Draft Environmental Assessment

Hunting & Fishing Program on Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge

April 2021

Prepared by Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge 60911 Highway 95 Parker, AZ 85344

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 Dove, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting Opportunities [Proposed Action Alternative] ...... 4 Alternative C – Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer ...... 6 Alternatives Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration ...... 6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 9 Natural Resources ...... 10 Hunted Species – Dove ...... 10 Hunted Species – Gambel’s Quail ...... 13 Hunted Species - Desert Cottontail Rabbit ...... 15 Hunted Species - Desert Bighorn ...... 17 Hunted Species – Javelina ...... 19 Hunted Species – Coyote, Gray Fox, Kit Fox ...... 20 Hunted Species – Mule Deer ...... 23 Fished Species ...... 24 Nontarget Wildlife and Aquatic Species ...... 27 Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special Status Species ...... 30 Habitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) ...... 34 Soils ...... 37 Visitor Use and Experience ...... 39 Cultural Resources ...... 41 Refuge Management and Operations ...... 43 Land Use on the Refuge ...... 43 Administration ...... 44 Socioeconomics ...... 45 Local and Regional Economies ...... 45 Environmental Justice...... 46 Monitoring ...... 47 Summary of Analysis ...... 48 Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] ...... 48 Alternative B – Expansion of Dove, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting Opportunities [Proposed Action Alternative] ...... 48 Alternative C – Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer ...... 49 List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 49 List of Preparers ...... 50 State Coordination ...... 50 Tribal Consultation ...... 50 Public Outreach...... 50 Determination ...... 51 Signatures ...... 51 References ...... 52 Appendix A ...... 56 Appendix B: Figures ...... 58 Appendix C: Tables ...... 60

List of Figures Figure 1.—Bill Williams River NWR boundary, management units, no hunting/shooting zones, and State GMUs ...... 58 Figure 2.—Critical habitat for federal trust species documented on Bill Williams River NWR. ...59

List of Tables

TABLE 1.—Refuge hunting regulations by species, method of take, season, and unit...... 60 Table 2.—Summary of fish captured in trammel netting efforts within and adjacent to the Bill Williams River NWR...... 0

Environmental Assessment for Bill Williams River 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 A outlines all law and executive orders evaluated through this EA.

Proposed Action

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service) is proposing to open new hunting opportunities for javelina (Pecari tajacu), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and coyote (Canis latrans), while maintaining and expanding existing opportunities for mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) on Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge (Bill Williams River NWR or refuge) in accordance with the refuge’s 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan and 1994 Comprehensive Management Plan. The Hunting and Fishing Plan would open up hunting opportunities in the North Unit (1,768 acres) to mourning and white-winged dove, Eurasian collared-dove, Gambel’s quail, cottontail rabbit, desert bighorn sheep, javelina, kit fox, gray fox, and coyote. The South Unit (1,142 acres) will continue to be open to hunting opportunities for mourning and white-winged dove, Gambel’s quail, cottontail rabbit, and desert bighorn sheep; the refuge proposes to open hunting opportunities in the South Unit to include javelina (appendix B, figure 1; appendix C, table 1.) The refuge seeks to more closely align the hunting program with state regulations and to provide additional hunting opportunities.

The Service will continue to offer opportunities for sport fishing, including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluegill sunfish (Lepomis marochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio), as well as nonsport fishing, including threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 1

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.

Background National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. The refuge was established concurrently with Havasu NWR pursuant to Executive Order 8647 on January 22, 1941. At the request of the Southwest Regional Director, the Director of the Service officially designated the Bill Williams Unit of Havasu NWR as the Bill Williams River NWR on June 9, 1993. The primary purpose of the refuge is to provide “… refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife …” (Executive Order 8647). The mission of the NWRS, as outlined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 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, and 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;

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 2

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

Purpose and Need for the Action The purpose of this proposed action is to provide additional compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Bill Williams River NWR. The need of 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 refuge has never had a formal hunt plan before the 2021 plan. 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.”

Alternatives Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] Under the No Action alternative, current refuge hunting and fishing opportunities would remain the same as described below. Hunting of dove, cottontail, and quail is only permitted in the South Unit, which encompasses a total of 1,142 acres of refuge land (appendix B, figure 1), and is bounded by Planet Ranch Road to the north and the refuge boundary to the south. Hunting for mourning and white-winged dove is allowed. The early season for mourning and white-winged dove is September 1–15. A second season for mourning dove only typically starts in November and ends in January, providing approximately 59 hunt days. Shotgun is the only method of take and all ammunition must be approved, nontoxic (nonlead).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 3

Hunting for cottontail rabbit is allowed from September 1 to the close of state quail season, which typically ends in early February, providing approximately 160 hunt days. Shotgun is the only method of take and all ammunition must be approved, nontoxic (nonlead). Hunting for Gambel’s quail is allowed. The season typically lasts from the second week in October to the first week in February, providing approximately 121 hunt days. Shotgun is the only method of take and all ammunition must be approved, nontoxic (nonlead). Hunting for desert bighorn sheep is allowed. The season is December 1–31, providing 31 hunt days. Methods of take include rifle. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 44A, the Service allows hunting on the refuge only in those areas south of Planet Ranch Road and east of Arizona State Route 95 plus the south half of Section 35, T 11N-R 17W as posted. In Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 16A, we allow hunting for desert bighorn sheep only in those areas north of the Bill Williams River. Fishing for sport and nonsport fish in the Bill Williams River Delta is allowed in full alignment with state seasons and regulations. The delta may be accessed by boat from Lake Havasu. A nonmotorized boat launch, as well as four fishing piers on the peninsula trail are available for use 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Alternative B – Expansion of Dove, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting Opportunities [Proposed Action Alternative] The refuge has prepared a Hunt and Fishing Plan, which is presented in this document as the Proposed Action Alternative. Fishing and desert bighorn sheep hunting would remain the same as Alternative A. The refuge would open to hunting an additional 1,768 acres in the North Unit (appendix B, figure 1), located in Arizona Wildlife Management Unit 16A, only in areas north of the Bill Williams River floodplain. Hunting for mourning and white-winged dove would remain similar to Alternative A in regard to season dates with the following changes: (1) opening the North Unit, and (2) expanding the methods of take to include archery. The refuge proposes to also open hunting opportunities for Eurasian collared-dove, aligning with the same open areas and methods of take as mourning and white-winged dove. Season dates for Eurasian collared-dove would align with season dates of mourning dove: September 1–15 and late November to early January. Hunting for cottontail rabbit would remain similar to Alternative A with the following changes: (1) opening the North Unit, (2) expanding the methods of take to include archery and muzzle loading shotgun. Hunting for Gambel’s quail would remain similar to Alternative A regarding season dates with the following changes: (1) opening the North Unit, and (2) expanding methods of take to include archery.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 4

Hunting for javelina would now be open on the refuge with partial alignment with state times and legal methods. The general season is typically the last full week of February, providing seven hunt days. Methods of take include shotgun shooting nontoxic slug, and archery. The North and South Units would be open to hunting during the general season only. Hunting of coyote, kit fox, and gray fox would now be allowed, but only during the refuge hunt seasons for the species described above, providing approximately 143 hunt days, in partial alignment with state times and legal methods. During daylight hours the take of coyote, kit fox, and gray fox would be allowed in the North Unit only. Only shotgun shooting federally approved nontoxic ammunition and archery would be allowed. Measures to Avoid Conflicts and Impacts: In order to limit impacts such as accidental take or disruption of federally listed species— specifically the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), and northern Mexican garter snake (Thamnophis eques megalops )—hunting seasons are restricted to outside of active and/or nesting seasons, typically late February through late August. In addition, hunting is not permitted within the active floodplain and the surrounding riparian vegetation where these species are typically found in high densities. Because other wildlife-dependent recreation occurs simultaneously in areas used by hunters, some conflicts are anticipated between different types of recreational users. Safety is our primary concern. Enforcement of federal and state hunting and fishing, trespass, and other public use regulations associated with management of the refuge is the responsibility of federal wildlife officers. The officers cooperate with, and are assisted by, state conservation officers and county sheriffs. The following methods will be used to control and enforce hunting and fishing regulations: • Refuge and hunt area boundaries will be posted. • The refuge will provide one or more brochures providing information specific to each species hunted. These brochures will show hunt areas and include specific hunt regulations. This information will be available at the refuge visitor center, refuge entrance kiosks, and on Bill Williams River NWR’s website. • Federal and state wildlife officers will conduct compliance checks to ensure adherence with federal and state laws and refuge-specific regulations. • Federal wildlife officers will coordinate with state, county, and other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the refuge releases announcements with hunting information several weeks in advance of hunts, posts the announcements in the visitor center and several refuge kiosks, posts on social media, and posts on the refuge website.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 5

This alternative provides expanded recreational opportunities to the public while also taking measures to reduce impacts on the interests and needs of members of the public who utilize the refuge for fishing, hiking, wildlife observation, and photography. This alternative offers increased opportunities for public hunting and fulfills the Service’s mandate under the NWRSAA. The Service anticipates that hunting and fishing will continue to be found compatible with the purposes of Bill Williams River NWR and the mission of the NWRS. Alternative C – Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer This alternative is the same as Alternative B with the following additions: Mule deer hunting would be open on the refuge with partial alignment with state times and legal methods. Hunting for mule deer would be limited to the general season, typically lasting 10 days during late October to early November. Hunting would only be permitted in the North Unit and methods of take would be restricted to shotgun shooting slugs and archery. All ammunition must be approved, nontoxic (nonlead). Alternatives Considered, But Dismissed From Further Consideration The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) has requested full alignment with state hunting regulations on Bill Williams River NWR in Arizona. The following are requests by AZGFD that were considered but dismissed from further analysis. 1. Including falconry and use of trailing dogs. These methods of take may cause disturbance to neotropical migratory birds, as well as resident endangered Yuma Ridgway’s rail, which use the refuge for breeding or as a stopover site during the winter months when the refuge is open to hunting. Therefore, they are not being considered at this time. 2. Open seasons for the take of amphibians and reptiles (recreational herping). The Service’s annual station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulation does not consider opening refuges to recreational herping. Therefore, this request is outside the scope of the proposed action. 3. Open seasons for the take of feral hogs and pigeons. Feral hogs are not present on the refuge and pigeons are relatively rare. Therefore, the refuge is not considering opening these species at this time.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 6

4. Open seasons for mountain lion hunting. The refuge is split between AZGFD Game Management Units (GMUs) 16A and 44A. In 2019, only three mountain lions were harvested, using dogs, from 16A. No mountain lions were harvested from GMU 44A. The limited hunt opportunity that would be provided by the low-density, likely transient individual mountain lions on the refuge would create a disproportional need for management and law enforcement coverage to manage the new hunt, detracting from the refuge’s ability to perform management functions specific to the refuge purpose. In addition, mountain lions provide desirable reduction of invasive species such as the wild horse and burro. The wild horse and burro population in the United States doubled from 2007-2015, far beyond reasonably manageable numbers. Land managers note that wild horses and burros tend to select and overgraze riparian areas, which are ecologically significant for native species (Scasta et al., 2018).In manageable numbers, however, feral burros may create riparian habitat by digging wells to access groundwater, which can be utilized by other wildlife and colonized by native vegetation (Lundgren 2017). It's speculated that mountain lion predation was a contributing factor to high foal mortality over an 11-year study period, which limited the growth of desert feral horse populations (Greger et al., 1999). In August 2020, a predation event of a feral burro foal on refuge land was observed by the staff wildlife biologist. Therefore, the undisturbed presence of mountain lion on the refuge is desirable to reduce numbers of this highly invasive nonnative species, which damages habitat and competes with native species such as javelina. 5. Open seasons for bobcat hunting. The Service is not proposing to open hunting of bobcat for the following reasons: (1) Bobcats are mostly active at night, particularly at dawn and dusk, and refuge regulations prohibit hunting at night as a safety precaution; (2) Bill Williams Rive NWR was designated by Arizona Audubon as a Globally Important Bird Area in 2011 and primarily serves as a refuge for breeding and wintering neotropical migratory birds. Like bobcats, birds are generally most active at dawn and dusk. Excessive noise and stray ammunition from bobcat hunting could therefore disturb birds that utilize the refuge; and (2) sufficient data do not exist at this time to estimate the current population supported by the refuge or define sustainable harvest. 6. Open seasons for black-tailed jackrabbit. Jackrabbits are less common on the refuge than cottontail rabbits, with refuge staff only observing a handful every year. It is expected that the most recent outbreak of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus type 2 (RHDV2) will likely decimate what is already a small local population of jackrabbits. In order to limit further mortality, hunting for jackrabbits is not being considered at this time.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 7

