Desert Mule Deer

Annual desert mule deer surveys (Table
3) are conducted on the refuge. This species
is also counted during the aerial sheep survey.
Wildlife surveys are conducted with AGFD
participation. The New Waters is included in
wildlife surveys (Table 3) for AGFD Game
Management Unit 44B.

In keeping with the special focus on
wildlife management and the purpose for
which the refuge was established, the Service
and AGFD have established an Alternative
Hunt Program on the Refuge. The alternative
hunt program emphasizes a quality hunting
experience by giving managers the option of
limiting permits issued to allow increased
hunter success. This enhances the range of
opportunities for unique wildlife related recre-
ational experiences on the refuge. It is
unlikely that the New Waters would be

included in the Alternative Hunt Program.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise

Limited knowledge of this tortoise popu-
lation is the reason for recent emphasis on
gathering more data. Abundant data on the
Mojave population in California cannot be
extrapolated to Arizona populations because
of differences in habitat selections between
the two. Long-term field data on Sonoran tor-
toises should help answer management and
disease questions that are now unknown.

Information from surveys conducted in
1979, 1989, and 1990 indicates the tortoise
population at Kofa is healthy and of low den-
sity requiring a stabilized habitat. Cover site
potential, highest in the less resistant volcanic
base material, is the critical limiting factor
resulting in patchy, isolated populations. The
density/diversity of vegetation and the aspect
seem to be of secondary and tertiary impor-
tance to distribution.

Table 3 — Kofa (K) & New Waters (NW) Annual Aerial Deer Survey Results 1985-1996.

Year Bucks Does. Fawns Unclassified Total

({K) (NW) | (K) (NW) (K) (NW) (K) (NW) (K) (NW)
1985 42 3 83 19 47 6 12 0 184 28
1986 37 12 102 20 18 12 3 6 160 50
1987 48 9 155 13 48 4 8 1 259 27
1988 29 7 M7 9 23 7 5 1 174 24
1989 49 8 121 16 37 5 1 0 208 29
1990 24 6 125 19 17 8 0 0 166 33
1991 36 4 113 6 62 3 1 0 222 13
1992* 16 0 31 3 10 2 3 0 60 5
1993* 19 1 SI 23 25 7 2 0 97 31
1994* 16 2 50 6 21 5 0 0 87 13
1995* 10 2 40 6 14 5 3. iv 67 13
1996* 6 2 19 7 3 1 1 0 29 10
Total 332 56 1007 147 325 65 49 8 1713 276

* Modified surveys. Modified surveys in years 1992 through 1996 are a sampling of approximately 16% of the total

surveyable deer habitat.

1. New Waters has never been independently surveyed for mule deer. The Wilderness has always been included in the
aerial surveys for Game Management Unit 44B. In addition to the wilderness, Unit 44B includes the Plomosa
Mountains and has a total area of 630 mi.?, of which there is an estimated 524 mi.? of mule deer habitat. Because
of the mountainous terrain in the wilderness, aerial surveys are difficult to conduct. Unit 44B is considered a low-

density deer unit.

17



Part VI — Implementation Schedule

and Cost Estimates

Table 4 — Recurring Tasks

Task/Activity Workmonths “Task Assignment
($3500/mo.)
Monthly Wilderness Patrols, Facilities Maintenance, Information Park/Law Enforcement
Displays, Signs 6 Rangers/Wilderness Specialist
Participate in annual Quartzsite Pow Wow public information booth 5 Refuge/Resource Area Staff
Monitoring — Visitor Use, establishment of exotic species 3 Park/Law Enforcement Ranger/
Wilderness Specialist/
Biologists
Plan Evaluation 5 ‘Area/Refuge Managers/

Interdisciplinary Team/AGFD

41



appropriate future management deci-
sions.

* Providing legal public access routes
that promote dispersed use.
* Acquiring private lands that provide
added recreational opportunities.
«Enhancing the quality of recreational
opportunities by establishing special
programs.

« Maintain environmental standards (air
and water quality) to provide for
enhanced visitor experience.

Rationale: All recreational activities on
National Wildlife Refuges are secondary uses
and are allowed when compatible with the
primary purposes for which the refuges were
established. Any existing recreational use
must undergo annual review and any pro-
posed use must undergo compatibility analy-
sis. The above listed uses are those that have
been determined to be compatible with the
Kofa.

Management Actions

1. Establish (I-8 on Map 1 by 1998) and
maintain information and interpretive dis-
plays at access points (Map 1) to the
planning area as funding and staff levels
permit.

2. As staffing and funding allow, conduct
routine patrols of the planning area at
least once per month.

3. Promote “Leave No Trace!” land use
ethics by making appropriate information
available at information displays and
administrative sites.

4. By the end of 1998, include visitor regis-
ters at information displays (Map 1) to
provide for public assessment and com-
ment about the quality of their recreation-
al and wildlife appreciation opportunities.
Develop an appropriate register form to
assist in providing needed monitoring

36

information.

5. Keep existing authorized public access
routes (Map 1) open to promote dispersed
visitor use and maintain opportunities for
solitude.

6. The BLM will pursue options to acquire a
public easement through or purchase the
entire land parcel described by Mineral
Entry Patent 546603, adjacent to the New
Waters in the northeast portion of the
planning area (Map 3) by 1999.

Rationale: Providing legal public access
would assist in meeting Objective 3 through
more dispersed visitor use that would be
allowed by making a larger portion of the
New Waters legally accessible to the public.
This property currently provides some of the
more popular camping sites in the BLM por-
tion of the planning area. Also, this action
will provide for the protection of wildlife
habitat and visual resources of the planning
area, and therefore assist in meeting Objective
2.

7. The Service will continue to work with
AGED to manage the Alternate hunt
(mule deer) Program on the Kofa portion
of the planning area (State Game
Management Unit 45).

Rationale: This action will allow for con-
tinuation of a quality deer hunt on the Kofa
portion of the planning area. The objective is
to reduce potential hunter crowding and
increase hunter success rates. This action also
contributes to the achievement of Objective
#2.

8. Prohibit the use of permanent anchors and
the marking of routes in support of tech-
nical rock climbing and rapelling in the
planning area as authorized by 43 CFR
8560.1-2 and 50 CFR 25.21.

9. Allow horses, mules, burros, and llamas
as recreational livestock in the planning


White-throated Woodrat
Desert Woodrat
Porcupine ,

Desert Shrew

Order Carnivora
Coyote

Kit Fox

Gray Fox

Ringtail

Badger

Striped Skunk

Western Spotted Skunk
Mountain Lion

Bobcat

Order Artiodactyla
Mule Deer

Desert Bighorn Sheep
Collared Peccary
Burro

46

Neotoma albigula
Neotoma lepida
Erethizon dorsatum
Notiosorex crawfordi

Canis latrans

Vulpes macrotis

Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Bassariscus astutus
Taxidea taxus

Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius

Felis concolor

Lynx rufus

Odocoileus hemionus crooki
Ovis canadensis mexicana
Tayassu tajacu

Equus asinus


Kofa waters are monitored primarily by
refuge personnel and are maintained with
assistance from AGFD and the Arizona Desert
Bighorn Sheep Society.

In the New Waters, the four watering
areas present in the wilderness are monitored
by AGFD. Maintenance of these areas is the
responsibility of AGFD with cooperative
assistance from BLM.

Vegetation

Comprised of 2 Sonoran Desert subdivi-
sions, the planning area is in a Tropical-
Subtropical Desertland climatic zone (Brown
1982). The most arid portion of the Sonoran
Desert is the Lower Colorado River Valley
subdivision which covers approximately 50
percent of the planning area. The Arizona
Upland subdivision accounts for the other SO
percent.

The Sonoran Desert ecosystem is com-
prised of relatively sparse vegetation through-
out, with the exception of tree and shrub cor-
ridors along dry washes that descend to allu-
vial fans and basins from the desert moun-
tains. Creosote, ironwood, palo verde, and
mesquite comprise much of the vegetation
with many types of cacti, most notably the
saguaro, dominating the landscape.

A notable feature of the habitat is the
desert flora that emerges only after sufficient
winter rains occur. Generally there is enough
moisture to provide for the germination of
dormant grass and forb seeds that produce an
abundant growth of annual vegetation for
brief periods.

During the very dominant dry seasons,
the soils form a thin crust that harbors seeds
for many years in some cases. Generally, if
sufficient moisture occurs to soften the crust
and penetrate seed coats, germination occurs.
When the short growing cycle is completed,
the ground once again forms into a thin cryp-
to-biotic crust.

From 1983 to 1992, the refuge staff moni-
tored vegetation along 242 permanent tran-
sects to document any changes that would
occur from the cessation of grazing on the

refuge. Some improvements have been noted,
but the growth of desert vegetation is normal-
ly extremely slow, taking many years to
recover from past land management practices.
Since that time, the refuge has instituted a
new program using videography to develop a
comprehensive picture of the refuge’s vegeta-
tion resources. It is expected that this infor-
mation will be useful for determining habitat
suitability, conditions, and wildlife uses in the
long-term. However, the videography project
will not be finalized until 1999.

Wilderness Values

Designated wilderness in the planning
area covers approximately 510,900 acres on
the Kofa and all 24,600 acres of the New
Waters. The wilderness has a predominant
natural appearance. However, there are sever-
al areas with surface disturbances or debris
from past mining and exploration activities
and from former vehicle routes (Map 3).
Some of the former vehicle routes have begun
to blend into the landscape with the camou-
flaging effects of recently established vegeta-
tion. Several surface disturbances are of a
magnitude that will require management
intervention to minimize adverse visual
impacts.

Species Diversity

Forty nine mammal species, 188 species
of birds, 41 species of reptiles and amphib-
ians, and 425 taxa of plants are represented in
the planning area. Appendices B, C, D and E
list animal and plant species confirmed or
expected by range distribution within the
planning area.

There have been no recent observations of
resident or migrating endangered species in
the planning area. However, the area pro-
vides suitable habitat for the peregrine falcon.
Occasionally, brown pelicans are blown onto
the refuge by summer thunderstorms develop-
ing over the Gulf of California to the south.


Environmental Assessment

|. Introduction

Background

The Kofa Game Range was established
by Presidential Order in 1939 and was
expanded and renamed the Kofa National
Wildlife Refuge (Kofa) with Public Law 94-
223 in 1976. Congress gave wilderness des-
ignation to portions of Kofa and the New
Water Mountains with the Arizona Desert
Wildemess Act of 1990. An interagency man-
agement plan was developed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) in a cooperative
effort with the Arizona Game and Fish
Department (AGFD) to provide management
guidance for Kofa and the adjacent New
Water Mountains Wilderness (New Waters).
This environmental assessment analyzes the
potential impacts of proposed actions and
management alternatives that were considered
for the plan.

Background information including loca-
tion, access, and a management situation
description is provided on pages 1 through 20
of the plan.

Purpose and Need for the

Proposed Action

National BLM and Service wilderness
policies stipulate that management plans be
developed for designated wildernesses. The
proposed action’s purpose is to provide for
the preservation and enhancement of the plan-
ning area’s natural features, processes, and
public opportunities within the constraints of
applicable laws and regulations.

ll. Description of the
Proposed Action &
Alternatives

Proposed Action
The proposed action is to adopt and

implement the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge

& Wilderness and New Water Mountains

Wilderness - Interagency Management Plan.

In general, the proposed action would provide

for long-term protection and enhancement of

wilderness values and wildlife habitat in the
planning area. Actions to restore disturbances
resulting from former vehicle trails and min-
ing activities are addressed. The proposed
plan also includes measures to protect cultural
resource values and addresses monitoring and
maintenance needs for existing wildlife
waters.

Opportunities for solitude and primitive
unconfined recreation would be maintained
under the proposed action. Measures to pre-
vent the introduction and establishment of
exotic species are addressed. Strategies to
minimize environmental impacts from mining
activities are prescribed. Scenic qualities and
values of naturalness would be enhanced.
Proposed management actions that could have
environmental effects are listed below.

1. Rockhounding would be allowed in the
New Waters but would be limited to hand
methods that do not cause surface distur-
bances. On Kofa NWR, rockhounding
would be restricted to the Crystal Hill
area, but eliminated from the remainder
of the refuge. Information regarding not
leaving surface disturbances would be
incorporated into agency outreach materi-
als by 1998.

75



Appendix E

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness
Plants

POLYPODIOPHYTA (Ferns)

Polypodiaceae(Fern Family)
Notholaena californica D.C. Eaton California Cloak Fern
Notholaena parryi D.C. Eaton [=Cheilanthes parryi (D.C. Eaton) Domin], Parry’s Cloak Fern

PINOPHYTA (Gymnosperms)
Ephedraceae (Joint-fir Family)
Ephedra fasciculata A.Nels. Mormon Tea
Ephedra nevadensis Wats. Nevada Joint-fir

MAGNOLIOPHYTA (Flowering Plants)
LILIOPSIDA (Monocots)

Typhaceae (Cat-tail Family)
Typha angustifolia L. Narrow-leaved Cattail

NAJADACEAE (Naiad Family)
Najas marina L. Holly-leaved Water Nymph

Poaceae (Grass Family)

Aristida adscensionis L. Six-weeks Three-awn

Aristida arizonica Vasey. Arizona Three-awn

Aristida purpurea Nut. var. glauca (Nees.) A. Holmgr. & N. Holmgr. Reverchon Three-awn
Aristida parishii Hitchc. Parish Three-awn

Aristida ternipes Cav. var. ternipes Spider Grass

Aristida ternipes Cav. var. minor (Vasey) Hitchc.

Avena fatua L. Wild Oat

Bothriochloa barbinodis (Lag.) Herter Cane Beardgrass
Bouteloua aristidoides (H.B.K.) Grisb. Six-weeks Needle Grass
Bouteloua barbata Lag. Six-weeks Grama

Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. Side-oats Grama
Bouteloua curtipendula (Michx.) Torr. var. caespitosa Gould & Kapadia
Bouteloua trifida Thurb. Red Grama

Bromus arizonicus (Shear) Stebbins Arizona Brome

Bromus rubens L. Red Brome, Foxtail Chess

Cenchrus insertus M.A. Curtis, Field Sandbur

Chloris virgata Swartz. Feather Fingergrass

Cynodon dactylon (L) Pers. Bermuda Grass, Pata de Gallo
Digitaria californica (Benth.) Chase Cotton-top

Diplachne dubia (H.B.K.) Nees. Green Sprangletop

Diplachne fascicularis (Lam.) Gray Beaded Sprangletop

56


Cardinals & Grosbeaks
Northern Cardinal
Pyrrhuloxia
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Black-headed Grosbeak
Blue Grosbeak

Lazuli Bunting

Towhees & Sparrows
Green-tailed Towhee
Rufous-sided Towhee
Canyon Towhee*

Abert’s Towhee
Rufous-crowned Sparrow
Chipping Sparrow
Brewer’s Sparrow
Black-chinned Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow

Lark Sparrow
Black-throated Sparrow*
Sage Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Savannah Sparrow

Fox Sparrow

Lincoln’s Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow
Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon)

Cardinalis cardinalis

Cardinalis sinuatus r
Pheucticus ludovicianus x
Pheucticus melanocephalus
Guiraca caerulea
Passerina amoena c

<

Pipilo chlorurus

Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Pipilo fuscus

Pipilo aberti

Aimophild ruficeps
Spizella passerina

Spizella breweri

Spizella atrogularis
Pooecetes gramineus
Chondestes grammacus
Amphispiza bilineata
Amphispiza belli
Calamospiza melanocorys
Passerculus sandwichensis
Passerella iliaca
Melospiza lincolnii
Zonotrichia albicollis
Zonotrichia leucophrys c
Junco hyemalis

eofroootxo ee

Dark-eyed Junco (Gray-headed) Junco hyemalis

Blackbirds & Orioles
Red-winged Blackbird
Western Meadowlark
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Rusty Blackbird
Brewer’s Blackbird
Brown-headed Cowbird
Great-tailed Grackle
Hooded Oriole*
Bullock’s Oriole

Scott’s Oriole*

54

Agelaius phoeniceus r
Sturnella neglecta
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
Euphagus carolinus

Euphagus cyanocephalus
Molothrus ater

Quiscalus mexicanus

Icterus cucullatus

Icterus bullockii

Icterus parisorum

ocooe

2°

axe OOO Ooo eA

°

oor

eEetr0 0 O70 0

2°

monsoon

co

ofrox


Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex Torr. & Gray var. integrifolia Whitlow Grass

Lepidium lasiocarpum Nutt. var. lasiocarpum C.L. Hitchc. Sand Peppergrass

Lepidium lasiocarpum Nutt. var. wrightii (Gray) C.L. Hitchc. Peppergrass, Pepperwort
Lesquerella gordoni (Gray) Watts Gordon Bladderpod

Sisymbrium altissinum L. Tumble Mustard

Sisymbrium irio L. London Rocket

Stanleya elata Jones Desert Plume

Stanleya pinnata (Pursh) Britt. Desert Plume

Streptanthella longirostris (Wats.) Rybd. Long-beaked Twist Flower

Thysanocarpus curvipes Hook. var. elegans (F&M) Robins Fringe Pod

Cleomaceae (Capper Family)
Wislizenia refracta Engelm. Jackass Clover

Resedaceae (Mignonette Family)
Oligomeris linifolia (Vahl) Macbr. Linear-leaved Cambess

Crossosomataceae (Crossosoma Family)
Crossosoma bigelovii Wats. Bigelow Ragged Rock Flower, Rhyolite Bush

Rosaceae (Rose Family)
Prunus fasciculata (Torr.) Gray Desert Range Almond

Fabaceae (Pea Family)
Mimosoideae (Mimosa Subfamily)
Acacia constricta Benth. Mescat Acacia, White Thorn
Acacia greggii Gray var. arizonica Isely [A. greggii Gray] Catclaw acacia,Devil’s-claw
Calliandra eriophylla Benth. False Mesquite, Fairy Duster
Prosopis glandulosa Torrey var. torreyana (Benson) M.C. Johnst. Western Honey Mesquite
Prosopis velutina Woot. [Pjuliflora (Swartz) DC. var. velutina (Woot) Sarg.]
Velvet Mesquite

Caesalpinioideae (Senna Subfamily)

Cercidium floridum Benth. Blue Palo-verde

Cercidium microphyllum (Torr.) Rose & Johnst. Foothill Palo-verde, Little-leaf
Palo-verde, Yellow Palo-verde

Senna covesii (Gray) Irwin & Bameby [=Cassia covesii Gray] Coues’ Cassia,Desert Senna

Hoffmanseggia glauca (Ort.) Eifort [= H. densiflora Benth.] Hog Potato, Camote-de-Raton

Parkinsonia aculeata L. Jerusalem Thorn, Retama, Mexican Palo-verde

Papilionoideae (Bean Subfamily)

Astragalus coccineus Brandg. Scarlet Locoweed

Astragalus nuttallianus DC. var. imperfectus (Rybd.) Barneby Nuttall Locoweed

Coursetia microphylla Gray

Dalea mollis Benth. Silk Dalea

Dalea mollissima (Rydb.) Munz [=D. neomexicana (Gray) Cory ssp. mollissima
(Rydb.) Wiggins]

Dalea neomexicana (Gray) Cory


Camissonia boothii (Dougl.) Raven ssp. decorticans (H.& A.) Raven Woody Bottle-washer
Camissonia brevipes (Gray) Raven. Yellow Cups

Camissonia cardiophylla (Torr.) Raven Heart-leaved Primrose

Camissonia chamaenerioides (Gray) Raven Long-capsuled Primrose

Camissonia clavaeformis (Torr. & Frem.) Raven

Camissonia refracta (S. Wats.) Raven Narrow-leaved Primrose

Oenothera primiveris Gray Large Yellow Desert Primrose

Apiaceae (Parsley Family)
Bowlesia incana Ruiz & Pavon Hairy Bowlesia
Daucus pusillus Michx. Rattlesnake Weed, American Carrot

Garryaceae (Silk Tassel Family)
Garrya flavescens Wats. Quinine Bush, Silk Tassel

Fouquieriaceae (Ocotillo Family)
Fouquieria splendens Engelm. ssp. splendens Ocotillo, Coach Whip

Oleaceae (Olive Family)

Forestiera sp. (verisim. pubescens Nutt.) Desert Olive, Tanglebush
Forestiera shrevei Standl.

Menodora scabra Gray

Menodora scabra Gray var. ramosissima Steyerm.

