth rates, described above in relation to waterfowl, would have similar impacts on black-tailed jackrabbit. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, would have similar effects on black-tailed jackrabbit. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the no-action alternative, the harvest of black-tailed jackrabbit would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 25 The refuge would open black-tailed jackrabbit hunting from September 1 to March 15, providing 196 hunting days. Hunting would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of waterfowl sanctuary period, October 1–January 31), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units, providing 33,148 acres. Harvest of this species within Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area may occur by permitted hunters only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during waterfowl season. Black-tailed jackrabbit populations would not likely be negatively impacted by hunting on the refuge as they are abundant throughout the State and the refuge, and are expected to be harvested in low numbers (less than 25). Considering that black-tailed jackrabbits are hunted in GMUs with a year-round season, adjacent to and contiguous with the refuge, with no discernible impact to their population, it is anticipated the harvest by a low number of upland game hunters (60 hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season) should not negatively impact this species. Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, muzzle-loader, pneumatic weapons, archery, and crossbow. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 25 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to black-tailed jackrabbit hunting.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 19

Hunted Species—Bobcat Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Distributed throughout the State of Arizona, the bobcat is considered one of the most common predators. The U.S. population is estimated to be between 2.3 and 3.6 million bobcats (Roberts and Crimmins 2010). Bobcats are secretive and therefore rarely encountered by refuge visitors or staff. Their principal prey are cottontail rabbits and jackrabbits, but they also take both smaller mammals such as pack rats and larger mammals including the young of some big-game species. Snakes and lizards are also part of the bobcat’s diet. Bobcats require 2 years to mature and attain breeding age. The breeding season in Arizona is poorly documented but appears to be mostly in late winter or early spring. The gestation period is from 50 to 60 days so that the 1 to 3 young are usually born in spring or early summer (AZGFD 2017b). This species uses all areas of the refuge but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush and palo verde. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions In 2010, Arizona’s statewide bobcat population was estimated to be between 62,000 and 66,000. Harvest of bobcats in Arizona ranged from 781 to 4,520 yearly from 2006 to 2015 (AZGFD 2017b). Hunters reported harvesting on average 2,500 bobcats per year over the past 10 years. Most of these animals are taken by use of predator callers or while pursuing other game (AZGFD 2017b). The harvest of bobcats in Arizona is largely from trapping, which is not currently permitted or proposed on Havasu NWR. Desert bighorn sheep hunting on the refuge in Arizona is the only source of lead ammunition on the refuge (California banned lead ammunition in 2019). There is concern about the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition in the environment, endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), mammals, humans, and other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. Lead shot and bullet fragments found in animal carcasses and gut piles are the most likely source of lead exposure (Kelly et al. 2011). Avian predators and scavengers can be especially susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments or pellets in the tissues of animals killed or wounded by lead ammunition. Lead-based ammunition may be the greatest source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment within the United States. To increase the safety of bobcat populations that are threatened with lead toxicity, the Service will increase outreach and education efforts to inform the hunting and fishing community to voluntarily switch to using non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 20

Projected annual human population growth rates, described above in relation to waterfowl, would have similar impacts on bobcats. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation as described above for Gambel’s quail would have similar effects on bobcats. Expanding habitat restoration as described above for doves should positively impact local bobcat populations. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the no-action alternative, the harvest of bobcats would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 25 Estimated Take: < 10 The refuge proposes opening bobcat hunting from September 1 through March 15, providing 196 hunting days. Hunting would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of waterfowl sanctuary period, October 1–January 31), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units, providing 33,148 acres. Harvest of this species within Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area would occur by permitted hunters only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during waterfowl season. Bobcat populations will not likely be negatively impacted by hunting on the refuge as they are secretive, rarely encountered, and expected to be harvested in very low numbers (less than 10). Considering that bobcats are harvested in GMUs adjacent to and contiguous with the refuge with no discernible impact on their population, it is anticipated that harvest by a low number of upland game hunters (60 hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season) should not negatively impact this species. Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, muzzle-loader, pneumatic weapons, archery, and crossbow. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 25 Estimated Take: < 10 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to bobcat hunting.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 21

Hunted Species—Coyote, Gray Fox, and Kit Fox Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Coyotes are Arizona’s most common predator and are found throughout the State. Coyotes are opportunists, feeding mainly on small mammals, carrion, bird eggs, and mesquite and palo verde beans. Coyotes form strong pair bonds, usually breeding between mid-January and mid- March. After a 2-month gestation period, from 1 to several young are born in a den or burrow; the average litter size is about 5 pups. A coyote’s home range may encompass up to 12 square miles during the spring and summer (AZGFD 2017b). Havasu NWR does not conduct coyote surveys; however, they are common on the refuge based on staff and visitor observations. Both kit and gray foxes are widely distributed throughout western and southern Arizona. Gray foxes are the most numerous and most often seen foxes. They are regularly active during daylight hours and are found throughout the State. Kit foxes prefer sandy areas and are almost exclusively nocturnal, spending much of the day underground. Coyotes and gray foxes use all areas of the refuge but mainly the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush and palo verde. Kit foxes prefer sandy plains and desert washes, and can be found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush and palo verde. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Coyotes are abundant throughout Arizona in all vegetative communities, despite extensive eradication efforts from 1915 to 1945. There are no population estimates available for coyotes in Arizona and California. Harvest of coyotes in Arizona ranged from 20,880 to 55,469 yearly from 2006 to 2015 (AZGFD 2017b). Harvest of fox species in Arizona ranged from 1,562 to 9,585 yearly from 2006 to 2015 (AZGFD 2017b). In recent years, the annual take for foxes has averaged around 7,000 individuals, far less than the allowed harvest; gray foxes make up 95 percent of the foxes taken annually (AZGFD 2017a). Kit foxes are likely harvested in much lower numbers because they are less frequently encountered and primarily nocturnal, and their fur is of little value (AZGFD 2017b). Whatever the species, the annual take of foxes by hunters, trappers, and people using predator callers has been relatively stable in recent years and not a major source of mortality in the statewide fox population. Diseases such as rabies, distemper, and other canine sicknesses, as well as drought-related factors, control the fox population much more than any human-related source of mortality (AZGFD 2020b). Projected annual human population growth rates, described above in the section on waterfowl, would have similar impacts on these species and their prey. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, would have similar effects on these species. Expanding habitat restoration, as described above for doves, should positively impact local populations of these species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 22

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the no-action alternative, the harvest of coyotes, gray foxes, and kit foxes would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 25 The refuge proposes opening coyote, gray fox, and kit fox hunting from September 1 to March 15, providing 196 hunting days. Hunting would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period, October 1–January 31), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units, providing 33,148 acres. Harvest of this species within Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area would occur by permitted hunters only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during waterfowl season. Coyote populations would not likely be negatively impacted by hunting on the refuge because they are abundant throughout the State and the refuge, and are expected to be harvested in low numbers (less than 25). Considering that coyotes are hunted in GMUs adjacent to and contiguous with the refuge with no discernible impact on their population, it is anticipated the harvest by a low number of upland game hunters (60 hunting visits in the 2019– 2020 hunting season) should not negatively impact this species. Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, muzzle-loader, pneumatic weapons, archery, and crossbow. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 25 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to coyote, gray fox, or kit fox hunting.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 23

Hunted Species—Feral Swine Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Feral swine are widely recognized as a damaging invasive species. They were originally imported as a food source and escaped or were intentionally released. The distribution of feral swine has steadily expanded over the past several decades, especially in the southern United States (appendix 2, figure 3). They are highly adaptable, have high reproductive capabilities, and can be found in a wide range of habitat types. Rooting and digging activities damage vegetative communities, soil properties, and plant successional patterns (Tolleson et al. 1995). This species is primarily found within the lower Colorado River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in dense vegetation in wetland and marsh habitat, as well as backwaters of the lower Colorado River. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions In order to meet the species protection and enhancement goals for the refuge, refuge staff and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service–Wildlife Services (USDA APHIS WS) have partnered to eradicate feral swine on the refuge (and in other areas of Arizona), in collaboration with the Integrated Feral Swine Damage Management Program. This program was developed as a national response to reduce and, where possible, eliminate the risks and damages inflicted by feral swine on agriculture, natural resources, property, and human health. Effective eradication of feral swine requires long-term commitment by refuge and USDA APHIS WS staff, we well as multiple concurrent management actions. Management of feral swine through a hunting program does not necessarily lead to their eradication. Studies addressing management of feral swine document that recreational hunting does not lead to eradication but, in fact, could cause an increase in the feral swine population (Bevins et al. 2014; Waithman et al. 1999). Feral swine are susceptible to a wide range of infectious and parasitic diseases that can contribute to contamination of watersheds, soil, and plants. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, may have similar effects on feral swine. However, the species may also benefit from growing human populations due to the increased availability of food sources from trash, disturbed systems, and landscaping. Expanding habitat restoration, as described above for doves, and moist soil management, described for waterfowl, may positively impact local populations of feral swine. Feral swine may be impacted by lead in the environment, as described above for bobcats, because they may also consume gut piles.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 24