7. Full alignment for seasons and methods of take for javelina. The Service is not proposing to open handgun, muzzleloader, or rifle for any species other than desert bighorn because their use near low-visibility dense riparian/mesquite bosque habitat would pose a risk to nonhunters who use the refuge for wildlife observation, photography, hiking, and general nature observation in this area of concentrated visitor use. The Service is not proposing to open all javelina hunt seasons, as these seasons occur during peak visitation at the refuge, where 99 percent of visitors are engaged in visitation, including wildlife observation, photography, hiking and general nature observation. 8. Opening hunting opportunities for nongame mammals and birds, as specified in Arizona Revised Statute 17-101. Hunting of nongame mammals and birds is incompatible with biological objectives and the purposes of the refuge. Nongame animals inhabit the same areas as protected species, which may increase disturbance and mortality from misidentification or stray ammunition. This hunt would also disrupt other recreation in an area of highly concentrated nonconsumptive visitor use, including wildlife observation and photography, hiking, and general nature observation. 9. Open waterfowl hunting. The Bill Williams River Delta is the only location suitable for waterfowl hunting. However, the delta has been open to fishing for many years and is heavily utilized by nonhunter visitors who participate in fishing, boating, and nature observation. An estimated 20,000 individuals visit the refuge every year for fishing, while an additional 10,000 visit for boating. Opening the delta to waterfowl hunting would present a safety issue to other visitors and is not being considered at this time. 10. Including trapping as a lawful method of take. The Service’s annual station-specific hunting regulation does not open or expand trapping. Hunting is a priority public use for national wildlife refuges; trapping is evaluated separately from hunting. In House Report 105-106, Congress makes a distinction between hunting and trapping by stating that management tools encompass actions “such as hunting, trapping and fishing.” Trapping is a wildlife management tool used in the conservation and management of wildlife populations. Trapping occurs on some national wildlife refuges in accordance with the conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, where trapping does occur, some individual refuges may prohibit trapping by the public and conduct trapping only as a tool for management concerns like invasive species control or to prevent damage to infrastructure. Trapping is outside the scope of the proposed action and is not being considered on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 8

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 for each resource, and (2) the effects and impacts of the proposed action and any alternatives on each resource. 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 the written analyses of the environmental consequences on a resource only when the impacts on that resource could be more than negligible and therefore considered an “affected resource.” Any resources that will not be more than negligibly impacted by the action have been dismissed from further analyses. The refuge consists of approximately 6,000 acres (9.38 square miles) in Mohave and La Paz Counties, Arizona. Approximately 9 miles of the Bill Williams River bisect the refuge (figure 1). Bill Williams River NWR is generally divided into three different types of habitat: upland Sonoran/Mojave Desert (2,911 acres), active floodplain/surrounding riparian vegetation (2,832 acres), and cattail marsh/open water (450 acres). The proposed actions to expand the hunt program are in the North and South Units where upland desert is the dominant habitat type. Fishing opportunities would continue in the Bill Williams River Delta, where cattail marsh/open water is the dominant habitat type (figure 1). The section below provides additional, brief descriptions of each resource affected by the proposed action. 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, which can be found at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00938308e&view=2up&seq=2. The following resources either (1) do not exist within the project area, or (2) would either not be affected or only negligibly affected by the proposed action: • Air quality: We expect only an additional 30 hunt visits annually under the proposed action alternative. Vehicular traffic on three miles of county-maintained road would be the only likely source of impacts on air quality. The anticipated increase would have a negligible effect on air quality. • Floodplain: Under all alternatives, hunting will be restricted only to upland habitat, out of the river corridor and surrounding floodplain habitat. No changes are proposed to the existing floodplain that would alter its function. No effects are expected to floodplains. • Wilderness: No refuge lands are designated wilderness. As such, these resources are not further analyzed in this EA.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 9

Natural Resources Hunted Species – Dove Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Mourning and white-winged doves are migratory species and regulated by federal and state governments. Mourning dove breeding range occurs through much of North America as well as scattered areas in South America. White-winged doves primarily breed in the southern U.S., including Arizona and California. 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-dove are a nonnative, invasive species and have expanded their range throughout much of North America since initial establishment in southern Florida in the early 1980s (Smith 1987); as an exotic invasive species, they are not protected in Arizona. These three species can be found in all areas of the refuge, but mainly the Bill Williams River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix gooddingii), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), and salt cedar (Tamarix spp.). The primary predators of dove are birds of prey, such as hawks and falcons. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The U.S. manages dove populations based on three different regional management units: Eastern, Central, and Western. Bill Williams River NWR is located in the Western Unit, which includes Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. 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 ± 13 percent mourning doves and 52,500 ± 16 percent white-winged doves, 22.2 percent and 56.8 percent of the total Western Unit harvests, respectively (Raftovich et al., 2020). 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, 2017). Population and harvest data are typically not collected for Eurasian collared-dove, as they are an exotic invasive species and there is no bag limit on the species in the state of Arizona. Presently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) conservation statuses for all three species are of least concern, indicating that population trends show no threat of extinction. The refuge is currently developing a habitat restoration program to enhance approximately 100 acres of cottonwood-willow gallery forest, as well as mesquite bosque, in the next 10 years for the benefit of resident and migratory birds. Planet Ranch Conservation and Wildlife Area, owned by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) and leased by the Bureau of Reclamation, is immediately upstream of the refuge, and is the site of similar planned habitat restoration projects. These projects will involve a considerable amount of active revegetation in the form of clearing ground with heavy equipment and prescribed fire, as well as planting and irrigating nursery-grown trees.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 10

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 on and off-refuge are expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on local dove populations. The refuge is bounded to the north and south by land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM land adjacent to the refuge is mostly utilized for off-roading recreation, as well as some hunting, but the rugged terrain prevents heavy utilization of the land by the public, reducing disruption to doves and their habitat. There are currently no ongoing resource extraction projects, such as mining, grazing, or fracking, on lands adjacent to the refuge. Therefore, activity off-refuge is not expected to have a reasonably foreseeable negative impact on local dove populations; in fact, BLM lands surrounding the refuge may serve as additional refugia for local dove populations. La Paz County possesses a right-of-way that runs west to east through the refuge riparian area, and currently serves as the northern boundary line for the South Unit. Within the next 5 years, it is likely that a few portions of the road will be rerouted out of the riparian area and into surrounding upland habitat, where doves are found, in order to ensure ease of future road maintenance and to reduce public disruption of the ecologically significant riparian habitat. Rerouting the road into upland habitat will likely disrupt some dove habitat, but upland habitat on and adjacent to the refuge is plentiful and the new road is not expected to have a reasonably foreseeable impact on local dove populations. The refuge estimates approximately 90,000 visitors per year. Visitors engage in a variety of recreational activities. Recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, nature photography, and nature observation result in increased foot and vehicle traffic throughout the refuge, which disturb wildlife, resulting in temporary displacement of resident wildlife, which tend to avoid contact with visitors when possible. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 With the No Action alternative, hunting for mourning and white-wing doves would continue to be permitted in the South Unit. The refuge would remain closed to hunting for Eurasian collared-dove.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 11

Each year, the refuge is required to submit an estimation of visits for each category of public use. Because the refuge does not have the staff to collect precise data on visitation, visit estimates are based upon incidental observations of public use, as well as direct conversations with visitors in this and all following effects analysis discussions. Based on this information, an estimated three migratory bird hunters visited the refuge in 2019. Recreational opportunities such as hunting result in increased foot and vehicle traffic throughout the refuge, resulting in temporary disturbance and displacement of wildlife, which tend to avoid contact with visitors when possible. Dove hunting in the 1,142-acre South Unit is allowed approximately 59 days per year. It has been permitted for many years with little resulting conflict with other visitors or wildlife. The daily bag limit for mourning and white-winged doves is 15, with no more than 10 being white- winged doves. Due to the abundance of doves and less than 10 migratory bird hunting visits anticipated, we expect no more than 75 doves to be harvested annually in the South Unit. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would allow hunting of Eurasian collared- dove, in addition to mourning and white-winged dove, in the 1,142-acre South Unit. The refuge would also open the 1,768-acre North Unit to hunting for mourning, white-winged and Eurasian collared-dove. The North Unit is only accessible by foot, and refuge staff have encountered very few visitors in this area. Because the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters presently, and the North Unit is not easily accessible, the refuge does not anticipate a large influx of new hunters by opening new hunting areas or species. Rather it expects a similar number of hunters and harvest as Alternative A, but more dispersed due to adding an additional 1,768 acres of huntable area. The refuge therefore surmises that increasing the huntable land while anticipating a similar number of hunt visits per year would decrease hunting pressure in the South Unit, resulting in low likelihood of negative impact to dove populations across the refuge when compared with Alternative A. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B. No additional hunt opportunities are being proposed for this species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 12

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 use 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) and Bill Williams River NWR comprises less than 0.016 percent of the statewide distribution of the species. The primary predators of Gambel’s quail are snakes, birds of prey, and fur-bearing mammals such as bobcat, coyote, and fox. This species uses all areas of the refuge, but mainly the Bill Williams River floodplain, characterized by cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and salt cedar. They are also found in upland habitat consisting of creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), palo verde (Parkinsonia spp.), ironwood (Olneya tesota) and other desert shrubs and trees. Bill Williams River 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. Currently it is unknown how many quail are harvested annually on the refuge. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions For quail, hunting is generally compensatory for natural sources of mortality (Gallizioli and Webb, 1958). The AZGFD hunt guidelines are used by state wildlife biologists when formulating hunt recommendations for upland game. Guidelines are reviewed every five years by AZGFD and the Commission, and the Commission can amend guidelines at any time. According to guidelines, seasons for small game such as quail are set for one-year time periods. AZGFD conducts annual spring call count surveys, allowing for adjustments in hunt guidelines based on current population trends. There are no population data available for Gambel’s quail in Arizona, other than a general outlook through the yearly Small Game Forecast (https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/forecast/) provided by AZGFD. According to the 2020-21 Small Game Forecast, quail call counts are higher than the 10-year average. The number of quail hunters in Arizona ranges from 27,000 to 60,000 annually (AZGFD, 2017a). Arizona harvest estimates range from 22,000 to 56,000 birds yearly from 2006 to 2014 (AZGFD, 2017b). 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 and La Paz counties have seen a 1.6- to 2.0-degree Fahrenheit increase in average temperature over the past century (EPA 2016b); 2006–2016 saw the most persistent droughts on record in the southwest (EPA 2016a). As the climate continues to warm, winter and summer rains will become more unpredictable in the southwest; some climate change models for the Bill Williams River basin predict a wetting trend, while others predict a drying trend (Shamir et al., 2019). There is no telling how the changing climate will affect future rainfall and the resulting quail abundance or deficit.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 13

Gambel’s quail would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 With the No Action alternative, hunting for Gambel’s quail would continue to be permitted in the South Unit. An estimated 10 upland game hunters visited the refuge in 2019. Displacement and disturbance during hunting opportunities would affect quail as described under dove above. Quail hunting in the 1,142-acre South Unit occurs approximately 121 days per year. It has been permitted for many years with little resulting conflict with other visitors or wildlife. The daily bag limit for Gambel’s quail is 15. Due to the abundance of quail and less than 10 upland game hunt visits anticipated, we expect no more than 75 quail would be harvested annually in the South Unit. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would continue to allow for hunting on the South Unit. The refuge proposes to open an additional 1,768 acres in the North Unit to hunting for Gambel’s quail. The North Unit is only accessible by foot, and the refuge staff have encountered very few visitors in this area. Because the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters presently, and the North Unit is not easily accessible, the refuge does not anticipate a large influx of new hunters by opening new hunting areas or species. Rather, we expect a similar number of hunters and harvest as Alternative A, but more dispersed due to adding an additional 1,768 acres of huntable area. The refuge therefore surmises that increasing the huntable land while anticipating a similar number of hunt visits per year will decrease hunting pressure in the South Unit, resulting in low likelihood of negative impact on quail populations across the refuge when compared with Alternative A. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 75 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B. No additional hunt opportunities are being proposed for this species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 14