Menodora scoparia Engelm. Broom Twinberry

Gentianaceae (Gentian Family)
Centaurium calycosum (Buckl.) Fern. Canchalagua, Buckley’s Centaury

Asclepiadaceae (Milkweed Family)

Asclepias albicans Wats. White-stemmed Milkweed

Asclepias nyctaginifolia Gray Four O’Clock Milkweed

Asclepias subulata Decne. Desert Milkweed, Ajamete

Matelea parvifolia (Torr.) Woodson Angle-pod

Sarcostemma cynanchoides Decne. ssp. hartwegii (Vail) Shinners [=Funastrum cynanchoides
(Decne.) Schlechter and F. heterophyllum (Engelm.) Standl.] Climbing Milkweed

Convolvulaceae (Morning Glory Family)
Cuscuta sp. Dodder
Ipomoea coccinea L. Star Glory, Scarlet Creeper, Scarlet Morning Glory

Polemoniaceae (Phlox Family)
Eriastrum diffusum (Gray) Mason ssp. diffusum
Eriastrum eremicum (Jepson) Mason Desert Phlox
Gilia flavocincta A. Nels Gilia

Gilia scopulorum Jones Rock Gilia

Gilia sinuata Dougl. Gilia

Gilia stellata Heller NCN


Swallows

Tree Swallow

Violet-green Swallow

Northern Rough-winged
Swallow

Cliff Swallow

Barn Swallow

Jays & Crows
Steller’s Jay
Scrub Jay
Pinyon Jay
Common Raven

Verdins
Verdin*

Nuthatches
Red-breasted Nuthatch

Wrens
Cactus Wren*

Rock Wren*
Canyon Wren*
Bewick’s Wren
House Wren

Kinglets & Gnatcatchers
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher*
Black-tailed Gnatcatcher*

Thrushes

Western Bluebird
Mountain Bluebird
Townsend’s Solitaire
Swainson’s Thrush
Hermit Thrush
American Robin

Mockingbirds & Thrashers
Brown Thrasher

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird*
Sage Thrasher

Bendire’s Thrasher*
Curve-billed Thrasher*
Crissal Thrasher*

LeConte’s Thrasher

52

Tachycineta bicolor
Tachycineta thalassina
Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Hirundo pyrrhonota
Hirundo rustica

Cyanocitta stelleri
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
Corvus corax

Auriparus flaviceps

Sitta canadensis

Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
Salpinctes obsoletus
Catherpes mexicanus
Thryomanes bewickii
Troglodytes aedon

Regulus calendula
Polioptila caerulea
Polioptila melanura

Sialia mexicana
Sialia currucoides
Myadestes townsendi
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius

Toxostoma rufum
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Oreoscoptes montanus
Toxostoma bendirei
Toxostoma curvirostre
Toxostoma crissale
Toxostoma lecontei

eofroo

oonocrona

ooos

on7non7

eoonne

ecnro

oan x

oo

on

conae

o°


R20W

AIRSPACE, RESTRICTIONS,

RI4W RI3W

Zu

Zen

19W
fe

se a ee

Zod

Zen

Zar

Aw wAnA Amy

ned

Aur

at

hemenencanee:

H
ad

R-2308B

Se

(
ny

(Note: Roads on the Kofa National
Wildlife Refuge are at the center of
a 200 feet wide corridor. All
vehicles must remain within the
corridor).

I l

MAP -5

LEGEND
(= Wildemess
---- Planning Area Boundary
Roads SCALE
—— County Maintained Roads 9 3 6

Township & Range ——<—|

=== Airspace Restriction Boundary MILES
R-2308A & C (1,500 to 80,000 ft

above ground level) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
R-2308B (surface to 80,000 ft PA Oe Lan MANAGEMENT

above ground level)

R-2307 (surface to unlimited altitude) AUGUST 1996



Table 5 — Non-Recurring Tasks

Task/Activity Target Costs. Task Assignment
Date
1. Implement restrictions on: rockhounding; fuel wood gathering; 1998 $ 2,500 | Wilderness Specialist/
rock climbing; and use of recreational livestock Refuge and Field
Develop educational materials for posting at locations I-1 Managers
ito I-10 on Map 1 to promote low impact uses and inform the public
lof restrictions .
2. Work with AGFD to provide information about fuel wood gathering 1998 $ 1,000 | State Office/Res. Area
restrictions on Kofa and requirements for livestock use in planning area Wildermess Specialists/
for inclusion on yearly hunting regulations. Field/Refuge Managers
3. Construct information display at location I-8 on Map 1 in New Waters. | 1998 $ 400 | Park Ranger/Wilderness
Specialist
4. Establish visitor registers at locations I-1 to I-10 on Map 1. 1998 $ 900 | Refuge Manager/
Wilderness Specialist

IS. Develop BLM/Service MOU for mining validity examinations. 1999 1 Refuge/Field Managers
16. Clean up debris at abandoned mining sites on Map 3 as follows:

*1 to *6 1996 to 2001) $15,000 | Refuge Manager

*7 1997 $ 1,000 | Pk. Ranger/W. Specialist
7, Reclaim former routes K-1 and K-2 and NW-1 to NW-4 on.
Map 3 as follows: K-1 & K-2 1997 & 1998$ 5,000 | Refuge Manager

NW-1 to NW-4 1997 to 2 $ 10,000} Pk. Ranger/W. Specialist
8. Pursue options to establish 2 field positions on Kofa. 1998 $ 60,000] Refuge Manager
9. Inventory and gate or close abandoned mines on Kofa as appropriate. | 1998 $ 25,000] Refuge Manager
10. Repair gabion and improve water collection system at Nugget Tank. | 2000 $ 5,000 | AGFD/Biologists
11. Improve water developments at: Charlie Died Tank 1998 $ 30,000] Refuge Manager

Modesti Tank 2000 $ 30,000
12. Relocate water developments Kofa #1 and #2. Kofa #1 2004 $ 30,000 | AGFD/ BLM/Service-

Kofa #2 2005 $ 30,000| Wildlife Biologists

13. Complete Kofa aerial videography project. 1999 $ 5,000 | Refuge Manager
14. Acquire public easement through or all property on Mineral Entry 1999 $100,000} State Office Realty
Patent 546603. Specialist/ Field Manager
15. Acquire private inholdings from willing sellers on Kofa. 2010 2 Refuge Manager
16. Acquire active mining claims from willing sellers on Kofa. 2010 2 Refuge Manager

1. No operational funding is needed; approximately 1 workmonth will be needed for Tasks 5 and 6.
2. Tasks 16 and 17 are long-term goals and acquisition estimates were not readily available.

42



1987. Lower Gila South Final Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement. Phoenix, AZ.
1988. Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan. Phoenix, AZ.

1988. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan.
Washington, D.C.

1992. Yuma District Supplemental Interim Wilderness Fire Management Plan. Yuma, AZ.

1993. Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Plan for the Trigo Mountains, Muggins
Mountains, New Water Mountains, and Eagletail Mountains Wilderness Areas. Yuma, AZ.

1996. National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Taped Proceedings From the Johne’s
Disease Workshop of March 12, 1996. Denver, CO.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Habitat Management
- Refuge Manual 6 RM 8. Washington, D.C.

US. Department of the Interior. 1989. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1702-B. Denver,
co.

73



Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness
and
New Water Mountains Wilderness
Interagency Management Plan

Signature by the Arizona State Director represents an agreement by the Bureau of Land
Management to work cooperatively within the scope of agency jurisdiction, with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the public, to implement public
land provisions of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New Water Mountains
Wilderness - Interagency Management Plan.

Signature by the Regional Director, Region 2, represents an agreement by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to work cooperatively within the scope of agency jurisdiction, with the Bureau
of Land Management and Arizona Game and Fish Department to implement appropriate provi-
sions of this Plan.

As Secretary to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, signature by the Director of the
Arizona Game and Fish Department represents an agreement by the Commission and the
Department to work cooperatively with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to implement provisions of this plan as authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes
Title 17.

For lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, this plan complies with provi-
sions of the Sikes Act and the Master Memorandum of Understanding Between State of Arizona,
Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.

Approved by: Ao 4 2 “337! (Ras

DeniseMeridith, Arizona State Dieu
Bureau of Land Management

Approved by:

Approved by: Qu 20.L,

Duane Shroufe, Director
Arizona Game and Fish



Nugget Tank using motorized
equipment or vehicles

- The access method for emergency
situations at wildlife waters will
be determined by the Field
Manager and/or Refuge Manager
on a case-by-case basis, and where
applicable, in sonsultation with
AGFD. Maintenance, modifica-
tion, and/or repair by
motorized/mechanical means may
be considered on a case by case
basis.

15. The Service, BLM, and AGFD would

evaluate options to install buried water
systems at Charlie Died Tank and
Modesti Tank, and improve the visual
characteristics and/or reliability of Kofa
#1 and #2 by redeveloping or relocating
the wildlife waters.

16. Nugget Tank would be improved, redevel-

oped, or enhanced to minimize visual
impacts and reduce the need for water
supplementation by 1998. The use of
mechanized equipment would be allowed.

17. The following flight operations would be

provided for. A 2 week advance notifica-

tion of planned flights by AGFD to the

appropriate agency is desirable.

- One low level bighorn sheep sur-
vey, averaging 8 hours of flight
time in the New Waters and 60
hours on the refuge during the
period of October | through
November 30.

- One low-level javelina and mule
deer survey, averaging 8 hours of
flight time in the New Waters and
15 hours on the refuge during the
period from January 1 through
March 31.

- In addition, flights for monitoring
water levels, supplemental wildlife
surveys, or in response to emer-
gency situations would occur if
necessary.

18.

19,

20.

21.

- Helicopter landings would be
allowed for the retrieval of teleme-
try equipment from a sick or dead
animal. Advance approval by the
Service or BLM is necessary for
aircraft landings within designated
wilderness that are not provided
for in this plan. Emergency and
safety reasons are the exception.

Cooperative efforts to identify needs and

collect baseline data would be continued.

The Service would complete all phases of

the already established aerial videography

project by the year 1999.

Appropriate agencies would coordinate to

establish seasonal closures of sensitive

habitat to protect wildlife and plant
species when needed. Such areas would
include drought period water sources,
lambing sites (Map 4), abandoned mine
shafts and other sensitive habitats.

By 1998, inventory abandoned mine sites,

the majority of which are outside the

wilderness, and install gates in such a

way as to allow for continued use of bats

and other wildlife. If appropriate, the
mine opening may be closed. For those
mine openings that are found to be within
wilderness and present a safety hazard to
the public, the manager will install the
appropriate wildlife amenable gates using
the minimum tool. Mechanized/motor-
ized equipment would be allowed for
installing gates or closing mine sites.

Private lands (Map 3) within the Kofa

portion of the planning area would be

purchased from willing sellers. There

would be a purchase target of at least 1

property per year.

22. The BLM would pursue options to

23.

acquire a public easement through or pur-
chase the land parcel described by
Mineral Entry Patent 546603, adjacent to
the New Waters in the northeast portion
of the planning area (Map 3) by 1999.
Information and interpretive displays
would be established and maintained at
access points to the planning area as
funding and staff levels permit.

77



76

Adequate signing and distribution of
information concerning restrictions to
unauthorized vehicular/mechanized trans-
port within wilderness areas would be
continued (Information Displays, Map 1).
Practices that minimize surface distur-
bances would be emphasized.

Barriers would be installed at the wilder-
ness boundaries where signing alone is
not effective in controlling unauthorized
vehicle entry. Boulders, berms, plants or
other natural materials would be preferred
for use as barriers. However, if these
prove ineffective, post and cable barriers
would be constructed.

The establishment of salt cedar
(Tamarisk) or other exotic plant species at
wildlife waters would be controlled and
discovered plants would be removed by
physical or authorized chemical means.
An environmental assessment would be
needed for identified sites.

Existing burro fences would be main-
tained and any nuisance burros that
expand their range to include the plan-
ning area would be removed.

Education and outreach would include:
working with the Arizona Game and Fish
Department to include visitor use impacts
information in the annual hunting regula-
tions by 1998; developing a joint agency
brochure/map by 1998; participating in
annual Quartzsite pow wow public infor-
mation booth.

Cleaning up debris at 6 abandoned
unpatented mining sites within Kofa and
1 site within the New Waters (Map 3)
would be accomplished by the year 2001.
Two former vehicle routes (3.5 miles) in
the refuge and 4 former vehicle routes
(4.5 miles - Map 3) in the New Waters
would be reclaimed using hand tools and
other non mechanized methods to mini-
mize visual impacts and enhance wilder-
ness values and opportunities.

The Service would coordinate with the
military to remove military debris as war-
ranted.

10.

11.

12.

Options to establish 2 field positions by
1998 for the purpose of implementing
resource protection, monitoring, and pub-
lic outreach provisions of this manage-
ment plan for the entire planning area
would be pursued.

Reported fires would be monitored by air
with minimum altitudes of 1000 feet
above ground level, or by foot access. In
the New Waters, fires that exceed or are
expected to exceed a 5 chain per hour
rate of spread would be suppressed. Kofa
fires that threaten private property, have
other than a low potential for spreading
beyond the planning area, or present a
significant threat to unique natural
resources (i.e., native palms) or, health
and safety for the public, would be sup-
pressed. Non-motorized hand tools
would be used for suppression activities
within wilderness portions of the plan-
ning area. The rehabilitation of distur-
bances caused by fire suppression activi-
ties would be completed in accordance
with BLM Manual 8560.35 and Refuge
Manual 6 RM 8.8C, before suppression
forces are released.

Bighorn sheep capture and transplant
work in the planning area would be con-
sidered annually in consultations between
the AGFD and Kofa/BLM staff.

. Helicopter use would be allowed as the

minimum tool necessary for bighorn
sheep capture operations.

. Routine inspections of all wildlife waters,

with the exception of Charlie Died Tank,

would be accomplished by non-mechani-

cal means. Maintenance of wildlife
waters in wilderness would also be con-
ducted by non-mechanical means with the
exception of those listed below:

- At Kofa #1 and Kofa #2, Adam’s
Well, King Well, and Charlie Died
Tank, maintenance, and water sup-
plementation would be allowed by
vehicle.

- If needed during drought periods,
water would be supplemented at


Alternative B - Minimal Human

Impacts

Actions that would provide the maximum
protection for existing natural resource and
cultural values were considered for this alter-
native. Campfires and rockhounding would
not be permitted throughout the planning
area. Camp cooking on the Refuge would be
allowed using only charcoal in grills or
propane burners and stoves. Technical rock
climbing and repelling would not be permit-
ted on portions of the planning area adminis-
tered by the Service. A permit system for the
use of recreational livestock (only horses,
burros, and Ilamas would be allowed) would
be instituted on all the planning area to moni-
tor and limit potential impacts to natural val-
ues and wildlife.

Measures for the rehabilitation of surface
disturbances and maintenance of existing
developments as described in the proposed
action would also apply for this alternative.

Ill. Affected Environment

A description of the affected environment
can be found on pages | through 20 of the
proposed Kofa National Wildlife Refuge &
Wilderness and New Water Mountains
Wilderness Interagency Management Plan.

IV. Environmental
Consequences

The following critical elements have been
analyzed and would not be affected by the
proposed action and alternatives: areas of
critical environmental concern; cultural
resources; prime or unique farmlands; flood-
plains; Native American religious concerns;
threatened or endangered species; solid or
hazardous wastes; water quality; wetlands or
riparian zones; and wild and scenic rivers.

Impacts of the Proposed

Action
Wildemess values and wildlife habitat
would be enhanced and preserved for the

foreseeable future under provisions of the
proposed action.

Limitations on rockhounding as a recre-
ational use on the Refuge would prevent
potential cumulative impacts to the landscape
(visual), wildlife habitat, and archeological
resources. Recreational opportunities for
rockhounding on Kofa would be displaced to
some extent. Limiting rockhounding activi-
ties on the New Waters to those that do not
result in surface disturbances would minimize
potential impacts to wilderness values and
wildlife habitat while continuing to provide
for a wide spectrum of recreational opportuni-
ties.

Providing public information at access
points concerning wilderness restrictions on
the use of motorized or mechanized equip-
ment and promoting practices that minimize
surface disturbances should assist in allowing
the natural rehabilitation of existing distur-
bances as would the construction of barriers
when needed. Coordinating activities among
the agencies involved in developing this plan
should strengthen the effectiveness of public
education and outreach efforts.

Barriers to prevent motorized vehicle vio-
lations and educational displays would be
located outside the wilderness. Visual
impacts from the barriers and displays would
be mitigated by using plants, berms, or low
profile materials with low visual contrasts.
Promoting “Leave No Trace” and “Tread
Lightly” land use ethics within the planning
area would assist in preventing new visitor
use impacts to natural values and would pro-
tect cultural resources. The barriers and pro-
motion of a low impact land use ethic would
provide for the enhancement of wilderness
values and wildlife habitat by allowing weath-
ering processes to reclaim minor surface dis-
turbances. Minimal impacts to visual
resources from the barriers and displays
would be offset by the long-term benefits of
enhancing and preserving wilderness values,
opportunities for primitive recreation, and
compatible wildlife dependent activities. The
construction of berms as barriers would not
significantly affect erosion potentials due to

79



ate options to install buried water systems
at Charlie Died Tank and Modesti Tank,
and improve the visual characteristics
and/or reliability of Kofa #1 and #2 by
redeveloping or relocating the wildlife
waters.

6. Improve, redevelop, or enhance Nu:
Tank to minimize visual impacts and
reduce the need for water supplementa-
tion by 1998. The use of mechanized
equipment will be allowed.

Rationale for Actions 4, 5, and 6:
Traditionally, these have been inspected using
vehicle transport. Wildlife water sources on
the Kofa are important components of.
wildlife management for the refuge. The
Service recognizes the newer context created
by wilderness designation. The options to be
evaluated will assist in lessening the frequen-
cy of administrative use of vehicles and
mechanical equipment, while allowing for
fulfillment of Kofa’s important role in the
recovery of bighorn sheep.

Inspection of waters by aerial means is
not precluded by the wilderness act or by this
plan. If aircraft landings are required within
designated wilderness, advance approval by
the Service or the BLM is necessary unless
otherwise stated in this plan. Emergency and
safety reasons are the exception.

7. Provide for the following flight opera-
tions. A 2 week advance notification of
planned flights by AGFD to the appropri-
ate agency is desirable.

- One low level bighorn sheep sur-
vey, averaging 8 hours of flight
time in the New Waters and 60
hours on the refuge during the
period of October | through
November 30.

- One low-level javelina and mule
deer survey. averaging 8 hours of
flight time in the New Waters and
15 hours on the refuge during the
period from January 1 through

March 31.

- In addition, flights for monitoring
water levels, supplemental wildlife
surveys, or in response to emer-
gency situations may occur if nec-
essary.

- Helicopter landings will be
allowed for the retrieval of teleme-
try equipment from a sick or dead
animal.

Rationale: Implementing these provi-
sions will minimize the number of flights
over designated wilderness and improve effi-
ciencies in time and money to acquire needed
biological information throughout the plan-
ning area. Advance approval by the Service
or BLM is necessary for aircraft landings
within wilderness that are not provided for in
this plan. Emergency and safety reasons are
the exception.

8. Continue cooperative effort to identify
needs and collect baseline data. The
Service will complete all phases of the
already established aerial videography
project by the year 1999.

Rationale: All agencies recognize the
need to collect as much relevant scientific
data as possible to assist in efforts to manage
habitat and wildlife in the planning area for
its biologically diverse suitability and capabil-
ity. The aerial videography project will pro-
vide fundamental vegetation baseline data
once digitized.

9. Appropriate agencies will coordinate to
establish seasonal closures of sensitive
habitat to protect wildlife and plant
species when needed. Such areas may
include drought period water sources,
lambing sites (Map 4), abandoned mine
shafts and other sensitive habitats.

10. By 1998, inventory abandoned mine sites,
the majority of which are outside the
wilderness, and install gates in such a


A natural “pothole” in Kofa catches rainwater.

A desert tortoise survey was conducted on
a one square mile plot in the New Water
Mountains, adjacent to the Wilderness Area.
Similar to the Kofa survey, desert tortoise dis-
tribution was associated with patchy cover
sites. Pre-designation wilderness inventories
established that portions of the New Waters
were important desert tortoise habitat. In con-
formance with BLM Policy and the docu-
ment, Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on
the Public Lands: ARANGEWIDE PLAN
(1988), the New Waters has been classified as
Category II desert tortoise habitat. The man-
agement goal for Category II tortoise habitat
is to maintain stable, viable populations and
halt further declines in tortoise habitat values.

Livestock Grazing

There are portions of two grazing allot-
ments in the New Waters. Neither of the two
allotments have any range developments in
the wilderness.

The Crowder-Weisser Allotment (#3022)
is a perennial-ephemeral allotment and
includes about 17,568 acres of the wilderness
on the eastern side. Yearlong use has aver-
aged 500 head over the last 10 years.
Ephemeral use is authorized by the BLM
when conditions warrant. The maximum

18

number of livestock grazed during the five
years preceding 1995 was 2,000 head for 3
months under an ephemeral license.
However, due to terrain and distance from
water, livestock grazing within wilderness
portions of the allotment is minimal.