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the no-action alternative, the harvest of feral swine would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 50 The refuge proposes the incidental take of feral swine by hunters participating in established hunting opportunities on the refuge from September 1 to March 15, providing 196 hunting days. Incidental take would be permitted within Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West (outside of the waterfowl sanctuary period, October 1–January 31), Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units, providing 33,148 acres. Incidental take of this species within Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area would occur by permitted hunters only on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from legal shooting time until 2 p.m. MST during waterfowl season. The goal of the refuge is complete eradication of this invasive species on the refuge because of their damaging effects on native wildlife. Methods of take permitted on the refuge are federally approved nontoxic ammunition only and include shotgun, handgun, muzzle-loader, pneumatic weapons, archery, and crossbow. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: < 50 Estimated Take: < 50 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative B. This alternative would result in no additional change to feral swine hunting. Hunted Species—Desert Bighorn Sheep Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Desert bighorn sheep can be found throughout western North America, including Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Baja California, and Sonora. Desert bighorn sheep are considered one of three living subspecies of bighorn sheep in the contiguous United States and Mexico, which also include Rocky Mountain bighorn (Ovis canadensis canadensis) and Sierra Nevada bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 25

Desert bighorns generally mate between July and October and typically produce one or two lambs per year (San Diego Zoo 2020). In Arizona, habitat for desert bighorns is typically concentrated in the western and southwestern parts of the State. This species utilizes steep, rugged terrain on the refuge with sparse brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) and creosote bush vegetative communities. Due to their habitat requirements they are largely restricted to the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The United States population estimate for all 3 subspecies of bighorn is 42,700, and all are considered species of least concern based on a 2019 IUCN assessment, meaning that the overall population trend is stable (San Diego Zoo 2020). In 1978, Arizona’s desert bighorn sheep population was estimated at 2,100 to 2,600 individuals (Monson 1980). Although the regional population exhibited periods of positive and negative growth between 1992 and 2012, state-space models suggest that the regional population is relatively stable (Conroy et al. 2014). AZGFD guidelines direct that 15–25 percent of the mature rams (class III and class IV rams, or those 6 years of age and older) in the population may be harvested annually. Between 80 and 100 desert bighorn sheep are harvested annually in Arizona (AZGFD 2017b). AZGFD, in cooperation with the Service, has conducted helicopter surveys to determine the distribution, abundance, and composition of desert bighorn sheep on Havasu NWR. The refuge’s estimated population remained steady, at around 70 individuals, from 2003 to 2011. Projected annual human population growth rates, described above for waterfowl, would have similar impacts on desert bighorn sheep. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, would have similar effects on this species. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1–3 Estimated Take: 0–3 Bighorn sheep hunting occurs approximately 31 days a year and aligns with the Arizona hunting season in the Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres) and Havasu Wilderness (15,021 acres) Management Units.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 26

Three permits are issued annually by AZGFD on the AZGFD GMUs (15D south and 16B) that encompasses the refuge. The majority of GMU 15D south is outside of the refuge boundary. The bag limit per AZGFD issued permit is one ram, so no more than three desert bighorn sheep could be harvested on the refuge annually. Under the no-action alternative, it is anticipated that the desert bighorn sheep harvest would remain similar, as hunting would continue and bag limits, which are set by AZGFD to adjust for changes in desert bighorn sheep population numbers, would continue to be reviewed and set annually. The refuge is in full compliance with State regulations for the hunting of desert bighorn sheep. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1–3 Estimated Take: 0–3 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative A. The proposed alternative would result in no additional change to desert bighorn sheep hunting. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1–3 Estimated Take: 0–3 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative A. This alternative would result in no additional change to desert bighorn sheep hunting. Hunted Species—Mule Deer Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Mule deer are the most abundant big-game animal in Arizona. They can be found in most areas of the State, from sparsely vegetated deserts upward into high, forested mountains. The mule deer gets its name from its large ears. The mule deer is the larger of Arizona’s deer species. Adult bucks may weigh more than 200 pounds and stand up to 42 inches tall at the shoulder. Does average about 125 pounds (AZGFD 2017b). After a gestation period of about 190 days, does give birth to 1 or 2 spotted fawns. Fawns in northern Arizona are born in late spring, while those in southern Arizona usually arrive in midsummer. The young remain with their mother until the following spring. Both sexes attain maturity in about 1 year and have a life span of about 10 years (AZGFD 2017b). Mule deer are primarily browsers, although they feed largely on forbs and new grass growth in the spring and summer. Other major diet items are twigs, bark, buds, leaves, and nuts. Due to the lack of forage, mule deer are largely restricted from the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 27

Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions About 47,000 permits are offered in Arizona, with hunting success between 21 and 28 percent; 60 percent of the total deer harvested in Arizona are mule deer. From 2012 to 2016 mule deer survey results ranged from 50 to 95 individuals in GMU 16A (AZGFD 2017b). Research has shown that mule deer population levels are largely determined by the number of fawns that survive to be yearlings. Fawn survival, in turn, is largely determined by climatic events, with wet, mild winters contributing to high fawn survival rates. Dry winters and springs usually result in poor fawn survival (AZGFD 2017b). Projected annual human population growth rates, described above in relation to waterfowl, would have similar impacts on mule deer. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation, as described above for Gambel’s quail, would have similar effects on mule deer. Expanding habitat restoration, as described above for doves, may positively impact local populations of mule deer. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Visits: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the no-action alternative, the harvest of mule deer would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Visits: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the proposed action alternative, the harvest of mule deer would remain prohibited on the refuge. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Visits: < 10 Estimated Take: 0–2 Mule deer hunting would be allowed in the Pintail Slough (443 acres) and Topock Marsh East (7,240 acres) Management Units. Under this alternative, mule deer could be harvested following AZGFD late-season archery dates (December 11–31 and January 1–31, for 51 hunting days), and only archery and crossbow would be permitted as methods of take.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 28

The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting on the refuge would impact this species. Considering that mule deer are harvested in GMUs adjacent to and contiguous with the refuge with no discernible impact on their population, it is anticipated that harvest by a low number of refuge hunters (60 total nonwaterfowl hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season) should not negatively impact this species. Fished Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The lower Colorado River flows directly into Lake Havasu, a 20,000-acre impoundment and part of the southern boundary of the refuge. The AZGFD conducts semiannual surveys of the Topock Marsh; the most abundant species sampled have been common carp (Cyprinus carpio), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (Matt Chmiel, Fisheries Program Coordinator, AZGFD, personal correspondence). AZGFD focuses primarily on managing fisheries in Lake Havasu for largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), secondarily for redear sunfish as a featured species, and thirdly for striped bass, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), channel catfish, and flathead catfish (Pylodictus olivaris) (Follmuth et al. 2019). In 2019 and 2020, AZGFD conducted gill net surveys (over 300 gill net hours per survey) within the Topock Marsh East Management Unit for both game and nongame species. In the course of these surveys, 690 and 890 fish were collected in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were the most abundant species caught, representing 66 percent and 70 percent of the catch in 2019 and 2020, respectively, followed by channel catfish and common carp. Razorback suckers were also captured, but in relatively small numbers (approximately 2 percent of the total catch) in 2019 and 2020. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions From July 2017 to June 2018, an estimated 293,926 fish were caught in Lake Havasu, including 119,292 striped bass, 86,920 largemouth bass, 51,441 smallmouth bass, 25,011 redear sunfish, 6,951 bluegill, 594 channel catfish, and 20 flathead catfish (Follmuth et al. 2019). AZGFD conducts annual fish sampling in Lake Havasu in the fall in order to determine whether fish populations are meeting management objectives. In its 2019–2029 fisheries management plan, AZGFD has identified the following objectives for maintaining and improving fish stocks in Lake Havasu: 1. Maintain the largemouth bass population to meet or exceed High Quality Concept standards

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 29

2. Maintain the smallmouth bass population to meet or exceed High Quality Concept standards 3. Maintain the redear sunfish population to meet or exceed Featured Species Concept standards 4. Maintain the striped bass population to meet or exceed General Opportunity Concept standards 5. Maintain angler satisfaction at 80 percent 6. Work with Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Program to maintain or improve fish habitat and shoreline angling facilities The quality of each fishery is determined based on AZGFD spring electrofishing catch per unit effort (fish caught per hour), relative weight, size distribution of fish caught, and angler catch per unit effort (fish caught per hour); benchmarks for these units of measurement vary from species to species. Based on 2014–2018 survey data, it was determined that both largemouth and smallmouth bass did not meet management objectives, redear sunfish met management objectives, and striped bass exceeded management objectives (Follmuth et al. 2019). The Service and AZGFD are both currently active members of the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Plan (LHFIP), which aids in the enhancement of fish habitat through the introduction of complex structures, such as brush bundles, PVC frames, and plastic pipe, in protected coves throughout the lake. Continuation of these enhancement projects in order to meet the objectives outlined above is expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on fishing opportunities in Lake Havasu. Current State and Federal regulations allow lead fishing tackle on public lands of the United States. There is concern about the bioavailability of lead to the environment, endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), mammals, humans, and other fish and wildlife susceptible to biomagnification. Avian predators and scavengers can be especially susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments, pellets, or discarded fishing tackle in the tissues of animals. To increase the safety of wildlife that are threatened with lead toxicity, the refuge will increase outreach and education efforts to inform the angling community to voluntarily switch to using non-lead fishing tackle. The refuge receives 2.4 million visitors annually, the majority of whom participate in boating and fishing. Increasing human populations in the region, as described above in the section on waterfowl, will likely increase the abundance of boats on the lower Colorado River and in the refuge. The increase of boat traffic may cause increased litter, fluid leaks/spills, fecal coliform bacteria, and sediment disturbance to refuge waterways, which would continue to degrade water quality.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 30