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. 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 per litter (Sowls, 1957; Chapman and Ceballos, 1990) and are capable of four litters per year (Sowls, 1957). This species uses all areas of the refuge, including the Bill Williams River floodplain characterized by cottonwood, willow, and mesquite, as well as the surrounding upland habitat, characterized by creosote, palo verde, mesquite, brittlebush (Encelia 15arinose), quail bush (Atriplex spp.), and various cactuses. There are no population estimates available for desert cottontail rabbit in Arizona. 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 (https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/species/smallgame/forecast/ ). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Harvest of desert cottontail rabbits in Arizona ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 rabbits yearly from 2006–2014 (AGFD, 2017a). Based on hunter encounters with refuge staff and wildlife officers, few cottontails are harvested on the refuge. 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, specifically in Lake Havasu City, approximately 20 miles north 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 reasonably foreseeable population decline of desert cottontail. Desert cottontail populations are dependent upon rainfall (Madsen, 1974) and can fluctuate significantly. Desert cottontail face similarly uncertain impacts from ongoing warming climates in Arizona and future rainfall as described above under Gambel’s quail. Desert cottontail would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 15

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 100 With the No Action alternative, hunting for desert cottontail would continue to be permitted in the South Unit. An estimated 10 upland game hunters visited the refuge in 2019. Displacement and disturbance during hunting opportunities would affect desert cottontail as described under dove above. Desert cottontail hunting in the 1,142-acre South Unit occurs approximately 121 days per year. It has been permitted for many years with little resulting conflict with other visitors or wildlife. The daily bag limit for desert cottontail is 10. Due to the abundance of cottontails and less than 10 upland game hunting visits anticipated, we anticipate no more than 100 desert cottontails would be harvested annually in the South Unit. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 100 Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would continue to allow for hunting on the South Unit. The refuge proposes to open an additional 1,768 acres in the North Unit to hunting for desert cottontail rabbit. The North Unit is only accessible by foot, and refuge staff have encountered very few visitors in this area. Because the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters presently, and the North Unit is not easily accessible, the refuge does not anticipate a large influx of new hunters by opening new hunting areas or species, but rather a similar number of hunters and harvest as Alternative A, but more dispersed due to adding an additional 1,768 acres of huntable area. Due to the potential for RHDV2 to lower the local desert cottontail population, the timing and duration of the refuge’s desert cottontail hunting season would be adjusted annually, if needed, so that the hunt program will not result in long-term, adverse impacts to refuge resources, wildlife populations, or the surrounding environment. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 100 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B. No additional hunt opportunities are being proposed for this species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 16

Hunted Species - Desert Bighorn Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Desert bighorn sheep are 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). Desert bighorns generally mate between July and October and typically produce one to two lambs per year (San Diego Zoo, 2020). In Arizona, habitat for desert bighorn is typically concentrated in western and southwestern parts of the state. On the refuge, this species is typically found in the surrounding high-elevation upland habitat, characterized by steep, rocky hillsides with sparse, shrubby vegetation. On occasion, desert bighorn come down to the riparian area to drink. The United States population estimate for all three subspecies of bighorn is 42,700 and is considered a species of least concern based on a 2019 IUCN assessment, meaning that the overall population trend is stable (San Diego Zoo, 2020). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions In 1978, Arizona’s desert bighorn sheep population was estimated at 2,100 to 2,600 individuals (Monson, 1980). By 1992, regional abundance in southwest Arizona was around 2,900 bighorn sheep, declining to an estimated 2,300 sheep in 2012 (Conroy et al., 2014). 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 six years of age and older) in the population may be harvested annually. In southwest Arizona, wildlife managers generally use the most conservative level, 15 percent, for calculating the number of hunt permit-tags issued. In Arizona, an individual hunter may only harvest a single bighorn ram in their lifetime; in 2021, four permits will be issued for GMU 16A, and two will be issued for GMUs 41/44A. Bill Williams River NWR is located on AZGFD GGMUs 16A and 44A. GMU 16A covers approximately 2,500 square miles (1,600,000 acres). The refuge makes up 0.1 percent of the total GMU area. In fall 2019, four sheep were harvested from the unit. GMU 44A covers approximately 2,400 square miles (1,536,000 acres). The refuge makes up 0.07 percent of the total GMU area. In fall 2019, one sheep was harvested from the unit. Refuge staff have observed desert bighorn only a handful of occasions in the past two years, but the refuge does not conduct population counts or gather harvest information for this species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 17

Ongoing activities on BLM lands would have similar impact on desert bighorn sheep as described under doves above. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1 Estimated Take: 0 With the No Action alternative, hunting for desert bighorn would continue to be permitted in designated areas of the North and South Units. It was estimated that one big game hunter visited the refuge in 2019. Desert bighorn hunting in the 1,768-acre North Unit and the 1,142-acre South Unit occurs approximately 31 days per year, which typically occurs in the month of December. It has been permitted for many years with little resulting conflict with other visitors or wildlife. Due to the harvest restrictions on desert bighorn, the limited number of permits issued, the difficulty of the hunt, the limit of suitable habitat on-refuge, and less than one big game hunting visit anticipated per year, we expect no sheep to be harvested on-refuge in the North and South Units. It is therefore anticipated that desert bighorn harvest would remain somewhat similar as hunting would continue on the refuge. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1 Estimated Take: 0 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative A. AZGFD manages the desert bighorn hunt; the refuge is not proposing to change current refuge hunting regulations for bighorn sheep. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: 1 Estimated Take: 0 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative A.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 18

Hunted Species – Javelina Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Javelina, also known as collared peccaries, are even-toed ungulates. They average two young per litter and can have up to two litters per year (AZGFD, 2017). In the United States, javelina is a native species found in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. They are also found in Mexico, Central America, and Northern Argentina. In western Arizona, javelina are typically found in interior chaparral habitat (broadleaf evergreen shrubs and small trees), close to sources of permanent water. Herds or individuals have been observed a handful of times on the refuge, most often in the protected riparian area, though they have been observed in surrounding upland habitat, particularly in the mesquite bosques immediately adjacent to the riparian area. The javelina population is estimated to exceed 250,000 animals throughout their range. The number of individuals observed in 2016 in AZGFD GMUs 16A and 44A totaled 106 and 69, respectively (AZGFD, 2017). Bill Williams River NWR does not conduct surveys for javelina and therefore cannot provide a population estimate. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Bill Williams River NWR is located on AZGFD GMUs 16A and 44A. GMU 16A covers approximately 2,500 square miles (1,600,000 acres). The refuge makes up 0.1 percent of the total GMU area. GMU 44A covers approximately 2,400 square miles (1,536,000 acres). The refuge makes up 0.07 percent of the total GMU area. The AZGFD 2019 Spring General Javelina Questionnaire reported 349 permits issued in GMU 16A, with a total harvest of 85 individuals; 100 permits were issued in GMUs 42/44A, with a total harvest of 25 individuals. Javelina would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands, planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 With the No Action alternative, javelina hunting would remain closed.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 19

Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 25 Estimated Take: less than 25 Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would open the North and South Units, 2,910 acres in total, to Javelina hunting. Javelina hunting on the refuge would occur approximately 7 days per year during the spring general season. The bag limit for a single javelina tag is one per year. Because javelina are not abundant on the refuge, the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters, and a limited number of permits are issued per GMU per year, the refuge anticipates a maximum of 25 new hunters per year by adding javelina as a huntable species. Based on a hunter success rate of 28–31 percent in the surrounding GMUs and the state bag limit of two javelina per calendar year, if hunters would attempt to fill at most 25 javelina tags on the refuge and immediately adjacent lands, no more than 7–10 javelina would likely be harvested from all of GMU 16A per year. Based on the 2017 general spring hunt harvest data, this is 0.1–0.14 percent of the statewide spring harvest. Disturbance and displacement from human presence and traffic would increase due to increased hunter numbers over Alternative A. Few javelina have been observed on the refuge, and a single female can only produce a maximum of four young per year. The refuge speculates that hunting pressure on such a small population could cause a decline in numbers. A monitoring program may be implemented and the timing and duration of the refuge’s javelina hunting season may be adjusted to avoid adverse effects on javelina populations. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: Less than 25 Estimated Take: Less than 25 Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B. No additional hunt opportunities are being proposed for this species. Hunted Species – Coyote, Gray Fox, Kit Fox Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Coyotes are common throughout all of Arizona and are considered the state’s premier predator. They breed mid-January to mid-March and typically have five pups to a litter. Coyotes are commonly observed on the refuge by personnel and visitors. This species uses all areas of the refuge but is most commonly observed close to refuge headquarters and in upland habitat surrounding the riparian area.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 20

Both kit and gray foxes are widely distributed throughout western and southern Arizona. They are mostly nocturnal and mainly found in the uplands, in desert washes and brushy habitat (AZGFD 2017). Individuals have been observed occasionally on the refuge, with the majority of sightings, particularly of kit foxes, occurring at night. Bill Williams River NWR does not conduct surveys for foxes and therefore cannot provide a population estimate. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions From 2005 to 2015, about 13,000 Arizona hunters took an average of 40,000 to 50,000 coyotes annually (AZGFD, 2017). In recent years, the annual take for fox has averaged about 7,000 individuals, far less than the allowed harvest; gray foxes make up 95 percent of the foxes taken annually (AZGFD, 2017). According to the AZGFD 2020–2021 hunting regulations, there is no daily bag limit on either coyote or fox. There is concern about the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) and sinkers on the environment. Endangered and threatened species, birds (especially raptors), mammals, and humans or other fish and wildlife are 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). Many hunters do not realize that the carcass or gut pile they leave in the field usually contains lead bullet fragments. Research continues on the effects of lead ammunition and the fragments it can deposit in killed game. Avian predators and scavengers can be susceptible to lead poisoning when they ingest lead fragments or pellets in the tissues of animals killed or wounded by lead ammunition. Lead poison may weaken raptors and increase mortality rate by leaving them unable to hunt or more susceptible to vehicles or power line accidents (Kramer and Redig 1997). In a study of bald eagles and golden eagles admitted to the Raptor Rehabilitation Program, College of Veterinary Medicine, at Washington State University from 1991 to 2008 it was found that 48 percent of bald eagles and 62 percent of golden eagles tested had blood lead levels considered toxic by current standards. Of the bald and golden eagles with toxic lead levels, 91 percent (bald) and 58 percent (golden) respectively, were admitted to the rehabilitation facility after the end of the general deer and elk hunting seasons in December (Stauber 2010). Rabbits are considered a primary food source for predatory fur-bearing mammals such as coyote and fox. Due to the high mortality rate and rapid spread of RHDV2 among rabbit populations, as described above under desert cottontail rabbit, the refuge expects to see a reasonably foreseeable population decline of desert cottontail, which could potentially impact prey availability for coyote and fox. Coyote and foxes would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 21

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 With the No Action alternative, coyote and fox hunting would remain closed. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 15 Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would open the North Unit, 1,768 acres in total, to hunting for coyote and fox. Coyote and fox hunting on the refuge would occur approximately 143 days per year. There are no daily bag limits on coyote and fox. Coyote and fox are generally hunted concurrently with small upland game species such as dove, quail, and rabbit, and are not often the main target for upland game hunters. The refuge estimates approximately 10 or fewer upland game hunters per year who would likely hunt coyote and fox. The refuge therefore anticipates no more than 15 coyotes and/or foxes would be harvested annually in the North Unit. Fur-bearing predatory mammals in the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts are generally limited by resource availability and therefore occur in low densities. It is possible that hunting pressure on the refuge population would contribute to an overall decline in the presence of coyote and fox on the refuge as the prey base for coyote and fox begins to change and potentially decrease due impacts described under the description of environmental trends above. Harm to predators like coyote and fox from ingesting lead is not anticipated to increase because the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle is not expected to increase under this alternative. To limit the potential negative impact from hunting pressure on refuge coyote and fox populations and visitors engaged in other wildlife-dependent recreation, the refuge would limit hunting only to the North Unit, and only during daylight hours. The North Unit is only accessible by foot, and the refuge staff have encountered very few visitors in this area. Because the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters presently, and the North Unit is not easily accessible, the refuge does not anticipate a large influx of new hunters by opening new hunting areas or species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 22

Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 10 Estimated Take: less than 15 Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. No additional hunt opportunities or the use of lead ammunition are being proposed for this species. Hunted Species – Mule Deer Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Desert mule deer are found throughout western and southern Arizona in the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts and are found in a wide range of habitats, from desert uplands to riparian areas. In more arid regions, does typically birth two fawns right before summer monsoonal rains (Misuraca, 1999). In the past 2 years, mule deer have not been observed on the refuge by Service staff. Bill Williams River NWR does not conduct population surveys for mule deer and therefore cannot provide a population estimate. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions In 2019, a total of 800 general deer permits were issued for the area that includes Bill Williams River NWR. The hunt area includes Arizona State units 16A, 43A, 43B, 44A, and 44B with Bill Williams River NWR located in units 16A and 44A (units 43A, 43B, 44A, and 44B are combined when issuing permits and reporting take). In 2019, combined hunt success was 30 percent (217 harvested deer) for all five units. The number of individuals observed in 2017 in AZGFD GMUs 16A and 44A totaled 184 and 52, respectively (AZGFD, 2017). Between 2013 and 2017, the number of permits issued in 16A and 43/44 fell by 36 percent and 10 percent, respectively (AZGFD, 2017). Mule deer face similarly uncertain impacts from ongoing warming climates in Arizona and future rainfall as described above under Gambel’s quail. One study found that some drought- like conditions may affect forage availability, indirectly affecting mule deer fawn survival (Smith and Lecount, 1979), while yearly mule deer harvest numbers were related long-term trends in rainfall accumulation (Marshal et al., 2002). Mule deer would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 23

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the No Action alternative, mule deer hunting would remain closed. Alternative B Estimated Hunter Numbers: 0 Estimated Take: 0 Under the Preferred Action alternative, mule deer hunting would remain closed. Alternative C Estimated Hunter Numbers: less than 5 Estimated Take: 0 Under this alternative, the refuge would open the North Unit, 1,768 acres in total, to mule deer hunting. Mule deer hunting on the refuge would occur approximately 10 days per year during the fall general season. The bag limit for a single mule deer tag is one per year. A limited number of permits are issued per GMU per year and the refuge anticipates a maximum of five new hunters per year by adding mule deer as a huntable species. Based on a hunter success rate of 30 percent in the surrounding GMUs, the state bag limit of one mule deer per calendar year, and the presence of mule deer in extremely low densities, the refuge anticipates that no mule deer would be taken. The refuge speculates that hunting pressure on a small local population could cause a decline in numbers. A monitoring program may be implemented and the timing and duration of the refuge’s mule deer hunting season may be adjusted to avoid adverse effects on mule deer populations. Fished Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The Bill Williams River flows directly into Lake Havasu, a 20,000-acre impoundment on the Lower Colorado River, and is just upstream of the Parker Dam. The Parker USFWS Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office (FWCO) conducts semiannual surveys of the Bill Williams River Delta; in the past 10 years, the most abundant species sampled have been common carp, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, redear sunfish, and striped bass (Chase Ehlo, personal communication October 29, 2020).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 24

AZGFD focuses on managing fisheries in Lake Havasu proper primarily for largemouth and smallmouth bass, secondarily for redear sunfish as a featured species, and thirdly for striped bass, bluegill, channel catfish, and flathead catfish (Follmuth et al. 2019). All fish managed by AZGFD for the Lake Havasu fishery are nonnative. The State of Arizona shares management authority over Lake Havasu with the State of California. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions From July 2017-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 2019). AZGFD conducts annual fish sampling in Lake Havasu in the fall in order to determine if fish populations are meeting management objectives. In their 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.

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. Quality of each fishery is determined based on AZGFD spring electrofishing catch per unit effort (CPUE; 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 (Fullmoth 2019). Data was taken for fish species during surveys in 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2020, and while CPUE varied from year to year and species to species, common carp, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, redear sunfish, and striped bass were consistently most abundant (appendix C, table 2).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 25

The USFWS and AZGFD are both active members of the Lake Havasu Fisheries Improvement Plan (LHFIP), which aides 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 to meet the outlined objectives above are expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on fishing opportunities in Lake Havasu. Water levels on Lake Havasu remain relatively stable. Large stretches of the Bill Williams River may remain dry during the year. Some ponds and washes may have water in them year-round or more consistently than the Bill Williams River. Upstream of the refuge, Alamo Dam and Lake is managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which occasionally releases larger scale flows that may temporarily increase water velocity and turbidity and replenish standing water (USACE 2018). Effects on water availability and quality from nonrefuge sources may affect the occurrence and mortality of fish populations in the Bill Williams River. The refuge estimates approximately 90,000 visitors per year. Visitors engage in a variety of recreational activities. Recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, nature photography, and nature observation result in increased foot and vehicle traffic. Fished species may be negatively impacted by visitation, but especially by 10,000 boating visits from littering and increased turbidity. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Estimated Angler Numbers: 20,000 Estimated Take: less than 100,000 (combined species) 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. It was estimated that 20,000 anglers visited 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.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 26

Fishing occurs in the 450-acre Bill Williams River Delta and occurs year-round, 24 hours per day. It has been permitted for many years with little resulting conflict with other visitors or wildlife. With the estimated 20,000 anglers who use the refuge annually, the abundance of surrounding fishable waters adjacent to the refuge, and the bag limits set by AZGFD, we anticipate less than 100,000 fish would be harvested annually from the Bill Williams River Delta. FWCO will continue to work with AZGFD and other members of the LHFIP in surveying local fish populations to ensure population stability. Alternative B Estimated Angler Numbers: 20,000 Estimated Take: less than 100,000 (combined species) The impacts would be the same as described in Alternative A. The refuge is not proposing to alter the current refuge-fishing program under Alternative B. Alternative C Estimated Angler Numbers: 20,000 Estimated Take: less than 100,000 (combined species) Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative A. The refuge is not proposing to alter the current refuge-fishing program under Alternative C. Nontarget Wildlife and Aquatic Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Vertebrate wildlife species that occur on the refuge include game and nongame species, including approximately 57 mammal species, 357 bird species, 34 reptile species, 7 amphibian species, and various fish species. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Since 1970, North American forest bird populations have seen a decline of 22 percent, while North American grassland bird populations have seen a decline of 53 percent (North American Bird Conservation Initiative, 2019). Between 1970 and 2012, global reptile populations declined an estimated 54–55 percent (Saha et al. 2018); threats to global reptile and amphibian populations include habitat loss and degradation, introduced invasive species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable use, and global climate change (Gibbons 2000). The presence of wildlife on the refuge is heavily dependent on the presence of flowing surface water. Nontarget wildlife face similarly uncertain impacts from ongoing warming climates in Arizona and future rainfall as described above under Gambel’s quail.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 27

Nontarget wildlife would be impacted similarly to dove species by conditions on BLM lands, planned road modifications, and other visitation as described above. Rerouting the road into upland habitat will likely disrupt habitat for some mammals, dozens of species of birds, and virtually every reptile species present on the refuge. However, remaining upland habitat on and adjacent to the refuge is plentiful and the new road is not expected to be a high-traffic corridor. Nontarget wildlife would also be impacted by lead in the environment as described under coyote and foxes. A habitat restoration program to enhance approximately 100 acres of cottonwood-willow gallery forest, as well as mesquite bosque, as described in dove above would also benefit nontarget wildlife. In early 2020, Bill Williams River NWR staff and Arizona Fire program staff conducted the refuge’s first prescribed cattail marsh burn in the Bill Williams River Delta in many years. The objective of burning the 20-acre unit was to reduce decadent vegetation to maintain quality habitat for Yuma Ridgway’s rail feeding, courting, and nesting. The refuge plans to continue small annual marsh burns throughout the 250-acre marsh. Species that depend on this area will benefit from improved habitat management in the long term and may be temporarily impacted by the short-term loss of habitat if present during burns. Nontarget wildlife would be impacted similarly to dove and fished species by conditions on BLM lands, planned road modifications, and other refuge visitation as described above. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, the existing environmental conditions would be maintained. The refuge receives approximately 14 hunt and 20,000 fishing visits annually. While there is typically an impact to the majority of wildlife species whenever human presence is noted, many animals have developed a tolerance to humans and vehicles. Many animals remain motionless until the perceived threat from visitors has passed. As a result, some wildlife have acclimated to the daily activities that occur throughout the day, and there would be no anticipated change in diversity or abundance of wildlife that currently use the area. Therefore, this alternative currently results in some minor short-term negative impacts on mammals, birds and other wildlife, especially along roadways. However, hunting activity is confined to the 1,142-acre South Unit, approximately 19 percent of refuge lands, which reduces the possible disruption to wildlife from vehicle and foot traffic, vegetation disturbance, and noise from gunshots. Most hunting does not occur during the active breeding season (approximately March until October 1) for most birds on the refuge, which limits impacts to those species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 28

The hunting and fishing program would continue to be a source of lead on the refuge and have impacts on nontarget wildlife as described in the environmental trends and planned action discussion under coyote and fox. Even though hunters are required to use nonlead ammunition when hunting on the refuge (with exception to desert bighorn hunting), it is difficult to enforce. Enforcing the use of nonlead ammunition will continue to be a challenge for federal law enforcement officers with expanded hunting opportunities. Most years no lead ammunition is used on the refuge. The refuge will continue to increase outreach and education efforts through informational materials to inform the hunting community of the impacts of lead on wildlife. Alternative B Impacts from hunting would be similar to those described in the No Action alternative. An increase of 30 additional hunters over alternative A would result in the increased potential disturbance from human activity, including vehicle and foot traffic and noise from gunshots, as described above. The fishing program would not change and impacts from boating and fishing would remain the same. To minimize impacts the hunt for javelina, which the refuge anticipates would be the most popular expanded hunt opportunity, would be restricted to the spring general season. Restricting the javelina hunt to the spring general season will avoid breeding seasons for most wildlife and prevent potential stress on birds that migrate in the fall and spring. Under some circumstances, manipulation of predatory fur-bearing mammal populations (i.e., coyote and fox) in an ecosystem may alter the abundance of prey species, such as small rodents and lagomorphs, otherwise known as rabbits and hares (Salo et al. 2010). Studies have found that long-term, intensive removal efforts of predators such as coyote result in population-level changes. Coyote removal in an area typically results in immigration of coyotes into removal areas, resulting in little to no impact on the population (Henke 1995). Opening coyote and fox for hunting on the refuge may therefore have some short-term impacts on small mammal populations. However, because the refuge expects to see only a small increase in hunters with expanded hunting opportunities, any impacts to nontarget wildlife is expected to be minimal. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting would only negligibly increase human caused disturbance over levels in alternative B. The the use of lead ammunition would not be allowed for mule deer hunting.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 29

Threatened and Endangered Species, and Other Special Status Species Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource There are six species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) on Bill Williams River NWR: southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, bonytail chub (Gila elegans), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and northern Mexican garter snake. The southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, and bonytail chub all have designated or proposed critical habitat within or near the refuge (appendix B, figure 2). California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) are uncommon and only migrate through the refuge. California least tern 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 Bill Williams River NWR 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 Bill Williams River NWR during the breeding season, approximately June–August. They require structurally complex riparian habitats with tall trees and a dense woody vegetative understory. 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 and bulrush stands of moderate to high density, adjacent to shorelines. Yuma Ridgway’s rails may be found in those areas of the Bill Williams River Delta and along the river corridor where this type of habitat exists. It is possible that some of these rails are present year-round and breeding season is generally from mid-March–September. There is currently no proposed critical habitat for Yuma Ridgway’s rails. Bald eagles were delisted in 2007; however, they currently retain protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Lacey Act, the Airborne Hunting Act, and the general provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 17. In Arizona, most bald eagle nesting habitat is found in the central part of the state along the Salt and Verde Rivers. Bald eagles are typically found where there are large trees or cliffs near water with abundant prey and they are expected to be present on the refuge in the winter. 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 in the Bill Williams River Delta.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 30

