Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

              Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Wilderness Stewardship Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
January 2005
Prepared by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 2, Division of Planning
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals,
objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and Wildlife
Service’s best estimate o f future needs. These plans detail planning program levels that are sometimes
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning
and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases,
operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action……………………………………………………………1
1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1.1 Goals of Refuge Planning……………………………………………………………….1
1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan Actions……………………………………………………………...2
1.3 National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, Goals and Guiding Principles……………………3
1.4 Ecosystem Approach to Conservation and Gila/Salt/Verde Ecosystem……………………...4
1.5 History of Refuge Establishment, Acquisition and Management…………………………….6
1.5.1 The Game Range………………………………………………………………………...6
1.5.2 Military Lands Withdrawal……………………………………………………………..6
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act…………………………………………9
1.5.4 From Game Range to National Wildlife Refuge………………………………��……9
1.5.5 Grazing History ………………………………………………………………………...10
1.5.6 Trespass Livestock History………………………………��………………………....11
1.5.7 Mining History………………………………………………………………………….12
1.5.8 The Endangered Species Act and Sonoran Pronghorn……………………………..13
1.5.9 Wilderness Designation………………………………………………………………..13
1.6 Legal and Policy Guidance………………………………………………………………………17
1.6.1 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997………………..17
1.6.2 Wilderness Act of 1964…………………………………………………………………18
1.6.3 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990……………………………………………....19
1.6.4 Endangered Species Act of 1973………………………………………………………19
1.6.5 The Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979……………………………��....20
1.6.6 Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986………………………………………………20
1.6.7 Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1999………………………………………………..23
1.6.8 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and Amendments of 1994……...23
1.6.9 Executive Order 13007…………………………………………………………………24
1.6.10 Other Guidance…………………………………………………………………………24
1.6.10.1 Fulfilling the Promise………………………………………………………...24
1.6.10.2 Policy Manual and Plans……………………………………………………..24
1.6.10.3 USFWS Native American Policy……………………………………………24
1.6.10.4 Interagency Wilderness Strategic Plan…………………………………….24
1.6.10.5 Wilderness Stewardship Training…………………………………………..25
1.7 Refuge Purposes…………���……………………………………………………………………25
1.8 Refuge Vision Statement………………………………………………………………………..26
1.8.1 At Cabeza Prieta NWR, Wildlife Conservation Comes First………………………26
1.8.2 Proactive Management is Important to the Recovery and Conservation
of Endangered Species………………………………………………………………....26
1.8.3 Refuge Wilderness Resources are Protected for Posterity………………………....26
1.8.4 The Beauty and Solitude of the Refuge will Continue to be Enjoyed by
Visitors…………………………………………………………………………………..27
1.8.5 The Refuge Embraces Cooperative Working Relationships with Partners…��….27
1.9 Refuge Management Direction: Goals and Guiding Principles………………………………28
1.9.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management………………………………………………���…28
1.9.2 Wilderness Stewardship……………………………………………………………….28
1.9.3 Visitor Services Management…………………………………………………………28
1.9.4 Cultural Resources Management……………………………………………………..29
1.10 Step-down Plans………………………………………………………………………………….29
1.11 Description of the Planning Process……………………………………………………………30
ii
1.11.1 Notice of Intent of EIS and CCP……………………………………………………...30
1.11.2 Refining Issues through Public and Agency Scoping………………………….…….30
1.11.3 Gathering Information, Assessing Resource Relationships, Analyzing
Environmental Effects and Rewriting the Draft Plan………………………………30
1.11.4 Guidance Used for Preparation of a Draft CCP/EIS………………………………..31
1.12 Planning Issues…………………………………………………………………………………..32
1.12.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………………32
1.12.2 Managing Healthy Ecosystems……………………………………………………….32
1.12.3 Endangered Species Management……………………………………………………33
1.12.4 Desert Bighorn Sheep Management………………………………………………….33
1.12.5 Predator Management…………………………………………………………………34
1.12.6 Wilderness Stewardship…………………….…………………………………………34
1.12.7 Wildlife Dependent Visitor Services………………………………………���…….…35
1.12.7.1 Recreation in Wilderness…………………………………………………….35
1.12.7.2 Permitting and Access…………………………………………………….….36
1.12.7.3 Motorized Access and Vehicle Restrictions in Non-Wilderness…………..36
1.12.7.4 Hunting………………………………………………………………………...36
1.12.7.5 Environmental Education and Interpretation……………………………...37
1.12.7.6 Other Public Uses: Backpacking, Camping, Horseback Riding,
Rock Climbing………………………………………………………………...37
1.12.8 Cultural Resource Management………………………………………………………37
1.12.9 Border Law Enforcement……………………………………………………………...38
1.12.10 Military Use……………………………………………………………………………..38
1.13 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis……………………………………………………..39
1.13.1 Issues Completed Under Separate EAs……………………………………………...39
1.13.1.1 Air Force Radar Station at Childs Mountain………………………………39
1.13.1.2 FAA Surveillance Radar on Childs Mountain……………………………...39
1.13.1.3 Watchable Wildlife Site on Childs Mountain……………………………….39
1.13.2 Issues Covered by Existing Policy, Law, or Regulations and Common
to All Alternatives………………………………………………………………………40
1.13.2.1 Border Law Enforcement Activities………………………………………...40
1.13.2.2 Fire Management……………………………………………………………..41
1.13.2.3 Trespass Livestock…………………………………………………………....41
1.13.2.4 Pets………………………………………………………………………….....41
1.13.2.5 Firearms……………………………………………………………………….41
1.13.2.6 Commercial Uses…………………………………………………………..…41
1.13.2.7 Congressional Intent of Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990…………42
1.13.3 Issue to be Determined Pending Adoption of Wilderness Policy: Wheeled
Game Carriers…………………………………………………………………………..42
1.13.4 Issues Beyond the Scope of this Plan…………………………………………………42
1.13.4.1 Remove Wilderness Designation…………………………………………….42
1.13.4.2 Turn the Refuge Over to the State…………………………………………..42
1.13.4.3 Sonoran Desert National Park Proposal……………………………………43
1.13.4.4 Additional Acquisitions……………………………………………………….43
1.14 Existing Partnerships, Coordination and Cooperation…………………��………………….44
1.14.1 Interagency Cooperation………………………………………………………………44
1.14.1.1 Arizona Game and Fish Department……………………………���………..44
1.14.1.2 Barry M. Goldwater Executive Committee and Interagency
Executive Committee………………………………………………………....44
1.14.1.3 Southwest Strategy………………………………………………………...…45
1.14.1.4 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument…………………………………….45
1.14.1.5 Border Law Enforcement……………………………………………………46
1.14.1.6 Bureau of Land Management………………………………………………..46
iii
1.14.1.7 Tohono O’odham Nation……………………………………………………...46
1.14.1.8 Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team………………………………..46
1.15 Non-Government Cooperation…………………………��…………………………………….48
1.15.1 International Sonoran Desert Alliance……………………………………………….48
1.15.2 Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association………………………………………….48
2.0 Management Alternatives………………………………………………………………………………...49
2.1 Elements Common to All Alternatives…………………………………………………………49
2.1.1 Federal Endangered and Threatened Species……………………………………….49
2.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn…………………………………………………………...49
2.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring………………………………………………50
2.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………………………………………….…..50
2.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation……………………………….…..52
2.1.1.1.4 Area Closures………………………………………………��……..55
2.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage Enhancements……………...55
2.1.1.1.6 Fencing………………………………………………………………56
2.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation………………………………………56
2.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Monitoring...……………………………..57
2.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys….……………………………………………...59
2.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium…..………………………………………………...57
2.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep Population Monitoring……………………………………….57
2.1.3 Wilderness Stewardship……………………………………………………………….58
2.1.3.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis…………………………………………...58
2.1.3.2 Border Law Enforcement……………………………………………………59
2.1.3.3 Wilderness Impact Monitoring…………………………………��…………60
2.1.4 Cultural Resources Management……………………………………………………..60
2.1.5 Research………………………………………………………………………���……...61
2.1.5.1 Biological Research…………………………………………………….……..61
2.1.5.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn…………………………………………………61
2.1.5.1.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep……………………………………………....61
2.1.5.1.2 Other Species………………………………………………………..61
2.1.5.1.3 Ecological Integrity…………………………………………………62
2.1.5.1.4 Exotic and Invasive Species………………………………………..62
2.1.5.2 Wilderness…………..…………………………………………………………62
2.1.5.3 Visitor Services………………...……………………………………………...62
2.1.5.4 Cultural Resources………���……………..……………………………...…...62
2.2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative (Current Management)………………………………..63
2.2.1 Goal: Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………..63
2.2.1.1 Endangered and Threatened Species……………………………………….63
2.2.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn………..………………………………………...63
2.2.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring…………………………...63
2.2.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………..……….………...63
2.2.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation………………...63
2.2.1.1.1.4 Area Closures………………..………….………..63
2.2.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage
Enhancements………………………………...63
2.2.1.1.1.6 Fencing…………………………………………....63
2.2.1.1.1.7 Predator Management……………………...……64
2.2.1.1.1.8 Habitat Restoration Research………��………..64
2.2.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation…..…………………………64
2.2.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Surveys..………………………..64
2.2.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys..……………………………………...64
2.2.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium….…………..…………………………...64
2.2.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep………………………………………………………..64
iv
2.2.1.2.1 Developed Waters…………………………………………………...64
2.2.1.2.2 Forage Enhancements……………………………………………...67
2.2.1.2.3 Population Goal……………………………………………………...67
2.2.1.2.4 Predator Management……………………………………………...67
2.2.1.3 Desert Ecosystem Health……………………………………………………67
2.2.1.3.1 Migratory Birds……………………………………………………..67
2.2.1.3.2 Reptiles and Amphibians…………………………………………...67
2.2.1.3.3 Raptors and Ravens…………………………………………………67
2.2.1.3.4 Game Animals……………………………………��……………….67
2.2.1.3.5 Long-term Monitoring………………………………..…………….68
2.2.1.3.6 Exotic/Invasive Species……………………………………………..68
2.2.2 Goal: Wilderness Stewardship………………………………………………………...68
2.2.2.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis………………………………………...…68
2.2.2.2 Abandoned VehiclesRemoval.………………………………………………..69
2.2.2.3 Military Debris Removal ……………………………………………………..69
2.2.2.4 Administrative Trails…………………………………………………………69
2.2.2.5 Wilderness Impact Monitoring………………………………………………69
2.2.2.6 Border Law Enforcement…………………………………………...……….69
2.2.2.7 Licensing Uses of the Childs Mountain Communications Site……………70
2.2.3 Goal: Visitor Services Management…………………��……………………………..70
2.2.3.1 Managing Visitor Access….………………………………………………….70
2.2.3.2 Administering Hunt Program…………...…………………………………...73
2.2.3.2.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep……..………………………………………..73
2.2.3.2.2 Mule Deer……………………………………………………………73
2.2.3.2.3 Small Game…………………………………………………………..73
2.2.3.2.4 Predators…………………………………………………………….73
2.2.3.3 Implementation of Leave-No-Trace Program…………...…………………73
2.2.3.4 Provision of Environmental Education…...……...………………………….73
2.2.3.5 Interpretation of Environmental Resources…..……………………...…….74
2.2.3.6 Managing Visitor Camping…………………………………………………..74
2.2.3.7 Pack and Saddle Stock Restrictions..…………���…………………………..74
2.2.4 Goal: Cultural Resources Management………………………………………………75
2.2.4.1 General Provisions…………………………………………………...……….75
2.2.4.2 On-site Interpretation………………………………………………………...75
2.2.4.3 Site Stabilization/Patrols……………………………………………………..75
2.2.4.4 Inventory………………………………………………………………………75
2.2.4.5 Training………………………………………………………………………..75
2.2.5 Staffing……………….………………………………………………………………….75
2.3 Alternative 2: Minimum Intervention…………………………………………………………..76
2.3.1 Goal: Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………..76
2.3.1.1 Endangered and Threatened Species……………��……………………….76
2.3.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn………………………….…………….………...76
2.3.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring…………………………...76
2.3.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………..……….………...76
2.3.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation………………...76
2.3.1.1.1.4 Area Closures………………..………….………..77
2.3.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage
Enhancements………………………………...77
2.3.1.1.1.6 Fencing…………………………………………....77
2.3.1.1.1.7 Predator Management……………………...……77
2.3.1.1.1.8 Habitat Restoration Research…………………..77