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Angler Visits: 165,000 Estimated Take: < 825,000 Under the no-action alternative, the refuge would continue to align fully with State regulations regarding species available for take, bag limits, size limits, devices, methods, and fishing seasons. Visit estimates are based upon incidental observations of public use as well as direct conversations with visitors. Based on this information, it was estimated that there were 165,000 angler visits to the refuge in 2019. Both traditional “take” fishing and catch-and-release fishing may negatively impact fish in several ways, including injury, mortality, reduction in reproductive success, reduction of genetic diversity, and disruption of food webs (Cline et al. 2007; Lewin et al. 2006). Reproductive success in a population could be negatively impacted by removal of the largest and oldest fish, which are likely to have the greatest reproductive capacity, but which also are likely to be targeted by anglers. Fishing occurs in the lower Colorado River, associated backwaters, and the Topock Marsh. It occurs year-round, 24 hours per day. Due to the estimated 165,000 angler visits to the refuge annually, the abundance of surrounding fishable waters adjacent to the refuge, and the bag limits set by AZGFD, we anticipate fewer than 825,000 fish would be harvested annually from the refuge. The Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office of the USFWS will continue to work with AZGFD and other members of the LHFIP in surveying local fish populations in order to ensure population stability. Alternative B Estimated Angler Visits: 165,000 Estimated Take: < 825,000 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative A. This alternative would result in no change to fishing. Alternative C Estimated Angler Visits: 165,000 Estimated Take: < 825,000 Impacts would be the same as those described for alternative A. This alternative would result in no change to fishing.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 31

Nontargeted Wildlife and Aquatic Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The refuge supports a wide diversity of wildlife species, including game and nongame species. The refuge has documented approximately 46 mammal species, 318 bird species, 48 reptile and amphibian species, and 28 species of fish. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Nontargeted wildlife may be impacted by all of the environmental trends described in the sections above. Havasu NWR attracts more than 2.4 million visitors every year. The bulk of these visitors are participating in recreational activities on the lower Colorado River, including boating, canoeing, kayaking, wildlife observation, and photography. Visitation saw an uncharacteristic increase in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is anticipated to increase steadily over time. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A The no-action alternative results in short-term negative impacts on nontargeted wildlife due to minor disturbances in areas where human access for hunting and fishing occurs. While there is typically an impact on the majority of wildlife species whenever human presence is noted, including short-term changes in behavior, many animals have developed a tolerance to humans and vehicles. As a result, some wildlife has acclimated to the daily activities that occur throughout the year, and there would be no anticipated change in the diversity or abundance of wildlife that currently use the area. Most hunting would not occur during the active breeding season (approximately early March until mid-September) for most birds on the refuge, which would limit impacts on those species. Fishing and associated boating would occur all year and result in wildlife disturbance and mortality to nongame fish. Overall hunter visitation to the refuge is low, and the short-term disturbance of hunter access to portions of the refuge (72 percent) is not likely to reduce the diversity or abundance of wildlife that use the area. Much of the access for hunting at Havasu NWR is by foot or boat only, largely eliminating any disturbance and potential wildlife mortality from vehicles. To avoid disturbance to wildlife and their natural patterns on the refuge, 28 percent of the refuge (10,625 acres) serves as a waterfowl sanctuary. Alternative B Impacts of the proposed action alternative would be similar to those described for alternative A. Impacts from fishing would not change. There would be an expected increase in overall disturbance to wildlife, with hunted acres expanded to 33,148 total acres and the addition of hunting opportunities for Eurasian and African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and kit fox, as well as the incidental take of feral swine.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 32

Increased hunting may result in additional disturbance to wildlife, including an increased presence of humans and vehicles. These impacts are expected to be minimal and equitable with impacts from other public uses, because overall hunter visitation to the refuge is low and the short-term disturbance of hunter access to portions of the refuge is not likely to reduce the diversity or abundance of wildlife that use the area. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). To avoid disturbance to wildlife and their natural patterns on the refuge, 69 percent of the refuge (25,962 acres) serves as waterfowl sanctuary from October 1 to the end of January. Waterfowl hunting is allowed on 31 percent of the refuge (11,869 acres), and 4,876 acres are closed to all hunting. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. There may be an increase in disturbance to wildlife with the opening of the refuge to mule deer hunting. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge, as described in the proposed action alternative, make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would increase disturbance. Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special-Status Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource There are seven species listed as threatened or endangered (T&E) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) that occur regularly on Havasu NWR: southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, bonytail chub, razorback sucker, northern Mexican garter snake, and Mojave desert tortoise. California least terns (Sterna antillarum browni) are uncommon and only migrate through the refuge. California least terns (endangered) occur primarily in California but may occur in different parts of Arizona where habitat components are adequate. Transient migrants occur more frequently and have recently been documented in Mohave County (USFWS 2009). Migration occurs July– August. Southwestern willow flycatchers (endangered) are migratory and inhabit the refuge during the breeding season, approximately May–August. This species is generally found in cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetative communities in riparian areas. Western yellow-billed cuckoos (threatened) are migratory and arrive on the refuge during the breeding season, approximately June–August. They require structurally complex riparian habitats with tall trees and a dense woody vegetative understory.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 33

Yuma Ridgway’s rails (endangered) can be found in freshwater and brackish marshes or stream sides. Within these habitats, they are associated with dense emergent wetland vegetation. The species requires a wet substrate (sandbar, mudflat) that supports cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush stands of moderate to high density, adjacent to shorelines. Yuma Ridgway’s rails may be found in those areas of the refuge where this type of habitat exists. It is possible that some of these rails are present year-round; their breeding season is generally from mid-March through September. There is currently no proposed critical habitat for Yuma Ridgway’s rails. Razorback suckers (endangered) occur in riverine and lacustrine areas, generally in backwaters rather than fast-moving waters. These fish are found year-round in the Colorado River and on the refuge. They may occur within the Topock Gorge and Topock Marsh Management Units. Bonytail chubs (endangered) are the rarest of the endemic big-river fishes of the Colorado River. Their habitat in the Colorado River Basin consists of warm, swift, turbid waters, as well as reservoirs in the lower Basin. Critical habitat includes the area from the northern boundary of Havasu NWR to Parker Dam, including Lake Havasu in Mohave County, AZ. The species may occur within the Topock Gorge and Topock Marsh Management Units. Northern Mexican garter snakes (threatened) are found in both standing- and running-water (lotic and lentic) habitats that include ciénegas and stock tanks, as well as river habitat that includes pools and backwaters. They forage along the banks of water bodies, feeding primarily upon native fish and adult and larval frogs. The species may also supplement its diet with earthworms, leeches, and vertebrates such as lizards, small rodents, salamanders, tree frogs, leopard frogs, and toads. The garter snake typically hibernates underground in the winter months and is active during the breeding season, April—October. It is possible the species is also within refuge boundaries where surface water is present. Mojave desert tortoises are located within creosote scrub habitat within the California portions of the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit. Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) (candidate species) migrate along the riparian corridor of the Colorado River in the fall and spring. They have also been observed during the winter as close as the city of Lake Havasu in February 2013 (Morris et al. 2015). Surveys in December 2019 on the refuge did not detect any monarch butterflies. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Threatened and endangered species and other special-status species may be impacted by all of the environmental trends described in the sections above. The tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda elongata) has contributed to changing vegetation communities, which may negatively affect nesting southwestern willow flycatchers until native plant communities are reestablished.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 34

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, hunting and fishing would continue as currently managed. No negative impacts on T&E species are expected. The southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo are summer residents and are not typically present on the refuge during hunting season, but may be near locations open to fishing. Hunting is not likely to affect migrant T&E species that spend only the summer months on Havasu NWR. Fishing may affect these species through increased noise relating to boating. Yuma Ridgway’s rail, a secretive marsh bird, is present year-round, though in reduced numbers in winter. Bonytail chub and razorback sucker are present within the lower Colorado River, where hunting is largely prohibited, and razorback sucker is also present within Beal Lake, where fishing is not permitted. The possibility exists that bonytail chub and razorback sucker may be caught by accident. Fishing for these species is not allowed and they must be returned to the water if caught. The northern Mexican garter snake, a cryptic, primarily aquatic snake, is known to exist in a few isolated wetlands on the refuge where hunting is prohibited, within the waterfowl sanctuary, or in areas inaccessible to anglers. The Mojave desert tortoise, located in California, would be in a period of dormancy for a majority of the hunting season and is known primarily within the Havasu Wilderness Unit, where the large acreage and lack of vehicular traffic reduces the potential for disturbance or mortality. The potential exists for visitors engaging in fishing and hunting to cause the mortality of individual monarch butterflies when traveling on or to the refuge. Alternative B Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative A due to no change in the fishing program and a negligible increase in hunter participation. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). Hunting dates for all species would occur outside of the occupancy period of the southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo on the refuge, and outside of the breeding period for the Yuma Ridgway’s rail and the northern Mexican garter snake. The greatest risk to monarch butterflies is habitat loss and not the accidental take of individuals or human caused disturbance. The refuge is not proposing any activities that would alter potential monarch butterfly habitat.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 35