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 rivers, as well as reservoirs in the lower basin. Critical habitat includes the northern boundary of Havasu NWR to Parker Dam, including Lake Havasu in Mohave County, Arizona. Northern Mexican garter snakes (threatened) are found in both standing and running water habitats (lotic and lentic) that include ciénegas and stock tanks, as well as river habitat that includes pools and backwaters. They forage along the banks of waterbodies, 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. Multiple individuals have been documented at Planet Ranch just east of the refuge, so it is possible they are also within refuge boundaries where surface water is present. Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) (candidate species) migrate along the riparian corridor of the Colorado River in the Fall. 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 Three threatened and endangered species found on the refuge will be present and active during the September–February hunting season and may be affected by year-round fishing: Yuma Ridgway’s rail, razorback sucker, and bonytail chub. The Yuma Ridgway’s rail, formerly the Yuma clapper rail, was listed as a federally endangered species in 1967. The last 5-year review completed to assess the rail’s endangered species status was conducted in 2005 and found that the population between 1998 and 2002 was remaining stable, around 500-600 birds throughout its range; down listing the species from its current endangered status would require a stable population of 700-1000 individuals (USFWS, 2006). As of 2006, the Yuma Ridgway’s rail was not considered for down listing. In 2019, an estimated 841 rails were detected throughout its range, with 13 individuals being detected at Bill Williams River NWR (Nichole Engelmann, personal communication November 2, 2020). Another 5-year review was completed in 2020 and is expected to be available for public review in 2021. The bonytail chub was listed as a federally endangered species in 1980. The last five-year review completed to assess the bonytail’s endangered species status was conducted in 2012 and found that the population in the Lower Colorado River region did not meet the recovery criteria for genetic variability or self-sustaining populations (USFWS 2012). As of 2012, bonytail were not considered for down listing. Bonytail are typically stocked in the Bill Williams River Delta annually by the USFWS FWCO and the Lower Colorado River Multispecies Conservation Program (LCR-MSCP). However, surveys conducted in the Bill Williams River Delta by FWCO in 2016 and 2020 did not result in any individuals detected (appendix C, table 2).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 31

The razorback sucker was listed as a federally endangered species in 1991. The latest species status assessment for the sucker, published in 2018, indicated that the reach of the Lower Colorado River between Davis and Parker Dams, which includes Lake Havasu and the Bill Williams River Delta, had a population of suckers that was only maintained through annual stocking efforts (USFWS 2018). Razorback sucker are not being considered for down listing at this time. Surveys conducted in the Bill Williams River Delta by FWCO have not resulted in any sucker detections since 2010 (appendix B, table 2). All fish managed by AZGFD for the Lake Havasu fishery are nonnative, and occasionally feed on native fishes such as the razorback sucker and bonytail chub. In early 2020, Bill Williams River NWR staff and Arizona Fire program staff conducted the refuge’s first prescribed cattail marsh burn in the Bill Williams River Delta in many years. The objective of burning the 20-acre unit was to reduce decadent vegetation in order to maintain quality habitat for Yuma Ridgway’s rail feeding, courting, and nesting. The refuge plans to continue small annual marsh burns throughout the 250-acre marsh. Prescribed fire in cattail marsh habitat has shown to be an effective habitat enhancement tool for Yuma Ridgway’s rails, as it mimics the disturbance events of periodic floods on the Colorado River (Conway et al. 2010). The burns are expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on habitat suitability for the Yuma Ridgway’s rail. The USFWS and AZGFD are both currently active members of the 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. USFWS,FWCO, and LCR-MSCP will continue to rear and stock bonytail chub and razorback sucker in the reach of the Colorado River from Davis Dam to Parker Dam. Continuation of these enhancement and stocking projects to meet the criteria for species recovery for bonytail chub and razorback sucker are expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on the populations for both species. Special status species would be impacted similarly to dove, fished species, and nontarget wildlife by conditions on BLM lands, other refuge visitation, and water availability and quality issues as described above.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 32

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, hunting would continue on the refuge in the 1,142-acre South Unit only. Fishing would continue to be permitted in the 450-acre delta marsh. Additional areas, methods of take, or species would not be opened. Hunting would continue to be permitted for cottontail, quail, dove, and bighorn sheep, typically September–February. Continuing the refuge’s current hunt-fish program may present some impacts to special status species that are present and active on the refuge during the winter months and/or during peak fishing in the winter and summer months: Yuma Ridgway’s rails, razorback suckers, and bonytail chubs. Although not documented, Yuma Ridgway’s rails could be disturbed in cattail marsh areas that anglers typically access. Fishing close to rail habitat may cause the birds to flush or leave their nesting or feeding site. Continuously flushing a bird may move them out of preferred habitat, put unnecessary stress on the bird, or cause the bird to leave the nest and/or young, making them more susceptible to predation. However, rails prefer to nest in dense cattail, whereas the movements of anglers are typically restricted to open water, with low potential for conflict. The cattail marsh area is closed to hunting and shooting over open water is prohibited, so the current hunting opportunities are not expected to greatly impact rails. The refuge therefore anticipates minimal disturbance to rails under the current hunt-fish program. Fishing in the Bill Williams River Delta increases the likelihood of disturbing razorback suckers and bonytail chubs, which can die or be seriously injured if caught by an angler. However, based on 2010-2020 trammel net surveys conducted by FWCO, razorback suckers and bonytail chub are not commonly caught (appendix B, table 2). The refuge therefore anticipates minimal disturbance to razorback suckers and bonytail chub under the current hunt-fish program. To minimize mortality of razorback suckers or bonytail chub due to fishing, informational placards are placed at each fishing pier on the refuge, providing information on how to identify each fish, and how to contact refuge personnel in case an endangered fish is caught. To avoid potential conflicts between hunters and threatened and endangered species, hunting will continue to be closed year-round in the riparian zone, which includes the Bill Williams River Delta, the river channel proper, and the surrounding floodplain and riparian vegetation. The flycatcher and cuckoo are summer residents and are not typically present on the refuge during hunting season. Hunting is not likely to affect migrant special status species that only spend the summer months on Bill Williams River NWR. Yuma Ridgway’s rail, a secretive marsh bird, is present year-round in the Bill Williams River Delta and throughout the river corridor where water and cattail are present. Two of the listed threatened and endangered fish species are present in the Bill Williams River Delta and lower channel. The garter snake is assumed present throughout the river corridor where water and cattail are present. California least tern do not occur on the refuge and are only rare migrants through the areas. No negative impacts

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 33

to special status species are expected. 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 will be similar to Alternative A. Opening the 1,768-acre North Unit to hunting would result in some disturbance to habitat utilized by endangered species, as hunters may have to cross over from the South Unit to the North Unit on foot, cutting across the riparian area, where the majority of the refuge’s endangered species are concentrated. Some disturbance to riparian habitat in the form of vegetation trampling and/or cutting unauthorized trails is anticipated. To mitigate this, the refuge is proposing to allow hunting only during fall and winter months, when the presence of surface water is somewhat limited and threatened and endangered species are not utilizing riparian vegetation. 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. A Section 7 consultation is in progress to assess the impacts of expanded hunting opportunities on threatened and endangered species present on the refuge. The refuge anticipates that the hunting and fishing program may affect but are not likely to adversely affect special status species. Alternative C Impacts would be the same to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on special status species. Habitat and Vegetation (including vegetation of special management concern) Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Vegetation on the refuge is comprised of floodplain, upland, wetland, riparian, and open water species. Vegetative communities on the refuge include one of high management concern that could be affected by the proposed action, consisting of a handful of high-density, mature cottonwood and willow gallery forests. Cottonwood and willow can be found throughout the refuge’s floodplain in low densities with salt cedar, honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), screwbean mesquite (Prosopis pubescens), arrowweed (Tessaria sericea), and quailbush (Atriplex spp.) in higher densities. Native upland habitat would consist predominantly of mesquite, palo verde, desert ironwood, catclaw acacia (Senegalia greggii), quailbush, creosote, and various cactuses and succulents.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 34

The Bill Williams River Delta and surrounding Lake Havasu support an aquatic vegetative community of primarily sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinate), spiny naiad (Najas marina), and southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Due to prolonged drought and the arrival of the salt cedar leaf beetle (Diorhabda 35longate) in 2017, a large portion of the salt cedar on the refuge, which has been encroaching and out- competing native vegetation such as cottonwood and willow, experienced a rapid die-off. Consequently, a large portion of the riparian vegetation along the river corridor is dead and presents a fire hazard. Wildfire is a high management concern for the refuge. Refuge vegetation face similarly uncertain impacts from ongoing warming climates in Arizona and future rainfall as described above under Gambel’s quail. There is no telling how the changing climate will affect future rainfall and the resulting vegetation stress and mortality. A habitat restoration program to enhance approximately 100 acres of cottonwood-willow gallery forest, as well as mesquite bosque, as described in dove above would is expected to have a reasonably foreseeable positive impact on vegetative communities. The refuge anticipates that off-roading vehicular traffic will continue to negatively impact vegetation. Upland habitats are generally slow to recover from disturbance such as wildfire or unauthorized off-roading. To restrict damage, off-road vehicle travel is not permitted on refuge lands. The soils on the Colorado River floodplain are typically saline. The salinity is the result of accumulated salts from alluvial deposits and subsequent evaporation of soil moisture and 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 occurs. These salts are primarily calcium, sodium, magnesium, chloride, and sulfate. An excessive amount of toxic salts in the soil can delay or prevent seed germination, decrease available water capacity, interfere with plant growth, and impede the movement of air and water through the soil. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, hunting would continue on the refuge in the 1,142-acre South Unit only. An estimated 14 hunters visited the refuge in 2019. Hunting in the 1,142-acre South Unit has been permitted for many years with little noticeable impacts on vegetation. Impacts due to trampling of vegetation by hunters are expected to be minimal due to low hunter numbers, which are sparsely spread out on the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 35

The spread of invasive species via hunter foot traffic is another potential adverse impact. Refuge visitors are reminded and educated using signs about ensuring boats and trailers are cleaned before moving between bodies of water to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. The refuge would install a boot cleaning station with interpretive signage to reduce spread of terrestrial invasive species. Alternative B Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would continue to allow for hunting on the South Unit. The refuge proposes to open an additional 1,768 acres in the North Unit to hunting for dove, quail, cottontail, javelina, coyote, and fox. The North Unit is only accessible by foot, and refuge staff have encountered very few visitors in this area. Because the refuge is not heavily used by hunters presently, and the North Unit is not easily accessible, the refuge does not anticipate a large influx of new hunters by opening new hunting areas or species. Rather, we expect a similar number of hunters and harvest as under Alternative A, but more dispersed due to adding an additional 1,768 acres of huntable area. The refuge therefore surmises that increasing the huntable land while anticipating a similar number of hunt visits per year will decrease hunting pressure in the South Unit, resulting in low likelihood of negative impact to vegetative communities. There is potential for localized damage and increased invasive species spread due to increased foot and vehicle traffic by hunters with the additional hunting opportunities in existing hunt units. Additionally, the opening of more refuge land to hunting and the possibility of increase in number of hunters by approximately 30 individuals will increase risk of wildfire on the refuge. These impacts would continue to be minimized through hunter education and signs. Continuing to be in full alignment with state fishing regulations is not expected to have a negative impact on aquatic vegetative communities. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on vegetation.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 36