2.3.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation…..……………………��…77
2.3.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Surveys..………………………..77
v
2.3.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys...……………………………………...77
2.3.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium…..…………..…………………………...77
2.3.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep Conservation.…………………...…………………..77
2.3.1.2.1 Developed Waters…………………………………………………...78
2.3.1.2.2 Forage Enhancements……………………………………………...78
2.3.1.2.3 Population Goal……………………………………………………...78
2.3.1.2.4 Predator Management………….…………………………………..78
2.3.1.3 Desert Ecosystem Integrity Monitoring……………………………………79
2.3.1.3.1 Migratory Birds ……………………………………………………..79
2.3.1.3.2 Reptiles and Amphibians…………………………………………...79
2.3.1.3.3 Raptors and Ravens…���……………………………………………79
2.3.1.3.4 Game Animals………………………………………………………..79
2.3.1.3.5 Long-term Monitoring……………………….……………………..79
2.3.1.3.6 Exotic/Invasive Species……………………………………………..79
2.3.2 Goal: Wilderness Stewardship………………………………………………………...79
2.3.2.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis…………………………………………...79
2.3.2.2 Abandoned Vehicles Removal………………………………………………..79
2.3.2.3 Military Debris Removal…………………………………………………..…80
2.3.2.4 Administrative Trails …………………………………………………...........80
2.3.2.5 Wilderness Impact Monitoring ………………………………………...……80
2.3.2.6 Border Law Enforcement …………………...……………………………....83
2.3.2.7 Licensing Uses of the Childs Mountain Communications Site…………....83
2.3.3 Goal: Visitor Services Management………………………………………………..…83
2.3.3.1 Managing Visitor Access …….………………………………...………….…83
2.3.3.2 Administering Hunt Program…………...…………………………………...84
2.3.3.2.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep……..………………………………………..84
2.3.3.2.2 Mule Deer……………………………………………………………84
2.3.3.2.3 Small Game…………………………………………………………..84
2.3.3.2.4 Predators…………………………………………………………….84
2.3.3.3 Implementation of Leave-No-Trace Program…………………………...…84
2.3.3.4 Provision of Environmental Education…...……...………………………….84
2.3.3.5 Interpretation of Environmental Resources…..……………………...…….84
2.3.3.6 Managing Visitor Camping…………………………………………………..85
2.3.3.7 Pack and Saddle Stock Restrictions..………………………………………..85
2.3.4 Goal: Cultural Resources Management……………………��………………………85
2.3.4.1 General Provisions…………………………………………………...……….85
2.3.4.2 On-site Interpretation……………………………………………………...…85
2.3.4.3 Site Stabilization/Patrols……………………………………………………..85
2.3.4.4 Inventory………………………………………………………………………86
2.3.4.5 Training………………………………………………………………………..86
2.3.5 Staffing…………………………………………………………………………………..86
2.4 Alternative 3: Restrained Intervention………………………………………………..……….87
2.4.1 Goal: Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………..87
2.4.1.1 Endangered and Threatened Species………………………………………87
2.4.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn…………………….………………��……...…87
2.4.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring…………………………...87
2.4.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………..……….………...87
2.4.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation………………...88
2.4.1.1.1.4 Area Closures………………..………….………..88
2.4.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage
Enhancements………………………………...88
2.4.1.1.1.6 Fencing…………………………………………....88
2.4.1.1.1.7 Predator Management……………………...……88
vi
2.4.1.1.1.8 Habitat Restoration Research…………………..89
2.4.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation…..…………………………89
2.4.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Monitoring……………….……..89
2.4.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys...……………………………………...89
2.4.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium…..…………..…………………………...89
2.4.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep…………………………………��…………………..89
2.4.1.2.1 Developed Waters…………………………………………………..89
2.4.1.2.2 Forage Enhancements……………………………………………...90
2.4.1.2.3 Population Goal……………………………………………………...90
2.4.1.2.4 Predator Management..…………………………………………….90
2.4.1.3 Desert Ecosystem Integrity Monitoring…………………………………....91
2.4.1.3.1 Migratory Birds………………………………………………….….91
2.4.1.3.2 Reptiles and Amphibians………………………………………...…91
2.4.1.3.3 Raptors and Ravens………………………………………………...91
2.4.1.3.4 Game Animals……………………………………………………….91
2.4.1.3.5 Long-term Monitoring……………………………………..……….91
2.4.1.3.6 Exotic/Invasive Species…………………………………………….91
2.4.2 Goal: Wilderness Stewardship………………………………………………………...92
2.4.2.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis…………………………………………...92
2.4.2.2 Abandoned Vehicles Removal………………………………………………..92
2.4.2.3 Military Debris Removal ……………………………………………….….....92
2.4.2.4 Administrative Trails…………………………………………………………93
2.4.2.5 Wilderness Impact Monitoring………………………………………………93
2.4.2.6 Border Law Enforcement………………………………………………........93
2.4.2.7 Licensing Uses of the Childs Mountain Communications Site………..…..94
2.4.3 Goal: Visitor Services Management………………………………………………......94
2.4.3.1 Managing Visitor Access …………………………………………………….94
2.4.3.2 Administering Hunt Program………………..……………………………...94
2.4.3.2.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep………………………………………………94
2.4.3.2.2 Mule Deer……………………………………………………………97
2.4.3.2.3 Small Game…………………………………………………………..97
2.4.3.2.4 Predators…………………………………...………………………..97
2.4.3.3 Implementation of Leave-No-Trace Program……………………...……....97
2.4.3.4 Provision of Environmental Education……………………...………………97
2.4.3.5 Interpretation of Environmental Resources…..…………………………....97
2.4.3.6 Managing Visitor Camping…………...…………………..………………….98
2.4.3.7 Pack and Saddle Stock Restrictions…………………………………………98
2.4.4 Goal: Cultural Resources Management………………………………………………98
2.4.4.1 General Provisions…………………………………………��……...……….98
2.4.4.2 On-site Interpretation………………………………………………………...98
2.4.4.3 Site Stabilization/Patrols……………………………………………………..98
2.4.4.4 Inventory………………………………………………………………………99
2.4.4.5 Training………………………………………………………………………..99
2.4.5 Staffing……………….………………………………………………………………….99
2.5 Alternative 4 (Proposed Alternative): Active Management…………………………………101
2.5.1 Goal: Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………101
2.5.1.1 Endangered and Threatened Species……………………………………...101
2.5.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn…………………….…………………………..101
2.5.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring………………………….101
2.5.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………..…...….………..101
2.5.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation……………….102
2.5.1.1.1.4 Area Closures………………..………………….102
vii
2.5.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage
Enhancements……………………………….102
2.5.1.1.1.6 Fencing…………………………………………..102
2.5.1.1.1.7 Predator Management……………………...…..102
2.5.1.1.1.8 Habitat Restoration Research……………..…..102
2.5.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation…..……………….……….103
2.5.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Monitoring.……………………103
2.5.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys...………………………………….…103
2.5.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium..……………..………………………….103
2.5.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep……………...……………………………………….103
2.5.1.2.1 Developed Waters……………………………………………….....103
2.5.1.2.2 Forage Enhancement……………………………………………...104
2.5.1.2.3 Population Goal…………………………………………………….104
2.5.1.2.4 Predator Management…………………………………………….104
2.5.1.3 Desert Ecosystem Integrity Monitoring…………………………………..105
2.5.1.3.1 Migratory Birds…………………………………………………....105
2.5.1.3.2 Reptiles and Amphibians………………………………………….105
2.5.1.3.3 Raptors and Ravens……………………………………….………105
2.5.1.3.4 Game Animals………………………………………………………105
2.5.1.3.5 Long-term Monitoring…………………….……………��………105
2.5.1.3.6 Exotic/Invasive Species……………………………………………106
2.5.2 Goal: Wilderness Stewardship……………………………………………………….106
2.5.2.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis………………………………………….106
2.5.2.2 Abandoned Vehicle Removal…….……………………………………….…107
2.5.2.3 Military Debris Removal…………………………………………………....107
2.5.2.4 Administrative Trails ………………………………………………….........107
2.5.2.5 Wilderness Impact Monitoring ………………………………………...…..107
2.5.2.6 Border Law Enforcement …………………...……………………………..108
2.5.2.7 Licensing Uses of the Childs Mountain Communications Site………..…108
2.5.3 Goal: Visitor Services Management……………………………………………….....108
2.5.3.1 Managing Visitor Access ……….……………………………..……………108
2.5.3.2 Administering Hunt Program………………………………………………111
2.5.3.2.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep……………………………………………..111
2.5.3.2.2 Mule Deer……���…………………………………………………..111
2.5.3.2.3 Small Game Hunts………...……………………………………….111
2.4.3.2.4 Predator Hunts…………………………………………………….111
2.5.3.3 Implementing the Leave-No-Trace Program……………………………..112
2.5.3.4 Provision of Environmental Education……...……………………………..112
2.5.3.5 Interpretation of Environmental Resources.....………………………...…112
2.5.3.6 Managing Visitor Camping………….…………..………………………….113
2.5.3.7 Pack and Saddle Stock Restrictions..………………………………………113
2.5.4 Goal: Cultural Resources Management……………………………………………..113
2.5.4.1 General Provisions…………………………………………………………..114
2.5.4.2 Onsite Interpretation..………………………………………………………114
2.5.4.3 Site Stabilization/Patrols……………………………………………………114
2.5.4.4 Inventory……………………………………………………………………..114
2.5.4.5 Training………………………………………………………………...…….114
2.5.5 Staffing…………………………………………………………………………………114
2.6 Alternative 5: Maximum Effort………………………………………………………………..115
2.6.1 Goal: Wildlife and Habitat Management……………………………………………115
2.6.1.1 Endangered and Threatened Species……………………………………...115
2.6.1.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn………………………….……………���……..115
viii
2.6.1.1.1.1 Population Monitoring………………………….115
2.6.1.1.1.2 Developed Waters……………..……….……….115
2.6.1.1.1.3 Captive Breeding/Translocation……………….116
2.6.1.1.1.4 Area Closures��……………..………….………116
2.6.1.1.1.5 Supplemental Feeding and Forage
Enhancements……………………………….116
2.6.1.1.1.6 Fencing…………………………………………..116
2.6.1.1.1.7 Predator Management……………………...…..116
2.6.1.1.1.8 Habitat Restoration Research…………………116
2.6.1.1.2 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Conservation…………………………....116
2.6.1.1.3 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Monitoring...…………………..117
2.6.1.1.4 Pierson’s Milkvetch Surveys...…………………………………….117
2.6.1.1.5 Desert Pupfish Refugium..……………..………………………….117
2.6.1.2 Desert Bighorn Sheep………………………………………��…………....117
2.6.1.2.1 Developed Waters………………………………………………….117
2.6.1.2.2 Forage Enhancement……………………………………………...118
2.6.1.2.3 Population Goal…………………………………………………….118
2.6.1.2.4 Predator Management…………………………………………….118
2.6.1.3 Desert Ecosystem Integrity Monitoring..………………..………………..119
2.6.1.3.1 Migratory Birds.…………………………………………………...119
2.6.1.3.2 Raptors and Ravens ………………………………………………119
2.6.1.3.3 Reptiles and Amphibians………………………………….………119
2.6.1.3.4 Game Animals………………………………………………………119
2.6.1.3.5 Long-term Monitoring………………….…………………………119
2.6.1.3.6 Exotic/Invasive Species……………………………………………120
2.6.2 Goal: Wilderness Stewardship……………………………………………………….120
2.6.2.1 Minimum Requirements Analysis………………………………………….120
2.6.2.2 Abandoned Vehicles……………………………………………………���…120
2.6.2.3 Military Debris Removal…………………………...……………………….121
2.6.2.4 Administrative Trails………………………………………………………..121
2.6.2.5 Wilderness Impact Monitoring…………………………………………….121
2.6.2.6 Border Law Enforcement…………………………………………………..121
2.6.2.6 Licensing Uses of the Childs Mountain Communications Site…..………122
2.6.3 Goal: Visitor Services Management………………………………………………....122
2.6.3.1 Managing Visitor Access ……………………………………………...……122
2.6.3.2 Administering Hunt Program…………..………………………………��..123
2.6.3.2.1 Desert Bighorn Sheep……………………………………………..123
2.6.3.2.2 Mule Deer………………………………………………...………...123
2.6.3.2.3 Small Game……………………………………………��…………123
2.6.3.2.4 Predator Hunts………………………………………………….....123
2.6.3.3 Implementation of Leave-No-Trace Program………………………….....123
2.6.3.4 Provision of Environmental Education………………...…………………..124
2.6.3.5 Interpretation of Environmental Resources………………..……………..124
2.6.3.6 Managing Visitor Camping…………….....…………………………….…..125
2.6.3.7 Pack and Saddle Stock Restrictions..………………………………………125
2.6.4 Goal: Cultural Resources Management……………………………………………..125
2.6.4.1 General Provisions…………………………………………………………..125
2.6.4.2 Onsite Interpretation………………………………………………………..125
2.6.4.3 Site Stabilization/Patrols……………………………………………………125
2.6.4.4 Inventory…………………………………���…………...…………………...126
2.6.4.5 Training…………………………………………….…………………...……126
2.6.5 Staffing…………………………………………………………………………………126
ix
3.0 The Affected Environment…………………………………………………………………………...….133
3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting………………………………………………………………..133
3.2 Land Status……………………………………………………………………………………...137
3.3 The Physical Environment…………………………………………………………………….138
3.3.1 Climate………………………………………………………………..………………..138
3.3.2 Air Quality………………………………………………………………………….….141
3.3.3 Soils…………………………………………………��………………...……………..141
3.4 Water Resources………………………………………………………………………………..143
3.4.1 Natural Surface Waters……………………………………………………………....143
3.4.2 Developed Waters……………………………………………………………………..144
3.4.3 Ground Water……………………………………………………………………….....149
3.5 Refuge Habitat and Wildlife Resources………………………………………………………150
3.5.1 Biotic Community and Biodiversity…………………………………………………150
3.5.2 Plant Resources……………………...………���……………………………………..152
3.5.3 Mammals………………………………………………………………………………155
3.5.3.1 Federal Endangered Species……………………………………………….155
3.5.3.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn………………………………………………...155
3.5.3.1.1.1 Status and Trends………………………………156
3.5.3.1.1.2 Habitat Requirements………………………….158
3.5.3.1.1.2.1 Topography……………………………158
3.5.3.1.1.2.2 Vegetation……………………………...159