The Scott Allotment (#3075) is an
ephemeral allotment and includes approxi-
mately 7,032 acres on the extreme western
side of the wilderness. Since 1975, there has
been little use of this allotment and since
1980 no use has been applied for. There were
no grazing related issues identified for the
BLM portion of the planning area.

There is no livestock grazing on the
refuge. Livestock that occasionally stray onto
the refuge from adjacent BLM allotments are
removed. An existing fencing program on the
refuge prevents the entry of cattle from
refuge boundaries which are adjacent to BLM
grazing allotments. The fencing program also
deters off-road vehicle violations. Other than
routine fence maintenance, there are no graz-
ing issues for the planning area. Vehicle
access is necessary on the eastern refuge
wilderness boundary for fence maintenance.

Burro Management

The New Waters and Kofa are not within
a wild horse or burro herd area. There are no
records of burros ever being established in or
making transient use of the New Waters.

There are a few resident burros in the
refuge. Occasionally, they attempt to expand
their range from the U. S. Army Yuma
Proving Ground onto the Kofa. Management
provisions provide for the removal of non-res-
ident burros by BLM. Most wildlife waters
on the refuge contain fences designed to
exclude burros.

Public Access

The western boundary of the New Waters
has legal public access via the Gold Nugget
Road south of Interstate 10 at exit 26. To
reach the north-central area, the Ramsey Mine
Road south of Highway 60 provides a route


PART Ill — Issues

An issue is considered to be a problem or
opportunity arising from agency directives,
resource conflicts, and expectations as identi-
fied in the initial stage of this effort, by
agency resource specialists and the public. In
addressing the identified issues, there are
dominant wilderness and wildlife manage-
ment themes for the planning area that
include guidelines both agencies must follow.
The agencies have made an effort to learn
what issues are most important to the public
within considerations of how the area’s
resources are to be managed for the long-
term.

The issues that were identified are sepa-
rated into two categories: activity plan issues
and issues solved by policy. Following is the
final list of issues:

Activity Plan Issues

Issue #1: Preservation of Wilderness
Values — The long-term preservation of
wilderness values is mandated by the
Wilderness Act. Concerns to address are:
Effects of visitor uses, illegal vehicle trespass,
monitoring of effects of uses, management of
exotic species, and opportunities for environ-
mental education, interpretation, and public
outreach.

Issue #2: Wildlife and Habitat
Management — The Service has mandated
habitat and wildlife management responsibili-
ties. BLM manages wildlife habitat. In coor-
dination with AGFD, both agencies are striv-
ing to manage the range of habitats within the
planning area to support a diversity of
wildlife. Included in this issue is the manage-
ment of the various facilities and associated
maintenance of wildlife waters in and outside
the wilderness areas. This plan establishes a
range of wildlife and habitat management
strategies within the context of wilderness and

the surrounding areas. Topics of concern
include: Cooperative management; scarcity
of data; desert bighorn sheep, wildlife waters;
endangered, threatened, candidate species,
and other sensitive and special status species;
management of exotic/ non-native species
including pathogenic organisms; and fire
management.

Issue #3: Recreation and Public Access
— Access routes for hunting, wildlife obser-
vation, and camping have presented resource
protection challenges throughout the refuge
and the northwestern portion of the New
Waters area. Legal public access needs to be
acquired through patented land along the
northwest portion of the New Waters. Items
to address are: Legal access; hunting;
wildlife observation, camping, and photogra-
phy; wilderness opportunities for solitude;
and noncompatible uses of the planning area.

Issue #4: Minerals Management -
Active Mining Claims — Several unpatented
mining claims exist within the Kofa. Future
activities in these areas could affect visual
resource values and wildlife habitat within the
planning area. This plan will establish strate-
gies for minimizing impacts of all claims.

Issue #5: Minimizing potential impacts
from private lands — There are several pri-
vate inholdings within the non-wilderness
portion of Kofa and one private land parcel
adjacent to the north end of the New Waters.
Future activities in these areas could affect
visual resource values and wildlife habitats
within the planning area. This plan will
establish strategies for eliminating potential
impacts from these non-federal lands.

Issue #6: Surface Disturbances — The
wilderness portion of the planning area con-
tains several surface disturbances that affect
the area’s natural appearance. This plan
determines some strategies for minimizing the
effects of existing disturbances on wildemmess
values.

25



nated wilderness, the BLM manages these
activities within wilderness management
guidelines. It is estimated that there are less
than 500 visitors per year to this BLM wilder-
ness.

In addition to being a popular hunting
location, recreational access to the Hidden
tank area of the New Waters is through
patented land described by Mineral Survey
3207. Acquiring this land or an easement
would provide legal public access to this por-
tion of the wilderness and increase opportuni-
ties for public recreation.

Minerals and Mining

The Kofa has been closed to mineral
entry since February 1974. There are several
active claims in the refuge that were estab-
lished before the area was withdrawn from
mineral entry. Several of these claims are in
the Kofa Wilderness and there is a potential
for mining activities to occur in the future.
The Service is interested in developing a
Memorandum of Understanding with the
BLM to have mineral validity examinations
performed if future mining operations are pro-
posed on active claims in the Kofa
Wildemess.

As with all public lands, the BLM still
administers mining claim records and moni-
tors procedures that must be followed by
claimants to maintain their claims in an active
state. As of June 22, 1995, BLM Arizona
State Office records listed 40 claims on the
Kofa. Twenty-nine of these claims were
declared abandoned for failure to meet the
annual filing requirements of the 1872 Mining
Law, as amended. These decisions are
presently under appeal to the Interior Board

_ of Land Appeals.

A minerals investigation conducted joint-
ly by the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and the U. S. Bureau of Mines in 1986 pro-
vided an assessment of mineral resources for
the New Waters. There are varying degrees
of mineralization throughout the planning
area. USGS Bulletin 1702-B (1989) contains
additional geological information and a pub-

20

lished account of the mineral assessment con-
ducted in 1986. There are no active mining
claims in the New Waters and the Arizona
Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 withdrew this
area from mineral entry.

Lands

The patented land (Mineral Entry Patent
546603, September 22, 1916; Map 3) adjacent
to the northeast portion of the New Waters is
within the planning area. This land also
adjoins an area described by USGS Bulletin
1702-B as having moderate mineral resource
potential.

There are several non-Federal inholdings
within the Kofa. Forty-six patented mining
claims (Map 3) totaling approximately 865
acres are located in nonwilderness portions of
the refuge. Most of these are situated on the
southern edge of the Kofa Mountains in the
vicinity of the historic King of Arizona Mine
and on the southern edge of the Castle Dome
Mountains. There are two non-mineral pri-
vate holdings within the refuge totaling 240
acres.

A 58-mile common boundary on the
southern half of the refuge exists with the U.
S. Army Yuma Proving Ground. The
Secretary of the Interior has granted the Army
permission to use airspace over 171,000 acres
(surface to unlimited altitude; Area R-2307;
Map 5) of the refuge as a buffer/flyover zone
for weapons and associated munitions testing.
An additional 316,660 acres of restricted mili-
tary airspace (1,500 to 80,000 feet above
ground level; Areas R-2308 A and R-2308 C;
Map 5) occurs over the refuge.

Three county roads within the refuge are
maintained by La Paz and Yuma counties: (1)
Castle Dome Road (5 miles); (2) King Valley
Road (17 miles); and, (3) Vicksburg Road (3
Miles). The MST&T Road (11 miles),
Blevens/Crystal Hill Road (7.6 miles), and
Palm Canyon Road (9 miles) are maintained
by the refuge.

There are several utility rights-of-way
within the refuge that are administered by the
Service. None of the rights-of-way are within


way as to allow for continued use of bats
and other wildlife. If appropriate, the
mine opening may be closed. For those
mine openings that are found to be within
wilderness, and present a safety hazard to
the public, the manager will install the
appropriate wildlife amenable gates using
the minimum tool. Mechanized/motor-
ized equipment will be allowed for
installing gates or closing mine sites.

Rationale for Actions 9 and 10: These
actions will minimize the potential for
adverse impacts from visitors on wildlife dur-
ing crucial periods. The agencies must be
able to maintain the integrity of natural and
appropriate manipulative processes so that
wildlife, habitat, and wilderness mandates are
met. In the case of abandoned mine shafts,
closure will minimize risks to human safety.

11. Purchase from willing sellers, private
inholdings (Map 3) within the Kofa por-
tion of the planning area. There will be a
purchase target of at least | inholding per
year.

Rationale: This action will provide for
the protection of wildlife habitat and visual
values of the planning area.

Monitoring for Objective 2

1. Maintain monitoring logs of the adminis-
trative use of vehicles and/or mechanized
equipment. Evaluate the logs annually
and explore options to reduce the need
for these type of administrative uses.

w

Monitor burn areas for the establishment
of exotic plant species.

3. Monitor visitor uses and intensities of
uses as to their effects and/or impacts on
natural resources within the planning
area. Recommend and implement mitiga-
tion to minimize adverse impacts as need-

ed.

Objective 3: Recreation, Legal

Access and Public Information
Maintain high quality opportunities for
recreation within the planning area, and where

applicable, wildlife dependent, and/or primi-
tive recreation that is compatible with the pur-
poses for which the Kofa NWR and New
Water Mountains Wilderness were estab-
lished. These uses include wildlife observa-
tion, hiking, hunting, camping, photography,
and solitude. This objective will be accom-
plished by:

¢ Providing public information that
allows for public enjoyment of recre-
ational opportunities in the planning
area while promoting low impact use
ethics for visitors.

+ Establishing methods that will allow
for the public to continually assess the
quality of their recreational opportuni-
ties and thereby assist in determining

Native Palms — Kofa

35



PRIVATE LANDS/SURF ACE DISTURBANCE, AREHABI RATA IPN

i | aa
al 95 I | |
T
4 Quartzsite id 7
N | = ‘ed \/
ee
a
rfp
T —
3
N Ne
I L|
To Quartzsi ni
al ~Blsvne] jcksburg
1 Road
2
N neue
5 |
T
1
N .
Pagan es!
t _ K-l :
1 eS |
1 ee rs |
—
i SS
y a
| A y oe
aS : 3 |_|
. La
3
Ss
t z : Kofa National ‘Wildlife Refuge
: : : 2%
PA in ee 4
% a = ee
T
5
s| Dome
Road
T
$ To Yuma
[FF 4 Miles
N
LEGEND A
Private Lands SCALE
[= Wilderness —_ i §
---- Planning Area Boundary MILES
—— Roads
—— Township & Range UNITED STATES
—— Disturbance/Rehabilitation DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
(K-1 K-2, NW-l thru NW-4)) RES tito gine
* Mining Debris AUGUST 1996 LOCATION DIAGRAM

MAP -3



24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

78

As staffing and funding allow, monthly
patrols of the planning area would be
conducted.

Leave No Trace!” land use ethics would
be promoted by making appropriate infor-
mation available at information displays
and administrative sites.

Visitor registers would be included at
information displays (Map 1) to provide
for public assessment and comment about
the quality of their recreational and
wildlife appreciation opportunities.
Existing authorized public access routes
(Map 1) would be kept open to promote
dispersed visitor use and maintain oppor-
tunities for solitude.

The Service will continue to work with
AGED to manage the Alternate hunt
(mule deer) Program on the Kofa portion
of the planning area (State Game
Management Unit 45.

Technical rock climbing and repelling
would be allowed in the planning area
with the provision that permanent anchors
are not used and that routes are not
marked.

Horses, mules, llamas, and burros would
be allowed as recreational livestock in the
planning area under these conditions:
The use of feeding containers would be
required, water would be packed in for
livestock, and surface disturbances at
campsites are to be restored. Use of pel-
letized feed is recommended.

Campfires would be allowed in the New
Waters using dead, down and detached
wood. Information would be provided at
wilderness access displays to minimize
use of campfires. Visitors to the New
Waters would be encouraged to bring
their own firewood. The BLM would
consider campfire restrictions as a last
resort.

The gathering of dead, down, and
detached wood in nonwilderness portions
of Kofa will be allowed. The Service
would require that visitors to designated

wildemess on Kofa bring their campfire
wood or bring charcoal or propane
stoves. No native wood would be allowed
to be removed from the Refuge.

33. Non-government entities would be
encouraged to purchase unpatented
claims on the Kofa NWR and allow
claims to lapse. At least 2 non-govern-
mental entities would be contacted by end
of 1998.

34. By 1999, the Service would develop
Memorandum of Understanding with the
BLM to perform mining claim validity
examinations within designated wilder-
ness on the Kofa NWR and make provi-
sions for project funding.

35. Implementation of a 25 mile per hour
speed limit on county maintained roads
would be recommended to Yuma and La
Paz County officials.

Alternative A - No Action

Under the no action alternative, manage-
ment guidance would be provided by the
Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wilderness
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990, and
national BLM and Service resource manage-
ment policies. No specific actions would be
proposed for rehabilitating existing distur-
bances, protecting natural and cultural
resources, or maintaining existing wildlife
waters. However, due to existing laws, agree-
ments, and national wilderness management
policies for the maintenance of wildlife
waters and wildlife management activities,
wildlife management provisions would be the
same as the proposed action for this alterna-
tive.

Current conditions and values would be
potentially maintained under this alternative.
Under this alternative, wood gathering and the
possession of ironwood would continue to be
allowed throughout the Refuge for campfires.
Rockhounding as a recreational activity
would continue to be allowed throughout the
Refuge.


Euphorbiaceae (Spurge Family)

Argythamnia clariana Jepson

Argythamnia lanceolata (Benth.) Muel. Arg. Lance-leaved Ditaxis
Bernardia incana Morton [=B. myricaefolia (Scheele) Wats.] Bernardia
Euphorbia arizonica Engelm.

Euphorbia eriantha Benth. Desert Poinsettia

Euphorbia heterophylla L. var. heterophylla Painted Spurge, Catalina
Euphorbia polycarpa Benth. var. hirtella Boiss

Euphorbia polycarpa Benth. var. polycarpa Small-seeded Sand Mat
Euphorbia setiloba Engelm. Bristle-lobed Sand Mat

Tetracoccus fasciculatus (Wats.) Croizat var. hallii (T.S. Brand.) Dressler Purple Bush
Tragia nepetaefolia Cav. Tragia

Simmondsiaceae (Simmondsia Family)
Simmondsia chinensis (Link) Schneid Coffee Berry, Goat Nut, Deer-nut, Jojoba

Anacardiaceae (Cashew Family, Sumac Family)
Rhus trilobata Nutt. var anisophylla (Greene) Jeps. Squaw Bush

Celastraceae (Bitter-sweet Family)
Canotia holacantha Torr.

Rhamnaceae (Buck Thorn Family)
Ceanothus greggii Gray Buck Brush, Deer Brier

Colubrina californica Johnst. California Snake Bush

Condalia globosa Sohnst. var. pubescens Johnst. Bitter Condalia Desert Mahogany

Ziziphus obtusifolia (Hook. ex T.& G.) A. Gray var. canescens (A. Gray) M.C. Johnst.

Gray-leaved Abrojo, Gray Thorn

Malvaceae (Mallow Family)

Abutilon californicum Benth.

Abutilon incanum (Link.) Sweet ssp. incanum Indian Mallow, Pelotazo
Abutilon incanum (Link) Sweet ssp. pringlei (Hochr.) Felger & Lowe
Abutilon parvulum Gray

Herissantia crispa (L.) Brizicky [=Bogenhardia crispa (L.) Kearney, Gayoidescrispum (L.)

Small, Abutilon crispum Sweet]
Hibiscus coulteri Harv. Desert Rose Mallow
Hibiscus denudatus Benth. var. denudatus Rock Hibiscus
Horsfordia alata (Wats.) Gray Pink Felt Plant
Horsfordia newberryi (Wats.) Gray Yellow Felt Plant
Malva parviflora L. Little Mallow
Sphaeralcea ambigua Gray var. ambigua Desert Mallow, Apricot Mallow
Sphaeralcea ambigua (Gray) var. rosacea (Munz & Johnst.) Kearney Rose Mallow
Sphaeralcea coulteri (Wats.) Gray Coulter Globe Mallow
Sphaeralcea emoryi Torr. var. emoryi Emory Globe Mallow
Sphaeralcea emoryi Torr. var. californica (Parish) Shinners

62


Plan Purpose

This document provides management
direction for the foreseeable future of the
planning area. Direction for the New Waters
in this plan is in conformance with the Lower
Gila South Resource Management Plan. All
other previous management direction for the
planning area is amended and replaced by this
plan. Any future management guidance
whose sphere of influence covers this plan-
ning area shall abide by the provisions of this
document and become an amendment thereto.

For the Service, amended and replaced by
this plan is the Planning Needs Assessment
(1985). For the BLM, amended and replaced
plans where they apply to the New Water
Mountains Wilderness are: The Yuma District
Supplemental Interim Wilderness Fire
Management Plan (1992) and the Wildlife
Operations and Maintenance Plan for the
Trigo Mountains, Muggins Mountains, New
Water Mountains, and Eagletail Mountains
Wilderness Areas (1993).

Revision of this plan can occur at any
time upon mutual agreement of the BLM, the
Service, and the AGFD. Minor revision or
modification documents will be approved by
the BLM Yuma Field Manager, the Kofa
Refuge Manager, and the AGFD Regional
Supervisor. Major revisions or amendments
must be reauthorized by the original signato-
ries.

Legal Guidance

The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the
Arizona Desert Wildermess Act of 1990 pro-
vide general legal guidance for all wilderness
portions of the planning area. However, there
are different legal mandates that affect each
agency and management will also be guided
for each respective jurisdiction as follows:

Executive Order 8039, the legal authority
that established the Kofa National Wildlife
Refuge, 6 Refuge Manual 8, and Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 199
and Parts 400 to 499, will provide general
management guidance for portions of the pro-
ject area administered by the Service.

Additional general guidance for the Service
will be provided by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
(16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), Executive Order
12996, and the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.). The Refuge
CMP referenced at the beginning of this docu-
ment contains a more inclusive list of legal
mandates that provide management direction
for the Kofa.

BLM Manual 8560 and Title 43, Code of
Federal Regulations, Subpart 8560 (43 CFR
8560) will provide general management guid-
ance for BLM portions of the project area.
Additional BLM guidance will also be pro-
vided by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

National Wilderness
Management Policies

Each agency also has national wilderness
management policies that are expressed as
objectives or goals. These national policies
are listed below:

Service Wilderness Objectives (Manual 6
RM 8.2 and 8.3):

1. Manage so as to maintain the wilderness
resource for future benefit and enjoy-
ment;

2. Preserve the wilderness character of the
biological and physical features of the
area;

3. Provide opportunities for research, soli-
tude, and primitive recreational uses;

4. Retain the same level of pre-wilderness
designation condition of the area; and

5. Ensure that the works of man remain sub-
stantially unnoticeable.

BLM Wilderness Goals (BLM Manual 8561):
1. Provide for the long-term protection and

preservation of the area’s wilderness
character under a principle of non-degra


Twin Spires Canyon — Kofa

Objective 2. Wildlife and
Habitat Management

Within a dominant wilderness context,
both agencies will maintain and enhance the
natural diversity of flora and fauna within the
Kofa/New Waters planning area by:
¢ Managing fire to maintain the areas

natural values.

«Preventing the introduction of new
exotic pathogens into the area that
could adversely impact wildlife.

+ Managing wilderness portions of the
planning area using the minimum
tools needed for maintaining an opti-
mal desert bighorn sheep population
while providing for maximum viable
species diversity.

¢ Providing for allowable resource uses
within an ecologically compatible and
sustainable framework while minimiz-
ing impacts to wilderness values.

* Identifying sensitive wildlife areas and
minimizing visitor use conflicts.

« Eliminating potential impacts to
wildlife habitat from probable mining
activity on nonfederal lands within the

32

planning area.

Management Actions

1. Reported fires will be monitored by air
with minimum altitudes of 1000 feet
above ground Jevel, or by foot access. In
the New Waters, fires that exceed or are
expected to exceed a 5 chain per hour
rate of spread will be suppressed. Kofa
fires that threaten private property, have
other than a low potential for spreading
beyond the planning area, or present a
significant threat to unique natural
resources (i.e., native palms), or health
and safety for the public, will be sup-
pressed. Use non-motorized hand tools
for suppression activities within wilder-
ness portions of the planning area.
Complete the rehabilitation of distur-
bances caused by fire suppression activi-
ties in accordance with BLM Manual
8560.35 and Refuge Manual 6 RM 8.8C,
before suppression forces are released.