Soils Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The soils on the Colorado River floodplain are typically saline. The salinity is the result of accumulated salts from alluvial deposits and subsequent evaporation of soil moisture and 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 occurs. These salts are primarily calcium, sodium, magnesium, chloride, and sulfate. An excessive amount of toxic salts in the soil can delay or prevent seed germination, decrease available water capacity, interfere with plant growth, and impede the movement of air and water through the soil. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Soil erosion, or the displacement of soil through processes such as rainfall, water flow, or wind, eliminates topsoil from an environment, depleting nutrients, reducing soil moisture, and subsequently preventing the establishment of native vegetation. Foot traffic on moderate to high-use trails may lead to decreases in aboveground biomass, or vegetation, and increases the rate of soil erosion (Whitecotton et al., 2000). Outdoor recreators may create informal trails, or trails not made or maintained by a landowner or land manager, to access areas unavailable on formal trails, to explore, to create shortcuts, or to investigate something (Wimpey and Marion 2011). Soil compaction from informal trails can create paths for overland water flow during rainstorms, enhancing the rate of erosion (Martin and Butler 2017). Foot traffic on-refuge is expected to have a reasonably foreseeable impact on soil. The refuge is planning to build approximately 3 miles of trails branching off the west end of Planet Ranch Road in the next 2 years. The trails have a relatively small footprint, approximately 10 to 12 feet across. Soils would be impacted by planned road modifications as described above under dove. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, hunting would continue on the refuge in the 1,142-acre South Unit only. Impacts associated with this alternative are some minor erosion and compaction due to vehicle and foot traffic. Hunter densities (approximately 14 hunt visits within hunt units totaling 1,142 acres) are expected to remain relatively low across the refuge and vehicle traffic associated with hunts is confined to established roads. Current fishing opportunities are not expected to impact soils.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 37

Alternative B Impacts associated with this alternative would result in a minimal increase in soil disturbance through erosion and compaction. Although hunter traffic is expected to remain similar or may show a slight increase with the additional hunting opportunities (particularly for javelina, of which the refuge anticipates no more than 25 additional hunt visits per year), vehicles would continue to be confined to public access roads. In addition, the increase in hunter visits compared to overall public use on the refuge is considered insignificant with similar or slightly higher hunter densities across a total of 2,911 acres of huntable land. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on vegetation. Water Quality Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The Bill Williams River Basin drainage area covers approximately 5,373 square miles in west- central Arizona. The Bill Williams River proper measures approximately 50 miles in length, covers approximately 1,109 square miles, with its upstream-most approximately 5.3 miles consisting of water impounded behind Alamo Dam. Downstream of Alamo Dam, the river flows approximately 45 miles before reaching its confluence with the Colorado River at Lake Havasu (USFWS, 2011). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Projected annual growth rates for Arizona are higher than the US 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 on local waterbodies. Increasing populations in the region will likely increase the abundance of boats on the Lower Colorado River and tributaries. The increase of boat traffic may cause increased litter, fluid leaks/spills, and sediment disturbance to refuge waterways. Water quality may be temporarily impacted during flow releases from the Alamo Dam as described under the Fished Species discussion above. 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. Impacts associated with this alternative, such as short-term disturbance to sediment or littering by angler operated boats are expected, from approximately 10,000 boating visits and 20,000 angler visits.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 38

Alternative B Impacts would be the same to Alternative A. Although hunter traffic may slightly increase under the proposed changes, it is expected that hunter densities would continue to be low and angler visitation trends are unlikely to change. Alternative C Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Visitor Use and Experience Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Within the Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Bill Williams River NWR attracts a greater proportion of nonhunting recreators when compared with the neighboring Havasu NWR. Examples of nonhunting recreation permitted on wildlife refuges include hiking, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation. A single visitor may participate in more than one activity during a visit. Areas closed to hunting are generally available to nonhunters pursuing other recreational opportunities. Some of these areas are difficult to access due to thick vegetation, lack of roads or trails, steep terrain, or remoteness, while other areas are accessible only by boat. The refuge estimates approximately 90,000 visitors per year. Visitors engage in a variety of recreational activities, including, but not limited to, hunting (estimated 14 visits), fishing (estimated 20,000 visits), boating (estimated 10,000 visits), environmental education and interpretation (estimated 18,850 visits), wildlife observation (estimated 21,012 visits), and wildlife photography (estimated 15,000 visits). Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions The refuge is currently expanding its visitor services program to reach a greater number of community members, with a heavy focus on engaging visitors who are interested in wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education. While the number of visitors to the refuge will likely increase, the proportion of types of recreation that take place on the refuge is expected to remain stable into the future. Expansion of the visitor services program is expected to have a foreseeable positive impact on visitor use and experience. The refuge is planning to build approximately 3 miles of trails branching off the west end of Planet Ranch Road in the next 2 years. The trails have a relatively small footprint, approximately 10 to 12 feet across. These trails are expected to attract visitors who are interested in hiking, wildlife observation, and wildlife photography. Expansion of the refuge’s trail network is expected to have a foreseeable positive impact on visitor use and experience.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 39

The refuge is managed as part of a complex with Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. Havasu is managed to accommodate more consumptive uses like hunting and fishing, while Bill Williams River NWR is more focused on passive wildlife-dependent recreation like wildlife observation. 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 the Center for Disease Control, have recommended the use of nontoxic bullets when hunting to avoid lead exposure. Also, pregnant women and children under 6 years old should 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). The refuge promotes visitor safety by enforcing state laws governing safe boat operation. Informational kiosks also promote the use of personal flotation devices on the refuge. The boating speed limit is posted as a no wake zone through the refuge to promote visitor safety while also benefiting wildlife by reducing wildlife disturbance. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A With the No Action alternative, hunting would continue to be permitted in the South Unit only. Fishing would continue to be permitted in full alignment with state regulations. Because the refuge is not heavily utilized by hunters in comparison with other outdoor recreators, hunting impacts of the No Action alternative to visitors engaging in other recreation opportunities are minor as other parts of the refuge are available for use by nonhunters; land closed to hunting under this alternative totals approximately 3,082 acres, including the 450 acres of open water/cattail marsh where fishing is permitted. Encounters between hunters and nonhunters are anticipated and occasionally occur. The refuge mitigates any conflicts by releasing informational announcements pertaining to hunting opportunities several weeks in advance, via posts on social media and on the refuge website. Refuge staff and volunteers at the visitor center are available to answer questions. The refuge promotes visitor safety by limiting the use of rifles on the refuge and by maintaining a riparian zone free from hunting. These measures ensure visitor safety on the Bill Williams River and the most popular high-use areas for other recreation that may have low visibility because of vegetation. Fishing has been permitted on the refuge for many years with few conflicts with visitors who visit the refuge for wildlife photography, wildlife observation, or environmental interpretation.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 40

Alternative B Under the Proposed Action alternative, the refuge would continue to allow fishing and hunting on the South Unit. The refuge proposes to open an additional 1,768 acres in the North Unit to hunting for dove, quail, cottontail, javelina, coyote, and fox. The North Unit is oftentimes difficult to access, but is a hotspot for wildlife observation, particularly during the fall and spring neotropical bird migrations. Allowing additional huntable species—dove, quail, cottontail, javelina, and coyote/fox—is anticipated to impact other visitors, who typically observe and photograph wildlife and hike in these areas that would be open to hunting. In recent years, nonhunters have raised concerns to refuge staff over expansion of expanding hunting opportunities, especially when it comes to the safety of nonhunting visitors. Because more than 99 percent of the refuge’s yearly visitation comes from nonhunters, expansion of hunting areas may have a negative impact on other modes of visitor experience. A potential increase in conflict between refuge visitors using the same areas of the refuge may occur. The refuge would continue to mitigate those conflicts by releasing informational announcements pertaining to hunting opportunities several weeks in advance, via posts on social media and on the refuge website. Refuge staff and volunteers at the visitor center will continue to be available to answer questions. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. Even though mule deer are present in small numbers on the refuge, it is possible that opening an additional big game species for hunting would increase hunter traffic on the refuge, increasing conflicts between hunters and nonhunters. Opening a mule deer hunt with a small population of mule deer would leave most hunters choosing to hunt the refuge dissatisfied as the likely annual harvest is anticipated to be zero, which would reduce support for the refuge in the community.

Cultural Resources Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Prior to western colonization and the forced removal of some regional tribes, the indigenous peoples of the Bill Williams River area, which include the Mojave, Chemehuevi, Yavapai, Havasupai, Hualapai, and Quechan, were hunter-gatherers and floodplain farmers (Garces 1965; Thiel and Wright 2018). The Bill Williams River, named Hahcuchapah by the Chemehuevi and Hahwealhamook by the Quechan, is frequently referenced in many of the tribes’ origin stories (Thiel and Wright 2018).

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 41

Prior to the construction of Alamo Dam as a flood-control structure in 1968, the Bill Williams River frequently experienced floods exceeding 50,000 cubic feet per second. This dramatic floodplain disturbance most likely removed any historic or pre-historic cultural resources in the floodplain and there is little evidence left of indigenous cultures on the landscape, but scattered petroglyphs, geoglyphs, or possible sleeping circles can be found in the uplands throughout the Bill Williams and Colorado River basins. Native riparian woodland trees are significant to several southwestern tribes. Harvesting riparian trees and shrubs for traditional uses is currently allowed on the refuge. Although two former homesteads are located within the boundaries of the refuge, the only remainder of these original settlements is a small graveyard in the uplands of the former Esquerra Ranch. Other features were eliminated in the 1960s when the irrigation system was improved by landowners. Historic settlements that were associated with the river boat landings near the mouth of the Bill Williams River are underwater in Lake Havasu. The dynamic nature of the floodplain before Alamo Dam was built removed the rest of the structures or artifacts from earlier eras that were located in the floodplain. The graveyard and other historic sites are within the boundaries of the riparian area, which is closed to hunting. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Cultural resources may be impacted by future road modifications on a La Paz County right-of- way as described above under dove. Rerouting the road off historic roadways and into upland habitat may possibly disrupt, damage, or expose cultural artifacts. 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. Cultural resources could be affected by collectors and vandals or by hunters traversing the refuge. 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. Alternative B Impacts to cultural resources under this alternative are expected to be similar to the No Action alternative; even though an additional 1,768 acres will be opened in the North Unit with additional hunted species, the refuge expects less than 30 additional hunters yearly with the expanded opportunity. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on vegetation.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 42

Refuge Management and Operations Land Use on the Refuge Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The refuge is generally divided into three different types of habitat: upland Sonoran/Mojave Desert (2,911 acres), active floodplain/surrounding riparian vegetation (2,959 acres), and cattail marsh/open water (450 acres). The proposed action is located in the North and South Units where upland desert is the dominant habitat type. Currently, there is ongoing riparian habitat restoration activity occurring in the riparian zone, with some restoration work also being considered for the Sonoran/Mojave upland areas. Fishing from land occurs at three fishing piers which are Americans with Disabilities Act compliant, and a nonmotorized boat ramp. Presently, the refuge is bisected by over 3 miles of public roads maintained by La Paz County. The road historically ran 8 miles, from west to east, through the refuge. In recent years, flooding has limited public accessibility to the road, which runs through an active floodplain. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Facilities planning for the refuge includes removing infrastructure that may no longer be needed when staff from Bill Williams River NWR and Havasu NWR consolidate operations to new facilities, which would combine administrative offices and a visitor center in Havasu City. Withing the next 5 years, land use on the refuge would change slightly because of the La Paz County right-of way modifications described above under dove. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, the refuge anticipates some compaction and wear-and-tear on the public road due to vehicle traffic. Hunter densities (approximately 14 hunt visits within hunt units totaling approximately 1,142 acres) are expected to remain relatively low across the refuge and vehicle traffic associated with hunts is confined to established roads. Alternative B Refuge visitation would be anticipated to increase by a maximum of 30 additional hunters. Due to the relatively small number of additional hunters, and the fact that large portions of the huntable area, totaling 2,911 acres, would only be accessible by foot, impacts beyond those described under the No Action alternative are not anticipated. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on refuge roads or infrastructure.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 43

Administration Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource The refuge receives funding and staffing for operations, infrastructure, and maintenance. Annual hunt administration costs for Bill Williams River NWR, including salary, equipment, law enforcement and brochures come directly from refuge funds. The refuge has six staff positions, including one refuge manager, one assistant manager, one administrative officer, one wildlife biologist, one interpretive ranger, and one federal wildlife officer. Funding specifically for hunts has not been allocated. The enforcement of refuge and state hunting regulations, trespass, 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. Bill Williams River NWR has proprietary jurisdiction; state and county law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction on refuge lands. Refuge staff and volunteers conduct refuge outreach programs and routinely interact with and assist refuge users during hunting seasons. Hunting leaflets and maps are available at the visitor center, refuge kiosks, and online. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions Facilities planning as described above under land use would result in less consistent staff and law enforcement presence on the refuge, with increased travel time required to conduct necessary on-site activities. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, it is estimated that it would take approximately 30 days a year to manage the annual program, supply brochures and hunting regulations, respond to public inquiries, post signage, maintain fishing facilities, and provide law enforcement coverage. The estimated cost to administer the hunt and fishing program is approximately $8,500. Alternative B Impacts under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A. It is estimated that opening the 1,768-acre North Unit to dove, quail, rabbit, javelina, coyote, and fox would result in approximately 60 staff days each year to operate and manage the annual program, supply brochures and hunting regulations, respond to public inquiries, post signage, and provide law enforcement coverage. The estimated cost is approximately $26,000 in the first year, which includes $2,000 for one-time expenses for brochures and signage, and $24,000 every year following.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 44

Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. However, the addition of mule deer as a huntable big game species would require additional law enforcement coverage to ensure hunting regulation compliance and visitor safety. The refuge anticipates that allocating time and resources to enforcing a mule deer hunt would take law enforcement away from other mission-critical tasks.