3.5.3.1.1.2.3 Water……………………………...……159
3.5.3.1.1.3 Decimating Factors……………………………..160
3.5.3.1.1.3.1 Hunting………………………………...161
3.5.3.1.1.3.2 Domestic Livestock…...………………162
3.5.3.1.1.3.3 Livestock-borne Disease……………...162
3.5.3.1.1.3.4 Predation………………………………163
3.5.3.1.1.3.5 Habitat Loss, Fragmentation,
and other Anthropogenic Factors…....164
3.5.3.1.1.3.6 Long-Term Climate Change…………167
3.5.3.1.1.4 Recovery Objectives……………………………168
3.5.3.1.2 Lesser Long-Nosed Bat…………………………………………...169
3.5.3.1.2.1 Distribution……………………………………...169
3.5.3.1.2.2 Habitat Requirements……………………….....169
3.5.3.1.2.3 Reasons for Listing……………………………..170
3.5.3.1.2.4 Recovery Efforts……………………………......170
3.5.3.2 Species of Conservation Concern…………………………………………..171
3.5.3.2.1 California Leaf-Nosed Bat………………………………………..171
3.5.3.3 Desert Bighorn Sheep………………………………………………………172
3.5.3.3.1 Status and Trends…………………………………………...……..173
3.5.3.3.2 Habitat Requirements……………………………...……………...175
3.5.3.3.3 Decimating Factors………………………………………………..178
3.5.3.3.3.1 Pre-European Contact…………………………178
3.5.3.3.3.2 Hunting……………………...…………………..179
3.5.3.3.3.3 Domestic Livestock………………………���…..179
3.5.3.3.3.4 Livestock-Borne Disease……………………….180
3.5.3.3.3.5 Predation………………………………………...181
3.5.3.3.3.6 Habitat Loss and Fragmentation……………...182
3.5.3.3.3.7 Long-Term Climate Changes……………….....183
3.5.3.3.4 Management Strategies…………………………………………...184
3.5.4 Birds……………………………………………………………………………………185
3.5.4.1 Federal Endangered Species……………………………………………….186
3.5.4.1.1 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl………………………………….186
x
3.5.4.1.1.1 Distribution…………………………………...…186
3.5.4.1.1.2 Habitat Requirements………………………….187
3.5.4.2 Species of Conservation Interest...……….………………………………...187
3.5.4.2.1 Loggerhead Shrike………………………………...………………187
3.5.4.2.2 Le Conte’s Thrasher��…………………………………...………..188
3.5.5 Reptiles and Amphibians……………………………………………………………..189
3.5.5.1 Species of Conservation Concern...………………………………………...189
3.5.5.1.1 Arizona Chuckwalla………………………………………………..189
3.5.5.1.1.1 Distribution and Habitat……………………….189
3.5.5.1.1.2 Food Requirements…………………...………..189
3.5.5.1.2 Desert Tortoise…………………………………………………….190
3.5.5.1.2.1 Distribution and Habitat …………………….....190
3.5.5.1.2.2 Food Requirements…………………………….190
3.5.5.1.2.3 Abundance…���…………………………………190
3.5.5.1.2.4 Threats…………………………...……………...190
3.5.5.1.3 Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard………………………………..………191
3.5.6 Invertebrates………………………………………………��……………………….190
3.6 Public Use Facilities……………………………………………………………………………192
3.7 Special Management Areas…………………………………………………………………….199
3.7.1 National Register of Historic Places District……………………………………….193
3.7.2 Cabeza Prieta Wilderness…………………………………………………………….193
3.8 Other Uses………………………………………………………………………………………194
3.8.1 Military Facilities and Artifacts……………………………………………………...194
3.8.2 Childs Mountain Military and FAA Surveillance Operations……………………..194
3.9 Cultural Resources……………………………………………………………...……………...195
3.9.1 Cultural Resource Inventories……………………………………………………….195
3.9.2 Prehistoric and Historic Data………………………………………………………..195
3.10 Regional Economic Setting…………………………………………………………………….197
3.10.1 Surrounding Jurisdictions……………………………………...…………………….197
3.10.1.1 Pima County………………………………………………………………….197
3.10.1.2 Yuma County………………………………………………………………...198
3.10.1.3 Tohono O’odham Nation…………………………………………………….198
3.10.1.4 Mexico…………………………………………………………………….…..198
3.10.2 Population……���………………………………………………………………….…..199
3.10.3 Employment and Income……………………………………………………………..200
3.10.4 Transportation……………………………………………...………………���………202
4.0 Environmental Consequences……………………………………………………………………….…..205
4.1 Physical Environment………………………………………………………………………….205
4.1.1 Climate…………………………………………………………………………….…...205
4.1.2 Air Quality……………………………………………………………………………..205
4.1.3 Soils………………………………………………………………...…………………..206
4.1.3.1 Soil Disturbance and Erosion………………………………………………206
4.1.3.1.1 Off-Road Vehicle Use……………………………………………...206
4.1.3.1.2 On-Road and On-Trail Vehicle Use……………………………....208
4.1.3.1.3 Construction……………...………………………………………...210
4.1.3.2 Cryptogrammic Soil………………………………………………………....211
4.1.4 Water Resources………………………………………………………........................213
4.1.4.1 Surface Water………………………………………………………..............213
4.1.4.2 Ground Water…………………………………………………….….............216
4.2 Habitat and Wildlife Resources………………………………………………………..............217
4.2.1 Biotic Community and Biodiversity………………………………………………….217
4.2.2 Plant Resources………………………………………………………..........................221
4.2.3 Mammals……………………………………��……………….....................................222
xi
4.2.3.1 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species…………………...……….223
4.2.3.1.1 Sonoran Pronghorn………………………………………………...223
4.2.3.1.2 Lesser Long-Nosed Bat………………���………………...………228
4.2.3.2 Species of Conservation Concern...……………………………………...…229
4.2.3.2.1 California Leaf-Nosed Bat…………………………………...……229
4.2.3.3 Desert Bighorn Sheep Conservation………………………………………225
4.2.4 Birds……………………………………………………….............................................235
4.2.4.1 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species………………………...….235
4.2.4.1.1 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl………………………………….235
4.2.4.2 Species of Conservation Concern...……………………………………...…235
4.2.5 Reptiles and Amphibians……………………………………………………………..236
4.2.6 Invertebrates………………………………………………………..............................237
4.2.7 Desert Pupfish………………………………………………………............................237
4.3 Special Management Areas………………………………………………………………….....238
4.3.1 Natural Register of Historic Places…………………………………………………238
4.3.2 Wilderness………………………………………………………..................................238
4.3.2.1 Military Training………………………………………………...……..........239
4.3.2.2 Border Law Enforcement………………………………………………......240
4.3.2.3 Refuge Management…………………………………………………….…..241
4.3.2.4 Public Use……………………………………………………….....................247
4.4 Childs Mountain Communications Site……………………………………………………….250
4.5 Cultural Resources………………………………………………………...................................251
4.6 Socioeconomic Resources…………��…………………………………………........................252
4.6.1 Economic Consequences.……………………………………………………..............252
4.6.1.1 Refuge Operations……………………………………………………….......252
4.6.1.2 Visitor Expenditures………………………………………………………...252
4.6.2 Social Consequences……………………………………..……………….…………...256
4.7 Environmental Justice……………………………………………………….............................258
4.8 Summary of Cumulative Impacts of Plan Actions and Other, Reasonably
Foreseeable Related Activities………………………..……………………………………….260
Appendix A: Legal, Policy and Administrative Guidelines and Other Special Considerations……….…261
Appendix B: Interagency Agreements Between Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and
Federal Border Law Enforcement Agencies……………………….………………………...265
Appendix C Plant Species Present at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge……………………….….283
Appendix D Minimum Requirements Analyses for Refuge Management Actions in Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Designated Wilderness………………………….………...293
Appendix E Compatibility Determinations for Public Use at the Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge……………………………………………………….........................................379
Appendix F Bird Species Present at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge……………...…………..401
Appendix G Mammal Species Present at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge……………………..409
Appendix H Amphibian and Reptile Species Present at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge…….411
Appendix I Social Impact Analysis Report……………………………………………………...…………313
Appendix J Regional Economic Effects of Current and Proposed Management
Alternatives for Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge…………………………………...451
Appendix K Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Management Goals, Objectives and
Strategies…...............................................................................................................................…475
Appendix L References Cited………………………………………………………......................................511
Appendix M List of Preparers………………………………………………………………..………………523
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Sonoran Pronghorn Populations Estimates, 1992-2002……………..………………………..50
Table 2.2: Population Estimates from Cabeza Prieta Desert Bighorn Sheep Surveys, 1993-2002……58
Table 2.3: Refuge Staffing, Alternative 1, No Action……….…………………………………………….75
Table 2.4: Refuge Staffing, Alternative 2…………………………………………………………………..86
Table 2.5: Refuge Staffing, Alternative 3…………………………………………………………………..99
Table 2.6: Refuge Staffing, Alternative 4 (Proposed Alternative)…………………………………….114
Table 2.7: Refuge Staffing, Alternative 5…………………………………………………………………126
Table 2.8: Summary comparison of the management alternatives organized by
planning issues identified in scoping…………………………………………………………..127
Table 3.1: Developed Waters of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge……………………………148
Table 3.2: Sonoran pronghorn numbers 1992-2002……………………………………………………...157
Table 3.3: Sonoran pronghorn fawn recruitment and rainfall…………………………………………..161
Table 3.4: Population estimates for desert bighorn sheep………………………………………………175
Table 3.5: Regional and Local Population Estimates……………………………………………………199
Table 3.6: Population Composition for the Year 2000……………………………………………………200
Table 3.7: Employment Status in 2000……………………………………………………………………201
Table 3:8 Regional and Local Employment Occupation for the Year 2000……………………………201
Table 3.9: Regional and Local Income and Poverty Status for the Year 2000………………………...202
Table 4.1: Summary of Refuge staffing and budgeting economic impacts…………………………….255
Table 4.2: Summary of economic effects of refuge visitor spending……………………………………258
Table 4.3 Summary of Cumulative Impacts of Plan Actions and Other, Reasonably Foreseeable
Related Activities…………………………………………………………��………………….260
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Geographic Setting of Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge………………………………1
Figure 1.2 Gila/Salt/Verde Ecosystem and the Refuge……………………………………………………..4
Figure 1.3 Refuge Map……………………………………………………………………………………...…9
Figure 1.4 Refuge Wilderness……………………………………………………………………………….15
Figure 1.5 Refuge Fixed Wing Low Altitude Overflight Corridors…………………………………….21
Figure 1.6 Adjacent Government Lands……………………………………………………………….45
Figure 2.1 Developed Waters………………………………………………………………………………..53
Figure 2.2 Developed Waters………………………………………………………………………………..65
Figure 2.3 Administrative Trails, Baseline Conditions……………………………………………………71
Figure 2.4 Administrative Trails, Alternative 2……………………………………………………………81
Figure 2.5 Administrative Trails, Alternative 3……………………………………………………………95
Figure 2.6 Administrative Trails, Alternative 4………………………………………………………..…109
Figure 3.1 Refuge Map with Terrain Features and Administrative Boundaries………………………135
Figure 3.2 Average Monthly Precipitation at Ajo………………………………………………………...139
Figure 3.3. Average Annual Rainfall at Ajo……���………………………………………………………..140
Figure 3.4 Monthly High and Low Temperatures, Averaged for Ajo, Tacna and Welton…………….140
Figure 3.5 Developed Waters……………….…...…………………………………………………………145
Figure 3.6 Sonoran Desert Ecosystem in Arizona………………………………………………………..150
Figure 3.7 Refuge Vegetation Communities………………………...……………………………………153
Figure 4.1 Areas of Disturbance Related to Illegal Border Crossing…………………………………..219
xiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department
AGL above ground level
ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979
BEC Barry M. Goldwater Executive Committee
BLM United States Bureau of Land Management
BMGR Barry M. Goldwater Range
CCP comprehensive conservation plan
DCCP draft comprehensive conservation plan
DEA United States Drug Enforcement Agency
DEIS draft environmental impact statement
DHS United States Department of Homeland
Security
DOD United States Department of Defense
DOI United States Department of the Interior
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
GSV Gila, Salt, Verde Rivers ecosystem region
IEC Inter-agency Executive Committee
LNT leave-no-trace wilderness camping and travel
MOA memorandum of agreement
MOU memorandum of understanding
MRA minimum requirements analysis
MSL mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NCTC National Conservation Training Center
NPS National Park Service
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System
OPCNM Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UDA Undocumented Alien
FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USAF United States Air Force
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USMC United States Marine Corps
WSP wilderness stewardship plan
YCC Youth Conservation Corps
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF
AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document integrates a Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP), Draft Wilderness
Stewardship Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR). See figure 1.1 for a map showing the
location of the refuge in southwestern Arizona. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required to
prepare Comprehensive Conservation Plans by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(P.L. 105-57) passed in 1997. An Environmental
Assessment (EA) or EIS is required for any major
federal action by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA). The CCP describes the desired
future condition of the refuge and provides long-range
guidance and management direction for the refuge.