Rationale: There has been no recorded
history of fires in the New Waters. Plant
communities within the planning area are not
fire adapted and suppressing fires that exceed
a 5 chain per hour rate of spread will protect
the area’s natural values. Fires that have
occurred on the refuge have been caused by



Appendix F

Interdisciplinary Planning Team

Bureau of Land Management

Yuma Resource Area

Kent Biddulph
Dave Daniels*
Debbie DeBock*
Joy Gilbert
Boma Johnson*
Teryl McCalment
Ron Morfin*
Roger Oyler*
Dave Smith*

Yuma District Office
Don Applegate
Barbara Bowles
Dave Curtis
Lynn Levitt
Brenda Smith

Arizona State Office
Jeff Jarvis
Ken Mahoney*

Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist
Surface Protection Specialist

Realty Specialist

Resource Area Manager

Archaeologist

Staff Assistant

Wilderness Specialist (Team Co-leader, Writer)
Range Conservationist

Wildlife Biologist

Resource Advisor

Cartographic Specialist
Environmental Planning Coordinator
Fire Management Officer

Resource Advisor

National Wilderness Program Leader
Wilderness Specialist

Fish and Wildlife Service

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge

Milton Haderlie*
Mike Hawkes*
Ron Kearns*

Refuge Manager
Assistant Refuge Manager
Wildlife Biologist

Regional Office - Albuquerque

Tom Baca*
Dom Ciccone
Joe Mazzoni
Dick Steinbach
Dave Siegel
Jill Simmons

Natural Resource Planner (Team Co-leader, Writer)
Associate Manager AZ/NM Refuges

Assistant Director Region 2, Refuges and Wildlife
Refuge Program Specialist

Archaeologist

Writer/Editor

69



Appendix G

Public Involvement

During May 1993, the FWS and BLM
decided to coordinate planning efforts to
develop one management plan that would
cover both Wildemesses. By October 1993,
planning issues at the agency staff level in
preparation for proposed public meetings
were identified. These meetings provided
opportunities for other governmental agen-
cies, private organizations, and the general
public to express their concerns about the area
and to identify additional planning issues.
The meetings allowed for the public to
become involved at the beginning of the plan-
ning process and provided for a better assess-
ment of data and personnel needed to develop
a draft plan.

In February 1994, public meetings were
held in Quartzsite, Yuma, and Phoenix.

Approximately 30 persons attended the Yuma
meeting. The Quartzsite meeting was attend-
ed by 3 persons from the Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AGFD). There were 2 per-
sons from the AGFD, | person each from the
Sierra Club and the Arizona Desert Bighorn
Sheep Society, and 1 additional private indi-
vidual at the Phoenix meeting. Concems
addressed at the public meetings were includ-
ed in the issues section of this interagency
management plan.

A draft plan was released for a 45-day
public review and comment period on January
26, 1996. The comment period was then
extended to May 8, 1996. Comments
received on the draft plan were analyzed by
the Interdisciplinary Team and appropriate
revisions were made for inclusion in the final
document. A compilation of the comments is
available upon request.

71



Appendix H
Bibliography

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1995. Fortieth supplement to the American Ornithologists’
Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 112:819-830.

Banks, Richard C., Roy W. McDiarmid, and Alfred L. Gardner. 1987. Checklist of Vertebrates
of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Resour. Publ.
166. 79 pp.

Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King. 1979, 1989. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Brown, David, E. 1982. Desert Plants, Volume 4. The University of Arizona for the Boyce
Thompson Southwestern Arboretum. Superior, AZ.

Cockrum, Lendell, E. 1960. The Recent Mammals of Arizona, Their Taxonomy and
Distribution. The University of Arizona Press.

National Geographic Society, 1987, 1989. Shirley L. Scott, Editor. Field Guide to the Birds of
North America. Second Edition, Third Printing. National Geographic Society, Washington,
D.C.

Russo, Mary J. 1987. Flora and Vegetation of the Castle Dome Mountains, Kofa National
Wildlife Refuge, Yuma County, Arizona. Arizona State University.

Smith, Hobart M., and Edmund D. Brodie Jr., 1982. A Guide to Field Identification. Reptiles
of North America. A Golden Field Guide. Western Publishing Company.

Stebbins, Robert, C. 1966. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton
Mifflin Company.

U.S. Congress. 1964. Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577, 88th Congress.

1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-579, 94th
Congress.

1990. Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. Public Law 101-628. 101st Congress.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management.

1983. Management of Designated Wilderness Areas - Manual 8560. Washington, D.C.
1987. Master Memorandum of Understanding Between State of Arizona, Arizona Game and

Fish Commission and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Phoenix,
AZ.

72


PART IV — Management Program

Management Strategy

The management program is designed to
protect natural resources and values of the
planning area for the long-term, and to pro-
vide for public appreciation of the refuge as
appropriate and compatible with the purposes
for which it was established. In addition, the
management program addresses national
goals established for the National Wildlife
Refuge System and the National Wilderness
Preservation System.

This plan is issue driven. Within the
framework of the legal mandates and policy
guidelines outlined earlier, plan objectives are
established to address planning area issues.
Management actions are designed to meet the
objectives. With the exception of administer-
ing two potentially shared law enforcement
positions, each agency is responsible for
accomplishing management actions specified
for the areas within their respective jurisdic-
tion.

Where possible, target dates to accom-
plish proposed actions are assigned.
Monitoring will be conducted to gauge the
effectiveness of management actions and
determine if plan objectives are being met. In
cases where motorized or mechanized equip-
ment and vehicles are authorized in wilder-
ness, activities should be scheduled for week-
day periods instead of weekends to minimize
potential impacts to visitors. During mainte-
nance or repair of existing developments,
every effort should be made to reduce visual
impacts and minimize the need for mainte-
nance that requires the use of motorized or
mechanized equipment and vehicles in
wildemess.

A rationale is included immediately
below several items in this section to provide
additional clarification.

Objective 1: Preservation of

Wilderness Values
Maintain or enhance the wilderness val-

ues of naturalness, outstanding opportunities

for solitude and primitive recreation, and spe-
cial features of the planning area by:

* Minimizing impacts of recreational
use and visual impacts of authorized
developments.

* Reducing or eliminating unauthorized
vehicle/mechanized use.

* Minimizing low level non-military
administrative aircraft use through
cooperation in scheduling with
involved agencies.

+ Reducing the frequency and need for
administratively authorized motorized
travel into wilderness.

* Preventing the establishment of a resi-
dent burro population in the New
Waters.

* Preventing the establishment of exotic
plant species, especially salt cedar.

* Providing public education/informa-
tion to prevent impacts to wilderness
from recreational uses by 1997.

* Minimizing visual impacts from min-
ing scars and former vehicle routes.

Rationale: The elements of objective #1
are important aspects of both agencies’
responsibilities to carry out mandates of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Arizona
Desert Wilderness Act of 1990. Meeting this
objective will provide long-term preservation
of the planning area’s wilderness values by
addressing aspects of issues 1,2,3,4,5,and 6
(in Part III of this document), and portions of
each respective agency’s wilderness manage-

29



V. Consultation and
Coordination

Information about consultation, coordina-
tion, and public involvement can be found in
Appendix F and Appendix G of the proposed
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness
and New Water Mountains Wilderness -
Interagency Management Plan.

Environmental Justice

Consideration was given to local minority
and low income groups which may be
adversely affected by the proposed action or
alternative. The interdisciplinary planning
team determined that none of the proposed
actions or alternatives would adversely affect
these groups.

83



Table of Contents

PART I - Background Information
The Planning Area
Historical Context : : : .
Plan Purpose... 0...
Legal Guidance . 6... eee eee

National Wilderness Management Policies .

Arizona Game and Fish Department Role ....... 22... eee eee eee eee eee
PART II - Environmental Setting and Management Situation.................... 7
Geology... : 27

Climate . .

Vegetation

Wilderness Values

Species Diversity ©... 06... 6c eee teens 7
Desert Bighorn Sheep ...... ma
Sheep Transplantation Program ll
Desert Mule Deer.......... -17
Sonoran Desert Tortoise 17
Livestock Grazing 18
Burro Management . . : . : . -18
Public Access... 0. eee eee eens 18
Recreation ©... ee eee eee 19

Minerals and Mining

PART III - Issues... 2... eee teens 25
Activity Plan Issues... 0... oct tenet enn ee 25
Issues Resolved Through Existing Policy... ... 0.6... 00 c cece eee 26
PART IV - Management Program. ........ 2... 6.622 29
Management Strategy.................. .29
Objective 1. Preservation of Wilderness Values . 29
Objective 2. Wildlife and Habitat Management . : : : .32
Objective 3. Recreation, Legal Access, and Public Information ...................- 35
Objective 4. Minerals Management ........... 0.0... eee eee teens 38

PART V - Plan Evaluation... . 2.20.66. 39



Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness
and
New Water Mountains Wilderness
Interagency Management Plan

Responsibilities

Signature by the Arizona State Director represents an agreement by the Bureau of Land
Management to work cooperatively within the scope of agency jurisdiction, with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the public, to implement public
land provisions of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New Water Mountains
Wilderness - Interagency Management Plan.

Signature by the Regional Director, Region 2, represents an agreement by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to work cooperatively within the scope of agency jurisdiction, with the Bureau
of Land Management and Arizona Game and Fish Department to implement appropriate provi-
sions of this Plan.

As Secretary to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, signature by the Director of the
Arizona Game and Fish Department represents an agreement by the Commission and the
Department to work cooperatively with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to implement provisions of this plan as authorized by Arizona Revised Statutes
Title 17.

For lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, this plan complies with provi-
sions of the Sikes Act and the Master Memorandum of Understanding Between State of Arizona,
Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.

f an
Approved by: Ae ay 34) Loe “L—

DeniséMeridith, Arizona State Director
Bureau of Land Management

Approved by:

Approved by: uw QOL,

Duane Shroufe, Director S
Arizona Game and Fish



BIGHORN SHEEP LAMBING GROUNDS

R20W 1 RI9W + R1I8SW RI7W RIGW R1ISW R14W R13W
T | ;
x | 3 N/A
; Quartzsite
4 [. _
_-4
tt——— - _
_ ee |
i |
T | |
3 |
N
| tas}
"Baie | Ra Wickabors
T Road
2 |
N, [S.T.&T |
Pra
|
il
|
wt 1
N
“arr
—
r
H
H
H
nl |

(Note: Roads on the Kofa National |

MAP -4

T ‘Wildlife Refuge are at the center of
5 a 200 feet wide corridor. All
Ss vehicles must remain within the
lor).
| [
| i
T
6
L—
\
LEGEND na
Ss) Wildemess SCALE
E33 Lambing Grounds _———
Fist & WILDLIFE, ---- Planning Area Boundary SS
SERVICE Roads
—— County Maintained Roads
/-— Township & Range DEPARTWENT OF THT INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
YUWA FIELD OFFICE
AUGUST 1996

LOCATION DIAGRAM



PART 1 — Background Information

The Planning Area

Adjacent locations and common wilder-
ness management and wildlife habitat con-
cers led to a coordinated effort between the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
develop one management plan that will cover
both (Map 1) the New Water Mountains
Wilderness (New Waters) and the Kofa
National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness
(Kofa). This document focuses on the eco-
logical commonality of the two wildernesses
while recognizing the different legal mandates
of both administering agencies.

Managed by the Service, the Kofa con-
tains a total of 665,400 acres, including
510,900 acres which are designated wilder-
ness. Managed by the BLM, the New Waters
is all wilderness and encompasses 24,600
acres. A mineral land patent covering 475.77
acres is contiguous to the northeastern portion
of the New Waters and is also part of the
planning area.

A more detailed Comprehensive
Management Plan (CMP) for the Kofa
National Wildlife Refuge has also been devel-
oped as part of the Service’s planning require-
ments. Available separately, the CMP is a
compilation of all existing guidance for use
by the Refuge Manager that includes the man-
agement program outlined in this joint agency
planning document.

The La Posa Interdisciplinary Plan
addresses management concerns for lands on
the west and north side of the New Waters
and Kofa. Several actions in the La Posa Plan
have been coordinated with this planning
effort to assist in preserving natural values of
this planning area.

Historical Context

The Kofa and New Waters play a central
wildlife and wild lands conservation role in
western Arizona. In the earlier part of this
century, declining populations of desert
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana)
became a concern. During that time, it was
also recognized that a special management
focus to address the recovery of desert
bighorn sheep had become necessary beyond
the establishment of legal protection provided
for this species by the Arizona State Game
code which had been enacted in 1913.
Ultimately, the Kofa Game Range was estab-
lished in 1939 by Executive Order 8039
specifically for the recovery of bighorn sheep
populations.

Administrative responsibility for the Kofa
was shared by the Service and the U.S.
Grazing Service until 1946. In 1946, the
game range came under joint management of
the Service and the newly established BLM.
The Service and BLM co-managed the Kofa
until sole jurisdiction of the refuge was given
to the Service with Public Law 94-223 in
1976. As with all Federal lands, the BLM
still manages mining claim recordation
processes for the Kofa.

With passage of the Arizona Desert
Wilderness Act of 1990, portions of the Kofa
and New Water Mountains were designated as
part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. This gave both the Service and BLM
acommon legal mandate for managing these
specially designated areas.



wilderness. The New Waters does not contain
any rights-of-way. Following is a listing of
rights-of-way on the refuge:

U.S. West (Formerly, Mountain States
Telephone and Telegraph) — A 100-foot
square microwave repeater tower site is locat-
ed in the Livingston Hills in the northwest
comer of the refuge. The right-of-way
includes a 7-mile, 33-foot-wide access road
right-of-way from the western boundary to
the tower site.

Arizona Public Service — This right
includes a 6-mile, 20 foot-wide 12 KV trans-
mission line right-of-way from the western
boundary to the U.S. West microwave tower.

El Paso Natural Gas Company — This
right includes a 130 foot-wide right-of-way
that accommodates four buried natural gas
pipelines plus a maintenance road that runs 24
miles (east/west) across the entire northern
portion of Kofa.

Southern California Edison Power
Company — This right includes a 160 foot-
wide right-of-way accommodating a 500 KV
power transmission line running 24 miles

Petroglyphs in the planning area.

(east/west) across the entire northern portion
of the refuge parallel to the El Paso Natural
Gas pipeline.

Cultural Resources

Both Kofa and the New Waters have cul-
tural resources that fit within two broad cate-
gories: prehistoric sites which contain arti-
facts or evidence of activity by aboriginal
inhabitants prior to European contact and his-
toric locations that may include physical
remains or other indications of activities by
European/Asian peoples. Many of these sites
have not been catalogued by either agency.
Some have undergone evaluation relative to
the Archeological Resource Protection Act or
the National Historic Preservation Act. The
planning area does not contain sites that are
listed on the National Register.

Service files contain variable records of
approximately 92 known or recorded archeo-
logical and historic sites on the Kofa Refuge.
However, the number of reliably locatable
sites may prove to be somewhat less, since
more than half of the reported 92 site records
offer only vague locational references. This
site information comes from the field notes of
Malcolm J. and Frederick S. Rogers (1929-
1941), and from more recent linear site sur-
veys conducted in 1977 and 1980-81 for
pipeline and transmission line right-of-way
projects. The linear survey conducted by
Westec Services for the Palo Verde to Devers
Transmission Line (1980-81) offers the high-
est specificity of site information on the
refuge. Recent site recording efforts by
refuge volunteers Connel and Dawn Bergland
also offer detailed information for rock art
and other sites in the northern extent of the
range.

As would be expected of such a marginal
environment, all sites indicate past ephemeral
uses of the Kofa. Cleared circles, rock rings
and rock alignments, lithic and pottery scat-
ters, small occurrences of ground stone arti-
facts and bedrock mortars, foot trails, and
rock art sites point to highly transitory occu-

23



U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Yuma Field Office
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge October 1996

Kofa National Wildlife

Refuge & Wilderness and

New Water Mountains Wilderness
Interagency Management Plan
and Environmental Assessment



Western Patch-nosed Snake
Checkered Garter Snake

Western Lyre Snake

Sidewinder

Western Diamondback Rattlesnake
Mojave Rattlesnake

Speckled Rattlesnake

Black-tailed Rattlesnake

48

Salvadora hexalepis hexalepis
Thamnophis marcianus marcianus
Trimorphodon biscutatus lambda
Crotalus cerastes laterorepens
Crotalus atrox

Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus
Crotalus mitchellii pyrrhus
Crotalus molossus molossus


dation. The area’s natural condition,
opportunities for solitude, opportunities
for primitive and unconfined types of
recreation, and any ecological, geologi-
cal, or other features of scientific, educa-
tional, scenic, or historical value present
will be managed so that they will remain
unimpaired.

2. Manage the wilderness area for the use
and enjoyment of visitors in a manner
that will leave the area unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness.
The wilderness resource will be dominant
in all management decisions where a
choice must be made between preserva-
tion of wilderness and visitor use.

3. Manage the area using the minimum tool,
equipment, or structure necessary to suc-
cessfully, safely, and economically
accomplish the objective. The chosen
tool, equipment, or structure should be
the one that least degrades wilderness
values temporarily or permanently.
Management will seek to preserve spon-
taneity of use and as much freedom from
regulation as possible.

4. Manage nonconforming but accepted uses
permitted by the Wilderness Act and sub-

sequent laws in a manner that will pre-
vent unnecessary or undue degradation of
the area’s wilderness character.

Arizona Game and Fish
Department Role

A third agency also has a key interest in
the development of this management plan.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD), acting under the authority of the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and
Arizona Revised Satutes Title 17, has respon-
sibilities for the protection and management
of all wildlife species in the State of Arizona.

Cooperative management guidance for
BLM portions of the planning area are guided
by BLM Manual 8560.34 and the Master
Memorandum of Understanding between the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission and
Department of the Interior BLM, March 1987
(AGFD-BLM MOU). For wildlife resources
on national wildlife refuges within the State
of Arizona, the Service and the AGFD have
always considered themselves as cooperative
wildlife managers. Therefore, the AGFD also
plays a major role in the development and
implementation of this interagency document.

Es - ae

Looking south at Kofa across a former travel route in New Waters.