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. There would be a negligible increase in disturbance to wildlife with the opening of mule deer hunting. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would dramatically increase due to the disturbance described in the proposed action alternative. Hunting dates for mule deer would occur outside of the occupancy period of the southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo on the refuge. There would be a slight chance that this hunt would increase impacts on the Yuma Ridgway’s rail and northern Mexican garter snake, but this hunt would occur outside of their breeding period. Habitat and Vegetation (Including Vegetation of Special Management Concern) Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Vegetation on the refuge is composed of floodplain, upland, wetland, riparian, and open-water species. Wetland vegetative communities are largely characterized by dense patches of cattail and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). Riparian vegetative communities include cottonwood and willow in low densities within a larger mosaic of upland species including salt cedar, mesquite, arrowweed (Tessaria sericea), and quailbush (Atriplex spp.). Desert upland vegetative communities include palo verde, creosote, and brittlebush. The refuge also supports agricultural lands that are managed by refuge staff for the benefit of game species. Refuge staff treat nonnative invasive species, including salt cedar, Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), and giant reed (Arundo donax), to prevent degradation of natural communities. Refuge signs remind or educate visitors to ensure boats and trailers are cleaned before moving between bodies of water to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. Invasive species can have a negative effect on habitat and modify both the appearance and utility of the landscape. If left unmanaged, these threats could contribute to diminished quality and quantity of both habitat and outdoor recreational experiences. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Projected annual human population growth rates described above in the section on waterfowl would continue to reduce available habitat. Changes in temperature, water availability, human population trends, and habitat fragmentation as described above for Gambel’s quail would continue to degrade vegetative communities in the area. Expanding habitat restoration as described above for doves would impact vegetation communities by removing invasive species and restoring native habitats.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 36

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, minor long-term adverse impacts on refuge vegetation are expected from continuation of current management. The spreading of invasive plants through hunter and angler access could occur adjacent to parking areas and roadsides. This would cause minor negative impacts due to the low number of hunt participants (1,766 in 2020) and because fishing from land is limited to a few areas and takes place mostly during winter, when most vegetation is dormant. It’s estimated that 82 percent (1,456) of all refuge hunting visits are to the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, which is heavily monitored and treated for the spread of invasive species. The cutting or removal of vegetation is prohibited by all refuge visitors. The spread of invasive species through hunter and angler access is reduced through education and signs promoting prevention of inadvertent introduction or spread of invasive species. These signs are posted at high-density access points, including refuge boat launches and gates. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those of alternative A. Impacts from fishing would not change. There is potential for localized damage and increased invasive species spread due to the expected increased foot and vehicle traffic, with hunted acres expanded by 18 percent, to 148 total acres, and the extension of hunting dates for some species. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. There is potential for localized damage and increased invasive species spread due to possible increased foot and vehicle traffic from opening the area to mule deer hunting. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would dramatically increase due to the disturbance described in the proposed action alternative. Soils Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The soils on the Colorado River floodplain are generally saline as a result of accumulated salts from alluvial deposits and subsequent evaporation of soil moisture. This has been compounded by the lack of flooding, which historically occurred on the lower Colorado River. Rainfall is not sufficient to leach these salts below the plant root zone; therefore, a continuing accumulation of salts can occur. These salts are primarily calcium, sodium, magnesium, chloride, and sulfate.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 37

An excessive amount of salts in the soil can delay or prevent seed germination, decrease water capacity, interfere with plant growth, and impede the movement of air and water through the soil. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Expanding habitat restoration as described above in the section on doves and agricultural activities disturb soils at specific sites on the refuge. Havasu NWR attracts over 2.4 million visitors every year. The bulk of these visitors are participating in recreational activities on the lower Colorado River, but some do hike on trails dispersed over the refuge, which may compact soils or cause erosion in heavily used areas. The refuge mitigates some of these potential impacts by restricting off-road travel by vehicle and foot traffic, and confining traffic to established roads, boat launches, and waterways. The refuge relies on outreach and signage to alert refuge visitors to rules and regulations to reduce potential soil erosion and disturbance by off-road trespassing. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, impacts are potential minor soil erosion and compaction due to foot, vehicle, and boat traffic. This is largely mitigated by confining vehicle and boat traffic to established roads, boat launches, and waterways. Refuge maintenance personnel monitor road conditions and frequently repair damaged roads and boat launches to reduce impacts from soil erosion and compaction. Alternative B Impacts associated with this alternative would result in a minimal increase in soil disturbance through erosion and compaction. Impacts from fishing would not change. Although hunter traffic is expected to remain similar or may show a slight increase with the additional hunting opportunities, vehicles would continue to be confined to public access roads and boats to established boat launches and waterways. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. There is potential for a negligible increase in soil disturbance through erosion and compaction from the opening of mule deer hunting. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would dramatically increase due to the disturbance described in the proposed action alternative.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 38

Air Quality Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for widespread pollutants from numerous and diverse sources considered harmful to public health and the environment. Nonattainment areas are classified by the EPA to have air quality monitoring data for criteria pollutants above the NAAQS, which are outlined in the Clean Air Act. Mohave County, AZ, has not been designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Agricultural activities and expanding habitat restoration as described above disturbs soils at specific sites on the refuge, which may increase particulate matter and release smoke from occasional prescribed fires for short periods. Wildfires have been increasing in recent years, with smoke from wildfires in California reducing air quality for days or weeks at a time on the refuge. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, there would be minor impacts on air quality from vehicle or boat emissions from hunting visits (1,766 in 2020) and fishing visits (165,000). Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those under alternative A. The addition of new hunting opportunities, an approximate 18-percent increase in available acres, is unlikely to greatly increase hunting visits in the future. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunting acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total refuge visits (more than 2.4 million). Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. The short-duration season for mule deer, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting visits and vehicle emissions would increase over those associated with the proposed action alternative.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 39

Water Quality Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The lower Colorado River is a major river that flows through the refuge. The refuge possesses water rights, which are used to provide wildlife habitat and sustain management activities as well as provide wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography. Agriculture, development, and flood control measures have likely negatively impacted water quality and quantity within the river and associated backwaters. On the refuge’s wetlands, moist soil units, and river backwaters, sedimentation can impact natural wetland functioning and may alter the ability of the wetland to provide habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent species. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The refuge receives 2.4 million visitors annually, the majority of whom participate in boating and fishing. Increasing human populations in the region, as described above in the section on waterfowl, will likely increase the abundance of boats on the lower Colorado River and in the refuge. The increase of boat traffic may cause increased litter, fluid leaks/spills, fecal coliform bacteria, and sediment disturbance to refuge waterways, which would continue to degrade water quality. Current State and Federal regulations allow lead fishing tackle on public lands of the United States. The use of lead fishing tackle reduces water quality for humans and wildlife. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, current hunting activities are not known to have any direct effects on water quality, particularly since personal watercraft are not permitted in refuge backwaters. Indirect impacts associated with this alternative, such as short-term disturbance to sediment or littering from hunter-operated boats, are expected to be minimal because hunter densities are low across the refuge (with 1,766 total hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season). The bulk of refuge hunting visits (82 percent) are to Pintail Slough, which does not require access to refuge waterways via boat. Alternative B Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative A. Although hunter traffic may slightly increase under the proposed changes, it is expected that hunter densities would continue to be low across the refuge (there were 1,766 total hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season). The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunting acres; assuming an 18- percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 40

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. Although hunter traffic may slightly increase with the opening of mule deer hunting on the refuge, it is expected that hunter densities would continue to be low across the refuge (there were 1,766 total hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season). The proposed action alternative would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). The short- duration season for mule deer, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would dramatically increase due to the disturbance described in the proposed action alternative. Wilderness Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The Havasu Wilderness was designated by the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (H.R. 2570 title 3). All designated wilderness on the refuge falls within the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit. This management unit is 15,021 total acres and is located within Mohave County, AZ (13,395 acres) and San Bernardino County, CA (1,626 acres). Because it is a designated wilderness, only foot access is permitted, and very little active management is done by refuge staff. This area is primarily desert upland characterized by steep, rugged terrain and sandy desert washes with vegetative communities characterized by palo verde, creosote, and brittlebush. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The refuge conducts annual wilderness character monitoring as part of a national initiative to establish a baseline wilderness character assessment for all of the national wildlife refuges with designated wilderness. The measures for each wilderness were developed with refuge staff and reviewed at the national level. This annual monitoring has occurred since 2011, with generally steady measures of wilderness quality from year to year. Desert bighorn sheep hunting in the Havasu Wilderness in Arizona is the only source of lead ammunition on the refuge and in the Havasu Wilderness (California banned lead ammunition in 2019). Only one permit is issued each year by the AZGFD for desert bighorn sheep hunting in the GMU that encompasses the Havasu Wilderness, so potential sources of lead on the refuge are anticipated to remain low.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 41

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, hunting visits to this area are likely to remain low because of the rugged terrain and lack of vehicle or boat access. Impacts such as destruction of soils or vegetation by hunters accessing this area by foot, or disruption to solitude associated with this alternative, are likely insignificant to wilderness character or quality. Due to this low visitation rate and the size of the refuge wilderness area, impacts from public use, including hunting, are negligible. The vastness of the refuge wilderness would be expected to disperse impacts and minimize any negative effects on the overall character of the Havasu Wilderness under this alternative. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to decrease, although negligibly, as the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit would become part of the waterfowl sanctuary. Under this alternative other migratory bird, upland, and big-game hunting would occur (estimated at fewer than 200 total hunting visits to the refuge in the 2019–2020 hunting season). These activities are likely to minimally impact wilderness character or quality, as hunter visits to this area are likely to remain low because of the rugged terrain and lack of vehicle or boat access. The vastness of the refuge wilderness would be expected to disperse impacts and minimize any negative effects on the overall character of the Havasu Wilderness under this alternative. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. Mule deer hunting would not be allowed within the Havasu Wilderness Management Unit, but increased law enforcement coverage necessary to prevent such hunting would reduce the availability of law enforcement coverage that discourages unauthorized vehicle use in the wilderness area.