The EIS describes a range of alternatives, including
the preferred alternative, for managing the refuge and the expected
environmental consequences of each alternative.
1.1.1 Goals of Refuge Planning
The goals of refuge comprehensive conservation planning as defined by policy
at 602 FW1 (1.5) follow:
A. To ensure that wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
B. To ensure that the Service manages the Refuge System for the conservation
of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that refuge management
achieves Service policies, the Refuge System mission, and the purposes for
which the refuge was established.
C. To ensure that the administration of the Refuge System contributes to the
conservation of the ecological integrity of each refuge, the Refuge System, and
to the structure and function of the ecosystems of the United States.
D. To ensure opportunities to participate in the refuge planning process are
available to other Service programs; Federal, State, and local agencies; tribal
governments; conservation organizations; adjacent landowners; and the public.
E. To provide a basis for adaptive management by monitoring progress,
evaluating plan implementation, and updating refuge plans accordingly.
F. To promote efficiency, effectiveness, continuity, and national consistency in
refuge management.
G. To help ensure consistent System wide consideration of the six priority
public uses -- hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation-- established by the Refuge
Administration Act and to ensure that these uses receive enhanced
consideration over general public uses in the Refuge System.
2
H. To ensure that the Service preserves the wilderness character of refuge
lands (2000).
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PLAN ACTIONS
The refuge plays a critical role in the recovery and protection of rare and
sensitive species such as the desert bighorn sheep and the federally
endangered Sonoran pronghorn, as well as the conservation of a diversity of
desert wildlife within the Sonoran Desert. Cabeza Prieta NWR, which contains
the largest refuge wilderness outside of Alaska, presents issues related to
appropriate levels of intervention for wildlife management in designated
wilderness that have national significance for the Service. A CCP establishes
refuge Goals, Objectives and Management Strategies. These planned actions
are all designed to assist the refuge in achieving its formal purposes and the
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This document proposes the
implementation of a wide array of actions that lead to achievement of such
purposes and mission.
Cabeza Prieta NWR was:
. . . reserved and set apart for the conservation and
development of natural wildlife resources, and for the
protection and improvement of public grazing lands and
natural forage resources... Provided, however, that all the
forage resources in excess of that required to maintain a
balanced wildlife population within this range or preserve
should be available for livestock... (Executive Order 8038
January 25, 1939)
Title III of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 19901 supplemented the
refuge purposes with an additional refuge purpose; the protection of the
wilderness resource on 325,270 hectares (803,418 acres) in accordance with the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
A CCP also sets guidelines for management of refuge resources, describes the
desired outcomes for the next 15 years, and encourages refuge management in
concert with an overall ecosystem approach. The CCP development process
provides a forum for public participation relative to the type, extent, and
compatibility of uses on refuges. As a majority of the refuge is designated
wilderness, this plan addresses administrative needs for wilderness and serves
as the refuge’s Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
1This purpose has been added as “supplemental to”, or in addition to, the original
purposes when the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 was passed and signed into law.
3
1.3 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION, GOALS
AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only Federally-owned system of
lands managed primarily for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant
resources. The Refuge System mission is a derivative of the Service mission.
The Refuge System mission was clarified and formalized in October 1997, by
passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (P.L. 105-
57).
The Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 in a manner that provides an “Organic Act” in that it designates the
fundamental guiding principles of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It
ensures that the Refuge System is effectively managed as a national system of
lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our nation’s
wildlife resources. The Act states first and foremost that the mission of the
Refuge System be focused on wildlife conservation, defining the Mission of the
Refuge System as follows:
“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.”
The Act gives guidance to the Secretary of the Interior in the overall
management of the Refuge System. Besides a strong conservation mandate for
the Refuge System, the Act’s other main components include:
a requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological
integrity, diversity and environmental health (ecological integrity) of the
Refuge System,
the establishment of six priority recreational uses that should be considered
for integration into refuge programs if determined compatible with refuge
purposes and Refuge System mission,
a new process for determining compatible uses of refuges that integrates
public review, and
a requirement for preparing comprehensive conservation plans.
The Goals of the Refuge System are defined in the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual (601 FW).
To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when
practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered or
threatened with becoming endangered.
To perpetuate the migratory bird resource.
4
To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on
refuge lands.
To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife
ecology and the human role in the environment, and to provide refuge
visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational
experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent these activities are
compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
1.4 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO CONSERVATION AND THE
GILA/SALT/VERDE ECOSYSTEM
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife
conservation to recognize the interdependence of all elements of the system,
increase cooperation among Service programs, and increase partnerships to
achieve conservation goals.
The Service identified and mapped 53
ecosystem units throughout the United States
by grouping watersheds. Ecosystem Teams
were established and directed to develop plans
for each unit that describe ecological resources,
issues relevant to the resources, and
conservation strategies. The Gila/Salt/Verde
Ecosystem (GSV) is one of the nine ecosystem
units within the Southwest Region. It is named
for three major watersheds located in southern
Arizona and western New Mexico. Cabeza
Prieta NWR is located within the GSV
Ecosystem. See figure 1.2 for a map depicting
the extent of the GSV and the refuge’s location
there in. Other units of the National Wildlife
Refuge System within the GSV include: Kofa,
San Bernardino, Leslie Canyon and Buenos
Aires.
The diversity of the GSV Ecosystem required
developing objectives and strategies for three
different systems (Mountain, Grassland, and Desert). Objectives for the desert
ecosystem are described under Objective 3. Cabeza Prieta NWR is charged
with accomplishing certain action items under the second strategy of that
objective through partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and
individuals in the area. To the greatest degree feasible, these action items are
incorporated into the refuge management alternatives described below in
Chapter 2. Strategy 2 of Objective 3 of the GSV Ecosystem plan follows.
5
Objective 3: Protect, maintain, and restore Sonoran Desert ecosystems
Strategy 2: Protect, maintain, and restore ecosystem function for terrestrial
habitats including Federally listed, candidate, and state listed species.
Action Item 1: Gather information on habitat use (and role of free
water) and disturbances to Sonoran pronghorn through telemetry,
behavioral, and habitat studies.
Action Item 2: Complete range wide Sonoran pronghorn surveys over
six-year period to establish a trend for recovery purposes.
Action Item 3: Upgrade Graphic Information System (GIS) hardware
and complete GIS data bank for pronghorn range.
Action Item 4: Initiate and design a comprehensive strategic regional
plan for the area represented by the International Sonoran Desert
Alliance (ISDA) which pulls together individual management plans.
Action Item 5: Clean up the abandoned military station on Childs
Mountain.
Action Item 6: Consolidate communications sites on Childs Mountain
to reduce the disturbed area.
Action Item 7: Determine presence and genetics of obligate rock
dwelling reptiles to investigate effects of isolated desert mountain
ranges.
Action Item 8: Initiate pilot study to determine genetics of isolated
bands of bighorn sheep to determine degree of isolation for disease
and transplant implications.
Action Item 9: Establish an interagency interpretive site in Ajo to
cover area of ISDA concern.
Action Item 10: Locate and establish wildlife corridors that will link
the protected areas of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
(OPCNM) and Cabeza Prieta NWR with the core area of the Pinacate
Biosphere Reserve. Reduce and mitigate wildlife barriers. Identify
major invading exotic plant species.
Action Item 11: Support desert pupfish maintenance and habitat
restoration on National Park Service lands and investigate feasibility
of secondary populations on adjacent refuge lands (USFWS, 1994.
6
1.5 HISTORY OF REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT, ACQUISITION
AND MANAGEMENT
1.5.1 The Game Range
The Cabeza Prieta NWR was originally established as a “Game Range” by
Executive Order 8038 signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January
25, 1939. This Range was established primarily to assist in the recovery of the
desert bighorn sheep, and partially in response to public demand generated by
the Boy Scouts of America, Arizona Game Protective Association, and the
Audubon Society. Throughout the earlier part of the 20th Century desert
bighorn sheep populations continued to dwindle, despite legal protection. In
the early and mid 1930s, staff of the U.S. Biological Survey; National Park
Service; State of Arizona; and Mexican Government Department Forests, Fish
and Game conducted surveys of Southwestern Arizona. These surveys
recommended establishment of a game range or preserve to protect the
natural resources of the Cabeza Prieta area (and other areas in southwestern
Arizona for protection of the desert bighorn sheep (Taylor 1935, McDougall
1935, and Pinkley 1935). See figure 1.3 for a map of the refuge.
Given the trend of decreasing desert bighorn sheep populations and public
interest in conserving the species, active management to foster increased
sheep numbers was seen as necessary. A strategy involving water structure
development and active management of the rocky, arid sierras and
intermittent drainage areas was implemented for species recovery throughout
their historic range in Arizona. Kennedy, researching the status of desert
bighorn sheep on the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta National Game Ranges,
determined that developed waters and natural water sources contributed to
desert bighorn sheep population growth on the Cabeza Prieta National Game
Range during the 1950s (1958).
Between its establishment in 1939 and 1975, the Game Range was jointly
administered by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
1.5.2 Military Lands Withdrawal
A series of four executive orders signed by President Franklin Roosevelt and
two public land orders signed by the Secretary of Agriculture between
September 5, 1941 and March 16, 1943 withdrew a block of land totaling
1,124,546 hectares (2,777,628 acres) for military flight training needs
occasioned by World War II. Most of the airspace above Cabeza Prieta Game
Range was included and active bombing started. During this time grazing,
mining, and most refuge activities were curtailed for safety reasons. Most
management studies had to be done by air or in the extreme eastern portion,
which was not withdrawn. The bombing and aerial gunnery range was
deactivated in 1946, but was reactivated in 1951 to serve training needs
7
8
9
occasioned by the Korean Conflict. The military
range has been maintained in use for military
training since that time through a series of
administrative and legislative actions.
The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999
(P.L. 106-65), the most recent action renewing
the military lands withdrawal, did not include
lands of Cabeza Prieta NWR. Some continued
military use of refuge lands for tracking
stations and continued use of airspace above
the refuge for training, subject to some
limitations, is provided by a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the
Department of the Air Force, Department of
the Navy (for the Marine Corps), and the
Department of the Interior (for the Service).
The MOU was signed in 1994, but was
specifically authorizes in the Act as governing military use of airspace over the
refuge wilderness. The MOU specifies that all military structures within the
refuge will be removed by 2017. The MOU can be amended as necessary,
subject to concurrence by all parties.
1.5.3 National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act
The passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 opened many refuges to public recreation. Shortly after that, Cabeza
Prieta NWR was opened to desert bighorn sheep hunting. Harvest levels are
reestablished every three years based on aerial population surveys. Permit
numbers have fluctuated from one in 1980 to seven in recent years.
1.5.4 From Game Range to National Wildlife Refuge
Public Land Order 5493 of March 21, 1975, amended the original Executive
Order (8039), gave sole jurisdiction to the Service, and changed the name of
the Game Range to Cabeza Prieta NWR. The refuge took over management of
the grazing allotments on the refuge at this time. Although by this time refuge
staff had become concerned about the effects of grazing on desert bighorn
sheep habitat, the existing leases were not immediately terminated.
Subsequent to the land order, the Game Range Bill amendments to the
National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (P.L. 94-223, 90 Stat. 199 or “The
Act of Feb. 27, 1976") affirmed the Secretary of the Interior’s (i.e., the
Service’s) responsibility to protect the integrity of the former Cabeza Prieta
Game Range as a part of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the
integrity of the original purposes for which the refuge was established. Under
this law, all grazing leases issued by the BLM under their administration of
the land were honored by the Service. Upon the expiration of each such lease
Air Force F-16 fliying over the refuge
USAF Photo
10
the Service reviewed the lease and determined whether or not to renew it. The
Act also prohibits the divestiture of lands within the National Wildlife Refuge
System by the Secretary of the Interior without the express permission of
Congress.
1.5.5 Grazing History
There were as many as six grazing allotments operating at one time on the
Range. Grazing began as early as 1919 and came under the jurisdiction of the
BLM when the Range was established in 1939. The enabling legislation
specified that all forage resources in excess of that required to maintain a
balanced wildlife population within the range would be available to livestock.
Most grazing occurred on the eastern portion of the Range where shallow
wells could be dug. During the period of federal jurisdiction a total of seven
ranchers held permits to graze livestock on the land that became the refuge.
The earliest permittees were Tom Childs and Jeff Cameron. Childs ranched
about 100 head of cattle. Charlie Bell took over Child’s lease in the 1930s and
had a permit to graze 400 goats prior to the area becoming a game range.
When the Game Range was established, goats and sheep were banned but Bell
continued to run cattle. Benjamin Parra also obtained a permit for 100 head of
cattle in 1940. Childs, Bell, and Parra lost their permits when the military
withdrew lands for active bombing, but enforcement was lax. Childs and Bell
continued to run cattle at their own risk. Alton Netherlin bought Parra’s cattle
in 1942 and leased the area around Papago Well, running as many as 700 head.