PLANNING AREA & ACCESS

R20W. RISW RISW RI7W RI6W RISW RI4w RI3W
T
i fo5 —
; i95|
q Quartzsite
N
a
T
3
N
To Quartzsite
Miles
T
2
Ni
T
1
Ni
‘Piasee
T
1
Ss
T
2
s
T
3
s
T
4
s
(Note: Roads on the Kofa National
T Wildlife Refuge are at the center of
5 a 200 feet wide corridor. All
§| vehicles must remain within the
corridor).
| l
T
6
8 Seam
4
! I I
\
LEGEND
Ce Wilderness ——
Os DEPARTMENT OF THE I >--- Planning Area Boundary MILES
Roads
——- County Maintained Roads
—— Township & Range DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BD tsformationl Displays | M*ASh Hartge
AUGUST 1996
LOCATION DIAGRAM

MAP-1



Lotus rigidus (Benth) Greene Desert Rock Pea

Lotus salsuginosus Greene var. brevivexillus Ottley Deer Vetch

Lotus strigosus (Nutt.) Greene var. tomentellus (Greene) Hairy Lotus
Lupinus arizonicus Wats. ssp. arizonicus var. arizonicus Arizona Lupine
Lupinus sparsiflorus Benth. Lupine

Lupinus sparsiflorus Benth. ssp. mohavensis Dziekanowski & Dunn Lupine
Marina parryi (T.& G.) Barn. Parry Dalea

Melilotus indicus (L.) All. Alfalfilla, Annual Yellow Sweet Clover
Olneya tesota A.Gray Desert Ironwood, Palofierro, Palo-de-Hierro
Phaseolus acutifolius Gray Bean

Phaseolus filiformis Benth. Bean

Phaseolus wrightii Gray Bean
Psorothamnus spinosus (Gray) Barneby [=Dalea spinosa Gray] Smoke-tree, Smoke-thormn

Krameriaceae (Ratany Family)
Krameria grayi Rose Y. Painter White Ratany
Krameria parvifolia Benth. var. impartata Macbr. Range Ratany, Little-leaved Ratany

Geraniaceae (Geranium Family)
Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’ Her. Heron Bill, Filaree, Alfilaria, Afilerillo
Erodium texanum Gray Large-flowered Stork’s Bill

Oxalidaceae (Wood Sorrel Family)
Oxalis albicans H.B.K. Wood Sorrel
Oxalis stricta L. Yellow Wood Sorrel, Chanchaquilla

Linaceae (Flax Family)
Linum lewisii Pursh. Blue Flax

Zygophyllaceae (Caltrop Family)

Fagonia laevis Standl. Fagonia

Kallstroemia californica (Wats.) Vail. California Caltrop

Kallstroemia grandiflora Torr. Arizona Poppy, Orange Caltrop, Summer poppy

Larrea divaricata Cav. ssp. tridentata Felger & Lowe Creosote Bush, Greasewood,
Hediondilla, Gobernadora

Rutaceae (Rue Family)
Thamnosma montana Torr. & Frem. Turpentine Broom

Simaroubaceae (Simarouba Family)
Castela emoryi (A.Gray) Moran & Felger [=Holacantha emoryi Gray] Crucifixion Thorn,
Corona-de-Cristo, Rosario

Malpighiaceae (Malpighia Family)
Janusia gracilis Gray Janusia, Propeller bush

Polygalaceae (Milk Wort Family)
Polygala macradenia Gray Milk wort

61



Tanks

29. Black Tank

30. Blue Rock Tank
31. Castle Rock Dam
32. Cereus Tank

33. Chain Tank

34. Charlie Died Tank
35. Chuckwalla Tank
36. Drill Hole Tank
37. Figueroa Tank

38. Fishtail Tank

39. Frenchman Tank
40. Hidden Valley Tank
41. High Tank #3

42. High Tank #6

43. High Tank #7

44. High Tank #8

45. High Tank #9

46. Hollow Rock Tank
47. Horse Tank

48. Little White Tank
49. McPherson Tank
50. Modesti Tank

51. Moonshine Tank
52. Red Hill Tank

53. Saguaro Tank

54. Salton Tank

55. Squaw Tank

56. Yaqui Tank

Wells

57. Adams Well

58. Coyote Peak Well
59. Craven Well

60. De La Osa Well
61. Hoodoo Well

62. Hovatter Well

63. King Well

64. Mid Well

65. New Water Well
66. Red Raven Well
67. Scotts Well

68. Twelve Mile Well
69. Wilbanks Well

T.3S.,R. 19 W,, sec. 8
T.4S.,R. 18 W., sec. 34
T.4S.,R. 18 W., sec. 25
T.1S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 1
T.5S.,R. 17 W,, sec. 4
T.2S.,R. 16 W,, sec. 23
T.3S.,R. 19 W,, sec. 35
T. 1N., R. 16 W., sec. 18
T.3S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 34
T.1S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 11
T.3S.,R. 15 W,, sec. 20
T.2S.,R. 19 W,, sec. 3
T.1S.,R.17 W,, sec. 1
T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 17
T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 28
T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 32
T. 1N., R. 17 W,, sec. 28
T.3S., R. 19 W., sec. 4
T.2S., R. 19 W., sec. 34
T.3S., R. 18 W., sec. 27
T.4S., R. 18 W., sec. 6
T.5S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 18
T.2S.,R. 16 W,, sec. 2
T.1N.,R. 17 W, sec. 4
T.4S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 8
T.5S.,R. 17 W,, sec. 33
. 17 W,, sec. 16
. 16 W., sec. 29

dn
nn

T.4S.,R. 18 W., sec. 25
T.2N.,R. 15 W., sec. 23
T.1N.,R. 15 W,, sec. 7

T.1N.,R. 17 W, sec. 33
T.1N.,R. 15 W,, sec. 18
T.1S.,R. 15 W,, sec. 12
T.1N.,R. 16 W,, sec. 18
T.1N.,R. 17 W, sec. 14
T.2N.,R. 16 W,, sec. 13
T.1S.,R. 15 W,, sec. 12
T.2.N.,R. 17 W., sec. 19
T.2N.,R. 18 W., sec. 16
T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 14


controlled and if possible removed from
refuge lands. Burros are extremely competi-
tive for scarce vegetative and watering
resources with native wildlife. Tamarisk is a
very aggressive exotic plant species that even-
tually displaces native vegetation.

6. Education and outreach will include:
work with the Arizona Game and Fish
Department to include visitor use impacts
information in the annual hunting regula-
tions by 1998; develop a joint agency
brochure/map by 1998; participate in
annual Quartzsite pow wow public infor-
mation booth.

Rationale: Both agencies recognize the
need to improve on efforts that provide public
information for promoting practices that mini-
mize adverse impacts to our natural resources
and allow greater enjoyment of appropriate
recreational and other opportunities. National
Wildlife Refuge System goals call for man-
agement actions that foster public apprecia-
tion for wildlife and habitat resources and that
are compatible with refuge purposes.

7. Clean up debris at 6 abandoned unpatent-
ed mining sites within Kofa and 1 site
within the New Waters (Map 3) by the ”
year 2001.

8. Reclaim 2 former vehicle routes (3.5
miles) in the refuge and 4 former vehicle
routes (4.5 miles - Map 3) in the New
Waters using hand tools and other non
mechanized methods to minimize visual
impacts and enhance wilderness values
and opportunities.

Rationale for Actions 7 and 8: Past
(within the last 40 years) mining activities
and former vehicle routes have resulted in
disturbances to natural features of the plan-
ning area and in some cases could affect pub-
lic safety. Implementing these actions will
provide for the restoration of natural features
and enhance wilderness values and opportuni-
ties. Wildlife habitat will be enhanced by the
revegetation of surface disturbances. There

will also be less potential for adverse impacts
to wildlife from continued vehicle use in
wilderness.

9. The Service will coordinate with the mili-
tary to remove military debris as warrant-
ed.

10. Pursue options to establish 2 field posi-
tions by 1998 for the purpose of imple-
menting resource protection, monitoring,
and public outreach provisions of this
management plan for the entire planning
area.

Rationale: This action will provide for
the attainment of resource protection plan
provisions and the acquisition of needed data
concerning potential conflicts between
wildlife and recreation objectives. Issues 1, 2,
3, and 10, and components of objectives 2
and 3, are addressed by this action.
Additionally, this proposal falls within the
guidelines of current Departmental goals to
shift more existing positions to the field level.

Monitoring for Objective 1.

1. Inspect wildlife water sites during routine
inspections to check for the establishment
of Tamarisk or other exotic plant species
and implement action 4 as necessary.

2. During routine patrols of the planning
area, monitor existing burro fences for
impacts and presence of nuisance burros
that expand their range to include the
planning area. Implement action 5 as
needed.

3. Monitor and document unauthorized uses
of the planning area. Implement action 3
if warranted.

4. Monitor and document impacts of all
authorized visitor uses within the plan-
ning area and recommend needed mitiga-
tion during yearly plan evaluations.

5. The Service will monitor rockhounding
activity on Crystal Hill.

31



Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness

Bird List

Grebes
Pied-billed Grebe

Pelicans
Brown Pelican

Herons
Great Blue Heron

Snowy Egret

Geese & Ducks

Greater White-fronted Goose

Canada Goose
Green-winged Teal
Mallard

Northern Pintail
Blue-winged Teal
Cinnamon Teal
Northern Shoveler
American Wigeon
Redhead
Bufflehead
Red-breasted Merganser
Ruddy Duck

American Vultures
Turkey Vulture*

Hawkes & Eagles
Northern Harrier
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Cooper’s Hawk
Northern Goshawk
Harris’ Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk*
Ferruginous Hawk
Rough-legged Hawk
Golden Eagle*

Appendix D

Podilymbus podiceps

Pelecanus occidentalis

Ardea herodias
Egretta thula

Anser albifrons
Branta canadensis
Anas crecca

Anas platyrhynchos
Anas acuta

Anas discors

Anas cyanoptera
Anas clypeata
Anas americana
Aythya americana
Bucephala albeola
Mergus serrator
Oxyura jamaicensis

Cathartes aura

Circus cyaneus
Accipiter striatus
Accipiter cooperii
Accipiter gentilis
Parabuteo unicinctus
Buteo jamaicensis
Buteo regalis

Buteo lagopus
Aquila chrysaetos

on no

xo 00

x MOT

eanon

49



ment policies.

Management Actions

1. New Waters — Allow rockhounding as a
use on the New Waters but limit use to
hand methods that do not cause surface
disturbances.

Kofa —Restrict rockhounding as a use on
the Kofa NWR to the Crystal Hill area (Map
1). Boundaries will be posted as per the fol-
lowing legal description: Township 2 N,
Range 18 W, E 1/2 of Section 9; and all of
Section 10. No detection equipment or hand
tools will be allowed. Only the taking of sur-
face occuring rocks will be permitted. If it is
determined in the future that rockhounding
activities are degrading the landscape, the
Service may determine that rockhounding at
any level “materially detracts and/or interferes
with the purpose for which the refuge was
established” and thus, may determine the use
to be not compatible. Rockhounding is elimi-
nated from the remainder of the Kofa NWR.
Incorporate information regarding not leaving
surface disturbances into agency outreach
materials by 1997.

Rationale: Surface disturbances have
routinely been left unreclaimed in the New
Waters. In reference to rockhounding, BLM
Manual 8560.31.E states: “Limit such use to
hand methods or detection equipment that
does not cause surface disturbance, such as
metal detector or Geiger counter. In addition,
methods must not be permitted that in any
way adversely affect or degrade the wilder-
ness resource or the experiences of visitors in
the area.”

In reference to rockhounding on the Kofa
NWR, restrictions are set in place in accor-
dance with 50 CFR 25.31. Past unrestricted
rockhounding has resulted in the removal of
large quantities of nonrenewable refuge
resources. A compatibility determination was
made that this use at past levels is not com-
patible so as to “materially detract from
and/or interferes with the purposes for which
the refuge was established.” [Refuge Manual
5 RM 20.60] By restricting the use to the

30

Crystal Hill area only, and limiting the activi-
ty to hand methods, the use is determined to
be compatible. These restrictions are also
implemented because it is not lawful to con-
vert national public resources to private/com-
mercial uses depleting resources that are not
sustainable or renewable.

2. Continue adequate signing and distribu-
tion of information concerning restric-
tions (Information Displays, Map 1) to
unauthorized vehicular/mechanized trans-
port within wilderness areas. Emphasize
practices that minimize surface distur-
bances.

3. Install barriers at the wilderness bound-
aries where signing alone is not effective
in controlling unauthorized vehicle entry.
Boulders, berms, plants or other natural
materials will be preferred for use as bar-
riers. However, if these prove ineffective,
post and cable barriers will be construct-
ed.

Rationale for Actions 2 and 3: Most of
the potential for unauthorized
mechanical/vehicle use is on the refuge por-
tion of the planning area. These actions will
improve opportunities for solitude, provide
for the re-establishment of vegetation on
existing surface disturbances, and prevent
additional adverse impacts from unauthorized
vehicle/mechanical use in wilderness.

4. Control the establishment of salt cedar
(Tamarisk) or other exotic plant species at
wildlife waters and remove discovered
plants physically or with authorized
chemicals.

5. Maintain existing burro fences and
remove any nuisance burros that expand
their range to include the planning area.
The use of helicopters for burro removal
will be allowed.

Rationale for Actions 4 and 5: By
refuge policy, nonindigenous species are to be


Erigeron lobatus A. Nels. Fleabane

Eriophyllum lanosum Gray Woolly Eriophyllum, Woolly Daisy

Geraea canescens Torr. & Gray Desert Sunflower, Hairy-headed Sunflower

Gnaphalium chilense Spreng. Small-flowered Cudweed, Cotton Batting

Gnaphalium palustre Nutt., Lowland Cudweed

Gutierrezia sarothrae (Pursh.) Britt. & Rusby Broom Snakeweed

Hymenoclea monogyra T. & G.

Hymenoclea salsola T. & G. var. salsola

Hymenoclea salsola Torr. & Gray var. pentalepsis (Rydb.) Benson Burro Brush, Cheesebush

Lactuca serriola L. Prickly Lettuce, Wild Lettuce

Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook) Shinners ssp. pinnatifida var.pinnatifida [=Haplopappus
spinulosis (Pursh) DC ssp. spinulosus] Spiny Goldenbush

Machaeranthera pinnatifida (Hook) Shinners ssp. gooddingii (A.Nels) Turner & Hartman, var.
gooddingii [=H. spinulosus ssp. gooddingii]

Malacothrix californica DC. var. glabrata Eaton Desert Dandelion

Malacothrix fendleri Gray Malacothrix

Malacothrix stebbinsii Davis & Raven

Microseris lindleyi (DC) A.Gray [=M. linearifolia (DC) Gray] Silver Puffs

Monoptilon bellioides (Gray) Hall Mohave Desert Star

Pectis papposa Harv. & Gray Chinchweed

Perityle emoryi Torr. Emory Rock Daisy

Peucephyllum schottii Gray Pigmy Cedar, Desert Fir

Pleurocoronis pluriseta (Gray) King & Robinson Arrow Leaf

Porophyllum gracile Benth. Odora

Psathyrotes ramosissima (Tort.) Gras Velvet Rosette

Psilostrophe cooperi (Gray) Greene Paper Flower

Rafinesquia californica Nutt. California Chicory

Rafinesquia neomexicana Gray Desert Chicory, Desert Dandelion

Senecio mohavensis Gray Mohave Groundsel

Senecio vulgaris L. Common Groundsel

Sonchus oleraceus L. Annual Sow Thistle

Stephanomeria exigua Nutt var. exigua [=Lygodesmia exigua Gray] Annual Mitra

Stephanomeria pauciflora (Torr.) A. Nels. Desert Straw

Stylocline micropoides Gray Desert Nest Straw

Tessaria sericea (Nutt) Shinners [=Pluchea sericea (Nutt)] Arroweed

Trichoptilium incisum Gray Yellow Head

Trixis californica Kellogg Trixis

Viguiera deltoidea Gray var. parishii (Greene) Vasey & Rose Parish Viguiera

Xanthium strumarium L. (X. saccharatum) Common Cocklebur

Xylorhiza tortifolia (Torr. & Gray) Greene [= Machaeranthera tortifolia (Gray) C & K]
Mohave Aster, Desert Aster

68


PART VI - Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimates ...................... 4l

Recurring Tasks... 6.06. e neces 41
Non-recurring Tasks... 6... 66 e eee 42
PART VII - Appendices ........... 0.2.00 c eects 43
Appendix A - Wildlife Waters 02... 066s 43

Appendix B - Mammals... .
Appendix C - Herptiles . .
Appendix D - Bird List .
Appendix E - Plant List .
Appendix F - Interdisciplinary Planning Team... eee 69
Appendix G - Public Involvement .

Appendix H - Bibliography . . ..72
Environmental Assessment. .... 2.6.2.6 eens 75
I. Introduction... 2. nett eens 75
Background : . : . . ...75
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action... ... 0.2.0.2... 52.000 ee ueee 75

II. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives
Proposed Action
Alternative A - No Action. .........+
Alternative B - Minimal Human Impacts.

Ill. Affected Environment... ... 2.2.0.0... ccc cece eee eee 79
IV. Environmental Consequences... . 2.0.2... eee cece tees 79
Impacts of the Proposed Action. . . : : 2.79
Impacts of Alternative A- No Action .... 0.0.0... 00 0c cece eee eee 81
Impacts of Alternative B - Minimal Human Impacts....................00. 82
Cumulative Impacts... 2.0.60. 82

V. Consultation and Coordination .... 2.2... 66... e eee eee 83

Environmental Justice... 2.6... 83


which also connects with primitive roads
leading easterly and westerly north of the
wilderness boundary. Approximately a 1/3-
mile portion of the Ramsey Mine Road
crosses private land. Physical access to the
Hidden Tank area also requires passage
through approximately a 1/2-mile route seg-
ment that crosses private land. The southern-
most portion of the New Waters is contiguous
with the Kofa and this area can be reached by
turning east on Blevens Road from Highway
95 (Map 1).

Legal public access to the Kofa is provid-
ed by several roads that were left as non-
wilderness corridors. From Highway 95,
there are several routes that lead to the west-
ern refuge boundary and which are in close
proximity to designated wilderness. The
northeast refuge area can be reached from
Interstate 10 as shown on Map 1.

Mechanized, vehicular traffic is limited to
designated roads in the planning area and all
off-road vehicle travel is prohibited. All vehi-
cles must remain within 100 feet of designat-
ed roads. All vehicles, including all terrain
vehicles, and motorcycles and all operators
must be licensed and insured for highway dri-
ving. Speed is limited to 25 miles per hour
unless otherwise posted. Bicycles are consid-
ered as vehicles. Most of the roads that pro-
vide access to the planning area are primitive
and high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles
are recommended.

Recreation

The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U. S.C.
668dd-668ee) allows the Refuge Manager to
“permit the use of any area within the System
for any purpose, including, but not limited to,
hunting, fishing, public recreation and accom-
modations, and access whenever he deter-
mines that such uses are compatible with the
major purposes for which the areas were
established.” In addition, the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962, as amended (76 Sts.
653; 16 U. S. C. 460k), prescribes the same
compatibility standards with a focus on recre-

ational uses including those that do “not
directly relate to the primary purposes and
functions of the individual areas,” and that do
not interfere with the primary purposes of the
refuges. Also under this act, the refuge must
certify that funds are available for managing
recreational activities.

Kofa allows recreational uses that are
compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established. Those that are
allowed to occur within designated wilderness
must also conform to wilderness management
guidelines and ethics. However, unlike the
New Waters, wildlife management is the pri-
mary function of the Kofa NWR and all other
uses are secondary. These uses must undergo
compatibility analysis and the refuge must
certify that funding is available for the man-
agement of these activities. At Kofa, hunting,
camping, rock climbing and repelling, hiking,
wildlife observation, photography, sightsee-
ing, and environmental education activities
are allowed and considered compatible with
both the purposes of the refuge and with
wilderness designation. Estimates based on
traffic counter data indicate that there are
approximately 50,000 visitors per year to the
refuge. However, visitation has fluctuated
from year to year over the past decade.
Reliable traffic counters have not been in
place on the refuge long enough to determine
long term trend information. It is expected
that trend information will not be available
until 2005.

Rockhounding has been a concern for the
Refuge. Unrestricted rock collection in the
Crystal Hill area (nonwilderness) has lead to
the extraction of commercial quantities of
minerals. There have also been several
instances of visitor use conflicts and public
safety concerns that have arisen from this
recreational activity in the Crystal Hill area.
A compatibility analysis has determined that
rockhounding in its current magnitude is not
compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established.

Recreational activities in the New Waters
include hunting, wildlife observation, hiking,
and camping and rockhounding. As a desig-

19



Amaranthus hybridus L. Spleen Amaranth, Quelite Morado

Amaranthus palmeri Wats., Palmer’s Amaranth, Careless-weed, Bledo, Quelite
Tidestromia lanuginosa (Nutt.) Standl. Woolly Tidestromia

Tidestromia oblongifolia (Wats.) Lindl. Honey-sweet

Nyctaginaceae (Four O’Clock Family)

Acleisanthes longiflora Gray Yerba-de-la-Rabia, Angel Trumpet

Allionia incarnata L. Trailing Four-O’Clock, Windmills

Boerhaavia coccinea Mill. Red Spiderling

Boerhaavia coulteri (Hook.f.) Wats. Coulter Spiderling

Boerhaavia erecta L. var. intermedia (Jones) K. & P. Five-winged Ringstem

Boerhaavia intermedia Jones Five-winged Ringstem
Boerhaavia triquetra Wats. Spiderling

Boerhaavia wrightii Gray Large-bracted Boerhaavia
Commicarpus scandens L.

Mirabilis bigelovii Gray var. bigelovii Wishbone Bush
Mirabilis multiflora (Tort.) Gray Colorado Four-O’Clock

Aizoaceae (Carpet Weed Family)
Trianthema portulacastrum L. Verdolaga Blanca, Horse Purslane

Caryophyllaceae (Pink Family)
Silene antirrhina L. Sleepy Catchfly

Ranunculaceae (Crowfoot Family)

Anemone tuberosa Rydb. Desert Windflower

Clematis drummondii Torr. & Gray Texas Virgin Bower
Delphinium parishii Gray

Delphinium scaposum Greene Barestem Larkspur

Berberidaceae (Barberry Family)
Berberis haematocarpa Woot. Red Barberry
Berberis harrisoniana Kearney & Peebles Kofa Mountain Barberry

Papaveraceae (Poppy Family)

Argemone pleiacantha Greene ssp. pleiacantha [=A. platyceras Link & Otto] Prickly Poppy

Eschscholtzia californica Cham. ssp. mexicana (Greene) C.Clark Mexican Gold Poppy,
Amapola del Campo

Eschscholtzia minutiflora Wats. Little Gold Poppy

Brassicaceae (Mustard Family)

Arabis perennans Wat. Rock Cress

Brassica tournefortii Gouan. Mustard

Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. Shepherds Purse, Paniquesillo

Caulanthus lasiophyllus (Hook & Arn.) Payson [=Thelypodium lasiophyllum (H.& A.) Greene}
Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britt. spp. ochroleuca (Woot.) Detling.

Descurainia pinnata (Walt.) Britton Yellow Tansy Mustard

59



Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision Record

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness
and
New Water Mountains Wilderness
Interagency Management Plan

Environmental Assessment Number: EA-AZ-055-95-105

Finding of No Significant Impact: Based on the analysis of potential environmental
impacts contained in the attached Environmental Assessment, I have determined that impacts are
not expected to be significant, therefore an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

Decision: It is my decision to approve provisions of the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge &
Wilderness and New Water Mountains Wilderness - Interagency Management Plan within the
jurisdiction of my agency.