Socioeconomics Local and Regional Economies Affected Environment Description of Affected Environment for the Affected Resource Bill Williams River NWR is located near the small community of Parker in La Paz County, AZ, which has a population of 3,121 people, with a median household income of $52,708 ± $13,845; Lake Havasu City in Mohave County, AZ, is the nearest large town and has a population of approximately 54,000 people, with a median household income of $66,050 ± $3,137 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). The local area is primarily undeveloped desert, but tourism is a major component of the local economy. The mild winter climate brings visitors to the area. The refuge is located 134 miles from Yuma, AZ, 173 miles from Phoenix, AZ, and 174 miles from Las Vegas, NV, which are the nearest major cities in the region. While the refuge does not collect specific economic data for visitors to the refuge, according to the 2017 Banking on Nature report (Caudell and Carver 2019), 53.6 million people visited refuges. Their spending generated $3.2 billion of sales in local economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, more than 41,000 people were employed and $1.1 billion in employment income was generated. Local residents as well as visitors from other areas enjoy the recreational opportunities the refuge has to offer, which adds to the local economy. Description of Environmental Trends and Planned Actions In La Paz County, per capita personal income has been rising steadily since 1983 and increased by 6.06 percent to $31,781 between 2015 and 2016. In Mohave County, per capita personal income has been rising steadily since 1968 and increased by 2.35 percent to $30,045 between 2015 and 2016 (University of Arizona, 2016). The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a spike in unemployment across the country. In April 2020, the unemployment rate in Arizona reached 13.4 percent; as of September 2020, the unemployment rate had fallen to 6.7 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020). With another spike of cases in late 2020–early 2021 expected in Arizona, it is anticipated that the COVID-19 pandemic will have a reasonably foreseeable negative impact on local and regional economies.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 45

Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A Under the No Action alternative, hunters comprise approximately 0.016 percent of recreational visitors to the refuge. Hunting likely provides a small positive impact to the local economy through expenditure of funds in local hotels, restaurants, and other businesses. Anglers comprise approximately 22.2 percent of the recreational visitors on the refuge. Based on refuge staff encounters with anglers, it is likely that the majority of fishing visits to the refuge during the summer months are from the local communities, whereas winter fishing visits are a mix of out-of-state visitors and community members. Therefore, it is anticipated that fishing provides a greater positive impact to the local economy than the current hunt program. Alternative B Impacts of the Proposed Action alternative would be similar as described in the No Action alternative. Allowing more hunting opportunities on the refuge may expand availability of hunting to the local community. It could also bring hunters from other areas to the local community who would likely purchase gas, food, lodging, and other supplies from local merchants. However, the refuge anticipates that the biggest draw to the refuge from expanded hunting opportunities would be the javelina hunt, which the refuge estimates would attract at maximum an additional 25 hunters annually. Therefore, the Proposed Action alternative would have a more positive socioeconomic impact on the local community than the No Action alternative, but overall effects would be small. Alternative C Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. The approximately five additional hunt visits from opening mule deer hunting in upland areas are unlikely to increase impacts on the local economy. 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. Refuge headquarters are in Parker, AZ, 20 miles from the town center. The gender breakdown of the voting age population is 55.3 percent male, 44.7 percent female; 15 percent of the population is below poverty level. The primary racial makeup of Parker is 58.9 percent white, 5.4 percent Black or African-American, 20.2 percent Native American, 0.3 percent Asian, and

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 46

7.9 percent two or more races; 44.9 percent of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latino of any race (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Description of Environmental Trends or Planned Actions No foreseeable trends or planned actions are expected to impact environmental justice matters for the local population. Impacts on Affected Resource Alternative A The Service has not identified any potential high and adverse environmental or human health impacts from the No Action alternative. Minority or low-income communities have been identified within the impact area. However, they will not be disproportionately affected by any impact from this proposed action or the alternative because we do not charge fees and any environmental impact will not fall disproportionately on these communities. Alternative B The Service has not identified any adverse or beneficial effects under the Proposed Action alternative unique to minority or low-income populations in the affected area. No adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts would be disproportionately place on minority or low-income populations. Alternative C Impacts would be the same to those described in Alternative B.

Monitoring Due to staffing limitations, the refuge does not conduct formal surveys of desert bighorn or javelina. The refuge and AZGFD would hold annual coordination meetings to evaluate hunt success from the previous year and set hunt permit-tag numbers., This process has successfully maintained sustainable big game populations in the surrounding GMUs where hunting occurs. Dove and quail would continue to be monitored with the help of volunteers during the once- annual Christmas Bird Count. Due to staffing limitations, no formal surveys of rabbit, coyote, or fox would occur on the refuge. Monitoring of local fish populations is conducted by USFWS, FWCO, and AZGFD. The refuge monitors and supports monitoring for western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, Yuma Ridgway’s rail, and northern Mexican garter snake. USFWS and FWCO monitor bonytail chub and razorback sucker.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 47

Summary of Analysis Alternative A – Current Management [No Action Alternative] Bill Williams River NWR would continue to allow hunting of mourning and white-winged dove, Gambel’s quail, and cottontail rabbit in the South Unit only and desert bighorn sheep in the North and South Units. The refuge would continue to offer fishing opportunities in full alignment with state regulations. Hunter and angler-related human activity would disturb wildlife, results in mortality of game species, may disturb special status species, and lowers water quality on the Bill Williams River. Some minor adverse impacts would occur to visitor use due to conflicts between hunters and anglers and other user groups. The local economies benefit from spending by visitor engaged in hunting, and to a much greater degree by visitors engaged in fishing. This alternative does not meet the purpose and needs of the Service because it would not provide the public with additional hunting opportunities as mandated under that NWRSAA and Secretarial Order 3356. Alternative B – Expansion of Dove, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting Opportunities [Proposed Action Alternative] Impacts from the fishing program would remain the same. Hunting visits may increase from an estimated 14 visits to 30. Disturbance and hunted game species mortality may increase from increased hunter -related activity. Limiting hunts to upland habitat, away from the riparian zone where federal trust species tend to reside, and predominantly from September to February when environmental conditions are least stressful for wildlife and many breeding species of migratory birds are not present, reduces disturbance to wildlife. To minimize the effects of hunting-related human activities on threatened and endangered species present on the refuge, the refuge is proposing to allow hunting only during fall and winter months, when the presence of surface water is somewhat limited and threatened and endangered species are not utilizing riparian vegetation. Because implementation of the Hunt and Fishing Plan over a long duration, even with these mitigation measures, may affect threatened and endangered species, Intra-Service section 7 consultation was drafted and found that the implementation of the new hunting and fishing plan may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, refuge threatened and endangered species. Some conflicts between hunters and other user groups may increase. The refuge would continue to mitigate those conflicts by releasing informational announcements pertaining to hunting opportunities several weeks in advance, via posts on social media and on the refuge website. Refuge staff and volunteers at the visitor center will continue to be available to answer questions. Limitations on open areas, legal weapons, and hunt times would further reduce conflicts between user groups.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 48

Although hunt administration costs may increase slightly, the additional responsibilities could be absorbed by current refuge staff such that the impacts are minimal. 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 has determined that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of the Bill Williams River NWR and the mission of the NWRS. Alternative C – Expansion of Hunting Opportunities, Including Mule Deer Alternative C would be similar to the Proposed Action Alternative but would also open the refuge to mule deer hunting. The short duration season of the species and no discernible presence on the refuge make it highly unlikely that hunting visits on the refuge would dramatically increase from described in the Proposed Action Alternative. An additional hunt would increase administrative costs and increase demands on law enforcement which would divert resources from biological priorities and public safety. The opening of a hunt with an estimated annual harvest of zero would become a guest dissatisfier and potentially harm the Service’s relationship with the community. This alternative may not meet the purpose and needs of the Service because it would increase refuge costs, reduce the quality of the visitor experience for nonconsumptive users, and provide no real benefit or opportunity to hunters. It would more likely reduce the chances hunters would have a successful hunting season in another area where the conditions are better and likely to provide an enjoyable and quality hunting experience.

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted Bill Williams River NWR reviewed the hunting and fish operations and regulations for neighboring state wildlife management areas to find consistency where possible. The following individuals were consulted during the drafting of the Hunt and Fishing Plan and this EA: Brenda Zaun, Lower Colorado River Zone Biologist: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chase Ehlo, Project Leader: Parker Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Clay Crowder, Habitat, Evaluation, and Lands Branch Chief: Arizona Game and Fish Department David Kuhn, Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist: Arizona Game and Fish Department John C. Bourne, Wildlife Biologist: Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Joseph Saccomanno, Wildlife Refuge Specialist: Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge Mike Sumner, Region IV Supervisor: Arizona Game and Fish Department Nichole Engelmann, Biologist: Phoenix Ecological Services Field Office Richard Meyers, Refuge Manager: Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Tracy C. Bazelman, Project Evaluation Specialist: Arizona Game and Fish Department

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 49

List of Preparers E. Seavey, Wildlife Biologist: Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge Jeff Howland, Project Leader: Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge Complex

State Coordination AZGFD is a cooperating agency in the development of this EA. The refuge contacted the AZGFD regional office informally in March 2019, to discuss the current hunt and fish program and recommendations for the future. Refuge staff met with local AZGFD representatives in August 2019 and again in October 2020 to discuss the current hunting program and recommendations for the future. On April 9, 2019, the Service asked for review by the state regional office to help adjust the 2021 Hunting and Fishing Plan to align, where appropriate, with state management goals. Refuge staff subsequently utilized comments and suggestions in the development of the 2021 Hunt and Fishing Plan and this EA. Some hunt program changes may be delayed a year for changes to be made to state regulations.

Tribal Consultation The refuge supervisor for Arizona sent a letter advising the leadership of the tribes listed below of the proposed action and inviting comment on the Hunting and Fishing Plan and this EA. The Service will send these documents directly to the tribes upon release for public comment. The following tribes will be consulted: Colorado River Indian Tribes, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Hopi Tribe of Arizona, Hualapai Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Yavapai- Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe.