Angel Monreal had a permit to graze 80-100 head but records do not indicate
dates for his lease. Jim Havins ran a small herd in the area of Papago Well in
the 1940s. Havins was asked to remove all structures around Papago Well in
1965, while Cameron was allowed to renew his lease until 1981. Cameron ran
154 head of cattle in 1964, and 150 head in 1970 (with up to 1,500 cows
additionally brought in for short terms). When the refuge took over grazing
management in 1975 Cameron’s permit was set at 129 head. Since the
Cameron permit expired in 1981 there has been no legal grazing on the refuge.
As early as 1946, refuge staff began to notice the impact livestock were having
on wildlife forage. They observed that desert bighorn sheep were using the
lower elevations in summer, feeding on ironwood beans and saguaro pulp.
These plants were probably supplying much needed moisture during the dry
season. Managers recommended stopping grazing to reduce competition for
limited forage resources, as the cattle also used this forage.
A study commissioned in 1965 to determine the effect of grazing and wildlife
competition noted “abusive use of perennial shrubs and other plants important
to wildlife” but stopped short of recommending that grazing be discontinued
(Harper and Wiseman 1965). In 1977 the Sonoran pronghorn recovery team
recommended that grazing leases on the refuge be terminated to end a
perceived displacement of pronghorn from suitable habitat by cattle (Phelps,
1977). When the refuge took over grazing permits in 1975, they offered to
11
continue Cameron’s lease under conditions that would permit the habitat to
recover. The permit would be renewed for 1-3 years out of ten for a period of
60 days at a time. Cameron rejected the offer, arguing that the conditions were
not economically feasible.
Congress then asked the Service to study the effects of grazing on the refuge.
The Service initiated the study in 1983 in conjunction with the BLM (Cabeza
Prieta NWR 1983). Permanent vegetation transects were set up on the old
Cameron allotment to document recovery when cattle were removed. The
BLM also set up another study on grazed land east of the refuge boundary to
study competition with Sonoran pronghorn. The study showed 50 percent of a
cow’s spring diet was globemallow, and their summer and fall diet was
composed mostly of mesquite. It further concluded that little competition
occurred between cattle and Sonoran pronghorn because cattle graze and
pronghorn browse. Refuge biologists challenged this finding, arguing that
strict classifications of browser and grazer were not accurate descriptions of
the actual feeding habits of cattle and pronghorn.
In 1992, the Arizona Nature Conservancy conducted a vegetation impacts
study on OPCNM after grazing was discontinued there (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992). Noted increases in vegetation cover were influenced by
unusual rainfall during the study years. Interestingly, rodent abundance
declined and pocket mice in particular disappeared. However, in one study
area, bannertail kangaroo rats returned after being absent the previous year.
Their return was attributed to an increase in vegetation cover after removal of
livestock.
1.5.6 Trespass Livestock History
Since refuge establishment, trespass cattle, both from adjacent grazing leases
on BLM lands to the east and from Mexico, have been a continuing problem. A
boundary fence was built on the east side in 1980, reducing trespass from the
BLM lands. The largest problem came from the Gray Ranch, whose grazing
lease was within OPCNM, adjacent to the refuge. Although their lease was for
1,050 head, refuge staff estimated there was three times that many. The refuge
took the family to court in1965 to settle this dispute. The family was given one
year to remove their livestock, but it wasn’t until the last Gray brother died in
1976 that all the cattle were removed.
Feral burros and wild horses from Mexico were also a major problem. Burros
and horses selectively browse woody vegetation in riparian corridors, girdling
paloverde and other trees that form important habitat. In 1944, over 100
horses and 125 burros were document on the refuge in one day. The situation
improved when fear of hoof and mouth disease prompted construction of 36
kilometers (22 miles) of border fence between 1948 and 1949. Rare sightings
continued into the 1960s, but none in recent years, other than occasional burro
tracks seen at Tule well.
12
Domestic goats, both as trespass livestock on the refuge and as livestock on
ranches or farms near the refuge, are problematic to wild desert bighorn
sheep. Goats provide a host for the larval stage of the parasitic bot fly. The bot
fly larvae also parasitize desert bighorn sheep. In desert bighorn sheep the
larvae cause chronic sinusitis, a debilitating, and often lethal, condition. Many
sheep on the refuge suffer from chronic sinusitis, introduced by domestic goats
on or near the refuge. Chronic sinusitis is a decimating factor to the refuge’s
desert bighorn sheep population.
1.5.7 Mining History
Many mines in northern Sonora and southern Arizona were developed during
Spanish rule, but no such activity appears to have taken place on the refuge.
The gold rush of 1849 led prospectors to cross the area on El Camino del
Diablo, a trail pioneered by Meliclor Diza in 1659 that passed through the
southern part of the refuge. This original trail system, more a braided corridor
of multiple paths than a single trail, is distinct from the modern refuge access
road that shares its name and general location. A second wave occurred when
gold was discovered in the Colorado Valley in the 1860s. Miners’ graves are
landmarks along the route.
The Game Range was left open to mining when it was
established. Military withdrawal in the 1940s
temporarily stopped all mining activity. The exact
number of claims extant at that time is unknown. The
Game Range listed 17 unpatented and one patented
claim in 1971 (USDI, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife 1971). The Bureau of Mines speculated that
modern survey techniques might produce mineral
potential and a study was mandated in 1979. Wilderness
designation in 1990 closed future mineral explorations.
Today, the only current claim is the non-patented San
Antonio Mica Mine that produced mica for the Phelps
Dodge Company in Ajo.
Mining has left its legacy in the form of numerous
shafts, tunnels, water tanks, and other debris surrounding old mine sites. The
remains now present complex issues for the refuge. They negatively impact
wilderness character but may deserve protection as historic artifacts. Some
structures may now provide habitat for some wildlife species, such as
endangered bats, but may also pose a danger to other wildlife and humans.
San Antonio Mica Mine USFWS Photo
13
1.5.8 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Sonoran
Pronghorn
Sonoran pronghorn were one of the first species declared
endangered. They were included in the first endangered species
legislation, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October
15, 1966, which published a list that included the Sonoran
pronghorn on March 8, 1967. They were also included in Appendix
D of the Endangered Species Conservation Act, August 25, 1970,
and again under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This act
directed the Service to prepare recovery plans for all species
declared threatened or endangered. Cabeza Prieta NWR was
given the lead for recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn in 1988, thus
elevating its status as a refuge management priority. The original
recovery plan was completed in 1982 with the last revision
occurring in 1998. Recovery plans were guided by a core working
group until 1998 when a formal recovery team was established.
In 2001, a federal court remanded the 1998 Final Revised Sonoran
Pronghorn Recovery Plan to the Service with instructions to reconsider two
areas of the 1998 plan that the court found to be contrary to the Endangered
Species Act. Specifically, the court required the Service to establish:
(1) objective measurable criteria, which, when met, would result in a
determination that the pronghorn may be removed from the list of
endangered species or, if such criteria are not practicable, an explanation of
that conclusion and
(2) estimates of the time required to carry out those measures needed to
achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal
where practicable, or if such estimates are not practicable, an explanation of
that conclusion.
A supplement and amendment to the 1998 Recovery Plan, providing the
required information, was published in 2003.
1.5.9 Wilderness Designation
In 1974, 337,449 hectares (833,500 acres) of the refuge were proposed to be
included as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources). The proposal excluded
approximately 14,975 hectares (37,000 acres) along the southern boundary
known as the Tule Well exclusion, and a 183 meter (600 foot) corridor along El
Camino del Diablo and the Christmas Pass Road. The proposal included
adding the 32,375 hectare (80,000 acre) area known as Tinajas Altas to the
refuge and designating 29,421 hectares (72,700 acres) of the parcel as
(drawing by Bonnie Swarbrick)
14
wilderness. Congress directed that the Service manage all areas proposed for
wilderness as de facto wilderness pending study and final designation.
A BLM study prior to 1990 indicated that a majority of the Tinajas Altas area
had been impacted by surface military training and no longer possessed high
or threatened cultural, wildlife, scenic or botanical resource values. Tinajas
Altas was removed from the 1990 final wilderness proposal due to this
degradation. The final proposal included the Tule Well Exclusion, and
narrowed the travel corridors to 61 meters (200 feet), resulting in a wilderness
proposal of 325,133 hectares (803,418 acres).
The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (HR 2570 Title 3) designated about
93 percent of the refuge, or 325,133 hectares (803,418 acres) as wilderness
(figure 1.4). This designation provides a supplemental (i.e., additional) refuge
purpose. The refuge’s wildlife management responsibilities remain unchanged,
but must be implemented within the context of legal requirements spelled out
in the Wilderness Act of 1964. While the Wilderness Act does not prevent
activities essential to the refuge’s purpose, it does affect the manner in which
these activities occur. For example, a minimum requirements analysis (MRA)
is required to demonstrate that management activities are necessary and
appropriate within wilderness. Permanent roads are prohibited. Temporary
roads, use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, landing of aircraft, other
forms of mechanical transport, and structures and installations are also
prohibited, except as minimally required to administer the area as wilderness.
Additionally, wilderness designation calls for expanded monitoring
requirements on the effects of public visitation.
The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 provided two specific exemption
provisions relating to Cabeza Prieta for military activities and law enforcement
border activities. The Act reads:
Nothing in this title including the designation as wilderness of lands
within the Cabeza Prieta NWR, shall be construed as–
(1) precluding or otherwise affecting continued low-level over flights
by military aircraft over such refuge, or the maintenance of existing
associated ground instrumentation...”
and
(2) precluding or otherwise affecting continued border operations by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, or the United States Customs Service within such
refuge,
[both] in accordance with any applicable interagency agreements in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act
15
16
17
The Act also allows the Secretaries of these agencies to enter into new
agreements compatible with refuge purposes and in accordance with
laws applicable to the Refuge System.
1.6 LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE
Administration of refuge lands is guided by federal laws, by the mission and
goals of the Refuge System, and by policy, Presidential Executive Orders, and
international treaties. Short descriptions of the most important mandates and
policies affecting this planning process for Cabeza Prieta NWR follow.
Additional legal mandates can be found in Appendix A.
1.6.1 The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended, by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (H.R. 1420, 105th
Congress)
This law is the “organic act” for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act
amends portions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 and the Refuge Recreation Act, and gives the force of law to Executive
Order 12996.
The Act clarifies that conservation of wildlife and its habitats is the
first priority of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Act unifies the Refuge System, calling for each refuge to be
managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, as well as specific
purposes for which that refuge was established, and directing that
each refuge shall be managed in a manner that maintains the
biological integrity, diversity and environmental health (ecological
integrity) of the Refuge System.
The Act establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of six wildlife-dependent
recreational uses of the Refuge System when they are
determined to be compatible: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.
These priority public uses shall receive enhanced consideration over
other public uses in refuge planning and management. The following
general hierarchy between refuge activities and public uses will apply:
Priority 1 - activities necessary to fulfill the refuge purposes and the
Refuge System mission; Priority 2 - provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreational uses, when determined to be compatible. All
other public uses will be a lower priority.
18
Compatibility was more clearly defined as a determination that the
use would not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment
of the mission of the Refuge System or purposes of the refuge based
on the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager. Sound
professional judgment is a finding, determination, or decision that is
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management
and administration, available science and resources, and applicable
laws.
The Act also provides that Comprehensive Conservation Plans shall be
completed for all refuge units within 15 years from the date of
enactment.
1.6.2 Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136)
The Statement of Policy of the Wilderness Act reads:
In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied
by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not
occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and
protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to
be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American
people of present and future generations the benefits of an
enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is
hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation
System to be composed of Federally owned areas designated
by Congress as “wilderness areas” and these shall be
administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide
for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their
wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination
of information regarding their use and enjoyment as
wilderness; and no federal lands shall be designated as
“wilderness areas” except as provided for in this Act or by a
subsequent Act. (Sec. 2 (a)).
The Act defines wilderness as
. . . an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by
man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of
wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural
conditions and which (1)
19
generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially
unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or
a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least
five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or
other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical
value (Sec.2 (c)).
Key concepts include:
The purposes of this Act are within and supplemental to the purposes
for which . . . units of the national wildlife refuge system are
established (Sec. 4 (a)).
. . . each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall
be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and
shall so administer such an area for such other purposes for which it
may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character
(Sec. 4 (b)).
Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing
private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no
permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act
and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including
measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of
persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of
motor vehicles, motorized equipment, ... no other form of mechanical
transport, and no structure or installation within any such area (Sec. 4
(c)).
1.6.3 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990
Designated identified lands within Cabeza Prieta NWR as wilderness under
Title III, to be administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act with
special provisions to not preclude continued military or border law
enforcement activities (previously described in Section 1.5.9, Wilderness
Designation).
1.6.4 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 87 Stat. 884)
(P.L. 93-205)
The Endangered Species Act, as amended (Public Law 97-304 and the
Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982), did not specifically address the
Refuge System, but does directly affect management activities within the
20
Refuge System. The Act directs federal agencies to take actions that further
the purposes of the Act and to ensure that actions they carry out, authorize or
fund do not jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitat.