Visitor Use and Experience Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Havasu NWR attracts over 2.4 million visitors every year. The bulk of these visitors are participating in recreational activities on the lower Colorado River, including boating, canoeing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and photography. A single visitor may participate in more than one activity during a visit. In an effort to minimize conflicts with priority nonhunting recreational uses outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, and for public safety, the refuge designates areas open to hunting. Of the 37,515 acres encompassed within Havasu NWR, 13 percent (4,876 acres) is closed to all hunting. These areas are the Mesquite Bay and Topock Gorge Management Units. The refuge is unable to support safe hunting activities in these areas because of high-density visitation by recreational users.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 42

Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Impacts caused by refuge visitors are generally limited to disruption of solitude when refuge visitors encounter each other and potential disturbance to refuge wildlife and habitats. Impacts on wildlife and their habitats by refuge visitors and hunters are partly mitigated by the proposed hunting closure areas (4,876 acres) and the waterfowl sanctuary (25,962 acres), where waterfowl hunting is not allowed from October 1 through January 31. The most serious diseases found in feral swine are brucellosis, hepatitis E, tuberculosis, trichinellosis, and pseudorabies. Leptospirosis, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli (E. coli), all of which can affect humans, have been positively documented in feral swine at Havasu NWR during annual disease monitoring efforts by USDA APHIS WS (Jay-Russell et al. 2014). Because Salmonella, leptospirosis, and E. coli have been documented in feral swine at Havasu NWR, hunters’ exposure to these pathogens when handling feral swine is a potential safety concern. Studies have found that wildlife hunted with lead ammunition can increase risks to human health due to the ingestion of lead (Hunt et al. 2009). While no lead poisoning of humans has been documented from ingestion of wild game, some experts, including those of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have recommended that hunters use nontoxic bullets to avoid lead exposure and that pregnant women and children under 6 not consume wild game shot with lead ammunition (Streater 2009). This recommendation comes after a study done in North Dakota found that those who ate wild game had significantly higher levels of lead in their blood than those who did not (Iqbal et al. 2009). Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, conflicts between hunters and visitors engaging in other recreation opportunities are minor, as other parts of the refuge are available for use. Conflicts between hunters and nonhunters are anticipated and periodically occur. Hunting would have the potential to disturb refuge visitors engaged in other priority public uses. Mitigation measures to minimize these impacts include not permitting hunting within high-visitor-use areas (the Topock Gorge and Mesquite Bay Management Units). During Pintail Slough Quota Hunt dates, access to the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area is limited to hunters with permits, in order to reduce potential conflicts with visitors engaging in other recreational opportunities. The refuge also releases announcements with hunting information several weeks in advance of hunts and posts the announcements in the visitor center and refuge kiosks, as well as on social media and the refuge website, to educate hunters about the hunting status of refuge management units and to reduce potential conflicts with visitors engaging in other recreational opportunities. Hunting visits to the refuge represented less than 1 percent of the total visitation to the refuge in 2020 (1,766 total hunting visits out of 2.4 million overall visitors). Hunter exposure to lead from ammunition is limited because few hunters participate in desert bighorn sheep hunts on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 43

The Topock Marsh East Management Unit offers anglers easy boat access at three improved boat launches located at the North Dike, Five Mile Landing, and Catfish Paradise recreational areas. All three of these motorized boat launches offer ample parking for vehicles with boat trailers, and improved visitor facilities. Catfish Paradise has restrooms, picnic tables, and a shaded, floating fishing pier for bank-fishing users. Interpretive signage, the refuge website, brochures, and law enforcement patrols promote safe boat operation and life jacket use. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those under alternative A. Impacts from the fishing program would remain the same. The addition of new hunting opportunities and hunter access to the Topock Marsh West Management Unit (outside of the waterfowl season) are unlikely to greatly increase hunting visits in the future or to meaningfully impact overall visitation to the refuge. The addition of the Topock Marsh West Management Unit provides an 18-percent increase in available acres for hunting; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This increase is only in effect outside of the waterfowl hunting season, when the majority of hunting visits (90 percent) occur. It would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge. Given the size of the refuge, the mitigation measures, and the fact that overall visitor use by hunters represents less than 1 percent of overall refuge visitation, the refuge does not anticipate that expanding hunting opportunities would impact other recreation on the refuge. Hunter exposure to lead is unlikely to increase because desert bighorn sheep hunters are unlikely to concurrently hunt feral swine. Visitors may be impacted by consuming or handling feral swine because local populations of the animal are known carriers of pathogens described above in the section on environmental trends. The refuge would make available educational materials specific to the safe handling and consumption of feral swine to promote visitor safety. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative B. The addition of mule deer hunting is unlikely to increase hunting visits in the future or to meaningfully impact overall visitation to the refuge. Increased law enforcement required to police potential mule deer hunting activities may reduce the time available for refuge law enforcement to protect wilderness character and ensure safe boat operation.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 44

Cultural Resources Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Havasu NWR exists within a mosaic of tribally owned land, and has cultural resources within its boundaries. One site of cultural importance is a 100-plus-year-old geoglyph site consisting of intricate patterns and paths created by ancestors of the native Mohave tribe. This site, known as the Topock Maze, is approximately 20 acres and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Topock Maze is an important cultural resource for the local Native American community. Petroglyphs can also be found within the Topock Gorge and Havasu Wilderness Management Units. Abandoned mines and mining equipment can also be found in the Havasu Wilderness. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Increasing human populations in the region are expected to increase the abundance of visitors to the refuge. Direct impacts caused by increased refuge visitation to cultural resources could include collection or vandalism. Topock Maze is currently fenced off to reduce impacts from refuge visitors. Sites along Topock Gorge are easily accessible to the public. To minimize the effects of visitor use, the public is notified of cultural resource rules and regulations via refuge brochures and on the official website. Existing regulations prohibit the disturbance and collection of cultural resources on the refuge. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, cultural resources may be adversely impacted. Artifacts can be found at specific sites and scattered throughout the landscape. Some are easily accessible by boat. Cultural resources could be affected by collectors and vandals or by hunters traversing the refuge. Impacts associated with this alternative are expected to be minimal because hunter densities are low across the refuge (1,766 total hunting visits in the 2019–2020 hunting season). Various areas of the refuge are closed to all hunting, and those areas are not likely to be impacted by hunters’ potential participation in other portions of the refuge. To minimize the effects of visitor use, the public is notified via refuge brochures and the official website of cultural resource rules and regulations that are enforced by refuge law enforcement. Existing regulations prohibit the disturbance and collection of cultural resources on the refuge. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those of alternative A. The addition of new hunting opportunities is unlikely to increase hunting visits in the future. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 45

Alternative C Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those of alternative B. The addition of mule deer hunting is unlikely to increase hunting visits in the future. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure would increase disturbance to the cultural resources described in the proposed action alternative.