Public Outreach 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. Draft documents are available on the refuge website, or you can contact the refuge at 928-667-4144 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 Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge at 60911 Highway 95, Parker, AZ 85344. In the subject line, please add—Bill Williams River hunting/fishing comments.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 50

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

☐ 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 Bill Williams River NWR 51

References Arizona Commerce Authority. 2020. Population Projections: Mohave County. Web. Accessed 13 July 2020. https://www.azcommerce.com/oeo/population/population-projections/. Arizona Department of Agriculture. 2020, April 10. Rabbit Disease Confirmed in Arizona [Press Release]. Retrieved July 2020. https://agriculture.az.gov/news/press-release-rabbit- hemorrhagic-disease-arizona. Arizona Department of Health Services. 2020. “Confirmed COVID-19 Cases by Day”. Arizona Department of Health Services. Retrieved 4 November 2020. https://www.azdhs.gov/preparedness/epidemiology-disease-control/infectious-disease- epidemiology/covid-19/dashboards/index.php/. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2017. Hunt Arizona 2017 Edition: Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Information and Education Division, Information Branch, Publication Section. Phoenix, AZ. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2017a. “Gambel’s quail call counts encouraging: Spring survey results point to better 2017-18 season”. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 27 June 2017. AZGFD News. Web. Retrieved 18 July 2017. https://www.azgfd.com/gambels-quail-call-counts-encouraging/ Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2017b. Hunt Arizona 2017 Edition: Survey, Harvest and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Information and Education Division, Information Branch, Publication Section. Phoenix, AZ. Caudill, J. and E. Carver. 2019. Banking on Nature 2017: The Economic Contributions of National Wildlife Refuge Recreational Visitation to Local Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Falls Church, Virginia. Chapman, J. A., G Ceballos. 1990. The cottontails. Rabbits, hares, and pikas. Status survey and conservation action plan (JA Chapman and FEC Flux, eds.). International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland, 95-110. Conroy MJ, Henry RS, Harris G. 2014. Estimation of regional sheep abundance based on group sizes: aerial surveys of bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(5): 904–913. Conway, C.J., C. P. Nadeau, and L. Piest. 2010. Fire helps restore natural disturbance regime to benefit rate and endangered marsh birds endemic to the Colorado River. Ecological Applications 20(7): 2024-35. Engel-Wilson, R.W., and W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr. 2002. Arizona Quail: Species In Jeopardy? Pages 1–7 in S.J. DeMaso, W.P. Kuvlesky, Jr., F. Herna´ndez, and M. E. Berger, eds. Quail V: Proceedings of the Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 52

Garces, F. 1965. A Record of Travels in Arizona and California, 1775-1776. J. Galvin (ed.) John Howell Books, San Francisco, CA. 150 pp. Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tuberwille, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The Global Decline of Reptiles Déjà vu Amphibians. Bioscience 50(8): 653-666. Greger, P.D. and E.M. Romney. 1999. High Foal Mortality Limits Growth of a Desert Feral Horse Population in Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 59(4) 374-379. Henke, S.E. 1995. Effects of Coyote Control on their Prey: A Review. Symposium Proceedings – Coyotes in the Southwest: A Compendium of Our Knowledge. 27. Hunt W.G., R.T. Watson, J.L. Oaks, C.N. Parish, K.K. Burnham, R.L. Tucker, Belthoff, and G. Hart. 2009. Lead Bullet Fragments in Venison from Rifle-Killed Deer: Potential for Human Dietary Exposure. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.000533. Kelly, T.R., P.H. Bloom, S.G. Torres, Y.Z. Hernandez, R.H. Poppenga, W.M. Boyce, 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. Kramer, J.L., P.T. Redig. 1997. Sixteen years of lead poisoning in eagles, 1980-95: An epizootiological view. Journal of Raptor Research. 31(4): 327-332. Lundgren, E.J. 2017. Understanding Introduced Megafauna in the Anthropocene: Wild Burros as Ecosystem Engineers in the Sonoran Desert. Master’s Thesis. Arizona State University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing Marshal, J.P., P.R. Krausman, V.C. Bleich, W.B. Ballard, and J.S. McKeever. 2002. Rainfall, El Nino, and Dynamics of Mule Deer in the Sonoran Desert, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4): 1283-1289. Martin, R. and D.R. Butler. 2017. A Framework for Understanding Off-trail Trampling Impacts in Mountain Environments. The George Wright Forum 34(3): 354-367. Misuraca, M. 1999. "Odocoileus hemionus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 08, 2020 at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Odocoileus_hemionus/ Monson G. 1980. Distribution and abundance. In: Monson G, Sumner L, editors. The Desert Bighorn. 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 North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2019. The State of the Birds. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 53

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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. Saha, A., L. McRae, K.C. Dodd, J. Gadsden, K.M. Hare, V. Lukoschek, and M. Bohm. 2018. Tracking Global Population Trends: Population Time-Series Data and a Living Planet Index for Reptiles. Journal of Herpetology 52(3): 259-268. Salo, P., P.B. Banks, C.R. Dickman, and E. Korpimaki. 2010. Predator manipulation experiments: impacts on populations of terrestrial vertebrate prey. Ecological Monographs 80(4): 531-546. Scasta, J.D., J.D. Hennig, J.L. Beck. 2018. Framing contemporary U.S. wild horse and burro management processes in a dynamic ecological, sociological, and political environment. Human-Wildlife Interactions 12(1): 31-45. Smith, P.W. 1987. The Eurasian collared-dove arrives in the Americas. American Birds 41:1370- 1379. Smith, R. and A. Lecount. 1979. Some Factors Affecting Survival of Desert Mule Deer Fawns. The Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3): 657-665. Sowls, L.K. 1957. Reproduction in the Audubon cottontail in Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 38(2), 234-243. Stauber, E., N. Finch, P.A. Talcott, and J.M. Gay. 2010. Lead poisoning of bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden (Aquila chrysaetos) eagles in the US inland Pacific Northwest- An 18-year retrospective study: 1991-2008. Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 24:279-287. Streater, S. 2009. Wild meat raises lead exposure. Environmental Health News. Available: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat- lead-ammunition-ban/ (March 2017). Thiel, J.H. and A.M. Wright. 2018. Cultural Resources Overview and Assessment of the Bill Williams River, Cibola, Havasu, and Imperial National Wildlife Refuges Location along the Lower Colorado River, Technical Report No. 2017-04. Desert Archaeology, Inc., Tucson, Arizona. University of Arizona. 2016. “Arizona Per Capita Personal Income”. University of Arizona. Retrieved 4 November 2020. https://www.azeconomy.org/arizona-per-capita-personal- income/.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 54

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. Alamo Dam Flushing Flow Release Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Alamo Dam Flushing Flow Release, La Paz and Mohave County Arizona. https://www.cap- az.com/documents/departments/water-operations/alamo-dam-release/Alamo-Dam- EA-and-FONSI-with-Appendices.pdf U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020. “Arizona Economy at a Glance”. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved 4 November 2020. https://bls.gov/eag/eag.az.htm/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. “American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved 4 November 2020. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, Arizona. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. General Species Information. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. . Accessed 16 Feb 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Biological Assessment of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Statewide and Urban Fisheries Stocking Program. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/federal_assistance/PDFs/Titletableofcontents.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Bonytail (Gila elegans) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018. Species status assessment report for the razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region (6), Denver, Colorado. Whitecotton, R.C.A., M.B. David, R.G. Darmody, D.L. Price. 2000. Impacto of Foot Traffic from Military Training on Soil and Vegetation Properties. Environmental Management 26(6): 697-706. Wimpey, J. and J.L. Marion. 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Falls Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management 92(3): 1012-1022.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 55

Appendix A OTHER APPLICABLE STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS & 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 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470x-6; 36 CFR Parts 60, 63, 78, 79, 800, 801, and 810 Paleontological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-470aaa-11 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 43 CFR Part 10 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, 36 Fed. Reg. 8921 (1971) Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996) The proposed action includes no ground-disturbing activities, or other activities that might disturb 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, 450 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 Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, 66 Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001) Not likely to adversely impact listed threatened and endangered species (See ESA Section 7 Consultation). The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 13186 because the Environmental Assessment for Hunting on Bill Williams River NWR evaluates the effects of agency actions on migratory birds.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 56

Natural Resources Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q; 40 CFR Parts 23, 50, 51, 52, 58, 60, 61, 82, and 93; 48 CFR Part 23 Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq. Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species, 64 Fed. Reg. 6183 (1999) The proposed action would have negligible effects on air quality. Water Resources Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; 15 CFR Parts 923, 930, 933 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 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (1977) Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1977) The refuge does not lie in a coastal zone. There would be minor impacts of the proposed action on water quality or water resources. The refuge contains no drinking water sources and does not supply drinking water to any community. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because implementation of the Hunt and Fishing Plan would protect existing wetlands. The proposed action is consistent with Executive Order 11988, because implementation of the Hunt and Fishing Plan would not result in the modification or destruction of floodplains.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 57

Appendix B: Figures

Figure 1.—Bill Williams River NWR boundary, management units, no hunting/shooting zones, and State GMUs

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 58

Figure 2.—Critical habitat for federal trust species documented on Bill Williams River NWR.

Please note: Critical habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo and northern Mexican garter snake is proposed, not yet designated. Critical habitat has not been designated for the Yuma Ridgeway's rail. Rails are generally found in the 450-acre delta marsh on the west end of the refuge.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 59

Appendix C: Tables

TABLE 1.—Refuge hunting regulations by species, method of take, season, and unit. Species Method of Take Season Open Units Mourning Shotgun shooting Aligns with State regulations for North and and white- federally approved early and late seasons. Usually South Units winged dove nontoxic shot, and two weeks in early September archery and late November to early January (59 hunt days) Eurasian Shotgun shooting Aligns with State mourning and North and collared-dove federally approved white-winged dove season (see South Units nontoxic shot, and above) (59 hunt days) archery Gambel’s Shotgun shooting Aligns with State season usually North and quail federally approved between October and February South Units nontoxic shot, and (121 hunt days) archery Cottontail Shotgun shooting September through February North and rabbit federally approved beginning same time as dove South Units nontoxic shot, archery, season and ending same time as and muzzle loading quail season (see above) (159 shotgun hunt days) Coyote Shotgun shooting September through February North Unit federally approved beginning same time as dove nontoxic shot, and season and ending same time as archery quail season (see above) (159 hunt days) Kit fox, and Shotgun shooting September through February North Unit gray fox federally approved beginning same time as dove nontoxic shot, and season and ending same time as archery quail season (see above) (159 hunt days) Javelina Shotgun shooting Aligns with State general javelina North and federally approved season, typically the last full South Units nontoxic slug, and archery week of February (7 hunt days) Desert Rifle, muzzleloader, and Aligns with State general season North and bighorn archery usually in December (31 hunt South Units sheep days)

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 60

Table 2.—Summary of fish captured in trammel netting efforts within and adjacent to the Bill Williams River NWR. Species 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2016 2016 2020 2020 Count CPUE Count CPUE Count CPUE Count CPUE Count CPUE Count CPUE Black crappie* 40 0.83 71 1.11 28 0.37 36 0.71 18 0.40 2 0.13 Bluegill* 18 0.38 20 0.31 108 1.42 21 0.41 7 0.16 9 0.60 BonytailES - - 67 1.05 14 0.18 6 0.12 - - - - Channel catfish* 29 0.60 10 0.16 19 0.25 33 0.65 39 0.87 9 0.60 Common carp 87 1.81 41 0.64 58 0.76 50 0.98 50 1.11 7 0.47 Flathead catfish* 25 0.52 5 0.08 26 0.34 24 0.47 20 0.44 16 1.07 Gizzard shad - 25 0.39 23 0.30 101 1.98 245 5.44 106 7.07 Goldfish 1 0.02 2 0.03 1 0.01 ------Green sunfish - - - - 7 0.09 3 0.06 - - - - Largemouth bass* 65 1.35 29 0.45 202 2.66 114 2.24 72 1.60 41 2.73 Razorback suckerES 10 0.21 ------Redear sunfish* 35 0.73 12 0.19 179 2.36 47 0.92 34 0.76 22 1.47 Smallmouth bass* 27 0.56 4 0.06 63 0.83 19 0.37 3 0.07 3 0.20 Striped bass* 107 2.23 66 1.03 26 0.34 63 1.24 47 1.04 10 0.67 Threadfin shad - - - - 1 0.01 ------Tilapia - - - - 3 0.04 3 0.06 22 0.49 7 0.47 Yellow bullhead 2 0.04 - - 7 0.09 2 0.04 1 0.02 4 0.27 Survey Period Totals 446 9.29 352 5.50 767 10.09 522 10.24 558 12.40 236 15.73 Note: CPUE here refers to Catch Per Unit Effort or fish capture per net night. * = Denotes sportfish. ES = Denotes endangered species.

Environmental Assessment for Hunting and Fishing at Bill Williams River NWR 0