1.6.5 The Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (P.L.
96-95, 93 Sta. 721, dated October 1979) (16 U.S.C. 470aa - 470ll)
ARPA requires a federal permit for the excavation, collecting, and removal of
archeological resources from federal and tribal land. It prohibits vandalism of
sites on federal and tribal land and the exchange or transport of illegally
obtained archeological resources. ARPA violations are subject to civil and
criminal penalties
1.6.6 Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-606)
More than 93 percent of the refuge was withdrawn for military use as part of
the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) (boundary corresponds with current
wilderness boundary). Based on authorities granted in the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-606), a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Air Force and the Service was negotiated to clarify agency
missions, objectives, and what activities would occur. The MOU, which was
updated as recently as November of 1994, allows for military flights 457
meters (1,500 feet) above ground level (AGL) or 152 meters (500 feet), lower
than the customary 610 meters (2,000 foot) AGL advisory issued by the
Federal Aviation Administration. Military flights, along established training
routes that are 7.4 kilometers (4 nautical miles) wide, must also adhere to the
457 (1, 500 foot) AGL requirement (figure 1.5). Exceptions to the 457-
meter(1,500 foot) level are provided for in the agreement. The MOU also
clarifies that the military’s use of live fire would be confined to air-to-air
weaponry and would be conducted at altitudes of 1,524 meters (5,000 feet)
mean sea level (MSL) and higher after 60 days’ written notice is provided the
refuge manager. The military is using electronically scored aerial targets and
will confine itself to that means unless mission requirements mandate the use
of other methods. The military agreed that air-to-ground live fire will be
restricted to designated tactical ranges outside the refuge. This act was to
expire in 2001 unless renewed (see next paragraph).
21
22
23
1.6.7 Military Land Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-65)
This Act effectively removed Cabeza Prieta NWR from the BMGR, but under
section 3032, provided for continued but limited military use of ground
facilities on the refuge and extended the MOU of 1994.
The Act also provided for negotiated amendments to the 1994 MOU when the
Secretaries of Navy or Air Force determine changes are essential to meet
military aviation training needs to:
• Revise existing or establish new low-level training routes
• Establish new or enlarged areas closed to public use as safety zones
• Accommodate maintenance, upgrade, replacement or installation of
existing or new associated ground instrumentation.
While this Act ended most military use of land resources on the refuge, the air
space over the refuge remains part of the BMGR. Over flights were exempted
from compatibility requirements as already provided for under the Refuge
Improvement Act and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act.
Amendments for upgrade or replacement of existing ground instrumentation
or installation of new ground instrumentation are permitted to the degree that
they are determined to individually and cumulatively create similar or less
impact than existing ground instrumentation currently permitted by the
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act.
1.6.8 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) and Amendments
of 1994.
Directs agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders to
determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve
Native American religious cultural rights and practices.
1.6.9 Executive Order 13007 - Sacred Sites (May 24, 1996)
Drafted and promulgated to promote accommodation of access to Native
American sacred sites by Native American religious practitioners and to
provide additional protection for the physical integrity of such sacred sites.
The order supplements the protections afforded by the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, and the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993. The Order charged the agencies to establish written
guidance to ensure consistency with law and agency functions. That
implementation document states under Section 5: “The Service will not allow
the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas in the lower 48...” , in
reference to access to Native American sacred sites.
24
1.6.10 Other Guidance
1.6.10.1 Fulfilling the Promise
In 1998, as the Refuge System neared its 100th anniversary of 2003, the Service
provided the opportunity for refuge managers, other employees, and
conservation partners to chart a course for the next century at the first
National Wildlife Refuge System Conference held in Keystone, Colorado. The
participants reviewed the Refuge System’s history and defined its future by
reviewing a draft strategy called Fulfilling the Promise. An executive
summary2 listed 42 recommendations regarding wildlife, habitat, people, and
leadership. An implementation team prepared a final document by the same
title, which was released in 1999. Fulfilling the Promise3 serves as a vision
document for the Refuge System and a guide for refuge management and
planning.
1.6.10.2 Policy Manuals and Plan
Agency policy manuals and plans further define and interpret legal mandates
for resource managers. The Service Manual and Refuge Manual are currently
being reviewed and revised. Updated portions of the Manuals are available at
the Service website4 Below is a list of some relevant policies and plans.
1.6.10.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Native American Policy (1995)
This Service policy defines the relationship between the Service and all Native
American governments as “government to government.” Issues relating to
culture and religion will require the involvement of Native American
governments in all Service actions and proposals that may affect Native
American cultural or religious interests including archaeological sites. The
chief strategy will be one of consultation.
1.6.10.4 Interagency Wilderness Strategic Plan 1995
As 1994 marked the 30th anniversary of the passage of Public Law 88-577,
known as the “Wilderness Act,” the federal agencies charged with the
stewardship of the Wilderness Preservation System developed a broad
strategic plan. The agencies include the Bureau of Land Management, the
National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. By
agreeing to the plan, the agencies rededicated and focused each agency’s
efforts to secure the benefits of wilderness as called for in the Wilderness Act.
2http://www.fws.gov/r9extaff/promise.html
3http://refuges.fws.gov/library/indes.html
4http://www.fws.gov
25
The Plan’s management actions are identified and grouped into five broad
topics: 1) Preservation of natural and biological values; 2) Management of
social values; 3) Administrative policy and interagency coordination; 4)
Training of agency personnel; and 5) Public awareness and understanding.
1.6.10.5 Wilderness Stewardship Training
Training in Wilderness Stewardship is provided by the Arthur Carhart
National Wilderness Training Center (Carhart Center) in Montana in
conjunction with the Service’s National Conservation Training Center
(NCTC). The Carhart Center is jointly operated by the four federal agencies
with Wilderness Stewardship responsibilities (Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service).
1.7 REFUGE PURPOSES
• The Cabeza Prieta NWR was established January 25, 1939, as Cabeza
Prieta Game Range (Range) by Executive Order 8038: “for the
conservation and development of natural wildlife resources, and for the
protection and improvement of public grazing lands and natural forage
resources...(and) that all the forage resources in excess of that required to
maintain a balanced wildlife population within this range or preserve shall
be available for livestock. . . .”.
• Enactment of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 designated most
of the refuge wilderness and created the supplemental refuge purpose of
wilderness protection, in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964.
• In addition to the original refuge purposes and the additional wilderness
purpose created by the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, several
federal policies, regulations, and laws affect refuge management activities.
Preeminent among these is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, which
mandates protection and recovery of threatened and endangered species.
26
1.8 REFUGE VISION STATEMENT
1.8.1 At Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, wildlife conservation
comes first.
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge is dedicated first and foremost to
conservation of wildlife and habitats. Situated on the international border,
and located in the heart of the Sonoran Desert, the refuge is unlike any other
wild place in the Western Hemisphere. More than 90 percent of this unit of
the National Wildlife Refuge System has been officially designated a
Wilderness Area by Congress. The refuge’s high diversity of plant and
animal species and varied geology make it an important component of the
Sonoran Desert ecosystem. The Service’s role at the refuge is to protect
native wildlife and plant populations within the greater Sonoran Desert
ecosystem.
1.8.2 Proactive management is important to the recovery and
conservation of endangered species
The refuge plays a continuing role in the protection and recovery of threatened
and endangered species, including the Sonoran pronghorn, lesser long-nosed
bat, and cactus ferruginous pygmy owl. The refuge is a critical resource for the
recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn, an endangered sub-species of American
pronghorn limited to two small remnant populations in the United States and
Mexico. The refuge comprises nearly half the range of the U.S. population, and
is central to its recovery. Cooperatively with partners, especially the Arizona
Game and Fish Department (AGFD), the refuge will continue its commitment
to biological data gathering, monitoring, and analysis so that current natural
resource management questions can be answered and the future of threatened
and endangered species such as the pronghorn will be more secure.
1.8.3 Refuge wilderness resources are protected for posterity.
The refuge, with its vast wilderness including Sonoran Desert habitat, is
permanently protected as a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Protection of the existing landscape and management of
the refuge’s wildlife populations are top priorities. Desert bighorn sheep are
recognized as a wilderness resource, as well as a species basic to the original
purpose of the refuge. Conservation of this species, and other native species,
will require a cooperative effort between the refuge and its partners, especially
with the AGFD, using the best available science, established practices and new
approaches and techniques based on the most current research.
Desert Bighorn Sheep at
Cabeza Prieta
USFWS Photo
27
1.8.4 The beauty and solitude of the refuge will continue to be enjoyed
by visitors.
The refuge is, and will remain, a place where visitors can enjoy the
magnificence of the Sonoran Desert and experience wilderness solitude
rarely found elsewhere in the Southwest. Refuge interpretive programs
will continue to educate visitors and area residents about the unique
resources of the Sonoran Desert and the mission of the refuge and the
National Wildlife Refuge System. Visitors to the refuge; whether
enjoying an extended backpacking trip, a day’s drive on the Camino del
Diablo, or an informational session at the visitor center; are drawn to its
beauty and untrammeled wilderness character. These traits will be
protected through Service management and administration.
1.8.5 The refuge embraces cooperative working relationships
with partners.
The refuge values its relationships with other natural resource agencies, tribal
governments, non-governmental organizations, and local communities in
accomplishing the refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System
mission. Local communities will continue to identify and promote the region as
a tourist destination. The unique resources and natural beauty of the refuge
will continue to draw visitors. Refuge outreach and visitor services programs
will continue to enhance the area’s attraction to visitors from around the nation
and foreign countries. The refuge will continue to be an ideal site for
cooperative scientific study and research leading to the conservation of
Sonoran Desert resources.
Cabeza Prieta Peak, showing the
"Black Head" from which the
refuge takes its name
USFWS Photo
Volunteers clear brush along Charlie Bell Road
USFWS Photo
28
1.9 REFUGE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION: GOALS AND
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following four goals are proposed for Cabeza Prieta NWR. They are
consistent with the refuge purpose, the Refuge System mission and goals, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1996, as amended,
Service policy, the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act
of 1990, and the Service’s Gila/Salt/Verde Ecosystem Team goals. The goals
are to be considered as integrated goals containing elements of each, rather
than being mutually exclusive of each other5. Specific objectives to be achieved
to realize these goals, as well as implementation strategies for each objective
have been developed. The objectives and strategies for implementing
Alternative 4, the proposed alternative, are presented in Appendix K.
Management actions proposed in support of the goals are described in Chapter
2, Alternatives.
1.9.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management
Protect, maintain, enhance, and/or restore the diversity and abundance of
wildlife species and ecological communities of the Sonoran desert represented
at Cabeza Prieta NWR.
• Intact habitats are key to viable wildlife populations.
• The refuge must integrate its responsibilities for trust species and
biodiversity to meet Refuge System and ecosystem goals.
• Management should mimic, where possible, natural processes.
• The refuge needs sound scientific data in order to evaluate
management options and prioritize activities.
1.9.2 Wilderness Stewardship
Protect and conserve refuge wilderness employing strategies of wildlife and
plant conservation that will conserve, maintain and where possible, restore the
wilderness character of Cabeza Prieta NWR.
1.9.3 Visitor Services Management
Provide visitors with compatible, high quality wildlife-dependent recreational
and educational experiences designed to foster better appreciation,
understanding, and protection of the plant, animal and wilderness resources.
• Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and education are
appropriate public uses with priority given to hunting, fishing, wildlife
5 Following each goal is a list of management principles and requirement developed for the
Service’s vision document Fufilling the Promise and other sources.
29
observation, wildlife photography, environmental interpretation, and
education.
• Visitors find national wildlife refuges welcoming, safe, and accessible
with a variety of opportunities to enjoy and appreciate America’s
legacy of wildlife.
• The heritage and future of the Refuge System is intertwined with the
support of concerned citizens.
1.9.4 Cultural Resources Management
Protect, maintain, and interpret cultural and historic resources on Cabeza
Prieta NWR, in cooperation with Tribal governments and the State of Arizona
to benefit present and future generations.
• Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and enforce the Archeological Resources Protection Act to protect
sites and objects from construction impacts or illegal activities.
• Archeological research proposals will be in compliance with the
Archeological Resources Protection Act and will undergo formal
review by regional recognized tribes.
• The location of sites will not be disclosed.
• Report site and object discoveries and report specific site
maintenance, stabilization, and protection needs to the Service’s
Regional Office.
• Observe and honor the provisions of the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act and Executive Order 13007 to guarantee access by tribal
members to sacred sites and to traditional cultural properties.
• Limit archives and collections to the minimal amounts essential for
Refuge record keeping and for basic public interpretation. All other
collections will be housed in public repositories and may become
candidates for repatriation to regionally recognized tribes.
1.10 STEP-DOWN PLANS
Step-down management plans detail and describe specific activities necessary
to achieve objectives or implement management strategies identified in the
CCP. The Service has chosen to incorporate the Wilderness Stewardship Plan
in this CCP. Other step-down plans to be prepared for the refuge include a
habitat management plan, visitor services management plan, inventory and
monitoring plan, safety plan and integrated pest management plan. Step-down
plans may require additional NEPA compliance and the opportunity for public
review.