Rationale for Decision: Long-term direction is provided for the planning area to: enhance
and preserve wildemess values; manage wildlife and habitat and preserve biological diversity;
maintain high quality recreational opportunities compatible with special land designations; and
minimize environmental impacts from mining. The plan allows for changes to management
direction based on monitoring and periodic evaluations.

Plan provisions for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conform
with agency legal mandates.

Plan provisions for lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) con-
form with agency legal mandates.

Other Alternatives: No Action and Minimal Impact alternatives were also considered.

Stipulations: The proposed action incorporates all mitigation.

Recommended by: — Gash Chichen. Dans £71747
Field/Manager, Yuma Field Office Date

1
Recommended by: Ce Berber -Actns frasr 1h, 129%
Date

Kofa National Wildlife } Refuge Manager

Approved by: Migs 2 PB ie (pee 21,1987
M State Director, Arizona Date
bas 22,1577
iC Manager Gila/Salt/Verde Ecosystem D
4

84 st U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997 ~ 573-070 / 29017 REGION NO. 8

USFWS Concurrence by:
Geo

Approved by:
Regional DjpéCtor, Region 2


Hyptis emoryi Tort. Desert Lavender

Monardella arizonica Epling.

Salazaria mexicana Torr. Paper-bag Bush, Bladder-sage
Salvia columbariae Benth. Chia

Teucrium gladulosum Kellogg Germander

Solanaceae (Nightshade Family, Potato Family)

Chamaesaracha sordida (Dunal) Gray

Datura meteloides DC Sacred Datura, Tolguacha, Western Jimson

Lycium andersonii Gray var. andersonii Anderson Thombush

Lycium andersonii Gray var. deserticola C.L. Hitchc ex Munz Narrow-leaved Thornbush,
Squawberry

Lycium berlandieri Dunal. Berlander Thornbush

Lycium exsertum Gray

Lycium fremontii Gray. Fremont Thornbush

Lycium torreyi Gray Squaw Thorn

Nicotiana trigonophylla Dunal var. palmeri (Gray) Jones Desert Tobacco, Tabaquillo
Nicotiana trigonophylla Dunal var. trigonophylla Desert Tobacco

Physalis crassifolia Benth. [incl. var. cardiophylla (Torr.) Gray] Thick-leaved Ground Cherry
Physalis lobata Torr. Purple Ground Cherry

Solanum douglasii Dunal. Nightshade

Scrophulariaceae (Figwort Family)

Antirrhinum filipes Gray Twining Snapdragon

Keckiella antirrhinoides (Benth.) Straw ssp. microphylla (Gray) Straw [=Penstemon
microphyllus (Gray) Bush Penstemon

Maurandya antirrhiniflora H. & B. Blue Snapdragon Vine

Mimulus guttatus DC Common Monkey Flower, Seep-spring Monkey Flower

Mohavea confertiflora (Benth.) Heller Ghost Flower

Penstemon pseudospectabilis Jones ssp. pseudospectabilis Keck Mohave Beard Tongue

Penstemon parryi Gray

Penstemon subulatus Jones Scarlet Bugler

Veronica peregrina L. ssp. xalapensis (HBK.) Pennell. Neckweed, Necklace Weed

Bignoniaceae (Bignonia Family)
Chilopsis linearis (Cav.) Sweet Var. arcuata Desert Willow, Desert Catalpa, Mimbre

Martyniaceae (Unicorn Plant Family)
Proboscidea altheaefolia (Benth.) Decne. Desert Unicorn Plant, Elephant Tusks
Proboscidea arenaria (Engelm.) Decne. Unicorn Plant

Orobanchaceae (Broom-rape Family)
Orobanche cooperi (Gray) Heller. [=0. ludoviciana Nutt. var. cooperi] Burro Weed Strangler,
Broom Rape, Cancer-root

Acanthaceae (Acanthus Family)

Anisacanthus thurberi (Tort.) Gray Chuparosa, Desert Honeysuckle
Carlowrightia arizonica Gray

Justicia californica Benth. Chuparosa, Honeysuckle

66


5. Compile visitor non-compliance data;
evaluate annually and implement needed
mitigation that will include appropriate
interpretive messages at information dis-
plays.

Objective 4: Minerals

Management

Minimize the environmental impacts of
mining activities on all lands and resources
within the planning area especially those
directly related to wilderness by:

* Acquiring unpatented mining claims
within the planning area.

* Monitoring activities on unpatented
claims and performing mineral validi-
ty examinations if mining operations
are proposed.

Management Actions
1. Encourage non-government entities to
purchase unpatented claims on the Kofa

NWR and allow claims to lapse. Contact

38

at least 2 non-governmental entities by
end of 1998.

2. By 1999, the Service will develop a
Memorandum of Understanding with the
BLM for mining claim validity examina-
tions that would be performed if mining
operations are proposed on active claims
within Kofa wilderness. Provisions are to
be made for project funding.

Rationale for Actions 1 and 2:
Implementation of these actions will assist in
the resolution of issue 4, and achieve BLM
Wilderness Management Goals, and Service
Wilderness Management Policy Objectives.
Achievement of the objective will result in
long-term preservation of the area’s wilder-
ness values while allowing both agencies to
accomplish wildlife and habitat management
mandates.

Monitoring for Objective 4
Monitoring for the fulfillment of
Objective 4 will be accomplished during

annual plan evaluations.


the gravelly nature of planning area soils.
There would also be no significant impacts to
air quality.

The potential adverse impacts to air quali-
ty would be minimized by enforcing a 25
mi/hr speed limit on all refuge roads. The
Service will recommend to the Yuma and La
Paz County Boards of Supervisors that a 25
mi/hr speed limit be implemented and
enforced on county maintained roads within
Kofa. Preventing new or continued surface
disturbances from vehicle activity would
reduce the potential for increased soil erosion
or impacts to air quality from dust. With
respect to water quality, potable water is not
provided to the public and it is not expected
that public activities will degrade water
sources for wildlife.

Coordination between the Service and
military for the removal of military debris
would assure public health and safety while
providing for minimum environmental
impacts from these activities. There would be
short-term impacts to solitude from wilder-
ness patrols and other monitoring activities
that would be offset by the long-term benefits
of enhancing and maintaining wilderness val-
ues and opportunities for primitive recreation.

Monitoring reported fires at minimum
altitudes of 1000 feet above ground level and
suppressing fires that threaten private proper-
ty or pose more than a low possibility for
spread beyond the planning area boundary
would minimize the potential for adverse
impacts from fire related activities. In the
event that fire suppression activities are
required, resulting disturbances would be
rehabilitated.

Preventing the introduction and establish-
ment of exotic species by removing discov-
ered tamarisk and other exotic plant species
would protect the ecological integrity of the
planning area. The use of chemicals for
tamarisk control would be in accordance with
guidance in BLM Manual 8560.34 and 50
CFR 35.7.

Maintaining burro use at levels existing at
the time of wilderness designation would also
protect vegetation resources and prevent soil

80

disturbances that would be associated with the
establishment of a burro herd. Impacts to
wilderness values from the use of helicopters
for burro management activities would be
temporary.

The rehabilitation of former vehicle
routes in wilderness and cleanup of mining
debris would restore natural values of the
affected areas. Minimizing visual impacts of
existing developments and reducing mainte-
nance needs requiring mechanized or motor-
ized equipment and vehicles would enhance
natural values and opportunities for solitude.
Due to gravelly soil textures, there would be
no increased potential for soil erosion or sig-
nificant effects on air quality. Precluding the
continued use of these former vehicle routes
would minimize the potential for increased
erosion or possible affects on air quality from
dust.

Temporary adverse impacts to wilderness
values from proposed rehabilitation efforts
would be limited to the vicinity of existing
disturbances for the duration of each project
and would ultimately result in the long-term
enhancement of natural values. Opportunities
for unconfined primitive recreation would
continue and improve as the rehabilitation of
existing surface disturbances occurs.

Allowing the use of motorized or mecha-
nized equipment and vehicles for mainte-
nance, improvement, reconstruction, reloca-
tion, or emergency water supplementation at
existing wildlife waters would temporarily
impact wilderness visitors (loss of solitude)
and wildlife (stress) but would provide for
maintaining species diversity for the long-
term. Over the long-term, temporary adverse
impacts from water source maintenance,
improvement, reconstruction, or relocation
activities would be offset by actions designed
to reduce visual impacts from any develop-
ments and minimize maintenance needs.
There are short-term wildlife impacts (stress)
from sheep captures that are justified by the
continued successful efforts to preserve sheep
populations. The administrative use of heli-
copters for wildlife surveys, and sheep cap-
tures would also result in short-term distur-


PART V — Plan Evaluation

In coordination with AGFD, the Yuma
Field Manager and the Kofa NWR project
leader (refuge manager) will conduct annual
evaluations of the plan to:

1. Document completed management
actions and adjust schedules for the fol-
lowing year if necessary.

we

Monitor to determine if the plan objec-
tives are being met.

3. Recommend new management actions if
needed.

4. Determine if the plan needs to be revised.
Needed revisions will amend the plan and

be available for public review before being
implemented.

39



Finches

Purple Finch

Cassin’s Finch

House Finch*

Pine Siskin

Lesser Goldfinch
Lawrence’s Goldfinch
American Goldfinch

Old World Sparrows
House Sparrow

Seasons
S (Spring) March-May
S (Summer) June-August

F (Fall) September-November
W (Winter) December-February

Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus cassinii
Carpodacus mexicanus
Carduelis pinus
Carduelis psaltria
Carduelis lawrencei
Carduelis tristis

Passer domesticus

T
u
c c c
oO
Oo ce u
u °
x
oO oO
Status
c - common

u - uncommon

0 - occasional

r- rare

x - accidental

* - confirmed refuge nester

55



Squaw Peak — Kofa

Issues Resolved Through
Existing Policy

Both agencies have existing policies as
noted to address the following issues.

Issue #7: Cultural Resource
Management — Several cultural features are
contained within the planning area. These
areas will be managed in compliance with the
Archeological Resource Protection Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. Cultural resource studies will be autho-
rized on a case-by-case basis and guided by
existing policy in BLM Manual 8560.32 on
the New Waters, and regulations in 50 CFR
27.63 and 35.11 for the refuge.

Issue #8: Management of Utility Rights
of Way — Guidance for the management of
utility easements in nonwilderness portions of
Kofa NWR can be found in 50 CFR 29.21.
No additional guidance is needed.

Issue #9: Scientific Research — Studies
for management, scientific, or educational
purposes in the New Waters will be guided by
BLM Manual sections 8560.18. Studies on
the refuge will be guided by 6 Refuge Manual

26

8.9(h), SO CFR 27.63, and 50 CFR 35.11.

Issue #10: Law Enforcement and
Emergency Services — There are established
wilderness management policies and regula-
tions in BLM Manual 8560.39 and 43 CFR
8560.3, and 6 Refuge Manual 8.8 and 50 CFR
35.5, that provide for law enforcement and
emergency access and equipment uses in inci-
dents involving public health and safety and
violations of civil and criminal law. No addi-
tional guidance is needed.

Issue #11: Military Ordnance
Contamination — A possibility of ordnance
contamination exists on the Refuge portion of
the planning area due to past military activi-
ties. Ordnance has previously been recovered
from the refuge. In the event that unexploded
ordnance is discovered, the Department of
Defense will be contacted for its removal
using the minimum tool required for safe
removal in accordance with 6 Refuge Manual
8.8 - A. This concern is not an issue for the
New Waters.

Issue #12: Native American Religious
Access — There have been no instances in
which the Service or the BLM has been con-
tacted by Native American tribes for arrange-


Agavaceae (Agave Family)

Agave deserti Englem. Desert Agave

Agave deserti Englem. ssp. simplex Gentry Desert Agave
Nolina bigelovii (Torr.) Wats Bigelow Nolina

MAGNOLIOPSIDA (Dicots)

Salicaceae (Willow Family)
Salix gooddingii Ball var. gooddingii Goodding Willow

Fagaceae (Oak Family)
Quercus turbinella Greene Scrub Live Oak, Turbinella Oak
Quercus turbinella ssp. ajoensis (C.H. Muell) Felger & Lowe

Urticaceae (Nettle Family)
Parietaria hespera Hinton Pellitory

Viscaceae (Mistletoe Family)
Phoradendron californicum Nutt. Desert Mistletoe

Aristolochiaceae (Birthwort Family)
Aristolochia watsoni Woot. & Standl. Indian Root

Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family)

Chorizanthe rigida (Torr.) Torre & Gray Rigid Spiny Herb

Chorizanthe brevicornu Torr. Brittle Spine Flower

Eriogonum deflexum Torr. var. deflexum Skeleton Weed

Eriogonum fasciculatum Benth. var. polifolium (Benth.) Torr. & Gray Flat-top,Buckwheat-bush
Eriogonum inflatum Torre & Frem. Desert Trumpet

Eriogonum insigne Wats. [=E. deflexum Torr. ssp. insigne (Wats.) Stokes]
Eriogonum maculatum Heller. Angle-stemmed Buckwheat

Eriogonum wrightii_ var. pringlei Coult & Fish Pringle Buckwheat
Eriogonum wrightii Torr. var. wrightii Wright Buckwheat

Eriogonum thomasii Torr. Thomas Eriogonum

Eriogonum trichopes Torr. Little Trumpet

Polygonum argyrocoleon Steud. Silversheath Knotweed

Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock

Chenopodiaceae (Goosefoot Family)

Atriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt. Wingscale, Cenizo, Chamiso
Atriplex elegans (Mogq.) D. Dietr. ssp. elegans Wheelscale Saltbush
Atriplex hymenelytra (Torr.) Wats. Desert Holly

Atriplex polycarpa (Torr.) Wats. All Scale, Cattle Spinach
Chenopodium murale L. Nettleleaf Goosefoot

Salsola iberica Sennen & Pau Russian Thistle

Amaranthaceae (Amaranth Family)

Amaranthus fimbriatus (Torr.) Benth. var. fimbriatus Fringed Amaranth, Pig Weed
Amaranthus graecizans L. Prostrate Pigweed, Cochino, Quelite Manchado

58


Plantaginaceae (Plantain Family)
Plantago insularis Eastw. Wooly Plantain, Indian Wheat
Plantago purshii R.& S. Pursh Plantain

Rubiaceae (Madder Family)
Galium proliferum Gray Great Basin Bedstraw
Galium stellatum Kell. var. eremicum Hilend & Howell Desert Bedstraw

Cucurbitaceae (Gourd Family)
Brandegea bigelovii (Wats.) Cogn. Brandegea
Cucurbita digitata Gray Finger-leaved Gourd

Campanulaceae (Bellflower Family)
Nemacladus glanduliferus Jeps. var. orientalis McVaugh Thread Plant

Asteraceae (Sunflower Family)

Acourtia thurberi (Gray) Reveal & King

Acourtia wrightii (Gray) Reveal & King Brownfoot

Ambrosia ambrosioides (Cav.) Payne Canyon Ragweed

Ambrosia confertiflora DC Slimleaf Bursage

Ambrosia dumosa (A. Gray ex Torr.) Payne White Bursage

Ambrosia ilicifolia (Gray) Payne Holly-leaved Bursage

Artemisia ludoviciana Nutt. Wormwood

Baccharis sarothroides Gray Broom Baccharis, Desert Broom

Baileya multiradiata Harv. & Gray Wild Marigold, Desert Baileya

Baileya pleniradiata H & G Wooly Marigold

Bebbia juncea (Benth.) Greene Chuckwalla’s Delight

Brickellia atractyloides Gray

Brickellia californica (Torr. & Gray) Gray Pachaba

Brickellia coulteri_ Gray

Brickellia desertorum Coville. Desert Brickellia

Brickellia frutescens Gray var. frutescens Shrubby Brickellia

Calycoseris wrightii Gray White Tack Stem

Centaurea melitensis L. Malta Star Thistle, Tocalote

Chaenactis carphoclinia Gray Pebble Pincushion

Chaenactis carphoclinia Gray var. attenuata (Gray) Jones Pebble Pincushion
Chaenactis stevioides Hook. & Arn. var. brachypappa (Gray) Hall Esteve Pincushion
Chaenactis stevioides H & A var. stevioides Esteve Pincushion

Cirsium neomexicanum Gray

Conyza coulteri Gray

Dyssodia pentachaeta (DC.) Robins var. belenidium (DC.) Strother Thurber Dyssodia
Dyssodia porophylloides Gray San Felipe Dyssodia, Fetid Dogweed

Encelia farinosa Gray ex Torr. var. farinosa Brittle Bush, Incienso

Encelia frutescens Gray var. frutescens Rayless Encelia

Ericameria cuneatus (Gray) McClatchie, var. spathulata (Gray) Hall Desert Rock Goldenbush
Ericameria laricifolia (Gray) Shinners Turpentine Brush

Erigeron divergens Torr. & Gray Fleabane, Wild Fleabane

67



Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness
and
New Water Mountains Wilderness

Interagency Management Plan,
Environmental Assessment, and
Decision Record

U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of the Interior
USS. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona
EA Number: EA-AZ-055-95-105

October 1996



Appendix C

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness

Herptiles

Sources of information for distribution ranges, common names, and scientific names are

Banks et al. 1987, Behler et al. 1989, and Smith et al. 1982.

Common Name

Amphibians
Couch’s Spadefoot
Colorado River Toad
Great Plains Toad
Red-spotted Toad

Reptiles

Desert Tortoise

Western Banded Gecko
Zebra-tailed Lizard

Collared Lizard

Long-nosed Leopard Lizard
Desert Homed Lizard
Desert Night Lizard
Chuckwalla

Desert Iguana

Desert Spiny Lizard
Colorado Desert Fringe-toed Lizard
Long-tailed Brush Lizard
Tree Lizard

Side-blotched Lizard
Western Whiptail

Banded Gila Monster
Western Slender Blind Snake
Rosy Boa

Glossy Snake

Banded Sand Snake

Western Shovel-nosed Snake
Night Snake

Common Kingsnake
Coachwhip

Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake
Pine - Gopher Snake
Sonoran Coral Snake
Long-nosed Snake

Ground Snake

Scientific Name

Scaphiopus couchii
Bufo alvarius

Bufo cognatus
Bufo punctatus

Gopherus agassizii

Coleonyx variegatus variegatus
Callisaurus draconoides rhodostictus
Crotaphytus insularis bicinctores
Gambelia wislizenii wislizenii
Phrynosoma platyrhinos calidiarum
Xantusia vigilis vigilis
Sauromalus obesus obesus
Dipsosaurus dorsalis dorsalis
Sceloporus magister magister

Uma notata rufopunctata
Urosaurus graciosus graciosus
Urosaurus ornatus symmetricus
Uta stansburiana elegans
Cnemidophorus tigris tigris
Heloderma suspectum cinctum
Leptotyphlops humilis cahuilae
Lichanura trivirgata gracia
Arizona elegans noctivaga
Chilomeniscus cinctus

Chionactis occipitalis annulata
Hypsiglena torquata ochrorhyncha
Lampropeltis getulus californiae
Masticophis flagellum piceus
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus perkinsi
Pituophis melanoleucus affinis
Micruroides euryxanthus
Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei
Sonora semiannulata

4]



Appendix B

Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness

Mammals

Reference for the following mammal list is Banks et al. 1987.

Common Name

Order Chiroptera
California Leaf-nosed Bat
Yuma Myotis

Little Brown Bat

Cave Myotis

California Myotis
Western Pipistrelle

Big Brown Bat

Spotted Bat

Pallid Bat

Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
Western Mastiff-bat
Pocketed Free-tailed Bat
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Order Lagomorpha
Black-tailed Jack Rabbit
Desert Cottontail

Order Rodentia

Harris’ Antelope Squirrel
Round-tailed Ground Squirrel
Botta’s Pocket Gopher

Little Pocket Mouse

Arizona Pocket Mouse
Long-tailed Pocket Mouse
Bailey’s Pocket Mouse
Desert Pocket Mouse

Rock Pocket Mouse
Merriam’s Kangaroo Rat
Desert Kangaroo Rat
Southern Grasshopper Mouse
Western Harvest Mouse
Canyon Mouse

Cactus Mouse

Deer Mouse

Brush Mouse

Scientific Name

Macrotus californicus
Myotis yumanensis
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis velifer

Myotis californicus
Pipistrellus hesperus
Eptesicus fuscus
Euderma maculatum
Antrozous pallidus
Tadarida brasiliensis
Eumops perotis
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
Plecotus townsendii

Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus audubonii

Ammospermophilus harrisii
Spermophilus tereticaudus
Thomomys bottae
Perognathus longimembris
Perognathus amplus
Perognathus formosus
Perognathus baileyi
Perognathus penicillatus
Perognathus intermedius
Dipodomys merriami
Dipodomys deserti
Onychomys torridus
Reithrodontomys megalotis
Peromyscus crinitus
Peromyscus eremicus
Peromyscus maniculatus
Peromyscus boylii

45



Arizona Game and Fish Department

Region IV - Yuma

John Hervert Wildlife Program Manager
John Kennedy* Habitat Program Manager
Deanna Pfleger* Wildlife Manager

Larry Phoenix Wildlife Manager

Richard Remington Wildlife Manager Supervisor 3
Jimmy Simmons Wildlife Manager

Lowell Whitaker Wildlife Manager

*Member of Core Interdisciplinary Planning Team

70


WILDLIFE WATERS

R20W RI9SW RI8SW RI7TW. RI6W RISW RI4W RI3W.