Refuge Management and Operations Land Use and Administration on the Refuge Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Havasu NWR’s current land use practices are established to conserve, restore, enhance, and protect habitats by implementing appropriate management strategies to benefit native and migratory wildlife. The refuge provides a multitude of habitat types, such as desert upland, riparian vegetation, freshwater impoundments and wetlands, moist soil units and agricultural fields, and marshes. Maintaining and restoring marsh and riparian habitats requires more intensive management practices using encompassing methods such as chemical and mechanical removal of invasive species, and prescribed fire. Additionally, moist soil units and agriculture involve highly intensive management actions that take place on 60 acres, primarily in the Pintail Slough Management Unit. The refuge currently has nine staff positions, including one refuge manager, one deputy refuge manager, one wildlife biologist, two maintenance persons, and four Federal wildlife officers. The refuge receives funding and staffing for operations, infrastructure, and maintenance. Annual hunting administration costs for Havasu NWR, including salary, equipment, law enforcement, brochures, collection of hunting data, and analysis of biological information, come directly from refuge funds. Funding specifically for hunts has not been allocated. The refuge charges a fee for waterfowl hunters in the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area, which helps to offset costs associated with management of this area. The enforcement of refuge and State hunting regulations, trespass laws, and other public use regulations normally associated with management of a national wildlife refuge is the responsibility of commissioned Federal wildlife officers. Federal wildlife officers cooperate with and are assisted by local, county, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, including State game wardens. Federal wildlife officers regularly meet with various Federal, State, county, and local law enforcement agencies to share information, assist with investigating unlawful activities, and coordinate patrols.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 46

Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Potential for conflict of refuge management and operational activities with refuge hunters would occur primarily in the Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West, and Pintail Slough Management Units, where habitat management treatments are more heavily conducted (prescribed fire, restoration, feral swine eradication efforts, invasive plant management). Occasionally, an area open to hunting is proposed for a management activity that must have specific timing and weather conditions, and cannot be rescheduled, such as prescribed fire. Typically, a notice of this activity is posted on the refuge website and in the visitor center. Signs about the closure of a unit are posted around the area to ensure visitors do not enter the unit. The unit is also scouted by refuge staff to ensure it is “clear” of visitors prior to implementing the treatment. Refuge staff and volunteers conduct refuge outreach programs and routinely interact with and assist refuge users during hunting seasons. The refuge is currently expanding the habitat restoration program to enhance approximately 300 acres of riparian forest, as described above in the section on doves. Facilities planning for the refuge includes consolidating staff and operations with those of Bill Williams River NWR into new facilities, which would combine administrative offices with a visitor center in Lake Havasu City, AZ. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, current hunting and fishing activities do not functionally interfere with refuge management activities. Much of the current hunter access to the refuge is by foot or boat, reducing potential conflicts on refuge-maintained roads with refuge staff who are conducting road maintenance or accessing the refuge to conduct refuge management activities. Under alternative A, annual hunting and fishing administration costs for Havasu NWR, including salary, equipment, law enforcement, brochures, oversight of the lottery and reservation program, signage, outreach, visitor services, collection of hunting data and analysis of biological information, and so on, totals approximately $88,500 annually. Funding has not been allocated specifically for hunting and fishing, although some funds are available through recreation fees. It is anticipated that funding would continue to be sufficient to continue the hunting and fishing programs at Havasu NWR in the future. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those under alternative A. The addition of new hunting dates and hunted species is unlikely to greatly increase hunting visits and impact refuge management activities, as hunting visits represent a small portion of overall use of the refuge (less than 1 percent of total refuge visitation). The refuge proposes an 18- percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 47

There is no planned infrastructure development specific to the hunting and fishing programs. No additional access roads would be constructed. Alternative B may result in a slight increase in traffic on refuge roads. This impact is expected to be negligible, as the increase in hunting participants is expected to be minimal. Refuge roads and trails receive frequent maintenance regardless of the hunting program. No additional increase in staff time is anticipated. Aside from an initial cost to produce new hunting regulation brochures and maps (less than $1,000), no new administrative impacts are anticipated as a result of alternative B. Alternative C Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those under alternative B. The opening of mule deer hunting is unlikely to increase hunting visits in the future. The up to 2 additional hunting visits would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting pressure on the refuge would dramatically increase due to the disturbance described in the proposed action alternative.

Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource According to the 2017 Banking on Nature report (Caudill and Carver 2019), 53.6 million people visited refuges that year. Their spending generated $3.2 billion in sales in local economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, over 41,000 people were employed and $1.1 billion in employment income was generated. Both local residents and visitors from other areas enjoy the recreational opportunities Havasu NWR has to offer, adding revenue to the local economy. A recent visitor services report (Dietsch et al. 2020) indicated that 56 percent of surveyed visitors were local to the area and 44 percent were nonlocal visitors. According to the Arizona Office of Tourism, tourism is a major component of the local economy; approximately $182 million was earned by tourism-based businesses in Mohave County in 2017, as the mild winter climate brings northern visitors to the area. The refuge is located partly within Lake Havasu City, AZ, with a population of approximately 55,000. The refuge is also located approximately 110 miles from Las Vegas, NV, and 225 miles from Phoenix, AZ, the nearest major cities in the region. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The overall size of local and regional economies will likely grow with expanding human populations and development within the region, as described above in the section on waterfowl. Tourism within Mohave County, and Arizona more broadly, is growing; visitors to Arizona spent more than $25.6 billion in 2019 (Caudill and Carver 2019).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 48

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the no-action alternative, hunting visits to the refuge were estimated at 1,766 in the 2019–2020 hunting season, less than 1 percent of the total visitation to the refuge (over 2.4 million visits). The socioeconomic impact of the current hunting and fishing programs on the local and regional community is unknown. Analysis of a sample of national wildlife refuges suggests that hunting generates about 4 percent of total recreation-related expenditures on refuges (Caudill and Carver 2019). It likely provides a small positive impact on the local economy through expenditure of funds in local hotels, restaurants, and other businesses. Fishing visits were estimated at 165,000 visits, along with boating providing the greatest proportion of economic benefit to the local economies. Alternative B Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those under alternative A. The addition of new hunting opportunities is unlikely to greatly increase hunting visits in the future. The refuge proposes an 18-percent increase in hunted acres; assuming an 18-percent increase in hunting visits to the refuge, total hunting visits are estimated at 2,084 a year. This would represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). Allowing more hunting opportunities on the refuge would expand availability of hunting to the local community and could bring hunters from other areas, who would likely purchase gas, food, lodging, and other supplies from local merchants. Any potential increase in hunter visits compared with overall public use on the refuge is considered insignificant. Fishing visits would remain the same. Alternative C Under this alternative, impacts are expected to be similar to those of alternative B. The opening of mule deer hunting with a very low chance of harvest success is unlikely to increase hunting visits in the future. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting visits to the refuge would dramatically increase due to the proposed action alternative. This alternative may represent a negligible increase in comparison with total visits to the refuge (more than 2.4 million). Environmental Justice Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource 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.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 49

Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions No foreseeable trends or planned actions are expected to impact environmental justice matters for the local population. Impacts on Affected Resource All Alternatives The refuge has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from any alternative. Minority or low-income communities have been identified within the impact area. However, they will not be disproportionately adversely affected by any impacts from the refuge hunting and fishing programs. Monitoring Each year, flyway monitoring activities provide information on harvest levels, population size, and habitat conditions for migratory birds in the United States. The Service’s Division of Migratory Bird Management is responsible for conducting migratory bird surveys for all of the flyways, collecting and compiling much of the relevant biological data, and coordinating the regulatory effort with States and the public. Waterfowl, common gallinule, and Wilson’s snipe harvest numbers are collected from the Pintail Slough Quota Hunt Area. A condition of the permitting process for this area is the delivery of a Migratory Bird Hunt Report, Service form 3-2361, for every hunt. Common gallinule and American coot numbers are monitored annually as part of the refuge’s secretive marsh bird surveys. Aerial surveys along the lower Colorado River, primarily for ducks, were discontinued after 2012 because the wintering population accounted for an insignificant percentage of the Pacific Flyway population. Population estimates and harvest numbers for desert bighorn sheep from Havasu NWR are reported to the refuge by AZGFD. As part of ongoing feral swine eradication efforts, population estimates and harvest numbers are recorded and shared between Havasu NWR, AZGFD, and the USDA. Surveys are conducted cooperatively by AZGFD and the Service in the lower Colorado River and Topock Marsh for both nongame and game fish species. An approved standardized monitoring plan for waterfowl, Wilson’s snipe, doves, Gambel’s quail, desert cottontail rabbit, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, grey fox, and kit fox has not been developed. In addition, the refuge lacks adequate staffing to monitor these species, so such monitoring does not occur at this time and is not currently planned for future years.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 50

Summary of Analysis Alternative A—Current Management (No-Action Alternative) The current hunting and fishing program would remain unchanged. Permitted refuge hunting would consist of migratory bird, upland game, and big-game hunting within the Pintail Slough, Topock Marsh East, Topock Marsh West, Havasu Wilderness, and Lake Havasu Management Units. Fishing would continue to follow all State regulations as to dates, daily limits, and methods. Hunting and fishing results in mortality to harvested species. Hunting is not likely to affect migrant T&E species. Fishing may affect these species and other species present year-round through increased noise relating to boating. Bonytail chub and razorback sucker are present within the lower Colorado River, and fishing may result in accidental take, but these species must be returned to the water. The northern Mexican garter snake is known to be in a few isolated wetlands on the refuge where hunting is prohibited, within the waterfowl sanctuary, or in areas inaccessible to anglers and unlikely to be disturbed by hunting or fishing. Hunting and fishing may cause disturbance to all wildlife species. Physical and cultural resources such as wilderness, vegetation, soils, air, and water may be impacted by hunters and visitors through littering, hiking, and boating. Mitigation measures described above reduce the adverse impacts from these activities. Hunting and fishing account for only a small percentage of the 2.4 million visits the refuge receives annually. Fishing and hunting provide positive visitor experiences; however, minor conflicts would potentially continue due to refuge size and various public uses occurring during the winter months. Beneficial impacts on the local economy would continue to occur through capital expenditures in the local economy by hunters but especially anglers. Minor adverse impacts would continue to occur on refuge administration and facilities. Under the no-action alternative, existing hunts would require staff time to oversee hunting and maintain fishing facilities. The no-action alternative does not meet the purpose and needs of the action as described in the EA, because it does not provide additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Alternative B—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities (Proposed Action Alternative) As described above, the proposed action alternative proposes to expand hunting to 33,148 total acres. This includes expanded hunting opportunities in the Topock Marsh West Management Unit (outside of the waterfowl season). The proposed action alternative would also expand hunting opportunities in terms of hunting dates, as well as open the refuge to hunting for Eurasian and African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, grey fox, kit fox, and the incidental take of feral swine by individuals participating in established hunting opportunities on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 51