30
1.11 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
1.11.1 Notice of Intent for Environmental Impact Statement and CCP
Between 1994 and 1997 the Service prepared the Final Programmatic
Environmental Assessment for the Future Management of Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. In
1999, the Department of the Interior withdrew that document and requested
that the Service prepare a new CCP for the refuge. In January 2000, the
Regional Director determined that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared for the CCP because of the national significance of the
wilderness and other refuge resources, and the potential impacts of
implementing the alternatives analyzed. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare
an EIS and CCP was published in the Federal Register April 14, 2000. The
NOI identified issues that had been developed during the EA process, outlined
four potential alternatives that had been discussed up to that date, and
requested public input on these preliminary issues and range of alternatives
through written comments. It also announced the dates and locations for three
Open Houses to be held in June 2000. The written comment period was open
for 30 days, but comments were received through the end of the Open Houses
in June. An interdisciplinary team was selected to assist in preparation and
review of the EIS/CCP.
1.11.2 Refining Issues Through Public and Agency Scoping
Throughout the EIS effort the Service has periodically mailed planning
updates to more than 1,000 organizations, agencies and individuals. The
updates reiterated information presented in the NOI, provided information
about plan development status, and invited input through written comments
and open houses or public meetings. Open houses were held in Yuma, Ajo, and
Tucson in June 2000. Attendance for each was 34, 5, and 56 respectively. The
Service also received over 600 written responses. Agency scoping meetings
were held with U.S. Border Patrol, OPCNM, Pima County, and the Tohono
O’odham Nation. The refuge participated in joint scoping with BMGR and
serves on their EIS team. A round of informal public meetings was held as
follows: January 7, 2003, in Tucson; January 8, 2003, in Ajo and January 9,
2003, in Yuma. As a result of public scoping, a few new issues were added and
others were re-worded. Although most respondents were satisfied with the
range of alternatives, a large group expressed its desire to expand active
management, while another group pressed for complete elimination of all
vehicular traffic.
1.11.3 Gathering Information, Assessing Resource Relationships,
Analyzing Environmental Effects and Rewriting the Draft Plan
The planning team reviewed and revised the issues, developed a range of
management alternatives, suggested additional investigations needed for an
EIS, and reviewed the analysis of effects for each alternative in this Draft EIS,
31
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
Following the issuance of a Notice of Availability (NOA) this draft will have a
90-day comment period after which the team will analyze comments and
incorporate responses in a Final EIS, Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Wilderness Stewardship Plan. A NOA will announce when the document is
ready for review. After the 30 day comment period, the final EIS/CCP is
adopted and the Regional Director issues a Record of Decision.
1.11.4 Guidance Used for Preparation of a Draft CCP/EIS
The process used for the development of this draft CCP/EIS has been guided
by:
• The provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997
(P.L 95-616),
• the original purposes for which the Cabeza Prieta NWR was established
(Executive Order 8038),
• the supplemental purpose of endangered species recovery added by the
Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended,
• the supplemental purposes of wilderness administration added by virtue of
the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 designation,
• the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
and Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for
Implementing NEPA (43 CFR 1500-1508),
• the Refuge Planning Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Part
602 FW 2.1),
• the Wilderness Management Planning Chapter from the Refuge Manual
(6RM Chapter 8), and
• the reports and recommendations of the Promises Implementation Teams.
32
1.12 PLANNING ISSUES
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussion with the
planning team, key contacts, a focus group, and through the public scoping
process. The following issues were identified. The questions that follow each
issue are not exhaustive, but only representative of questions and concerns
that have been brought forward in this planning effort.
1.12.1 Wildlife and Habitat Management
The refuge was originally established for the conservation and development of
natural wildlife resources and will continue to be managed for wildlife first.
While emphasis will be placed on maintaining and enhancing habitat for desert
bighorn sheep and the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, conservation and
management of all native wildlife species and their habitats will continue to be
one of the primary goals of the refuge.
• What were natural wildlife population levels prior to European
influence?
• What effect has the introduction of domestic animals and grazing had
on native wildlife and habitats?
• What, if any, level of habitat manipulation is appropriate?
1.12.2 Managing Healthy Ecosystems
Two goals of the Refuge System are to manage for healthy natural
populations of native flora and fauna and to contribute to broader ecosystem
goals.
• What were natural conditions on the refuge prior to European
settlement?
• To what extent should the refuge attempt to recreate those
conditions?
• What inventories and monitoring studies need to be conducted to
determine refuge resource conditions and their status over time?
• Are there threats to the ecological integrity of the ecosystem? If so,
what should be done to address these threats?
• How should the refuge contribute to migratory bird conservation?
• What are the priorities for research?
• What role should the refuge play in promoting a wider understanding
and cooperative management of the Sonoran Desert Ecosystem?
(drawing by Bonnie Swarbrick)
33
1.12.3 Endangered Species Management
The refuge provides protection and habitat for the endangered
Sonoran pronghorn, lesser long-nosed bat, and cactus ferruginous
pygmy owl. The Refuge assumed leadership of the Sonoran
pronghorn recovery effort in the United States in 1988. Past
management for the pronghorn included removing livestock grazing
from the refuge, removing and/or modifying fences to allow for
pronghorn movement, adding water developments, fencing parts of
the boundary to prevent trespass from neighboring cattle, and
various studies of pronghorn movements and habitat use. Recently,
experimental forage enhancement plots and addition of more water
developments has been proposed. Little management activity, other
than surveys and monitoring of roosting sites, has occurred for the
lesser long-nosed bat. The endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl may
occur on parts of the refuge. Additional surveys to better document their
occurrence are planned.
• What role should radio collaring of animals on the refuge play in
recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn?
• Are there critical pronghorn use areas and are they adequately
protected?
• What is the role of developed water in pronghorn recovery? Are there
any adverse aspects of developed water on pronghorn?
• What types of potential partnerships with Mexico would best assist in
recovery?
• What role should the refuge play in experimental management
strategies?
• What role should the refuge play in recovery of the lesser long-nosed
bat?
• What role should the refuge play in the recovery of the cactus
ferruginous pygmy-owl?
1.12.4 Desert Bighorn Sheep Management
The refuge provides important habitat for desert bighorn sheep.
The protection and conservation of desert bighorn sheep were
central to refuge establishment. Previous refuge management for
desert bighorn sheep included removal of livestock grazing, water
developments, and control of hunting. Debate over the necessity of
water for desert bighorn sheep survival and population health,
refuge access in the wilderness area to maintain and/or haul water to
developments, creation of new waters versus removal of some or all
of the existing water developments, continues to be at the heart of
issues raised about refuge management of this species.
(drawing by Bonnie Swarbrick)
34
• Should a numerical population for desert bighorn sheep on the refuge
be established?
• If so, what population goal is appropriate?
• What should this goal be based on? What was the population prior to
European settlement of the area? What changes have taken place
since settlement that affect desert bighorn sheep numbers?
• What is the role of water developments in desert bighorn sheep
management on the refuge? What level of their use is necessary for a
healthy population?
• What management strategies are necessary to achieve the population
goal?
1.12.5 Predator Management
Predator control is a component of population management. Existing
policy outlines acceptable methods and situations for predator control.
Refuge policies prohibit the use of poisons for control of mammals or
birds, and prohibit the use of chemicals that can cause secondary
poisoning.
• What role should control of coyote, mountain lion and bobcat
play as a management option on the refuge to protect Sonoran
pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep and other wildlife populations?
• How does predator control fit with wilderness management
principles?
• Should current policies on predator control be re-visited as new
information about predator/prey relationships comes to light?
1.12.6 Wilderness Stewardship
Cabeza Prieta Wilderness is the largest refuge wilderness in the contiguous 48
states. In Fulfilling the Promise, the Service calls for elevating the status of
wilderness areas by “acknowledging wilderness as a unique resource, the
management of which is a specialized discipline.” Natural populations of native
wildlife are important to the wilderness resource, as are solitude and self-sustaining
ecological processes.
Wilderness designation does not lessen the priority of the original refuge
purposes, but it adds securing an enduring resource of wilderness, and
preservation of wilderness character as additional purposes. These, in turn,
require managerial restraint. All management activities in wilderness are
subject to a MRA to assure appropriateness.
(drawing by Bonnie Swarbrick)
35
The refuge staff, AGFD, and refuge permittees (researchers, volunteers
working on projects) may use mechanized equipment and/or motorized
equipment in the wilderness for management purposes subject to the
Wilderness Act and Service policy. The use of mechanized/motorized
equipment in wilderness by these entities is evaluated through MRA. Border
Patrol, U.S. Customs Service (Customs), and Drug Enforcement Agency
(DEA) may drive in the wilderness to accomplish their missions, in accordance
with any interagency agreements, per special provisions in the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act of 1990.
• What wildlife and habitat management activities are appropriate for
the wilderness area?
• Has anything negatively affected or degraded wilderness resources or
character? If so, what rehabilitation projects or management changes
are needed to restore wilderness resources or character?
• How can the refuge best manage wildlife and wilderness resources
and character?
• Is long-term, continuous management intervention appropriate in
wilderness?
1.12.7 Wildlife Dependent Visitor Services
The Refuge Improvement Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation as priority
public uses on refuges when found to be compatible with refuge purposes.
Under current management the refuge is open to several of these uses. Its
size, remoteness, wilderness character, and desert environment offer a unique
experience for visitors.
1.12.7.1 Recreation in Wilderness
The Wilderness Act allows for public recreation and education by recognizing
that wilderness provides “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive
and unconfined type of recreation” and calls for wilderness areas to be
“administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a
manner as to leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness.” Furthermore, Service policy recognizes sensitive areas may need
to be protected from overuse, and allows for regulated use through permit or
complete closure (6 RM 8.9A).
• What level of public use is sustainable and desirable in the wilderness?
• What management methods are appropriate for controlling public use
in wilderness?
• How should the refuge best monitor visitor impacts?
• What should trigger remedial actions and public information
campaigns?
36
1.12.7.2 Permitting and Access
Permits were established in 1975 at the request of the U.S. Air Force to inform
the public of military hazards (e.g., unexploded ordnance) they may encounter
on military withdrawal lands and to obtain hold harmless signatures. They also
serve to establish initial contact with the public, ensure that visitors are aware
of refuge and wilderness regulations, provide the refuge with public use data,
and inform visitors of the natural hazards of the desert environment.
• Should the refuge continue to have a visitor
permit system? If so, how should it be
structured? Should it be separate from the
BMGR permit?
• How can the refuge limit visitor impacts,
while providing a quality visit?
• Should access to wilderness be zoned?
• Should the refuge visitor center hours be
extended?
1.12.7.3 Motorized Access and Vehicle Restrictions
in Non-Wilderness
Visitors and local residents have expressed an interest in additional vehicular
access to non-wilderness areas of the refuge.
• Should the refuge seek to increase visitor use from current numbers?
• Should the refuge provide a non-wilderness road that does
not require 4WD or a high-clearance vehicle?
• Should the refuge rehabilitate Copper Canyon Road in
cooperation with the BLM for use as a public tour loop?
1.12.7.4 Hunting
The refuge is currently open to desert bighorn sheep hunting for
which the State issues limited permits each year. In addition to the
actual hunt, permittees usually make several scouting trips in
advance of the season. Desert bighorn sheep hunters must obtain a
special use permit for their hunts.
• What type of hunting experience should be offered at the refuge?
• Is hunting for deer and/or small game appropriate at the refuge?
A group of hikers receives information from refuge
staff
USFWS Photo
Successful desert bighorn
sheep hunter on the refuge
USFWS Photo
37
• Are there any wildlife conservation conflicts with the current hunt
program?
1.12.7.5 Environmental Education and Interpretation
The refuge has an office/visitor center located in Ajo that offers an
orientation video and exhibits. Visitor services also include a
watchable wildlife area on Child’s Mountain with interpretive
panels and shade structures. This facility is open by arrangement
only for guided tours. The refuge has an Outdoor Recreation
Planner as well as several volunteers who staff the visitor center,
conduct tours, cooperate with Juntos - a school education
program, and offer monthly natural history programs coordinated
by the Cabeza Prieta Natural History Association during the
winter season.
• What projects and activities should the refuge initiate to
increase understanding and protection of Sonoran Desert
resources and the role the Service plays in support of the
ecosystem?
• Should the refuge develop educational programs specific
to wilderness values, solitude, and the conservation of wilderness
resources in general?
1.12.7.6 Other Public Uses: Backpacking and Camping
Other uses that are permitted because they are related to participation in
priority public uses or are enhanced by a wilderness setting include hiking and
backpacking (including camping), and commercial recreation operations.
• What types of recreational uses should the refuge allow other than the
six priority public uses?
• What educational efforts should be undertaken to minimize the
impacts of these activities?
• What level of recreational use monitoring is appropriate?
• What level of border law enforcement activity or illegal cross-boarder
travel detracts from visitor experiences?
1.12.8 Cultural Resource Management
The refuge has many sites of cultural and /or historical significance.
• What actions should the refuge take to better identify, document,
interpret, and protect cultural and historical resources?
Guided tour group at the Childs Mountain
Overlook
USFWS Photo
A party of car campers near
El Camino del Diablo
USFWS Photo
38
• How should the refuge identify American Indian interests and what
cooperative efforts can be considered and set in place prior to taking
action?