(a3 | Pa

Zua

Zed

Zod

Zxa

Ze

new

ane

ae

nud
&

'

wea

(Note: Roads on the Kofa National
Wildlife Refuge are at the center of
a 200 feet wide corridor. All
vehicles must remain within the
corridor).

| |

nnd

a

eo
ne
§
2

N

t

LEGEND SCALE

[29 Wilderness i 7
a, oo== Planni ——
rau a WiibuTe Planning Area Boundary =
SERVICE Roads MILES
—— County Maintained Roads unerzp states
~— Township & Range DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
169 See Appendix A BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
YUMA FIELD OFFICE
AUGUST 1996

LOCATION DIAGRAM

MAP -2



Diplachne viscida Scribn. [=Leptochloa viscida [Scribn.) Beal] Sticky Sprangle Top

Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link. Jungle Rice

Enneapogon desvauxii Beauv. Spike Pappusgrass

Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) Mosher. Stink Grass

Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Nees. [incl. E. diffusa Buckl.] Spreading Lovegrass

Eriochloa aristata Vasey

Eriochloa lemmoni Vasey & Scribn. var. gracilis (Fourn.) Gould (E. gracilis) Small
Southwestern Cupgrass

Erioneuron pulchellum (H.B.K.) Tateoka.-Fluff Grass

Heteropogon contortus (L) Beauv. Tangle-head

Hilaria rigida (Thurb.) Benth. Big Galleta

Leptochloa filiformis (Lam.) Beauv. Red Sprangletop

Mulenbergia microsperma (DC.) Kunth Littleseed Muhly

Mulenbergia porteri Scribn. Bush Muhly

Panicum arizonicum Scribn. & Merr. Arizona Panicum

Panicum capillare L. var. occidentale Rybd. Witchgrass

Panicum obtusum HBK. Vine Mesquite

Pennisetum setaceum (Forsk.) Chiov. Fountain Grass

Phalaris caroliniana Walt. Carolina Canary Grass

Phalaris minor Retz. Littleseed Canary Grass

Poa biglelovii Vasey & Scribn. Bigelow’s Bluegrass

Schismus arabicus Nees, Arabian Grass

Schismus barbatus (L.) Thell. Mediterranean Grass

Setaria macrostachya H.B.K. Plains Bristlegrass

Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Johnson Grass

Sporobolus airoides Torr. Alkali Sacaton

Sporobolus contractus Hitchc. Spike Dropseed

Stipa speciosa Trin. & Rupr. Desert Needlegrass

Tridens eragrostoides (Vasey & Scribn.) Nash

Tridens muticus (Torr.) Nash Slim Tridens

Vulpia octoflora (Walt.) Rydb. var. octoflora Six-weeks Fescue

Vulpia octoflora (Walt.) Rydb. var. hirtella (Piper) Henr. Six-weeks Fescue

Cyperaceae (Sedge Family)

Cyperus aristatus Rottb.

Cyperus esculentus L. var. esculentus Chufa

Cyperus rotundus L. Purple Nut Grass, Purple Nut Sedge

Arecaceae (Palm Family)
Washingtonia filifera Wendl. California Fan Palm, Desert Palm

Liliaceae (Lily Family)

Allium parishii Wats. Onion

Calochortus kennedyi Porter Desert Mariposa
Dichelostemma pulchellum (Salisb.) Heller Bluedick, Coveria
Hesperocallis undulata Gray Ajo, Desert Lily

57



Sterculiaceae (Cacao Family)
Ayenia compacta L. [=A. pusilla L.]

Tamaricaceae (Tamarix Family)
Tamarix chinensis Loueiro [T. pentandra sensu K. & P.] Salt Cedar

Koeberliniaceae (Junco Family)

Koeberlinia spinosa Zucc. var. spinosa All Thorn

Koeberlinia spinosa Zucc. var. tenuispina K. & P. Crown-of-thorns, Crucifixion-thorn,
Corona-de-cristo

Loasaceae (Stick Leaf Family)

Eucnide urens Parry Sting Bush

Menrzelia albicaulis Doug]. Small-flowered Blazing Star
Mentzelia involucrata Wats. Sand Blazing Star

Mentzelia nitens Greene var. jonesii (Urban & Gilg) J. Darl.
Mentzelia nitens Greene var. nitens Venus Blazing Star
Petalonyx linearis Greene Long-leaved Sandpaper Plant

Cactaceae (Cactus Family)

Carnegiea gigantea (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose Saguaro

Echinocereus engelmanii (Parry) Lemaire Engelmann Hedgehog Cactus

Echinocereus engelmanni (Parry) Lemaire var. acicularis L. Benson Engelmann Hedgehog
Cactus, Strawberry Cactus

Ferocactus acanthodes (Lemaire) B.& R. var. acanthodes

Ferocactus acanthodes (Lemaire) Britt & Rose var. lecontei (Engelm.) Lindsay Compass
Barrel, Bisnaga

Mammillaria grahamii Engel. var. grahamii

Mammillaria microcarpa Engelm. Fishhook Cactus, Pincushion Cactus

Mammillaria tetrancistra Engelm. Corky-seed Pincushion Cactus

Neolloydia johnsonii (Parry) L. Bensen Johnsons Pineapple Cactus

Opuntia acanthocarpa Engelm. & Bigel Buckhorn Cholla

Opuntia acanthocarpa Engelm. & Bigel var. coloradensis L. Benson Buckhorn Cholla

Opuntia basilaris Engelm. & Bigel. var. basilaris Beavertail Cactus

Opuntia bigelovii Engelm. Teddy Bear Cactus, Bigelow Cholla, Jumping Cholla

Opuntia chlorotica Engelm & Bigel Pancake Pear, Clock-face Prickly Pear,Silver-dollar Cactus

Opuntia echinocarpa Engelm. & Bigel var. echinocarpa Silver Cholla, Golden Cholla

Opuntia leptocaulis DC. Desert Christmas Cactus

Opuntia phaeacantha_ Engelm. var. discata (Griffiths) Benson & Walkington
{=O.engelmannii Salm-Dyck non sensu Benson] Englemann Prickly Pear

Opuntia ramosissima Engelm. Diamond Cholla

Opuntia stanlyi Engelm. var. kunzei (Rose) Benson Kunze Cholla, Devil Cholla

Opuntia stanlyi L. Benson var. peeblesiana Benson Devil Cholla

Opuntia wigginsii L. Benson

Peniocereus greggii (Engelm.) Britt. & Rose var. transmontanus Desert Night-blooming Cereus

Onagraceae (Evening Primrose Family)

Camissonia boothii (Dougl.) Raven Booth Primrose
Camissonia boothii (Dougl.) Raven ssp. condensata (Munz) Raven

63



Table 2 — Kofa' (K) & New Waters (NW) Bighorn Sheep Removal Harvest/Transplants

Year Harvested Transplanted Transplant Location Grand?
Rams Rams Ewes Total
K NW K NW K NW
1979 9 4 4 Colorado/Devils Canyon (NPS 20
1979 0 Texas/Black Gap (TX Game and Fish Dept.)
1980 8 7 11 Arizona/Goat Mountains (USFS) 33
1980 0 6 New Mexico/Peloncillo Mtns. (BLM)
1981 9 3 8 Arizona/Red Field Canyon (USFS) 28
1981 2 4 Arizona/Goat Mountains (USFS)
1982 9 4 0 New Mexico/Peloncillo Mountains (BLM) 24
1982 0 10 New Mexico/Peloncillo Mountains (BLM)
1983 ll 8 16 Arizona/Horse Mesa (USFS) 35
1984 ll 8 22 Arizona/Coffee Flat (USFS) 43
1985 13 6 15 Arizona/Black Mountain (BLM) 57
1985 7 13 Arizona/Lion Mountain (USFS)
1986 12 9 21 Arizona/Peloncillo Mountains (BLM) 42
1987 14 4 8 5 22 7 (K) Arizona/Superstition Mountains (USFS 45
(NW) Arizona/Gila Bend Mountains 17
1988 16 4 6 3 24 9 (K) Arizona/Giliuro Mountain (USFS) 47
(NW) Arizona/Gila Bend Mountians 16
1989 14 25 Arizona/Superstition Mountains (USFS) 44
1990 14 3 2 1 13 8 (K) Arizona/Peloncillo Mountains (BLM) 29
(NW) Arizona/Gila Bend Mountains 12
1991 14 0 0 0 14
1992 13 7 17 Arizona/Superstition Mountains (USFS) 38
1993 15 5 25 AZ/Saucedo Mtns. (USAF) 46
1994 12 7 23 AZ/Granite Wash Mtns. (BLM) 42
1995 16 6 20 AZ/Harcuvar 42

1. Unless indicated otherwise, the data is for Kofa.
2. Includes mortalities during capture.



United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT — U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Yuma Field Office Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
2555 Gila Ridge Road 356 West First Street
Yuma, AZ 85365 Yuma, AZ 85365
In reply refer to:
8560 (050)
AZA 25502

Dear Reader:

Contained herein is the Final Kofa National Wildlife Refuge &
Wilderness and New Water Mountains Wilderness- -Interagency
Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Decision Record.
Impacts expected from implementing the proposed plan are analyzed in
the Environmental Assessment. The Plan will provide long-term
management guidance for the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New
Water Mountains Wilderness.

A draft version of this document was released for public review and
comment in January 1996. Comments on the draft plan were analyzed
and revisions were made for inclusion in the final document where
appropriate. A compilation of the comments is available upon
request.

The Environmental Assessment and Decision Record are subject to
appeal in accordance with procedures contained in 43 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 4, Subparts E and G. Implementation of this plan
will not begin until 30 days after the date of this letter.

The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and yuma Field Office staffs thank
all who contributed to the development of this document. We
encourage your continued participation in the effort to ensure that
our natural resources are properly managed for current and future
generations.

Sincerely,
Milton Haderlie Gail Acheson
Refuge Manager Field Manager
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge Yuma Field Office

1 Enclosure
1 - Final Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
& Wilderness and New Water Mountains
Wilderness - Interagency Management Plan



area under these conditions: The use of
feeding containers is required, water is to
be packed in for livestock, and surface
disturbances at campsites are to be
restored. Use of pelletized feed is recom-
mended.

Rationale: The use of feeding containers
will assist in preventing the introduction of
exotic plants and pathogens from domestic
livestock. Packing in water will eliminate any
need for livestock to use water resources
developed specifically for wildlife within the
planning area. Cumulative habitat/resource
degradation will be prevented from continued
recreational livestock use. It is recognized
that the use of recreational livestock by
hunters and other users is one method of
transporting game across long distances or as
an alternative recreational opportunity. This
action contributes to the achievement of
Objective 2 and is authorized by 50 CFR
26.33 and 27.52 on Kofa and 43 CFR 8560.1-
1 on the New Waters.

10. Allow campfires in the New Waters using
dead, down and detached wood. Provide
information at wilderness access displays
to minimize use of campfires. Visitors to
the New Waters will be encouraged to
bring their own firewood. The BLM will
consider campfire restrictions as a last
resort.

11. Allow the use of dead, down, and
detached wood for campfires in the non-
wilderness corridors and other non
wilderness areas within the Kofa NWR.
Prohibit wood gathering and the posses-
sion of ironwood on Kofa NWR wilder-
ness areas as authorized by 50 CFR 25.21
and 25.31. The Service will require visi-
tors to Kofa NWR designated wilderness
areas to bring their campfire wood as
authorized by 50 CFR 26.33 or to bring
charcoal or propane stoves. No native
wood will be removed from the refuge.

Rationale for actions 10 and 11:

Generally, campfires are used along non-
wildemess corridors and throughout wilder-
ness boundary perimeters where visitor use
occurs more often. No data exists that com-
pels the Service to completely disallow the
use of dead, down and detached wood for
campfires. However, the Service is com-
pelled to conserve wilderness values until
additional research can confirm the resources’
sustainability. This action also contributes to
the achievement of Objective 2.

12. Enforce 25 mi/hr speed limit on all refuge
maintained roads. Recommend to Yuma
and La Paz County officials the imple-
mentation and enforcement of a 25 mi/hr
speed limit on all county maintained
roads within the Kofa NWR.

Rationale: The lower speeds on these dirt
roads will reduce the number of dust particu-
lates in the air to provide for maintaining air
quality and will reduce mortalities to all
wildlife, especially reptiles.

Monitoring for Objective 3

1. Inspect campsites where livestock use has
occurred. Compile data on adverse
impacts and assess the need to establish a
special recreation permit system for live-
stock use on a yearly basis in the Kofa
portion of the planning area.

2. Monitor for potential adverse impacts in
the vicinity of frequently used campsites
throughout the planning area and evaluate
to determine if mitigation is needed.

3. Monitor visitor uses and intensities of
uses as to their effects and/or impacts on
natural resources within the planning
area. Recommend and implement mitiga-
tion to minimize adverse impacts as need-
ed.

4. Monitor data from public assessments of

recreational opportunities in the planning
area to assist in determining whether
group size limits are warranted.

37



bances to wildlife and wilderness visitors.
These short-term impacts would be offset by
the long-term benefits of providing informa-
tion to allow for informed wildlife manage-
ment decisions and further efforts to preserve
bighorn sheep populations. Seasonal closures
to protect sensitive wildlife habitat during
critical periods would temporarily affect .
recreational opportunities for the duration of
the closures but would ultimately benefit
wildlife.

Cooperative efforts to identify needs and
collect baseline data would improve our
knowledge of natural resource management
and assist in the timely identification of
resource protection issues. An inventory of
abandoned mine sites and the identification
and implementation of appropriate actions
would result in the protection of wildlife
habitat and improve public safety. The use of
visitor registers to provide for public assess-
ment of existing recreational opportunities or
resource conditions would assist the BLM and
Service in making resource management deci-
sions that would be more acceptable for the
public.

Keeping existing public access routes
open would assist in dispersing visitor use
and maintaining opportunities for solitude.
Acquiring legal public access to the Hidden
Tank area through patented land (or acquisi-
tion of the land) in the northeast of the plan-
ning area would allow for continued public
enjoyment of the area and/or the protection of
important sheep lambing grounds. The poten-
tial for adverse impacts to natural values,
recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat
would be minimized.

Continuing the Alternative Hunt Program
(mule deer) on Kofa would improve the quali-
ty of recreational opportunities. Allowing
technical rock climbing and repelling with the
provision that permanent anchors not be used
and trail marking not be practiced would pre-
serve natural values. Restricting wood gath-
ering and the possession of ironwood on Kofa
to nonwilderness corridors and other non-
wilderness areas, and requiring visitors to
bring their own campfire wood for wilderness

area camping would protect wildlife habitat
and natural values. Being that visitor use in
the New Waters is substantially lower than
Kofa, dead, down, and detached wood use
would continue to be permitted in the New
Waters unless there was an increase in poten-
tial for adverse impacts to wildlife habitat.

The acquisition of mining claims and
patented lands in the planning area (on a will-
ing seller basis), would minimize the potential
for adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and
natural values (and all environmental factors
analyzed in this assessment) in addition to
providing increased recreational opportuni-
ties. The development of a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Service and BLM
to conduct mining claim validity examina-
tions on Kofa would minimize the potential
for adverse impacts from nonviable mining
operations.

Impacts of Alternative A - No

Action

Current conditions and opportunities
would be maintained under Alternative A.
With this alternative, existing laws, regula-
tions, and policies would be followed without
an integrated management strategy. Impacts
from wildlife management activities would be
the same as the proposed action. There would
be an continued potential for the introduction
of exotic species.

There would be no temporary adverse
impacts from rehabilitation efforts or barrier
construction at wilderness boundaries. In the
long-term, there would be a lower quality of
naturalness due to the continuing presence of
existing human disturbances. Over a course
that may take several centuries, weathering
processes would eventually restore the natural
appearance of surface disturbances. The lack
of site displays to promote “Leave No Trace”
and “Tread Lightly” would lessen the oppor-
tunity for providing visitor information that
would assist in enhancing and maintaining
existing natural values. Efforts to control
unauthorized vehicle use in wilderness would
be substantially more difficult.

81



pations either for short-term subsistence gath-
ering purposes, or for travel and trade across
the area. Notations concerning the existence
of several “intaglios” (geoglyphs), and also
observations about a cremation site have been
attributed to archaeologist Malcolm Rogers;
but to date, there has been no verification of
either. The San Diego Museum of Man is the
repository for Rogers’ field records and the
records have not been fully analyzed or inter-
preted.

There are no independent archeological
dates for any of the Kofa sites. However, a
small number of temporally diagnostic arti-
facts recovered at several locations offer clues
to the chronology of the prehistoric occupa-
tion here. The majority of the sites point to
the late prehistoric time period (A.D. 700 to
post-1500) and are recognized as ancestral
Yuman. Rogers also reported several dart
points attributed to the Archaic period (6000
B.C. to A.D. 300). Further detailed analysis
of the rock art imagery, particularly in the
eastern part of the range, could shed light on a
possible Yuman/Hohokam ethnic boundary
during the late prehistoric period.

Not much has been formally catalogued
by the BLM within the New Water
Mountains. The Lower Gila South
Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) indicates that no National Register eli-
gible cultural resource sites have been identi-
fied in the New Waters. However, prehistoric
petroglyph sites occur in the area. In addition
to petroglyphs on several rock panels, one site

24

with occupancy estimated to about the year 5
B.C. contains a cave with the remains of a
rock wall near the entrance. No additional
sites with the same degree of development as
this cultural feature are known within this
wilderness. A general inventory of cultural
resources in this area would probably result in
the discovery of additional sites.

Fire

Fire has not played a significant role in
the planning area. There are no records of
fire incidents within the New Waters. On the
refuge, several fires have been caused by
human activity. Fires have historically burned
out virtually without suppression efforts. It is
unlikely that any fires will continue beyond
the first 24 hours (initial burning period) due
to sparse fuels throughout the planning area.

Law Enforcement and
Emergency Services

There have been several cases where
emergency services have been needed in the
planning area due to visitor accidents and to
persons becoming lost. Rock climbing acci-
dents have resulted in 2 fatalities on the
refuge.

During the World War II era, military
training activities occurred on portions of the
refuge and unexploded ordnance has been
recovered. There may still be a potential for
the discovery of military ordnance.


The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the balanced management of the public lands and
resources and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that will best serve the
needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained
yield; a combination of uses that take into account the long term needs of future generations for renewable
and nonrenewable resources. These resources include recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, fish
and wildlife, wilderness and natural, scenic, scientific and cultural values.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is an agency of the Department of the Interior with a two-fold mission: to
protect and manage wildlife in the interest of the American people and to provide wildlife oriented recre-
ational and educational opportunities to the American people.

The Service currently manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, many National Fish Hatcheries, and
several wildlife research centers. Additionally, it monitors and protects endangered species; provides tech-
nical help to international, federal, state and local agencies, Native American tribes, and private landown-
ers on fish and wildlife matters; administers a program of federal monetary aid to state wildlife agencies;
and enforces federal laws and regulations to protect wildlife and their habitats.

BLM/AZ/PL-97/002


Falcons

American Kestrel*
Peregrine Falcon
Prairie Falcon

Quail
Gambel’s Quail*

Rails & Coots
American Coot

Plovers
Killdeer

Stilts & Avocets
Black-necked Stilt
American Avocet

Sandpipers & Phalaropes

Greater Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper

Long-billed Curlew

Western Sandpiper

Wilson’s Phalarope

Red-necked Phalarope
(Northern)

Doves

White-winged Dove*
Mourning Dove*
Common Ground Dove

Cuckoos & Roadrunners
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Greater Roadrunner*

Owls

Barn owl
Flammulated Owl
Western Screech-Owl
Great Horned Owl*
Elf Owl

Long-eared Owl

50

Falco sparverius c
Falco peregrinus r
Falco mexicanus °
Callipepla gambelii c

Fulica americana

Charadrius vociferus

Himantopus mexicanus
Recurvirostra americana

Tringa melanoleuca

Tringa solitaria

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus x
Actitis macularia r
Numenius americanus

Calidris mauri

Phalaropus tricolor

Phalaropus lobatus

Zenaida asiatica
Zenaida macroura c
Columbina passerina

Coccyzus americanus

Geococcyx californianus °
Tyto alba °
Otus flammeolus

Otus kennicotti
Bubo virginianus
Micrathene whitneyi
Asio otus

nose

° oo

47 Of OKO


human activity. These fires have burned
themselves out with minimal intervention dur-
ing the first burning period. There have been
no long-term adverse impacts to wildlife or
habitat from fire occurrence in the planning
area.