Under the proposed alternative, hunting visits are estimated to increase by 18 percent as the hunted acres on the refuge will increase by 18 percent. This would bring the estimated number of hunting visits to 2,084, less than 1 percent of total annual refuge visitation. Hunting-related human activity would increase only slightly and have minor additional adverse effects on wildlife because it would predominantly occur when environmental conditions are less stressful to wildlife. Additional impacts on cultural resources, vegetation, soils, air quality, water resources, and wilderness would not be significant. Some minor adverse impacts on the visitor experience would increase due to conflicts between hunters and other user groups. However, conflicts would be minor due to the size of the refuge and low density of hunters. Minor beneficial impacts on the socioeconomic environment could occur through additional expenditures in the local economy by hunters. The fishing program would remain the same, with no anticipated change in angler visits or fished species mortality, and no other effects on any other resources. This alternative would help meet the purpose and needs of the Service as described above. By providing additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on the refuge, it would effectively implement Secretarial Order 3356 and allow hunting on the refuge to more closely align with State regulations. The Service anticipates that the proposed action would be found compatible with the purposes of Havasu NWR and the mission of the NWRS. Alternative C—Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer As described above, the impacts of alternative C would be similar to those of the proposed action alternative, with the addition of mule deer hunting. This alternative may increase conflicts between hunters and other user groups, require additional resources to implement, and negligibly increase the economic impact on the local economy. The short-duration season for this species, lack of adequate habitat, and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting visits to the refuge would increase beyond those described in the proposed action alternative. This alternative would meet the purpose and needs of the action by providing one additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunity over alternative B. Although it would help implement Secretarial Order 3356 and allow hunting on the refuge to more closely align with State regulations, it is unlikely to improve the visitor experience.

List of Sources, Agencies, and Persons Consulted Havasu NWR reviewed the hunting and fishing programs and the regulations of neighboring wildlife management areas to find consistency where possible.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 52

List of Preparers John Bourne, Wildlife Biologist: Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Jeff Howland, Project Leader: Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Complex Richard Meyers, Refuge Manager: Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Edwin Sparks, Deputy Refuge Manager: Havasu National Wildlife Refuge

State Coordination The refuge first reached out to the AZGFD regional office informally in March 2019 to discuss this iteration of the hunting plan. Havasu NWR worked with local managers, biologists, and conservation officers of the AZGFD early in the development of this plan. On April 9, 2019, the Service asked for review by the State regional office to help adjust our plan to align it, where appropriate, with State management goals. The AZGFD regional office reviewed and commented on the draft hunting and fishing plan and the refuge-specific regulations in November 2020. Refuge staff coordinated throughout the calendar year of 2020 on specific aspects of the draft hunting and fishing plan. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region was provided a draft of the plan for review in January 2021. Havasu NWR and AZGFD will continue to work together to ensure that safe and enjoyable recreational hunting and fishing opportunities occur on Havasu NWR. Hunter participation and harvest data are shared annually.

Tribal Consultation The refuge supervisor for Arizona and New Mexico sent a letter advising the leadership of the tribes listed below of the proposed action and inviting comment on the hunting plan and this EA in November 2020. The Service will send these documents directly to the tribes upon release for public comment. The following tribes will be consulted: Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe of Arizona, Hualapai Tribe, and Navajo Nation.

Public Outreach News releases will be prepared and submitted to local periodicals including the Kingman Daily Miner, Today’s News-Herald, and Topock Topics newsletter, the local newspaper. You are invited to review draft documents related to the hunting and fishing program, including the compatibility determinations, hunting and fishing plan, and environmental assessment. The documents are available beginning Thursday, April 15, 2021, until the close of the Federal Register public comment period, at least 60 days.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 53

Draft documents are available on the refuge website, or you can contact the refuge at 760-326- 3853 or at [email protected] to request either printed or electronic copies. Please let us know if you need the documents in an alternative format. The public comment period is an opportunity to provide your comments on the draft documents. You can submit comments via email to [email protected] or mail in comments to Havasu National Wildlife Refuge at 317 Mesquite Avenue, Needles, CA 92363. In the subject line, please add—Havasu NWR hunting/fishing comments.

Determination This section will be filled out upon completion of the public comment period and at the time of finalization of the EA.

☐ The Service’s action will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. See the attached Finding of No Significant Impact.

☐ The Service’s action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and the Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

Signatures Submitted By:

Project Leader Signature: Date: Concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor Signature: Date:

Approved:

Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, Signature: Date:

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 54

References Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. 2005. Edited by T.E. Corman and C. Wise‐Gervais. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Arizona Commerce Authority. 2020. “Mohave County,” Population Projections database. Accessed July 13, 2020. https://www.azcommerce.com/oeo/population/population- projections/. Arizona Department of Agriculture. 2020. “Rabbit hemorrhagic disease fact sheet.” Accessed November 3, 2020. http://agriculture.az.gov/animals/rabbit-hemorrhagic- disease/rabbit-hemorrhagic-disease-fact-sheet. AZGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department). 2017a. “Gambel’s quail call counts encouraging: Spring survey results point to better 2017–18 season.” AZGFD News, June 27, 2017. https://www.azgfd.com/gambels-quail-call-counts-encouraging/. ———. 2017b. Hunt Arizona 2017 Edition: Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department, Information and Education Division, Information Branch, Publication Section. ———. 2020a. “Hunting: Dove species.” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/mourningdove/. ———. 2020b. “Hunting: Foxes.” Accessed October 27, 2020. https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/predator/foxes/. Ballenger, L. 1999. “Lepus californicus: Black-tailed jackrabbit.” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lepus_californicus/. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life Histories of North American Shorebirds, Part 1. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, no. 142. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Bevins, S.N., K. Pedersen, M.W. Lutman, T. Gidlewski, and T.J. Deliberto. 2014. “Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative feral swine.” BioScience Online 64:291–299. BirdLife International. 2017. “Wilson’s snipe: Gallinago delicata (amended version of 2016 assessment).” The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017. Accessed July 1, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-1.RLTS.T22729867A112409520.en. Brown, D.E. 2012. Bringing Back the Game: Arizona Wildlife Management, 1912–1962. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Caudill, J., and E. Carver. 2019. Banking on Nature 2017: The Economic Contributions of National Wildlife Refuge Recreational Visitation to Local Communities. Falls Church, VA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 55

Chapman, J. A. and G. Ceballos. 1990. The cottontails. In: Rabbits, Hares and Pikas, Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Ed. by J. A. Chapman and E. C. J. Flux. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Pp.95-120. Cline, R., N. Sexton, and S.C. Steward. 2007. A Human-Dimensions Review of Human-Wildlife Disturbance: A Literature Review of Impacts, Frameworks, and Management Solutions. Open-File Report 2007-1111. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. Conroy, M.J., R.S. Henry, and G. Harris. 2014. “Estimation of regional sheep abundance based on group sizes: Aerial surveys of bighorn sheep.” Journal of Wildlife Management 78(5):904–913. doi:10.1002/jwmg.731. Dietsch, A.M., N.R. Sexton, L.F. Mengak, and R. Roberts. 2020. National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey: 2019 Results for Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. Columbus: The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources. Engel-Wilson, R.W., and W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2002. “Arizona quail: Species in jeopardy?” In Quail V: Proceedings of the Fifth National Quail Symposium, edited by S.J. DeMaso, W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr., F. Hernández, and M.E. Berger, 1–7. Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. “A closer look: Temperature and drought in the Southwest.” Climate Change Indicators, August. Accessed October 26, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/southwest/. ———. 2016b. “What climate change means for Arizona,” August. Accessed October 26, 2020. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 09/documents/climate-change-az.pdf. Follmuth, R., T. D’Amico, and S. Ehret. 2019. Lake Havasu Fisheries Management Plan 2019– 2029. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Gallizioli, S., and P.M. Webb. 1958. The Influence of Hunting upon Quail Populations. Arizona PR Project W-78-R-2. Phoenix: Arizona Game and Fish Department. Harding, L., and J. Odell. 2021. “Small game forecast.” Arizona Game and Fish Department. Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/forecast/. Hunt, W.G., R.T. Watson, J.L. Oaks, C.N. Parish, K.K. Burnham, R.L. Tucker, J.R. Belthoff, and G. Hart. 2009. “Lead bullet fragments in venison from rifle-killed deer: Potential for human dietary exposure.” PLoS ONE 4(4):e5330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005330. Iqbal, S., W. Blumenthal, C. Kennedy, F.Y. Yip, S. Pickard, W.D. Flanders, K. Loringer, K. Kruger, K.L. Caldwell, and M.J. Brown. 2009. “Hunting with lead: Association between blood lead levels and wild game consumption.” Environmental Research 109(8):952–959. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2009.08.007.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 56