• What can the refuge do to provide access for Native Americans to
sacred sites
1.12.9 Border Law Enforcement
Border Patrol, Customs, and DEA were given special provisions by the
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 to permit continued enforcement
activities. The number of illegal border crossings has climbed steadily over the
past several years, and impacts to refuge resources, both from illegal
traffickers and the agents performing their duties, are evident.
• To what degree are illegal drug trafficking, illegal immigration and
associated law enforcement activities impacting wildlife, habitat and
the visitor experience?
• To what degree should the refuge monitor these effects?
• What cooperative efforts can be implemented to reduce impacts?
• Should the refuge develop humanitarian waters or other rescue
features in the refuge wilderness?
1.12.10 Military Use
The refuge was not included in the last military withdrawal, but language in
the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act does stipulate continued military use (over
flights and limited ground use). The Act amends the current MOU with the
military and provides for amendments to revise low-level training routes; to
establish new or enlarged buffer zones closed to the public; and to
accommodate maintenance, upgrade, replacement, or installation of existing or
new ground instrumentation (i.e. communication sites) that does not increase
impacts already permitted under the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.
• What effect does military over flight activity have upon native wildlife?
• What would be the effect of any decrease in flight-level restrictions?
• What buffer zones are needed to ensure public safety?
• What changes are being proposed and how will these affect refuge
resources?
• How can the refuge reduce impacts caused by authorized military
operations (tow dart and other debris removal, accident response
protocol, entry without permit, expansion of low level flights)?
39
1.13 ISSUES NOT SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
The following areas of concern have been noted by the Service. Some issues
raised early in the EA process were resolved through separate Environmental
Analysis, others are resolved by current policy or law and implementation of
the CCP would have no impact on these issues. Finally, there is a group of
issues that are beyond the scope of this plan. The issues and their resolution
are discussed briefly below.
1.13.1 Issues Completed Under Separate Environmental Assessments
1.13.1.1 Air Force Radar Station (AFS) at Childs Mountain
The Air Force issued a draft EA in July 1995 proposing to demolish and
remove a large portion of abandoned facilities at the Ajo Air Force Station
located on Childs Mountain. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
issued in January 1996. The FONSI states that “. . . because of the remoteness
of Childs Mountain, there are no surrounding activities that would increase the
impacts of the proposed demolition action. Implementation of the proposed
action does not include any growth-inducing impacts. If anything, the
demolition and removal of the Ajo AFS would decrease the ongoing military
activities in southern Arizona.” The final EA and FONSI are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1.13.1.2 FAA Surveillance Radar on Childs Mountain
The FAA released an EA and FONSI in February 1998 as part of its national
program to modernize the Joint Use En Route Radar Systems along the
perimeter of the continental United States. The ARSR-4 radar facility serves
as a civilian aircraft tracking system and as a
border surveillance system for the Air Force,
Border Patrol, and U.S. Customs Service. The
EA discussed the potential impacts that might
occur during the construction and operation of
the proposed ARSR-4 facility at Childs Mountain.
The FAA constructed an ARSR-4 facility on the
summit of the mountain, and in the process
removed Building 56, a large “hardened structure
designed to withstand nuclear warfare. The work
was managed under an MOU between the FAA,
Military and USFWS. The final EA and FONSI
are hereby incorporated by reference.
1.13.1.3 Watchable Wildlife Site on Childs
Mountain
An Environmental Assessment for construction
of a Watchable Wildlife Site on Childs Mountain
Interpretive Panel at Childs Mountain Watchable Wildlife Site
USFWS Photo
40
was completed in October 1998 and is incorporated by reference. The site
includes interpretive panels, shade structure, improved parking area, a
graveled trail and rock work. Caution was used to protect existing vegetation
and construction was timed to reduce impacts to desert bighorn sheep in the
area. Access to the area is controlled by a locked gate and a permit and hold
harmless agreement for the military is required. In fiscal year 2003
approximately 300 people visited the summit.
1.13.2 Issues Covered by Existing Policy, Law, or Regulations and
Common to All Alternatives
1.13.2.1 Border Law Enforcement Activities
Some participants wanted to close all administrative trails within wilderness to
vehicular use. The Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 allows the Border
Patrol, Customs, and DEA to continue to conduct illegal alien and drug
interdiction activities on the refuge including motor vehicle use in wilderness.
These activities are governed by mutual agreement and outlined in an existing
MOU. The Department of Homeland Security, responding to great increases
in illegal border traffic in recent years, and the hazards that undocumented
aliens (UDAs) and other illegal traffickers face in crossing the Sonoran Desert,
developed the Arizona Border Control Plan in early 2004. This plan would
greatly increase the border law enforcement resources present in southern
Arizona, in an effort to reduce the tide of illegal cross-border traffic. The plan
also calls for expanded use of motorized law enforcement vehicles in the
wilderness.
The refuge recognizes the need for border enforcement to deter
illegal traffic, which is responsible for significant habitat
damage, disturbance of wildlife and degradation of wilderness
character, and to prevent potential threats to public safety. The
refuge will continue to work cooperatively with the Border
Patrol, Customs, and DEA to deter illegal drug trafficking and
alien trespass, but will efforts to reduce impacts caused by this
authorized use.
The refuge has renegotiated an MOU (Appendix B) with the
Border Patrol’s Yuma and Tucson Sectors that defines activities and methods
to reduce impacts. In 1999, Tucson Sector Border Patrol and FWS Region 2
produced the training video, Patrolling in a Desert Ecosystem that addresses
environmental concerns. Each station in the Tucson Sector was provided a
copy and all agents viewed it. New agents are required to view the video when
they arrive at their new duty station. The Tucson Sector has given a copy to
the Yuma Sector, which may also adopt the same procedures. Additionally, the
refuge conducts annual orientation for Border Patrol agents to inform agents
of endangered species, wilderness, and other environmental issues.
Abandoned bicycle
USFWS Photo
41
1.13.2.2 Fire Management
General Service policy is to control all wildfires in the Refuge System,
including those within designated wilderness areas (6RM 7) unless an
approved fire management plan provides for nonsuppression under certain
circumstances (low risk of fire spreading to non-refuge lands and no significant
threat to public health or safety). The type of habitat that could support
prescribed burning on the refuge doesn’t exist. Most natural fires, if
discovered, burn out before suppression efforts would begin. Immediate action
will be taken to control all wildfires that do not meet the above criteria.
Methods used in designated wilderness will meet MRA.
1.13.2.3 Trespass Livestock
Trespass and feral animals are not permitted on refuge lands (50 CFR 26.21
b). The Service aggressively removes all trespass livestock. Methods of
removal are determined on a case-by-case basis subject to MRA in wilderness.
The refuge will attempt to work with the Mexican ranchers to prevent or
curtail trespass incidents. Any necessary fencing will be designed to allow free
movement of pronghorn.
1.13.2.4 Pets
No unconfined domestic animal may enter or roam at large upon any national
wildlife refuge (50 CFR 26.21 b). The refuge requires all pets to be leashed and
under the control of the owner at all times.
1.13.2.5 Firearms
Refuge regulations (50 CFR 27:42) permit possession, use, and transport of
firearms on refuges only for the purpose of participating in authorized public
hunting programs. Firearms must be unloaded and cased when transported on
refuge roads.
1.13.2.6 Commercial Uses
There were several questions about policy regarding commercial use of the
refuge. The only commercial uses currently occurring on the refuge are tour
groups and hunting guides. Policy regarding commercial use can be found in
Commercial and Appropriate Uses 630 FW3 and FW5. These uses must be
determined to be appropriate refuge uses and compatible with refuge
purpose(s) as outlined in Appropriate Uses 603 FW1 and Compatibility 603
FW2. Valid mineral claims in existence when the refuge was created are to be
administered according to 603 FW1. All commercial uses require a special use
permit issued by the refuge manager and include the above determinations.
42
1.13.2.7 Congressional Intent in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990
Members of the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club and the Arizona Desert
Bighorn Sheep Society have questioned whether or not congressional intent in
the enactment of this law permitted vehicular use to maintain water
developments. The solicitor for the Southwest Region of the Service provided
the refuge with a verbal opinion that under the Wilderness Act of 1964 the
refuge has authority to manage for wildlife, and to use a vehicle in instances
where it is determined to be the minimum tool needed to accomplish necessary
management, but that there are no special provisions in the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act of 1990 exempting the refuge from making the MRA.
The refuge must take the opportunity to review its management practices and
their effectiveness in meeting refuge purpose(s), mission, goals and objectives
in the CCP process.
1.13.3 Issue to be Determined Pending Adoption of Wilderness Policy
Revisions: Wheeled Game Carriers
The Wilderness Act prohibits the use of mechanical transport. Use of a
wheeled game carrier is in support of a recreational use (i.e., hunting) and
therefore, could not be subject to MRA. Although other agencies (NPS, NFS,
and BLM) all defined this term in their policies, the Service did not further
define mechanical transport in the Refuge Manual under 6RM8 Wilderness
Area Management (1986). However, the policy team responsible for revising
wilderness policy did develop, in draft form, a definition (610 FW) that would
be consistent with both the Forest Service and National Park Service, and
would include game carriers as mechanical transport. The BLM has been in
the process for the past several years revising their policy to more clearly
include carriers in the definition of “mechanical devices.” Until a policy is
established, the use of wheeled game carriers may be approved on a case by
case basis, at the discretion of the refuge manager.
1.13.4 Issues Beyond the Scope of this Plan
1.13.4.1 Remove Wilderness Designation
Only Congress has the ability to establish or remove wilderness designation.
1.13.4.2 Turn the Refuge over to the State
Only Congress has the ability to remove lands from the National Wildlife
Refuge System. While there are examples of cooperative management of
43
visitor services by the State on a few refuges, there have been no instances
where a refuge has been dissolved or transferred to a state agency.
1.13.4.3 Sonoran Desert National Park Proposal
A proposal to form the Sonoran Desert National Park has been developed by a
private organization. The proposal is a citizen proposal and does not originate
from the Department of Interior or National Park Service. This proposal is not
to be confused with the recommended name change from OPCNM to the
Sonoran Desert National Park that was proposed in the OPCNM 1997 General
Management Plan, or the recent creation of the Sonoran Desert Monument on
BLM lands northeast of the refuge. Congressmen Morris Udall first proposed
the formation of a park comprised of OPCNM, Cabeza Prieta Game Range,
and BLM lands in 1965. Only Congress can change the designation of a
National Wildlife Refuge. Congress is currently studying the feasibility of such
a plan.
While this alternative is beyond the scope of this plan, many of the ideas
suggested by the citizen group will be similar to those found in alternatives
presented in Chapter 2. Separate management plans developed by the BMGR,
OPCNM, and Cabeza Prieta NWR do not preclude these agencies from
developing a comprehensive regional plan which could take the form of multi-agency
cooperation under one of several existing teams such as the Barry M.
Goldwater Executive Committee.
1.13.4.4 Additional Acquisitions
Comments were received asking that the refuge acquire additional lands for
resource protection, specifically the Tinajas Altas to the west, and rangelands
on the east which are part of the BLM’s Lower Gila Resource Area. The
refuge is completely surrounded by federal lands or Mexico except at
headquarters in town. This option would require transferring BLM lands to
the FWS.
Although several proposals in the past have included adding Tinajas Altas to
the refuge, legislation has so far precluded the addition. Most recently,
Congress authorized the BMGR to manage the natural resources on the west
side, including Tinajas Altas, and required the completion of an EIS within two
years. The BLM has identified certain lands it would like to divest to other
federal agencies, but did not identify the lands on the refuge’s east boundary.
The refuge has not identified lands other than 12 hectares (30 acres) adjacent
to refuge headquarters for acquisitions. The refuge seeks to work
cooperatively with the BLM to achieve resource protection on neighboring
lands.
44
1.14 EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS, COORDINATION AND
COOPERATION
1.14.1 Interagency Cooperation
1.14.1.1 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
A requirement to cooperate and coordinate with State wildlife management
agencies is clearly stated in laws governing the National Wildlife Refuge
System (National Wildlife System Administrative Act, of 1966, as amended;
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended). While ultimate authority to
manage wildlife resources on refuge lands rests with the Service,6 state wildlife
agencies have authority to manage wildlife resources unless there is a conflict
with a defined federal interest. In the spirit of cooperative federalism, state
wildlife managers and are invited to participate in the refuge comprehensive
conservation planning process.
The AGFD has been a full partner assisting the refuge in aerial surveys,
managing the desert bighorn sheep hunt, and wildlife surveys, and has served
as a member of the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team. Additionally, the
Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 requires refuges to consult with adjoining
Federal, State, local, and private landowners and affected State conservation
agencies in the development and revision of CCPs. AGFD administers the
annual desert bighorn sheep hunt on the refuge, and AGFD staff has
participated in the CCP process as member of the planning team. Ultimate
decisions regarding refuge management rest with Service.
1.14.1.2 Barry M. Goldwater Range Executive Committee (BEC) and
Interagency Executive Committee (IEC
The BEC was formed August 1997 to provide a forum for collaborative
management of the lands, resources and their uses on the BMGR. The BEC
addressed resource management issues and conflicts arising from land uses on
the