2. Bighorn sheep capture and transplant
work in the planning area will be consid-
ered annually in consultations between
the AGFD and Kofa/BLM staff.

Rationale: Sheep capture within the
New Waters is governed by the AGFD-BLM
MOU. On the Kofa, the quantity of sheep
designated for capture is dependent upon
sheep surveys and habitat evaluations con-
ducted on the refuge. The AGFD and the
Kofa staff meet and agree upon the number of
bighorn to be removed and time periods for
capture. Factors to be considered are:

* Estimated population and trends.

+ Minimum estimated population of 120
in the New Waters.

* Minimum estimated population of 800
on the refuge.

* Herd demographics (minimum of 50%
ewes, |4 lambs:100 ewes).

The preceding factors will be consid-

ered but they will not mandate a per-

mit denial or a removal of bighorn
sheep.

The Service and AGFD will continue to
track the overall level of achievement (i.e.,
attainment of long range goals) of the efforts
to repopulate the desert bighorn in their natur-
al range. Transplant goals are to reestablish
bighorn sheep throughout all suitable historic
habitat. To achieve that, the following factors
are considered:

* Suitable historic habitat (sufficient
area, quality etc.).

* Conflicts with the success of the
release (e.g. domestic sheep, human
disturbance, etc.).

* Viability of current population in the
transplant site.

- Genetic viability (minimum

sheep population of 50).
- Predator threshold viability
(dependent upon local influences).

3. Allow helicopter use as the minimum tool
necessary for bighorn sheep capture oper-
ations.

Rationale: The use of helicopters to cap-
ture sheep for eventual transplantation has
aided efforts to recover the desert bighorn in
its natural range. Desert bighorn sheep recov-
ery is a primary component of the Kofa’s
defined purpose. Other methods may incur
extended intrusions into the wilderness with
means that could be more harmful. For the
BLM, this method of capture is defined in the
AGFD-BLM MOU.

4. Accomplish routine inspections of all
wildlife waters with the exception of
Charlie Died Tank, by non-mechanical
means. Maintenance of wildlife waters in
wilderness will also be conducted by non-
mechanical means with the exception of
those listed below:

- At Kofa #1 and Kofa #2, Adam’s
Well, King Well, and Charlie Died
Tank, maintenance, and water sup-
plementation will be allowed by
vehicle.

- If needed during drought periods,
water will be supplemented at
Nugget Tank using motorized
equipment or vehicles.

- The access method for emergency
situations at wildlife waters will
be determined by the Field
Manager and/or Refuge Manager
on a case-by-case basis, and where
applicable, in consultation with
AGFD. Maintenance, modifica-
tion, and/or repair by
motorized/mechanical means may
be considered on a case by case
basis.

5. The Service, BLM, and AGFD will evalu-

33



PART VII — Appendices

Appendix A
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and New Water Mountains Wilderness
Wildlife Waters
New Water Mountains Wilderness
Catchments
1. 959 Tank T.3N.,R. 17 W., sec. 24
2. Hidden Tank T.3N.,R. 16 W,, sec. 21
3. Nasca Tank T.3.N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 16
4. Nugget Tank T.3N.,R. 17 W., sec. 29
Kofa National Wildlife Refuge
Catchments
5. 736 (Kofa Mtns # 1) T.1S.,R. 19 W,, sec. 36
6. 737 (Kofa Mtns # 2) T.1S.,R. 19 W,, sec. 12
Dams
7. Charco #3 T.2N.,R. 16 W., sec. 20
8. Charco #4 T.2N., R. 15 W., sec. 23
9. Cholla Tank T.1N.,R. 15 W,, sec. 8
10. Crowder Dam T.15S.,R. 15 W,, sec. 9
11. Crowder # 1 T.1S.,R. 17 W,, sec. 2
12. Crowder #2 T.1N.,R. 16 W,, sec. 31
13. Four Peaks Dam T.1N.,R. 16 W,, sec. 6
14. Geyser Dam T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 25
15. Ketcherside Dam T.45S., R. 18 W., sec. 35
16. Kofa Dam T.1S., R. 16 W., sec. 32
17. Owl Head Dam T. 1N., R. 16 W., sec. 9
18. Red Rock Dam T. 1N., R. 16 W., sec. 23
Springs
19. Alamo Spring T.1N., R. 16 W., sec. 20
20. Budweiser Spring T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 20
21. Covered Well Spring T.2N.,R. 18 W,, sec. 11
22. Dixon Spring T.5S.,R. 18 W,, sec. 13
23. Doc Carter Spring T.5S., R. 18 W,, sec. 5
24. High Tank #2 T.1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 13
25. Holly Seep T.1N.,R. 16 W., sec. 18
26. Jasper Spring T.1N.,R. 17 W.,, sec. 3
27. Tunnel Spring T. 1N.,R. 17 W,, sec. 32
28. Wilkerson Seep T.1N.,R. 16 W., sec. 16



ments to access spiritual sites. However, both
agencies acknowledge that certain sites within
the planning area are considered to be sacred.
Both agencies will provide for Native
American access in accordance with the
Native American Religious Freedom Act.
Issue #13: Military Overflights — The
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 states
that: “Nothing in this title shall preclude low
level overflights of military aircraft, the desig-
nation of new units of special airspace, or the
use or establishment of military flight training

routes over wilderness areas designated by
this title.” The BLM and Service will contin-
ue to cooperate with the military in pursuing
mutually beneficial opportunities to protect
the integrity of wilderness airspace and the
protection of natural resources within the
planning area. The Department of the Interior
remains vigilant in working directly with the
various military branches to eliminate and/or
reduce low level flights that would impact
wildlife and other natural resources within the
refuge and the planning area as a whole.

Twin Peaks — New Waters



PART Il — Environmental Setting &
Management Situation

Geology

The planning area is in the Basin and
Range physiographic province and consists of
Precambrian to Quaternary age rocks. There
is an underlayment composed primarily of
Quaternary basalt and Cretaceous rhyolite and
andesite. Smaller amounts of Paleozoic and
Mesozoic limestones, shale, sandstone, and
quartzite also exist.

Three major block-faulted mountain
ranges (Kofa, Castle Dome, and New Water
Mountains) typified by extensive exposures of
bedrock, sparse vegetative cover, and a lack
of soil development are within the planning
area. Steep slopes and structurally controlled
drainage systems furnish the area’s primary
relief.

Elevations on the refuge range from 680
feet on the desert floor to 4,877 feet atop
Signal Peak. The highest elevation in the
New Waters is 3,639 feet on Black Mesa and
the lowest elevation is about 1,800 feet on
peripheral alluvial washes along the north-
eastern wilderness boundary. Shallow, stony
soils and rock outcrops are predominant in the
mountainous and steep slope areas. Deep,
gravelly, moderately fine textured soils high
in lime concentrations characterize alluvial
fans and valley floors.

Climate

Winter and spring seasons are affected by
sparse rainfall from prevailing Pacific frontal
storms that have depleted most of their mois-
ture. During the summer, there is a prevailing
influence from convectional storms that origi-
nate in the tropics. Periods of prolonged
drought may occur throughout the year
(Brown 1982).

Temperatures range from lows near 25
degrees F. in the months of December and
January, to highs that may exceed 115 degrees
F. from July through September. Precipitation
generally ranges from 2 to 8 inches per year.

Air Quality

The planning area is within a Class II air-
shed as classified by the Clean Air Act. No
site specific air quality data exists for the
area. However, the lack of nearby agricultur-
al lands or industrial activities provides for
good air quality. The southwestem portion of
the refuge may occasionally be affected by
dust from military activities on the U. S.
Army Yuma Proving Ground.

Water

In the extremely dry Sonoran Desert
ecosystem, water is the primary limiting fac-
tor. Over the years, wildlife managers have
learned to optimize the conservation of water
in the desert for wildlife purposes through the
management of wildlife water sources.
Artificial and natural wildlife water sources
are aimed at improving wildlife population
health and distributions. Both Kofa and the
New Waters have wildlife water sources, nat-
ural and developed (Map 2 and Appendix A).
The wildlife water sources typically consist of
windmill powered wells, modified springs or
seeps, and rain water collection systems asso-
ciated with tanks or naturally occurring pot-
holes. Several of these watering areas occa-
sionally go dry during extended dry periods.
To prevent large scale wildlife movement
away from these areas, or worse, wildlife die-
offs, water is hauled to these drought suscep-
tible sites when needed. In a dry year, as
much as 10,000 gallons of water may be
hauled to individual areas.

Development of wildlife water sources
has been carried out on the refuge since it was
first established. Throughout the years
wildlife managers have managed under the
supposition that managed water developments
and natural sources for bighorn sheep have
been instrumental in helping to restore the
species to sustainable populations. All



Langloisia setosissima (Torr. & Gray) Greene Bristly Longloisia
Linanthus bigelovii (Gray) Greene
Linanthus demissus (Gray) Greene

Hydrophyllaceae (Water Leaf Family)

Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia (Benth.) Greene var. bipinnatifida (Torr.) Constance Torrey
Eucrypta

Eucrypta micrantha (Torr.) Heller Small-flowered Eucrypta

Nama demissum Gray var. demissum Brand.

Nama demissum Gray var. deserti Brand. Purple Mat

Nama hispidum Gray var. hispidum

Nama hispidum Gray var. spathulatum (Torr.) C.L. Hitch Hispid Nama

Phacelia ambigua Jones var. ambigua Notch-leaved Phacelia, Scorpionweed

Phacelia ambigua Jones var. minutiflora (Voss) Atwood Notch-leaved Phacelia

Phacelia crenulata Torr. var. crenulata Scorpionweed

Phacelia cryptantha Greene. Small-flowered Phacelia

Phacelia distans Benth var. australis Brand. Wild Heliotrphe

Phacelia neglecta Jones

Phacelia pedicellata Gray

Phacelia rotundifolia Torr. Round-leaved Phacelia

Pholistoma auritum (Lindl.) Lilja var. arizonicum (Jones) Constance

Boraginaceae (Borage Family)

Amsinckia intermedia Fisch. & Meger Coast Fiddleneck

Amsinckia tessellata Gray Checker Fiddleneck

Cryptantha angustifolia (Torr.) Greene Nievitas, Narrow-leaved Cryptantha
Cryptantha barbigera (Gray) Greene var. barbigera Bearded Cryptantha
Cryptantha holoptera (Gray) Macbr. Rough-stemmed Cryptantha
Cryptantha maritima Greene var. maritima White-haired Forget-me-not
Cryptantha maritima Greene var. pilosa White-haired Cryptantha
Cryptantha pterocarya (Torr.) Greene Wing Nut Cryptantha

Cryptantha pterocarya (Torr.) Greene var. cycloptera (Greene) Macbr. Wing Nut Cryptantha
Cryptantha racemosa (Wats.) Greene Woody Cryptantha

Lappula redowskii (Hornem.) Greene var. desertorum (Greene) Stickseed
Pectocarya heterocarpa Johnst. Hairy-leaved Comb Bur

Pectocarya platycarpa Munz & Johnst. Broad-nutted Comb Bur
Pectocarya recurvata Jobnst. Arch-nutted Comb Bur

Plagiobothrys jonesii Gray Jones Popcorn Flower

Tiquilia canescens (DC.) A. Richardson Shrubby Coldenia

Verbenaceae (Vervain Family)

Aloysia gratissima (Gill & Hook.) Troncoso var. schulzae (Standl.) Moldenke
Aloysia wrightii (Gray) Heller Oreganillo, Wright Lippa

Glandularia gooddingii (Brig.) Solbrig Goodding Verbena

Verbena bracteata Lag. & Rodr. Prostrate Vervain

Lamiaceae (Mint Family)

Hedeoma nanum (Tort.) Brig ssp. californicum Stewart [=H. thymoides Gray]
Mock-Pennyroyal

65



As rockhounding would continue
throughout the refuge in this alternative, there
would be a continued potential threat to the
archeological resources of the Refuge, which
could be purposefully or inadvertently taken
in violation of the Archeological Resources
Protection Act and Refuge regulations. In
addition, less control over illegal vehicle use
in the area creates the possibility of undesir-
able intrusions into various bighorn sheep
lambing grounds in the northern portion of
the Refuge during critical periods. There
would be a continued potential for cumulative
adverse impacts to the natural landscape.

In this alternative, continuing to allow the
collection of dead and downed native iron-
wood throughout the refuge would eventually
result in the complete depletion of this slowly
disappearing resource.

This alternative would not prohibit the
placement of permanent anchors or bolts in
support of technical rock climbing and
repelling. There would be noted impacts to
rock faces if this activity would occur.

Impacts of Alternative B -
Minimal Human Impacts

While Alternative B would provide the
most protection for natural resources and
wilderness values from potential adverse
impacts, there would be restrictions on the
full range of compatible uses in the planning
area. Under this alternative campfires and
overnight camping would be restricted. Only
day-use would be permitted. This could
result in decreased visitor use and therefore
provide outstanding opportunities for solitude.
On the Refuge, wood burning for campfires
would be completely eliminated. Camp cook-
ing would be allowed using charcoal grills or
propane burners and stoves. These restric-
tions would eliminate damage caused in the
collection of dead and downed wood and
would minimize potential visual impacts from
campfire rings.

In this alternative, the elimination of tech-
nical rock climbing and repelling would pre-
vent the possibility of damage to rock faces

82

and surfaces by the use of temporary and per-
manent bolts and anchors.

Provisions for the rehabilitation of surface
disturbances and maintenance of existing
developments as described in the proposed
action would also apply for this alternative.
Therefore, potential impacts described in
these categories for the proposed action
would also apply here.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts include impacts on
the environment which result from incremen-
tal impacts of the proposed action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor,
but collectively significant actions taking
place over a period of time.

Implementing the proposed action would
eliminate the potential for cumulative impacts
to wildlife habitat, naturalness, visual
resources, and wilderness values from rock-
hounding activities on Kofa. Different poli-
cies are being proposed by the BLM and
Service for rockhounding because of the dif-
ference in mandates and the significant differ-
ence in magnitude of visitor use occurring in
each jurisdiction.

The same case applies for different fire-
wood gathering policies between the agen-
cies. Prohibiting firewood gathering on Kofa
wilderness also addresses the substantial
potential for cumulative adverse impacts to
wildlife habitat from this activity because of
the magnitude of visitor use. It should be
noted that the casual observer or visitor who
returns to Kofa each year would not likely
notice the adverse impacts of firewood gath-
ering because the impacts are cumulative and
gradual, occurring over the long-term.

In general, the proposed action provides
for the protection, enhancement, and mainte-
nance of wilderness values, wildlife habitat,
and visual and cultural resources within the
planning area. The potential occurrence of
adverse cumulative impacts is also mini-
mized.


Goatsuckers
Lesser Nighthawk
Common Poorwill

Swifts
Vaux’s Swift
White-throated Swift*

Hummingbirds
Black-chinned Hummingbird
Anna’s Hummingbird
Costa’s Hummingbird*
Rufous Hummingbird

Kingfishers
Belted Kingfisher

Woodpeckers

Lewis’ Woodpecker
Red-headed Woodpecker
Gila Woodpecker*
Red-naped Sapsucker
Ladder-backed Woodpecker*
Red-shafted Flicker

Guilded Flicker*

Tyrant Flycatchers
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Western Wood-Pewee
Willow Flycatcher
Hammond’s Flycatcher
Dusky Flycatcher
Gray Flycatcher
Cordilleran Flycatcher
(Western)
Black Phoebe
Say’s Phoebe *
Vermilion Flycatcher
Ash-throated Flycatcher*
Brown-crested Flycatcher*
Western Kingbird

Larks
Horned Lark

Chordeiles acutipennis
Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Chaetura vauxi
Aeronautes saxatalis

Archilochus alexandri
Calypte anna

Calypte costae
Selasphorus rufus

Ceryle alcyon

Melanerpes lewis
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Melanerpes uropygialis
Sphyrapicus nuchalis
Picoides scalaris

Colaptes auratus

Colaptes chrysoides

Contopus borealis
Contopus sordidulus
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax hammondii
Empidonax oberholseri
Empidonax wrightii
Empidonax occidentalis

Sayornis nigricans
Sayornis saya
Pyrocephalus rubinus
Myiarchus cinerascens
Myiarchus tyrannulus
Tyrannus verticalis

Eremophila alpestris

on00

°

eororno

enanao

or

eoonmana”

oorona

°

Ss



Pipits
American Pipit (Water)

Waxwings
Cedar Waxwing

Silky Flycatchers
Phainopepla*

Shrikes
Loggerhead Shrike*

Starlings
European Starling*

Vireos

Gray Vireo
Solitary Vireo
Hutton’s Vireo
Warbling Vireo
Philadelphia Vireo

Wood-Warblers
Orange-crowned Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Lucy’s Warbler*
Yellow Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
(Audubon’s)
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Townsend’s Warbler
Hermit Warbler
American Redstart
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Waterthrush
MacGillivray’s Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
Wilson’s Warbler
Painted Redstart
Yellow-breasted Chat

Tanagers
Hepatic Tanager
Western Tanager

Anthus rubescens

Bombycilla cedrorum

Phainopepla nitens

Lanius ludovicianus

Sturnus vulgaris

Vireo vicinior

Vireo solitarius
Vireo huttoni

Vireo gilvus

Vireo philadelphicus

Vermivora celata
Vermivora ruficapilla
Vermivora luciae
Dendroica petechia
Dendroica coronata

Dendroica nigrescens
Dendroica townsendi
Dendroica occidentalis
Setophaga ruticilla
Protonotaria citrea
Seiurus noveboracensis
Oporornis tolmiei
Geothlypis trichas
Wilsonia pusilla
Myioborus pictus
Icteria virens

Piranga flava
Piranga ludoviciana

4

xe og oan o

on Ox

xanroo

53



Desert Bighorn Sheep

Desert bighom population estimates have
remained stable in the planning area with esti-
mates ranging between 700 to 1,100 sheep
since 1985. Fourteen years of aerial surveys
(Table 1) reflect a stable population with the
exception of a low count in 1991. Since
1986, there has been an average of 17 sheep
hunting permits issued yearly for the planning
area. The New Waters’ role in bighorn sheep
management is significant as it contains some
of the planning area’s important lambing
grounds (Map 4).

Both the Service and BLM continue a
cooperative management relationship with the
AGFD in their efforts to protect all wildlife
populations. Cooperative wildlife manage-
ment activities conducted by the AGFD and
BLM on wildernesses administered by the

BLM in Arizona are guided by an existing
memorandum of understanding.

Sheep Transplantation
Program

Every year since 1979, with the exception
of 1991, the refuge has participated in a trans-
plant program (Table 2) of bighorn sheep in
cooperation with AGFD. Refuge employees
assist the AGFD in the capture using net guns
from helicopters. The animals are then trans-
ported to various locations within the south-
western U. S. in an effort to assist in the
restoration of indigenous populations.

Sheep were captured in the New Waters
during 1987, 1988, and 1990 (Table 2). The
BLM has traditionally participated in capture
activities and plans to continue.

Table 1 — Kofa (K) & New Waters (NW) Bighorn Sheep Survey Results 1980-1994

Year Rams [Ewes Lambs Unclassified | Total Est. # Sheep Lambs per
Observed 100 Ewes
K INW K NW K NW K INW IK NW K NW K NW
1980! 125 195 31 1 352 16
1981 1430 |7 229 23 44 14 1 10. 417 46 85 21 61
1982 141 13 234 38 Si iT 1 10 427 66 23 29
19832 147 260 50 1 458 19
1984 175 {17 284 29 44 6 0 10 503 55 69 15 21
1985 149 [27 264 31 61 3 0 0 474 79 173 23 10
1986 168 [29 282 26 44 7 2 0 496 79 188 16 27
1987* 92 13 122 31 19 10 0 0 233 61 874 {92 16 32
1988* 98 21 134 31 19 6 0 2 251 64 881 82 14 19
1989* 89 at 150 15 25 4 0 0 264 32 929° |42 17 27
1990* 93 26 106 36 39 10 0 0 238 78 788 112 37 28
1991* 69 24 84 32 21 2 3 0 177 61 638 (197 25 6
1992 139 {19 255 26 46 4 0 2. 440 54 739 117 18 15
19933 19 24 7 0 ST 116 29
1994 151 1 270 33 36 7 2 1 459 61 887 124 14 21
Total 1779 |237 2869 |375 |530  |91 Ws 5189 |793 18avg|25avg

* Modified survey covering approximately half of the refuge’s sheep habitat.

1, New Waters data was not compiled for 1980.
2. A survey was not conducted for New Waters in 1983.
3. A survey was not conducted on Kofa in 1993.