Jay-Russell, M.T., A.F. Hake, P. Rivadeneira, D.R. Virchow, and D.L. Bergman. 2014. “Enteric human pathogens of wild boar, feral swine, and javelina (order: Artiodactyla).” Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 26:291–295. Kelly, T.R., P.H. Bloom, S.G. Torres, Y.Z. Hernandez, R.H. Poppenga, W.M. Boyce, and C.K. Johnson. 2011. “Impact of the California lead ammunition ban on reducing lead exposure in golden eagles and turkey vultures.” PLoS ONE 6(4):e17656. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017656. Lewin, W.C., R. Arlinghaus, and T. Mehner. 2006. “Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: Insights for management and conservation.” Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:305–367. Madsen, R.L. 1974. “The influence of rainfall on the reproduction of Sonoran Desert lagomorphs.” Master’s thesis, University of Arizona. Martin, P. 2019. Lead Fishing Tackle: Impacts of [sic] California Wildlife and the Environment. Sacramento: California Research Bureau, California State Library. Monson, G. 1980. “Distribution and abundance.” In The Desert Bighorn, edited by G. Monson and L. Sumner, 40–51. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Morris, G.M., C. Kline, and S.M. Morris. 2015. Status of Danaus Plexippus Population in Arizona. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 69(2), 91–107 Peterjohn, B.G., J.R. Sauer, and W.A. Link. 1994. “The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American Breeding Bird Survey.” Bird Populations 2:46–61. Poling, T.D., and S.E. Hayslette. 2006. “Dietary overlap and foraging competition between mourning doves and Eurasian collared-doves.” Journal of Wildlife Management 79(4):998–1004. Raftovich, R.V., K.K. Fleming, S.C. Chandler, and C.M. Cain. 2020. Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2018–19 and 2019–20 Hunting Seasons. Laurel, MD: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Rattner, B.A., J.C. Franson, S.R. Scheffield, C.I. Goddard, N.J. Leonard, D. Stang, and P.J. Wingate. 2008. Sources and Implications of Lead Ammunition and Fishing Tackle on Natural Resources. Technical Review 08-01. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society and American Fisheries Society. Roberts, R.N., and S.M. Crimmins. 2010. “Bobcat population status and management in North America: Evidence of large-scale population increase.” Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 1(2):169–174.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 57

San Diego Zoo. 2020. “Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) fact sheet.” 2016. San Diego Zoo Global Library. Accessed October 27, 2020. https://ielc.libguides.com/sdzg/factsheets/bighornsheep. Sauer, J.R., D.K. Niven, J.E. Hines, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., K.L. Pardieck, J.E. Fallon, and W.A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2015. Version 2.07.2017. Laurel, MD: U.S. Geological Survey Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Scheuhammer, A.M., S.L. Money, D.A. Kirk, and G. Donaldson. 2003. Lead Fishing Sinkers and Jigs in Canada: Review of Their Use Patterns and Toxic Impacts on Wildlife. Occasional Paper No. 108. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Wildlife Service. Schroeder, R.R. 2010. “Lead fishing tackle: The case for regulation in Washington State.” Master’s thesis. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. Smith, P.W. 1987. “The Eurasian collared-dove arrives in the Americas.” American Birds 41:1370–1379. Sowls, L.K. 1957. “Reproduction in the Audubon cottontail in Arizona.” Journal of Mammalogy 38(2):234–243. Streater, S. 2009. “Wild meat raises lead exposure.” Environmental Health News. Accessed March 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison- condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/. Tolleson, D.R., W.E. Pinchak, D. Rollins, and L.J. Hunt. 1995. “Feral hogs in the rolling plains of Texas: Perspectives, problems, and potential.” Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings, edited by R.E. Masters and J.G. Huggins, 124–128. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Lower Colorado River National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Albuquerque: USFWS, Region 2. ———. 2009. “California least tern: General species information.” Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Accessed February 16, 2021. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/CALeastTern.htm. ———. 2019. Waterfowl Population Status, 2019. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Waithman, J.D., R.A. Sweitzer, D.V. Vuren, J.D. Drew, A.J. Brinkhaus, I.A. Gardner, and W.M. Boyce. 1999. “Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in California.” Journal of Wildlife Management 63:298–308.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 58

Appendix 1 OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS Cultural Resources American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996–1996a; 43 CFR 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. 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). 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. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001–3013; 43 CFR Part 10. Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa–470aaa-11. The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other activities that might disturb documented or undocumented paleontological, archaeological, or historic sites. Fish and Wildlife Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 668–668c, 50 CFR 22. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544; 36 CFR Part 13; 50 CFR Parts 10, 17, 23, 81, 217, 222, 225, 402, and 450. Executive Order 13186—Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001). Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a–m. Lacey Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, 14, 300, and 904. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 703–712; 50 CFR Parts 10, 12, 20, and 21. Not likely to adversely impact listed threatened and endangered species (see appendix 4, ESA section 7 consultation). The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the environmental assessment for hunting on Havasu NWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on migratory birds.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 59

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. Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999). Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. The proposed action would have negligible effects on air quality. There is one designated wilderness area on the refuge, the Havasu Wilderness. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13112 because stipulations in permits would be designed to prevent the introduction of invasive species. Water Resources Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, and 933. Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977). Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977). Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 CFR Parts 320–330; 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 230–232, 323, and 328. 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. The refuge does not lie in a coastal zone. There would be negligible impacts of the proposed action on water quality or water resources. There would be negligible impacts on drinking water sources. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because implementation of the hunting plan would protect existing wetlands. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988 because implementation of the hunting plan would not result in the modification or destruction of floodplains.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 60

Appendix 2 FIGURES

FIGURE 1.—Map of Pintail Slough Management Unit on Havasu NWR.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 61

FIGURE 2.—Havasu NWR management units.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 62

FIGURE 3.—Feral swine distribution by county, 1982–2015.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 63

Appendix 3 TABLES

TABLE 1.—Havasu NWR management units, acreage, hunted species, and fishing information. Management Acres Species Hunted or Fishing Access Unit Pintail Slough 443 Mourning dove, white-winged dove, duck, American coot, (foot/road common gallinule, dark geese, light geese, snipe, desert access) cottontail rabbit, Gambel’s quail, Eurasian collared-dove, African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, and incidental take of feral swine. No fishing habitat. Topock Marsh 7,240 Mourning dove, white-winged dove, duck, American coot, East common gallinule, dark geese, light geese, snipe, desert (foot/road/boat cottontail rabbit, Gambel’s quail, desert bighorn sheep, Eurasian access) collared-dove, African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, and incidental take of feral swine. Fishing by all State regulations. Topock Marsh 6,065 Mourning dove, white-winged dove, desert cottontail rabbit, West Gambel’s quail, Eurasian collared-dove, African collared-dove, (foot/road/boat black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, and access) incidental take of feral swine. Closed to all public access and hunting to serve as a waterfowl sanctuary from October 1 through January 31. Fishing by all State regulation from February 1through September 30. Havasu 15,021 Mourning dove, white-winged dove, desert cottontail rabbit, Wilderness Gambel’s quail, and desert bighorn sheep, Eurasian collared- (foot access) dove, African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, and incidental take of feral swine. Closed to all waterfowl hunting, and serves half of the refuge’s waterfowl sanctuary. No fishing habitat. Topock Gorge 4,644 Closed to all hunting and serves as one-fifth of the refuge’s (boat access) waterfowl sanctuary. Fishing by all State regulations. Lake Havasu 3,870 Mourning dove, white-winged dove, duck, American coot, (foot/boat common gallinule, dark geese, light geese, snipe, desert access) cottontail rabbit, Gambel’s quail, Eurasian collared-dove, African collared-dove, black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat, coyote, gray fox, kit fox, and incidental take of feral swine. Fishing by all State regulations. Mesquite Bay 232 Closed to all hunting and is included as part of the refuge’s (foot/road/boat waterfowl sanctuary. Fishing by all State regulations. access)

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 64

TABLE 2.—Havasu NWR established hunts: Species and hunting dates.

Species Approximate dates based on AZ State season Mourning dove September 1–September 15 (early AZ season) November 20–January 3 (late* AZ season) White-winged dove September 1–September 15 (early AZ season) Eurasian collared-dove, African collared-dove September 1–March 15 (Havasu NWR season) Duck, American coot, common gallinule, dark October 23–February 7 (AZ State season*) geese, light geese, Wilson’s snipe Gambel’s quail October 17–February 7 (AZ State season*) Desert cottontail rabbit September 1–March 15 (Havasu NWR season) Black-tailed jackrabbit September 1–March 15 (Havasu NWR season) Desert bighorn sheep December 1–December 31 (AZ State season*) Bobcat, coyote, gray fox, and kit fox September 1–March 15 (Havasu NWR season) Feral swine September 1–March 15 (incidental take only) * Some hunting dates change annually in AZGFD regulations; please refer to AZGFD regulations for species seasons and hunting dates.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Havasu NWR 65